Bailout is for our Government's ability to continue the BORROW & SPEND POLICIES?

Discussion in 'Economy' started by Care4all, Sep 25, 2008.

  1. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    32,769
    Thanks Received:
    6,623
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +11,098
    IT AIN'T US that the bailout really helps....

    It's the government's ability to SPEND, SPEND, SPEND and borrow the money from foreigners to do it instead of raising taxes on the wealthiest to pay for it....indirectly taxing the middle class thru less buying power with the devalued dollar?

    president bush and his administration and majority congress began with a $5.6 trillion dollar, accumilated national debt over a century's time....we just raised our debt level of borrowing to $11.4 TRILLION, this means in 7 years we have added $5.8 TRILLION to our national debt, MORE than all of our debt in our entire borrowing history as a country....in just 7 years.

    this is why i can not vote republican, even though i am not enamored with obama....Republicans should not be rewarded with another CHANCE, they should be punished, by losing their seats and control thru the presidency....i would be saying the same, if it had been dems in power when this happened, they would have deserved to lose their seats....

    care
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    32,769
    Thanks Received:
    6,623
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +11,098
    maybe it isn't to continue the borrowing and spending? maybe it is to get our nations credit rating lowered below the AAA that we always held which raises our interest rates on the debt, causing more than 80% of our income tax revenues going to the banks for the interest payments alone on that debt.....? in other words, BUST the gvt, by giving all our taxes to the bank payment? :eek:

    just another conspiracy?

    who really knows at this point....i don't trust anybody.... :(
     
  3. user_name_guest
    Offline

    user_name_guest Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    704
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +43
    Who invest in the jobs for Americans: Middle class or the rich? If we tax the rich, the additional tax replaces the investment. What will happen? Increase in tax in one group will reduce jobs in another.

    What we need is caps on executive pay like Obama proposes. Performance-pay has negative consequences and needs to be look heavily at.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2008
  4. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    32,769
    Thanks Received:
    6,623
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +11,098
    we prospered in the 90's with higher taxes on the wealthiest, how come your theory did not apply THEN? while during the 2000's we lowered taxes on the wealthiest, while borrowing the money, which devalued our dollar, indirectly hitting the middle and lower classes with a form of higher taxes...

    just fuel for thought! :)

    Care
     
  5. user_name_guest
    Offline

    user_name_guest Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    704
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +43
    Remember all those corporate scandals of big corporations mis-stating their earnings. I wonder how much taxes came out of that? Wealthiest paid 4% more taxes in the 1990s than the 2000s. They still account for more of the government revenue than the other classes combined today. They are the suppliers of people's jobs. If there wasn't a tax cut (affected all Americans, not the rich), more people would have been unemployed than they were during this decade.

    Natural disasters, war in Iraq, 9-11 attacks = occurred after the 1990s. Would the 1990s be able to handle a Katrina (>Andrew), 9-11 (>WTC 93), War in Iraq (>OKC bombing). Do you think these tragedies would have a lesser impact in the 1990s?

    Tax cuts shouldn't happen unless you reduce spending. Obviously that never happened. Imagine if we can make all these government programs efficiently in terms of using taxpayers dollars. There is a lot of waste occurring. Examples are FEMA, Medicare, potential bailouts, (insert more)
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2008
  6. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    32,769
    Thanks Received:
    6,623
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +11,098
    the defense budget is where most fraud and abuse occurs....

    i think in the 1990's if we were spending the hundreds of billions on wars, we would not have lowered taxes, during that wartime....

    oh, and without the middle class buying those goods and services of the wealthiest, then they would not have their businesses, nor their big paying titles, nor their wealth....

    i see it is a marriage that has to function, and it isn't a one sided marriage...where one is priviledged over the other....
     
  7. user_name_guest
    Offline

    user_name_guest Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    704
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +43
    I have read that medicare and medicaid fraud account for an estimated $33 billion. Now the government programs that support illegal immigrants is in the billions. Welfare fraud = $$$. There are many fraud committed on our taxpayers' money. We reduce fraud, we increase the efficiency in our government. Therefore, taxes paid = properly well-spent. Defense fraud = $$$. Education fraud = $$$. Do we want to send government money when they are losing a percentage of it to handout scams.

