Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Actually, this pork laiden bailout of the irresponsible, over-paid Wall Street bankers (who none-the-less made sure to keep up their payments to their congresspeople) is larger then the current Pentagon budget.(Yes, I am angry. Earlier I might have bought that this was an urgent economic emergency, but with 94 pages of LARD I am finding hard to stomach.)
You may want look into what constitutes pork. One of the biggest items added (over half dollar-wise) was an AMT exemption increase - something that would have happened later this year regardless, because AMT was never intended to hit the people it would hit if the exemptions weren't temporarily increased this year. But not doing a permanent fix lets the government pretend that money will come in in future budget cycles.
Don't read a news story and assume that what they say is pork is pork - look at what was actually added. The true pork in the additions was a fairly small portion.
Actually, this pork laiden bailout of the irresponsible, over-paid Wall Street bankers (who none-the-less made sure to keep up their payments to their congresspeople) is larger then the current Pentagon budget.(Yes, I am angry. Earlier I might have bought that this was an urgent economic emergency, but with 94 pages of LARD I am finding hard to stomach.)
You may want look into what constitutes pork. One of the biggest items added (over half dollar-wise) was an AMT exemption increase - something that would have happened later this year regardless, because AMT was never intended to hit the people it would hit if the exemptions weren't temporarily increased this year. But not doing a permanent fix lets the government pretend that money will come in in future budget cycles.
Don't read a news story and assume that what they say is pork is pork - look at what was actually added. The true pork in the additions was a fairly small portion.
On the contrary. I do believe that the Government NEEDS that money (Especially with the cost of the $700 Billion Wall Street Payoff), and would see that money collected.
If congress wants to modify the "Alternative Minimum Tax," then they need to have the "balls" to actually do it.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
On the contrary. I do believe that the Government NEEDS that money (Especially with the cost of the $700 Billion Wall Street Payoff), and would see that money collected.If congress wants to modify the "Alternative Minimum Tax," then they need to have the "balls" to actually do it.
The government doesn't need to raise taxes on the middle class, which is what that would do. It's definitely unfortunate that AMT wasn't indexed, so that it is targeted a group it was never designed to target. And it is deplorable that rather than fix it permanently, congress keeps patching it one year at a time, to prevent scary budget forecasts (this is the same reason that so many tax breaks have a sunset clause, by the way).
But they did have the balls to do something about it again this year - you're just objecting to that. Fixing it for a year IS modifying it.
I think it is simple ridiculous to advocate balancing the budget by increasing the taxes on the middle class and not the wealthy. Increase them on both if you must, but don't leave the people who profited most from the looting of the economy out of the solution.
"Pork", by the way, is federal or state money aimed at a small group or area. So either way, revising the AMT is not pork - and it is over half of the increase of the cost the bill. So my point stands.
Interestingly, the stock markets today seem more concerned about splits in Europe than that US the bailout plan was voted through, and continue to fall. I can't say if the fall would have been worse, however, if the US bailout hadn't gone through.
Edit:
*Link to BBC news item*
Next stop? Dow 8000!
And now the ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs has just appointed another ex-executive of Goldman Sachs in order to administer the billionaire bailout money to Goldman Sachs and friends.
Rob from the poor, give to the rich. I am curious to see if this will impact Congressional elections, since the polls showed 60-70% of the people were clearly opposed to this. At this point the crisis and the bailout have made sure that McCain is toast.
Do keep in mind though that Obama also voted for this "$700 Billion pay-off to Wall Street."
Do keep in mind though that Obama also voted for this "$700 Billion pay-off to Wall Street."And now the ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs has just appointed another ex-executive of Goldman Sachs in order to administer the billionaire bailout money to Goldman Sachs and friends.
Rob from the poor, give to the rich. I am curious to see if this will impact Congressional elections, since the polls showed 60-70% of the people were clearly opposed to this. At this point the crisis and the bailout have made sure that McCain is toast.
But wasting taxpayer's money is what Dems are known for, so no great loss there.
But wasting taxpayer's money is what Dems are known for, so no great loss there.Do keep in mind though that Obama also voted for this "$700 Billion pay-off to Wall Street."And now the ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs has just appointed another ex-executive of Goldman Sachs in order to administer the billionaire bailout money to Goldman Sachs and friends.
Rob from the poor, give to the rich. I am curious to see if this will impact Congressional elections, since the polls showed 60-70% of the people were clearly opposed to this. At this point the crisis and the bailout have made sure that McCain is toast.
