Too bad the gov didn't "figure out how to stop hemorrhaging money to avoid complete collapse and failure" for themselves. But that would require The admin, the senate, and the house all receive the same result that Mr. Wagoner received. :shrugs: :grin01:
Starting in 2011, employer contributions will be reported on W-2's for informational purposes only. They will not be taxed.
Iraq and Afghanistan are the reason for the outrageous deficit, not too mention all the tax cuts for the wealthy and higher end of the income scales. But then those people DID receive the same result. At least the current administration is finally trying to stop all that bleeding.
Most of which is a result of trying to save the economy that the former administration left in complete shambles. Largely due to the high end tax cuts, while at the same time spending hundreds of billions on two wars as well as letting the financial world run completely unchecked and out of control. And yes, I know some of the financial industry damage started as far back as Clinton, but in 8 years, nothing was done to stop or correct that damage.
If your accountant thinks that you and I and the bigwigs of multi-billion dollar corporations all figure our earnings and pay our taxes the same way, with no loopholes, than I strongly recommend you get a new accountant.
If that is what makes this "socilaized medicine", then we have had it in this country for many, many years, because that is precisely what insurance companies do. They collect money from all their policy holders, put it in a "pool", and use that money to pay for care.
The government bought large portions of these companies to save their asses. Without the government stepping in and buying large portions of their stock, these companies would no longer exist. Same for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and many banking institutions. You think it would have been better to let all of these major corporations simply fail because of their own bad decisions?
If your accountant thinks that you and I and the bigwigs of multi-billion dollar corporations all figure our earnings and pay our taxes the same way, with no loopholes, than I strongly recommend you get a new accountant.
It boils down to never-ending tax credits and breaks for the richest 5% of the population, deficit spending for the past 12 years, unchecked, free-range financial markets collapsing due to bad decisions and fraudulent practices, and how people just seem to want to close their eyes to all of that because it's easier to blame Obama.
But I'm the one that makes stuff up to fit my ideas and I'm the one that is blind to reality because it doesn't fit my ideas, right LeeW? That is what you told me, isn't it?
BIGGGGG difference. Insurance companies require all participants to pay into 'the pool' that choose to participate. If they required only me to pay but you were given free entry into 'the pool' AND they were legally able to mandate that you and I had NO choice in participation then yes they would be operating a form of socialized healthcare. Also I am NOT required to buy any insurance. If I choose to drive a car I then am choosing to carry insurance.
Yes! Should the gov bailout Joe's Mower Repair because Joe made bad decisions? If GM fails someone buys GMs assets and someone is awarded GMs contracts and someone builds and sells cars that GM can't, etc etc etc. Ford and Toyota get stronger. That's the way it works. If Fannie Mae fails because of bad decisions then someone else lends to the folks that Fannie Mae would have.
They(gov) are still allowing it to happen. So we put an $800 billion band-aid on a problem that will reoccur. Hell there were banks that got billions and they used the money to buy other banks. So they are too big to fail and the bailout money was used to make themselves bigger! :headbang:
The strong survive and that makes the financial base stronger in the end. All we succeeded in doing was spreading the pain of the collapse over generations. So now my grandkids pay for the mistakes made now. If they really wanted to help they should have given the $800 billion to home owners to buy down mortgages. The banks get their money from the homeowner, the homeowners don't falter on loans, the insurance industry doesn't fail from having to cover bad loans, the economy recovers quicker than it will now. They could still enact better (not necessarily more) regulations and push for divesting and downsizing these companies that they (gov) did as much or more to create than the CEOs did.
Didn't say you defended them. I said you were "attempting to justify federally funded enabling of bad CEO decisions". "attempting to justify" necessary evil. "federally funded" our tax dollars. "enabling of bad CEO decisions" financially rewarding them for bad decisions hence enabling more bad decisions.
I, like tyflier, don't know the intricacies but I kind of like the idea of no income tax but a national/state sales tax. That way EVERYONE that participates in our economy helps, from the citizens to the businesses to the illegals to the tourists. :shrugs:
Well that's the big problem, isn't it? All the regulations in the world don't mean squat if nobody enforces them.
Isn't that the story of this country? The next generation is always forced to fix the errors of the previous. Every 4 years, every 6 years, every generation...same story...
I don't disagree with you. But they didn't.