    Do you see the rich point a gun on the head of the middle class to buy their products? No. They provide the goods and services that the middle class demands. They need the income which are provided in the form of jobs. They want the necessities and luxuries which the rich provided in the form of goods and services. Punishing one class (most notably the rich) is a political tactic. A ploy for a political party to use to gain support from the majority. I believe taxes should be the same for all groups. We shouldn't break people down into pay brackets. Everyone should have the same tax rate. But because we need this progressiveness in our tax rates, we have ways for politicians to get elected.

    However, not everyone is good in any social class. You have frauds in the poor, middle class, rich. Of course, the fraud in the rich can have extraordinary gains in the expense of everyone else. But we shouldn't ignore the same problems that occurred down below. Look at identity theft. I doubt someone rich needs to steal someone identity to make cash.

    Equal rights = Equal tax rate. Of course, you make more income, you will pay more regardless of the tax rate. But there are loopholes in the tax system that allow people with a lot of money to reduce his taxable income. Maybe circumvent this problem.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2008
  8. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    Care, you make some great points and on this "bailout" well I think you know where I stand on it. My feeling is that instead of looking for a single party fault, perhaps we as the ones that are going to have to take a big bite out this "shit sandwich" should look at the culture in Washington as a whole both Republican and Democrat that passes legislation year after year and leaves the interests of those they are SUPPOSED to represent as a low priority and for years has kept the interests of PAC's, donors, and special interests well in front of the very people they represent. So you wish to make a real change in Washington, then stop voting for the same person year after year after year.

    On the defense budget, yes it's large, but do you have any idea how badly mismanaged the DoD has been for years? I am not talking about the last 8. I am talking more like the last 18. Let me cite you some examples, you would think after spending untold billions upon billions of dollar the US Navy would not be flying an aircraft that that is based on a 30 year old design? This is not just the Navy look at the USAF, it's front line fighters the F-16 and the F-15 are still in service and their designs go back to the 70's. They are supposed to be replaced soon by the F-22 and the F-35 however, they have reduced the number of both those types of aircraft. The list is endless, he B52 is over 60 years old the B-1 goes back to the Carter Administration. We have spent billions on programs that have been cancelled because some Senator or Administration wanted to cut them after the DoD had already spent billions of dollar on it. One example of this, would be the Comanche Helicopter, an after literally 20 years of development the V-22 project is just now comming back online. So if this tells you anything, it's not so much the amount of money, it's the bad management of the DoD. This one will really help it sink in for you. you have no doubt heard of the F117 "Stealth" well in their infinte wisdom the DoD has decided that the F117 will be retired this year a full 15 years before it's service life is to be ended. Why? because they needed the money. Another little gem is some of this military hardware ends up in the hands of countries that are less than friendly to us. Take for example the FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry Class firgates, Some of them were retired very early in their careers and we are now selling them to countries like Pakistan. You remember the F14 made famous by the movie topgun. Well thats been retired as it should have been because the airframe was ending its service life. However, some of the spare parts for these Aircraft it is alleged wound up in the hands of Iran who needed them to make their F14's airworthy again. So just a little food for thought Care. It's not su much the amount its how its managed.
     
  9. rayboyusmc
    Offline

    rayboyusmc Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    4,015
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +338
    Most jobs are created by Small Businesses, not the mega corporations who have been getting most of the tax breaks and the ultra rich. Non of them will be getting the frigging 700 trillion bailout.

     
  10. I Missthe North
    Offline

    I Missthe North Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    267
    Thanks Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +9
    Sorry to break it to you man, but trickle down economics have never worked. There are no statistics that support the success of that theory. It may be a good theory, but it ends there; kind of like communism. Rich people will continue to get richer and have no interest in helping society. They just want to make more money, no matter what it takes. I do agree on capping executives pay however. Performance pay has led to many of the problems we are experiencing today. It leads to cooking the books for bonuses and bogus accounting practices. Hello Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.
     

Share This Page