Actually, if you look at the Republican Administrations from Ronald Reagan on, you might see a different picture of who is "wasting taxpayer's money."
Our giant debt comes from Reagn. If any Democrat had created that kind of deficit, he would have been Impeached.
I saw where it was estimated that this bailout would cost the American taxpayer roughly $35,000 per person, so I came up with a couple of ways to take that burden off of us.
First idea-- we charge anyone who enters the U.S. a cover charge based on the amount of time you plan on staying here. If a bar can do it and still charge outrageous prices for drinks, then why can't the country?
Second idea-- we file a class action suit against those morons who run these big corporations. I saw where Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Chief Executive Richard S. Fuld Jr. arranged millions in bonuses for fired executives at the same time he was begging the government for the bailout. If he did it, I'm sure there was other corporations who had executives doing the same thing. WE sue them and make them pay our portion of the bailout.
Third idea-- we taxpayers can illegally imigrate into Mexico. Since that is where several of the U.S. factories moved to, some of us could probably get jobs. If not, and we end up homeless, kicked back on the beach in Acapulco isn't a bad place to be homeless.
But wasting taxpayer's money is what Dems are known for, so no great loss there.Do keep in mind though that Obama also voted for this "$700 Billion pay-off to Wall Street."And now the ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs has just appointed another ex-executive of Goldman Sachs in order to administer the billionaire bailout money to Goldman Sachs and friends.
Rob from the poor, give to the rich. I am curious to see if this will impact Congressional elections, since the polls showed 60-70% of the people were clearly opposed to this. At this point the crisis and the bailout have made sure that McCain is toast.
Actually, if you look at the Republican Administrations from Ronald Reagan on, you might see a different picture of who is "wasting taxpayer's money."
Our giant debt comes from Reagn. If any Democrat had created that kind of deficit, he would have been Impeached.
Reality and perception are two different things. Obama as a Dem is expected to waste lots of public money, so when he votes for something that does just that, nobody is surprised or disappointed in him.
Reality and perception are two different things. Obama as a Dem is expected to waste lots of public money, so when he votes for something that does just that, nobody is surprised or disappointed in him.
But wasting taxpayer's money is what Dems are known for, so no great loss there.Actually, if you look at the Republican Administrations from Ronald Reagan on, you might see a different picture of who is "wasting taxpayer's money."
Our giant debt comes from Reagn. If any Democrat had created that kind of deficit, he would have been Impeached.
Okay. (I disagree, but okay.) Then people should be disappointed with Obama because he voted to give a large amount of Money to big corporations, rather then as a public hand out. :P
|
|
Every day the market drops, the government and the Federal Reserve panic and announce a new intervention.
Now the Federal Reserve is lending money directly to businesses, not just banks.
The damage they are doing to the economy is immense, if they stop, we can try and recover. If they continue, they will hurl us into a prolonged recession/depression.
If they stop, banks will collapse. Lots and lots of banks, destroying savings around the world. Dave, I know you mean well, but you are advocating the sort of policies which caused the Depression, not ended it. Andrew Mellon, the chairman of the Fed at the time, advocated "Liquidate, liquidate, liquidate" but instead of ending it it got worse. Hoover tried to balance his budget during ther crisis. It might be more economically pure for us to get knocked back to the Stone Age but it might be a Pyrrhic victory.
Okay. (I disagree, but okay.) Then people should be disappointed with Obama because he voted to give a large amount of Money to big corporations, rather then as a public hand out. :PReality and perception are two different things. Obama as a Dem is expected to waste lots of public money, so when he votes for something that does just that, nobody is surprised or disappointed in him.
But wasting taxpayer's money is what Dems are known for, so no great loss there.Actually, if you look at the Republican Administrations from Ronald Reagan on, you might see a different picture of who is "wasting taxpayer's money."
Our giant debt comes from Reagn. If any Democrat had created that kind of deficit, he would have been Impeached.
But you're forgetting that Obama HAD to vote for it because of the Repub's mess. (LOL) McCain voted for it to HELP OUT his rich buddies. (LOL) At least that's what the spin doctors would want us to believe. And we're all a bunch of stupid people so we need the media and politicians to tell us what to believe, right?
God, I'm so sick of this political BS.
|
|
If they stop, banks will collapse. Lots and lots of banks, destroying savings around the world. Dave, I know you mean well, but you are advocating the sort of policies which caused the Depression, not ended it. Andrew Mellon, the chairman of the Fed at the time, advocated "Liquidate, liquidate, liquidate" but instead of ending it it got worse. Hoover tried to balance his budget during ther crisis. It might be more economically pure for us to get knocked back to the Stone Age but it might be a Pyrrhic victory.
