Stimulus for Who?
-
I'd note this as well, while you're all tea partying and moaning about excessive rates of taxation - for many of you, your taxes are going to be lower now than they were under Bush.
As for the top income rates, they're going back to where they were under Clinton. Horrible, I know. Those killed the economy. If by killed you mean better average growth than in the eight Bush years, or in the eight Reagan years.
Here are some top tax rates for you to compare socialists:
Eisenhower: 90%
Nixon: 70%
Ford: 70%
Obama: 39%
But don't let me interrupt your tea party.
I'd note this as well, while you're all tea partying and moaning about excessive rates of taxation - for many of you, your taxes are going to be lower now than they were under Bush.
As for the top income rates, they're going back to where they were under Clinton. Horrible, I know. Those killed the economy. If by killed you mean better average growth than in the eight Bush years, or in the eight Reagan years.
Here are some top tax rates for you to compare socialists:
Eisenhower: 90%
Nixon: 70%
Ford: 70%
Obama: 39%
But don't let me interrupt your tea party.
I hate to take away from telling Kosar that he's a nut, but I have to take issue with a couple things in this post.
1) People aren't as concerned about today's tax rates as they are about what trillions of dollars in deficit spending will mean down the road. (and, no, I do not accept as a legitimate response that the same people weren't vocal critics of Bush. Better to be right late than never.) Obama's budget proposals will currently result in several trillion dollars of new government debt. This does not include the health plan that many people expect to see, which will add trillion(s) more. Also, while we are on the topic, Obama's budget projections make the odd decision to assume that Bush's tax cuts will expire for everyone, not just the wealthy. I'm not saying that that's what will happen, but when it doesnt, another $2 trillion will be added to the debt by 2019. Let's be honest here, no one but maybe the poorest of the poor will pay lower taxes going forward. It isn't possible. In fact, if Obama's spending plan is enacted, it isnt desirable.
So, no, most of us won't be paying lower taxes as a result of Obama except in the very short term.
2) The reference to Clinton is silly. Serious people (you included) don't dispute that higher taxes have a negative impact on productivity. We can argue the significance of that impact, but we don't need to play a numbers game with Reagan and Clinton to show that it exists (and yes, that game would show it).
3) Those top tax rates were on brackets that don't exist anymore. Historically, the top tax bracket has ranged from $85,600 - $5,000,000. I do have to admit that I have no problem calling a 90% marginal tax rate a socialist policy. Had I been alive at the time, maybe I would take these "tea parties" a little more seriously. Also, Nixon's 70% was only 50% on "earned income", Ford tried lowering his 70% several times, and Obama's change in the tax rate also includes disappearing deductions and a promised 2-3% payroll tax that could bump his effective rate as much as 10 or 12 points higher than Clinton's.
The reality is that taxes will be going up unless something dramatically changes. That's what people are freaking out about. The people freaking out aren't as wonky as the guys like Goolsbee that are getting the job of criticizing them on cable news, but they do have a point and some worries that are valid.
-
Bailouts/Stimulus?????? WTF!!!
I have a question that maybe someone bright enough on here might be able to answer, sombody please give it your best shot. Because where did all this money$$$ go?
Bank Bailout? where did the money go? We pump trillions into banks and even some are now 80% owned by the US Government, we are told due to the housing bubble and that nobody in america was able to pay their mortgage. (8% in foreclosure) Its a Crisis! lets give em billions and trillions of dollars.
Didn't the stimulus hold money for those in foreclosure to be able to refinance????
Meanwhile foreign investors are pulling out faster than man knows what of those whore banks as if they found out she had a bad std or something.
And on another end of it 401K's are getting butchered! Many of senior citizens have lost nearly all or a large portion of their retirement savings. (how many Wal-Mart greeters can you have?) So the US Government poors Billions & Trillions into Wall St.
Now we are running Stress tests on these Banks? and Why? I heard this morning on the news that Banks are starting to go ahead with foreclosures. Where is the Messiah Now?
If us the US citizens are to Bailout Banks for their short comings, why hasn't Barney Franks and his cronies been indictment for their lack of oversight on Freddie Mac, & Fannie Mae? Where are the Grand Jury hearings on this being held?
And with all of the money that had been given to the Banks and to Wall Street, are those poor seniors ever going to get a bailout for all the money they lost in their retirement savings??
Do you feel that all of us republican, democrat & independent voters have been scammed?
Maybe we need another crisis.
-
Well, Heck, I was AT a tea party today. It was awesome.
It was not about tax rates for a second, for anybody.
It was about the outrageous selling out of our country's citizens
taxes...for the next ten damn years at least !
So, Heck, you can just stuff your other big foot in your big mouth.
-
"It was not about tax rates for a second, for anybody"
Um, I do believe that the question being posed by this post was: "Whom or what is the driving force BEHIND the excess taxes?"
