JimofPennsylvan
Platinum Member
- Jun 6, 2007
- 878
- 527
- 910
Part Two
The fee, called the "Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee", on financial institutions to pay for the government's costs for the recession is fair. Banks played a hugely major role in causing this recession with their lax enforcement of good lending rules, securitization of loans likely to default and being counter-parties to unconscionably cheap swap contracts not run through clearing houses which would have protected against defaults producing cascading financial harm; the federal government saved their hides with programs like TARP which stopped their stock price slide and other programs which unseized the credit markets and made cheap money available to them; they are currently generating income sufficient to pay obscene bonuses and salaries to their employees; and many of their money making businesses live off of public created mechanisms - their market making businesses all greatly benefit from the government laws tax sheltering retirement monies which facilitate retirement accounts holding and trading stocks and bonds and their vibrant bond underwriting related businesses benefit from the low interest rates from the Fed which Congress created. Most notably though, this recession has cost the Federal government trillions of dollars and since major U.S. banks and financial institutions are hugely responsible for this recession they can help pay the clean-up costs. One thing about this fee though, is it really seems stupid and short sighted to levy the fee according to a financial institution's debt level it should be based on their income and financial strength because some of these businesses with big debts aren't out of the financial woods yet take for instance Citibank, businesses like this don't need big expenses that are a drag on their business which aren't that strong to begin with compared to their competitors.
This "making work pay" tax break from the White House which amounts to a tax savings of $400.00 for an individual and $800 for a couple should not be continued by the U.S. government because America can't afford it. The rationale for it in 2010 to help stimulate the economy had some merit but not in 2011 and beyond because the American economy is growing. An abundance of economists will tell you that this tax cut is a very limited effective way to stimulate the economy and create jobs. People use these monies to save, pay down debt, make purchases that don't create much in the way of new jobs like purchase gasoline for their motor vehicle. This "making work pay" tax break is expensive it costs the government about $30 billion per year. The U.S. government would be much wiser to use this money to extend the $8000.00 tax credit for first time home buyers for two years for individuals and couples with incomes under $100,000 and $150,000 per year respectively, this tax credit produces home purchases which would not otherwise takes place which produces new home construction which creates jobs. The Democrats and Republicans in Washington have said to the American people that we get it in 2010 our top priority is job creation, nevertheless, they don't really appreciate the gravity of this issue. Economist tell us that unemployment at this juncture at best looks like it won't return to normal levels like 6% until the middle of this decade, well if Washington is really lucky the American people might stand for an additional nine month extension of unemployment insurance and cobra benefits after that Washington is done the American people will think these unemployed workers will have to take part-time work if they can find it and in any event these extensions need to stop because they are too expensive. Which means that Washington politicians are in for an eye opening experience watching these millions of unemployed workers and the rough times they are in for. Washington better get their act together and cut out these politically driven economic policies like this "making work pay" tax credit and create smart and effective job creating economic policies.
The White House and the Democrats clamor that the Federal government can't cut Federal budgets for the next three years because unemployment is extremely high and will remain so for the next couple of years and if the federal government cuts its budgets that will cause federal job cuts which will increase the already bad unemployment rate. The American people can understand this to a degree, but the Federal government's policy should be more extensive than this simple response. Federal workers retire and/or leave their federal employment on their own how about the Federal government implementing a policy for the next four years when a Federal worker retires or leaves on his or her own the management of the respective department has to justify in writing replacing that employee to the inspector general of the department and the White House budget office and if the head of both those organizations don't sign off on filling that job it doesn't get filled unless the President sign's off on filling that job and on all the cases where the President sign's off on filling a job the justifications for refilling that job and the reasons the IG or the Budget Office declined will all be posted on the web so that the American people will get a clear picture if taxpayer money is being wasted on Federal jobs not really needed.
The fee, called the "Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee", on financial institutions to pay for the government's costs for the recession is fair. Banks played a hugely major role in causing this recession with their lax enforcement of good lending rules, securitization of loans likely to default and being counter-parties to unconscionably cheap swap contracts not run through clearing houses which would have protected against defaults producing cascading financial harm; the federal government saved their hides with programs like TARP which stopped their stock price slide and other programs which unseized the credit markets and made cheap money available to them; they are currently generating income sufficient to pay obscene bonuses and salaries to their employees; and many of their money making businesses live off of public created mechanisms - their market making businesses all greatly benefit from the government laws tax sheltering retirement monies which facilitate retirement accounts holding and trading stocks and bonds and their vibrant bond underwriting related businesses benefit from the low interest rates from the Fed which Congress created. Most notably though, this recession has cost the Federal government trillions of dollars and since major U.S. banks and financial institutions are hugely responsible for this recession they can help pay the clean-up costs. One thing about this fee though, is it really seems stupid and short sighted to levy the fee according to a financial institution's debt level it should be based on their income and financial strength because some of these businesses with big debts aren't out of the financial woods yet take for instance Citibank, businesses like this don't need big expenses that are a drag on their business which aren't that strong to begin with compared to their competitors.
This "making work pay" tax break from the White House which amounts to a tax savings of $400.00 for an individual and $800 for a couple should not be continued by the U.S. government because America can't afford it. The rationale for it in 2010 to help stimulate the economy had some merit but not in 2011 and beyond because the American economy is growing. An abundance of economists will tell you that this tax cut is a very limited effective way to stimulate the economy and create jobs. People use these monies to save, pay down debt, make purchases that don't create much in the way of new jobs like purchase gasoline for their motor vehicle. This "making work pay" tax break is expensive it costs the government about $30 billion per year. The U.S. government would be much wiser to use this money to extend the $8000.00 tax credit for first time home buyers for two years for individuals and couples with incomes under $100,000 and $150,000 per year respectively, this tax credit produces home purchases which would not otherwise takes place which produces new home construction which creates jobs. The Democrats and Republicans in Washington have said to the American people that we get it in 2010 our top priority is job creation, nevertheless, they don't really appreciate the gravity of this issue. Economist tell us that unemployment at this juncture at best looks like it won't return to normal levels like 6% until the middle of this decade, well if Washington is really lucky the American people might stand for an additional nine month extension of unemployment insurance and cobra benefits after that Washington is done the American people will think these unemployed workers will have to take part-time work if they can find it and in any event these extensions need to stop because they are too expensive. Which means that Washington politicians are in for an eye opening experience watching these millions of unemployed workers and the rough times they are in for. Washington better get their act together and cut out these politically driven economic policies like this "making work pay" tax credit and create smart and effective job creating economic policies.
The White House and the Democrats clamor that the Federal government can't cut Federal budgets for the next three years because unemployment is extremely high and will remain so for the next couple of years and if the federal government cuts its budgets that will cause federal job cuts which will increase the already bad unemployment rate. The American people can understand this to a degree, but the Federal government's policy should be more extensive than this simple response. Federal workers retire and/or leave their federal employment on their own how about the Federal government implementing a policy for the next four years when a Federal worker retires or leaves on his or her own the management of the respective department has to justify in writing replacing that employee to the inspector general of the department and the White House budget office and if the head of both those organizations don't sign off on filling that job it doesn't get filled unless the President sign's off on filling that job and on all the cases where the President sign's off on filling a job the justifications for refilling that job and the reasons the IG or the Budget Office declined will all be posted on the web so that the American people will get a clear picture if taxpayer money is being wasted on Federal jobs not really needed.