On the contrary Aubrey, the Great Depression was caused by the very policies that the government is following now. I am not sure what you read about the Great Depression, or where you got your information, but that information is mistaken.
The Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve making too much credit available, and then the US government stepping in and trying to save the banks which needed to collapse and fail. The Federal Reserve attempted to inject more credit into the system in the 1930s, but there were no takers. Bernanke has no clue about the causes of the Great Depression, or how the Federal Reserve and the US government prolonged it. Following his path will bring about the destruction of the economy we both seek to avoid.
Banks failing does not destroy savings around the world. That is because of institutions like the FDIC. People can go to the bank get their check from the FDIC, and then where do they put it? In another bank. What destroys savings around the world is inflationary policies being pursued right now with the Federal Reserve making new...
That's not what I read, and I read it in The Economist. But, on the other hand, I am so far from being an authority on the subject that I'm not going to go to the wire over it. In fact, you seem to have some very definitive views on the subject, which makes me think you have made a study of this.
That said, I do work in financial services. Some banks - a lot of them - are hanging on by their fingernails because of the interbank markets. The failure of Lehmans has sent shockwaves through the markets whci means they are unwilling to lend to anyone. We are not in the recession yet - this is the beginning. Credit lines to corporates have not started to come up for renewal much yet, and as that happens we will see good businesses go down. The hairshirt stuff is fine in theory (let's all get back to the equilibrium) but the deleveraging that is going on is so abrupt that it will wreak havoc if it isn't moderated. I don't disagree that deleveraging has to happen. But this is far too fast, and destroying confidence in otherwise sound businesses. This is overshoot. Markets are not efficient, particularly not now (or in the previous few years). If excessive exuberance got us into this mess, i find it hard to believe that excessive pessimism or downright terror is going to much help either.
Final point. There is a limit to the size of the FDIC - it isn't an infinite pool. It cannot bail out more than about 2% of deposits, as far as I know. And there is also an alternative to placing money in the bank - you can put it under the bed, or buy gold. Again, if people lose confidence in banks, that is what they will do, which is another reason why the abrupt deleveraging is a bad idea.
|
AIG executives spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a posh California retreat just days after getting a federal bailout.
link
I found thisquote on BBC NEWS’ Have your say in response to the question, “Should taxpayers bail out banks?”
For a long time Western governments, the World Bank and the IMF lectured Africans on the foolishness of interfering with the market. Africans were told not to support failing businesses.
These same Western governments are pouring billions of dollars of public funds into failing private businesses ( banks ). Not a murmur of protest from the World Bank or the IMF.
It seems this is a good thing when Western govts do it. It is a bad thing when African govts do it.
A case of do as I say ...
Touché, my friend.
Do keep in mind though that Obama also voted for this "$700 Billion pay-off to Wall Street."And now the ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs has just appointed another ex-executive of Goldman Sachs in order to administer the billionaire bailout money to Goldman Sachs and friends.
Rob from the poor, give to the rich. I am curious to see if this will impact Congressional elections, since the polls showed 60-70% of the people were clearly opposed to this. At this point the crisis and the bailout have made sure that McCain is toast.
True but the economic crisis is hurting McCain a lot more then Obama. It did, after all, take place when his team was 'had the ball'. If the Democrats had won last time they'd be the ones getting creamed in the polls.
But wasting taxpayer's money is what Dems are known for, so no great loss there.Do keep in mind though that Obama also voted for this "$700 Billion pay-off to Wall Street."And now the ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs has just appointed another ex-executive of Goldman Sachs in order to administer the billionaire bailout money to Goldman Sachs and friends.
Rob from the poor, give to the rich. I am curious to see if this will impact Congressional elections, since the polls showed 60-70% of the people were clearly opposed to this. At this point the crisis and the bailout have made sure that McCain is toast.
Still in recent history its the Republicans that have been the big spenders. Probably partly because the Democrats are 'known' to be bad with money - hence they have to work harder to fight that image or face getting roasted in the press.
I found thisquote on BBC NEWS’ Have your say in response to the question, “Should taxpayers bail out banks?”
For a long time Western governments, the World Bank and the IMF lectured Africans on the foolishness of interfering with the market. Africans were told not to support failing businesses.
These same Western governments are pouring billions of dollars of public funds into failing private businesses ( banks ). Not a murmur of protest from the World Bank or the IMF.