-
"It was not about tax rates for a second, for anybody"
Um, I do believe that the question being posed by this post was: "Whom or what is the driving force BEHIND the excess taxes?"
Um, I do believe that the question being posed by this post was: "Whom or what is the driving force BEHIND the excess taxes?"
It's all of them, perhaps that is what concerns us that have more Libertarian views. It is not just the Democrats, hell even in this election it was obvious they were both going to spend. There's a general difference between Rep and Liberals right now, but most Rep (at least for the last 8 years) have been has willing to spend as have the Dem's. The question of the driving force is POWER, both sides yearn for this and spending = control = POWER. These Tea Party's were about the need for an alternative. The POWER, at least as our country was constructed was supposed to lie with We the People. I don't think that either party, by in large, really cares about We the People.
-
I think what's being missed/forgotten in this whole thing is that the stimulus plan isn't about POWER or socialism or any of the other nonsense being thrown around, but rather an attempt at counter-cyclical government spending to keep the country out of a deeper recession/depression.
Meanwhile, the bailouts were designed to keep the financial system from imploding, which experts on the left and right agreed could have been devastating for the world economy. That scenario seems to have been averted.
Additionally, neither the bailout nor the stimulus were in the administration's plans until events forced their hand, and when it comes to TARP these are policies originally put forward by the Bush administration, continued by the Obama administration.
In short, this is mostly spending out of necessity, not desire. Trust me, there's nothing the Obama administration would like better than to focus on health care and energy rather than fixing AIG's problems. Problem is, AIG's problem is everyone's problem. And so is the recession.
Now, we can argue about the size and effect of the stimulus, whether the bailouts are structured properly, but that's probably not a conversation that's going to take place in here, for the same reason that no one discusses Proust in elementary school.
But maybe the point of the spending is something people should keep in mind when they talk about all the spending, rather than simply mentioning the total and how big it is. That much we know.
-
It really is basic, at least in theory. You don't have to agree but I am not sure why you won't even admit it exist (again as a relevant theory). The reason that an implosion of the markets scared our leaders wasn't b/c of how it would affect us. The problem is that a complete implosion leads to panic, panic leads to anarchy (or chaos at least) and all of that = loss of power. I understand you might not be that cynical but how can you not at least see it is not an illogical/unreasonable conclusion.
-
I think what's being missed/forgotten in this whole thing is that the stimulus plan isn't about POWER or socialism or any of the other nonsense being thrown around, but rather an attempt at counter-cyclical government spending to keep the country out of a deeper recession/depression.
Meanwhile, the bailouts were designed to keep the financial system from imploding, which experts on the left and right agreed could have been devastating for the world economy. That scenario seems to have been averted.
Additionally, neither the bailout nor the stimulus were in the administration's plans until events forced their hand, and when it comes to TARP these are policies originally put forward by the Bush administration, continued by the Obama administration.
In short, this is mostly spending out of necessity, not desire. Trust me, there's nothing the Obama administration would like better than to focus on health care and energy rather than fixing AIG's problems. Problem is, AIG's problem is everyone's problem. And so is the recession.
Now, we can argue about the size and effect of the stimulus, whether the bailouts are structured properly, but that's probably not a conversation that's going to take place in here, for the same reason that no one discusses Proust in elementary school.
But maybe the point of the spending is something people should keep in mind when they talk about all the spending, rather than simply mentioning the total and how big it is. That much we know.
Meanwhile, the bailouts were designed to keep the financial system from imploding, which experts on the left and right agreed could have been devastating for the world economy. That scenario seems to have been averted.
Heck, I hate to chime in & cherry pick your post, but I am worried most about this in particular. Yes a hypothetical scenario was averted but at what cost?
Very simply, isn't this what caused the problem? A system in place that avoids a particular negative scenario?
e.g. With the mortgage crisis, wasn't the scenario that was temporarily avoided lack of home ownership? There was a system in place to temporarily solve that problem by avoiding said scenario in the short-term with little regard for a future check-down.
At the very basic core, what this stimulus is, is exactly households get into credit card debt. The, I'll just pay it off/worry about it later mentality. Of course I need an iphone. Of course I need a new kitchen. Of course the financial system needs to be crutched through this period of uncertainty/downswing.
I'm just not big on mortgaging our future (I own a house, but I agreed to terms & don't have an ARM) which I think is what a lot of Obama's policies do. Rather than at a fixed rate, which is what many reasonable folks use, we are being suckered into a quick easy over-inflated trunk full of money (that states haven't even decided how to appropriate yet).