I'm not justifying "federally funded enabling of bad CEO decisions", I'm justifying the decision to save companies which, in turn, saved tens of millions of jobs, and potentially a HUGE portion of our economy. I don't have to agree with the way these corporations USED to money to feel that giving it to them was the right idea. I can't explain it any other way.
Exactly, then who, because the gov sure hasn't done that job any better than securing the borders.
Probably except that this time it will span multiple generations. Billions passed on were bad enough but now we have graduated to trillions.
That's simply liberal envisagement. There would be a short term correction. The surviving companies would gain. Kind of like vultures around death they would be there to take every scrap of business they could. In doing so they would need to hire. The assembly lines would soon after start producing Toyotas or Fords. The remaining companies would buy out the brands that are worth keeping whether it's whole brands like Jeep or models like Corvette. The maintenance shops would start fixing the other brands more and GM less. Through trickle down the parts suppliers, advertising agencies, dealers, etc, etc, etc would convert to what the market demanded. The gov could have used a few billion out of the $800 billion (by the way I think that figure is far lower than the actual) to assist workers through the market correction. Instead we get gov propped up failing businesses, hmmm sounds suspiciously like a socialist tactic. (I know you love when that term is thrown out, couldn't resist)
Because it's far better to bankrupt a country than a car maker or bank?!?!
Close the loopholes. (again this does not necessarily mean more control just better control) And are the GMs, CitiBanks, AIGs, etc, etc, etc the most stable best for our country and economy? really?
I much prefer cynical and jaded when it comes to viewing politicians. I bet they very much prefer constituent naivety though.
That's usually the result of no punishment or consequences. :shrugs:
No that's what they SHOULD have done with NO bailout.
Why shouldn't we be mad at a government that through inaction or direct action created the scenario and opportunity for corps and banks to get so huge, become so mismanaged, abuse so much? The only ones I am not mad at are the workers and taxpayers that pay the price time and time again.
You just pointed out everyone one with a D or R in front of their name. Bravo!
There is the conundrum...
Probably except that this time it will span multiple generations. Billions passed on were bad enough but now we have graduated to trillions.
http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html
Just like personal debt, national debt doesn't ever go away. And unfortunately, as far as I can tell, it is impossible to run a country of consumers without creating some form of national debt.
And that's trickle-down economics, something we learned to be a myth during Reagan's administration. We know it is bogus, but most republicans refuse to admit it, and cling to it as though it were a lifesaver. It didn't work in the 40's, it didn't work in the 80's, and I seriously doubt it would have worked in 2009. It just doesn't make sense to keep applying the same medicine to fix the same problem. You're bound to get the same outcome, and so far that outcome has never been good...
Corporate enacted would be the key words here. The government didn't hand them money and say, "Go pay your CEOs huge bonuses, then send all the jobs we saved overseas." Instead, the government said, "Here's a loan. Go fix your issues and pay us back."
Right now the country is in debt, not bamnkrupt. However, if our entire financial system would have collapsed, we would have been bankrupt. It would have made The Great Depression look like boom times.Because it's far better to bankrupt a country than a car maker or bank?!?!
It's easy to sit here and say that Obama's stimulus/bailout package didn't work, but that's only because it is impossible to prove how far things would have gone without it. There is no telling where the bottom would have been without these incentives. But we do know that it would have been much, much worse than it currently is.
Whose to say? I don't know. But neither do you, or anyone else...
Oh, I'm not naive, I just said you can think that if you'd like. I am very skeptical and guarded with the government, just not cynical and jaded...yet...
I am likely just as cynical and jaded about large corporations as you are about the government. This is likely why we are on opposite "sides" in this issue.
It's also typically the result of greed. Many CEOs and Corporate Executives were forced to resign because of the decisions they made following the balout. Many more faced bankruptcy and criminal charges. It may not be enough...but it's a start...
Agree to disagree. We won't come to a mkiddle ground on this. I believe the bailouts were warranted. You do not. C'est la vie.
I didn't say politicians were blameless. I said they didn't make the decisions.
If my parents give me and my brother each $5,000 at 18 to "start a life", and I invest in an apartment and a vehicle, and my brother goes out and parties, do you get mad at my parents for "sponsoring" my brother's party? That seems unfair...
Not all of them...but most. There are still a few politicians working to actually do something good. Not many...but a few...