It seems this is a good thing when Western govts do it. It is a bad thing when African govts do it.
A case of do as I say ...
Touché, my friend.
Being hypocrites is a first world speciality. We are always harping on about free markets and such to the third world but we don't practise what we preach. Europe, Japan, Canada and America are really big on things like tariff walls and protecting our favourite industries as well as doling out tax payer money to farmers/fishermen/lumberjacks or whoever it is that represents an important voting bloc in our particular countries. We like free trade when we are the ones that are getting the most out of it and fight it tooth and nail when its perceived as being bad for us.
Of course the real fun starts up when the first world starts arguing with each other over this type of thing. See the Canada/US lumber disputes for a good example.
So my understanding is that Bush has chosen to buy preferred stock instead of buying near worthless assets off the banks. Kudo's to him for that decision. This means that the taxpayers might actually get their money back eventually (since they know own a piece of the banks themselves instead of owning crap assets). This is a good plan from a moral hazard perspective as well as the people that really loose out should be the old share holders of the banks since their stock just got diluted. Hopefully investors and those they elect to these companies boards will learn something from all of this.
|
|
Being hypocrites is a first world speciality. We are always harping on about free markets and such to the third world but we don't practise what we preach. Europe, Japan, Canada and America are really big on things like tariff walls and protecting our favourite industries as well as doling out tax payer money to farmers/fishermen/lumberjacks or whoever it is that represents an important voting bloc in our particular countries. We like free trade when we are the ones that are getting the most out of it and fight it tooth and nail when its perceived as being bad for us.
You've hit on a good point. I've read in several places that one of the things preventing Africa from developing decent agricultural and textiles industries was protectionist agendas in Europe and America.
I confidently predict Obama's Presidency will be an economic disaster, if he actually follow's Krugman's advice.
...and even if he doesn't. By the same token, I also confidently predict a McCain presidency will be an economic disaster, whether he follows Krugman's advice or not. We'll be dealing with the fallout of this collapse for the next few years, no matter who is elected. And whomever is in office will be blamed for the economic down-turn.
...and even if he doesn't. By the same token, I also confidently predict a McCain presidency will be an economic disaster, whether he follows Krugman's advice or not. We'll be dealing with the fallout of this collapse for the next few years, no matter who is elected. And whomever is in office will be blamed for the economic down-turn.I confidently predict Obama's Presidency will be an economic disaster, if he actually follow's Krugman's advice.
Exactly.
|
...and even if he doesn't. By the same token, I also confidently predict a McCain presidency will be an economic disaster, whether he follows Krugman's advice or not. We'll be dealing with the fallout of this collapse for the next few years, no matter who is elected. And whomever is in office will be blamed for the economic down-turn.I confidently predict Obama's Presidency will be an economic disaster, if he actually follow's Krugman's advice.
Nah, if Obama wins, he can probably get a second term by beating the "it's Bush's fault" drum. McCain, on the other hand would be a one-termer, as he can't beat that drum...
Nah, if Obama wins, he can probably get a second term by beating the "it's Bush's fault" drum. McCain, on the other hand would be a one-termer, as he can't beat that drum...
My earnest political opinion here is that I don't wanna work, I just wanna bang on the drum all day. But that's just me.
Bernanke has no idea what he is doing.
Nor does anyone else in this particular instance, unfortunately -- although everyone on the street claims they have all the answers.
Business will rebound and hopefully the banks will be more conservative with their lending, but this will be a rocky period ahead no matter what. Government and business will need to work together carefully in order to figure out the proper balance of influence between the two (where that lies I don't think anyone knows exactly) and with luck and planning, the economies of the world will get humming along again. Although, human behaviour and its tendency to swing like a pendulum means that we probably will continue to have significant up and down swings for the foreseeable future.
One other point and this links to some points made in a few other threads here: no company is too big to fail and this will also make the situation volatile but hopefully rational, logical, sensible investing and management will keep the number of failures to only what needs to happen.
It just cut rates down to 1 percent again.
This strikes me as a problem only if they persist over an extended period of time in the face of clear signs that lending is happening again.
The problem at the moment is that no one is lending and companies on sound financial footing are imploding because they can't get short term loans to cover day to day expenses. Essentially the global pool of money has gone from one extreme (crazy lending practises) to the other extreme (hide all our money under the mattress).
Governments around the world are injecting capital into the system because its not just badly mismanaged companies that are set to collapse, it'll take lots of good, well run, companies as well.