-
http://www.bankisrael.gov.il/press/eng/070805/070805e.htm
http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/1...onnections.html
[b]Former Treasury secretary gets billions in bailout[/b]
Cerberus Leveraging Billion Dollar Connections In Congress
It is agonizing to watch Congress publicly stumbling through its analysis and qualification of the auto industry, providing appearance that it is doing its homework on a bailout. Over 40% of Congress is made up of lawyers, with little grasp of finance, economics or business. Congress should not be negotiating the bailout.
Chrysler and Cerberus Capital Management are seeking an unholy bailout and Congress understandably struggles when Cerberus owned Chrysler CEO, Bob Nardelli, cannot explain why his bosses will not put up cash to bailout one of its many subsidiaries. Cerberus does not work that way, and it does not have to. Its political clout will do the heavy lifting on salvaging a failing investment.
------
Related
"IAP is owned by Cerberus Capital Management LP, an asset-management firm chaired by former Treasury secretary John W. Snow. The company is headed by two former high-ranking executives of KBR, formerly known as Kellogg Brown & Root. Al Neffgen, IAP's chief executive, was chief operating officer for a KBR division before joining IAP in 2004. IAP's president, Dave Swindle, is a former KBR vice president. The company has worked at Walter Reed since 2003, providing housekeepers, computer analysts and clerks under a Treasury contract," Steve Vogel and Renae Merle reported March 10, 2007, in theWashington Post.- Link
Tied to Cheney's Halliburton, Cerberus is also tied Katrina, Walter Reed and the list of Bush administration insider looting goes on and on...
http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/1...onnections.html
http://mparent7777-1.livejournal.com/tag/bailout
Cerberus Leveraging Billion Dollar Connections In Congress
It is agonizing to watch Congress publicly stumbling through its analysis and qualification of the auto industry, providing appearance that it is doing its homework on a bailout. Over 40% of Congress is made up of lawyers, with little grasp of finance, economics or business. Congress should not be negotiating the bailout.
Chrysler and Cerberus Capital Management are seeking an unholy bailout and Congress understandably struggles when Cerberus owned Chrysler CEO, Bob Nardelli, cannot explain why his bosses will not put up cash to bailout one of its many subsidiaries. Cerberus does not work that way, and it does not have to. Its political clout will do the heavy lifting on salvaging a failing investment.
Taxpayers won’t know any better since neither the current nor the incoming administrations will take oversight seriously and neither seems to understand Deal Structure. Unfortunately, neither will Congress which is simply lacking understanding of some critical components of business, wealth creation and negotiations. Certainly its actions suggest absence of such comprehension. American taxpayers have a particular interest in the outcome, and should be paying particular attention to the bailout, and to the Chrysler deal in particular.
Kucinich on Stanford Group fraud: SEC told to "stand down" by fed agency in 2006
"As Chairman of the Domestic Policy Subcommitee, I have sent a letter to the SEC asking for documents that relate to [the NY Times] report that they were told to 'stand down' rather than enforce the law against the Stanford Group going back to 2006. If this is true - and this is an official that is quoted - then we have the beginnings here of a massive scandal and we've got to get to the bottom of it," says Congressman Dennis Kucinich on Fox Business
-
Meanwhile, the bailouts were designed to keep the financial system from imploding, which experts on the left and right agreed could have been devastating for the world economy. That scenario seems to have been averted.
Heck, I hate to chime in & cherry pick your post, but I am worried most about this in particular. Yes a hypothetical scenario was averted but at what cost?
Very simply, isn't this what caused the problem? A system in place that avoids a particular negative scenario?
e.g. With the mortgage crisis, wasn't the scenario that was temporarily avoided lack of home ownership? There was a system in place to temporarily solve that problem by avoiding said scenario in the short-term with little regard for a future check-down.
At the very basic core, what this stimulus is, is exactly households get into credit card debt. The, I'll just pay it off/worry about it later mentality. Of course I need an iphone. Of course I need a new kitchen. Of course the financial system needs to be crutched through this period of uncertainty/downswing.
I'm just not big on mortgaging our future (I own a house, but I agreed to terms & don't have an ARM) which I think is what a lot of Obama's policies do. Rather than at a fixed rate, which is what many reasonable folks use, we are being suckered into a quick easy over-inflated trunk full of money (that states haven't even decided how to appropriate yet).
Heck, I hate to chime in & cherry pick your post, but I am worried most about this in particular. Yes a hypothetical scenario was averted but at what cost?
At a great cost, but not nearly as great as the implosion of the financial system and a worldwide depression. You may think losing 650,000 jobs in a month is bad, and I do too. But I think it's better than 800,000 or a million. and you may think a recession that lasts three years is long, and I do too. But it's better than a depression/recession that last ten years.
No one is arguing that these steps are designed to feel good, or make everyone whole again. Sometimes they're incredibly hard to swallow, as sometimes you're rewarding bad behavior (AIG bonuses, help for negligent lenders and homeowners). But you still do it if you think it helps save taxpayer money in the long run.
There's a story about Lehman Brothers in today's WSJ that is instructive in this regard. Shorter version: it's going to cost them a lot more money to bring in people to wind their company down than it costs AIG (read: us) to retain their people (with bonuses) to wind their investments down. And AIG is a much bigger company than Lehman is. Or was.
Point being, if it costs taxpayers less to give AIG people bonuses than it does to hire an outside firm to do the same job, which should we do? I'd argue that even though you're giving money to people who helped caused this mess (though not necessarily - not everyone at AIG is guilty) it's still better than spending more to feel good about it.
So there's no political upside in this for the Obama administration. They're faced with bad choice, or worse choice. The only thing they're focused on is trying to revive the economy. There will be missteps along the way. There will be taxpayer money lost or misspent. In the end, we'll see how well it all works and if they deserve credit for turning this ship around, or something else.
Very simply, isn't this what caused the problem?
No. I'm not sure what you mean. When people say more debt doesn't solve the problem of debt, they're assuming the problem was debt. Except that it wasn't. The main driver in this was leverage, not debt.
-
I'd note this as well, while you're all tea partying and moaning about excessive rates of taxation - for many of you, your taxes are going to be lower now than they were under Bush.
As for the top income rates, they're going back to where they were under Clinton. Horrible, I know. Those killed the economy. If by killed you mean better average growth than in the eight Bush years, or in the eight Reagan years.
Here are some top tax rates for you to compare socialists:
Eisenhower: 90%
Nixon: 70%
Ford: 70%
Obama: 39%
But don't let me interrupt your tea party.
I hate to take away from telling Kosar that he's a nut, but I have to take issue with a couple things in this post.
1) People aren't as concerned about today's tax rates as they are about what trillions of dollars in deficit spending will mean down the road. (and, no, I do not accept as a legitimate response that the same people weren't vocal critics of Bush. Better to be right late than never.) Obama's budget proposals will currently result in several trillion dollars of new government debt. This does not include the health plan that many people expect to see, which will add trillion(s) more. Also, while we are on the topic, Obama's budget projections make the odd decision to assume that Bush's tax cuts will expire for everyone, not just the wealthy. I'm not saying that that's what will happen, but when it doesnt, another $2 trillion will be added to the debt by 2019. Let's be honest here, no one but maybe the poorest of the poor will pay lower taxes going forward. It isn't possible. In fact, if Obama's spending plan is enacted, it isnt desirable.
So, no, most of us won't be paying lower taxes as a result of Obama except in the very short term.
2) The reference to Clinton is silly. Serious people (you included) don't dispute that higher taxes have a negative impact on productivity. We can argue the significance of that impact, but we don't need to play a numbers game with Reagan and Clinton to show that it exists (and yes, that game would show it).
3) Those top tax rates were on brackets that don't exist anymore. Historically, the top tax bracket has ranged from $85,600 - $5,000,000. I do have to admit that I have no problem calling a 90% marginal tax rate a socialist policy. Had I been alive at the time, maybe I would take these "tea parties" a little more seriously. Also, Nixon's 70% was only 50% on "earned income", Ford tried lowering his 70% several times, and Obama's change in the tax rate also includes disappearing deductions and a promised 2-3% payroll tax that could bump his effective rate as much as 10 or 12 points higher than Clinton's.
The reality is that taxes will be going up unless something dramatically changes. That's what people are freaking out about. The people freaking out aren't as wonky as the guys like Goolsbee that are getting the job of criticizing them on cable news, but they do have a point and some worries that are valid.
I hate to take away from telling Kosar that he's a nut, but I have to take issue with a couple things in this post.
1) People aren't as concerned about today's tax rates as they are about what trillions of dollars in deficit spending will mean down the road. (and, no, I do not accept as a legitimate response that the same people weren't vocal critics of Bush. Better to be right late than never.) Obama's budget proposals will currently result in several trillion dollars of new government debt. This does not include the health plan that many people expect to see, which will add trillion(s) more. Also, while we are on the topic, Obama's budget projections make the odd decision to assume that Bush's tax cuts will expire for everyone, not just the wealthy. I'm not saying that that's what will happen, but when it doesnt, another $2 trillion will be added to the debt by 2019. Let's be honest here, no one but maybe the poorest of the poor will pay lower taxes going forward. It isn't possible. In fact, if Obama's spending plan is enacted, it isnt desirable.
So, no, most of us won't be paying lower taxes as a result of Obama except in the very short term.
If taxes are not the concern, then why portest under the "tea party" guise? since that was a protest over TAXES.
-
But Leg, if you're asking me if I'm worried about the size of the budget, and the projected deficits, and the specter of higher taxes, you bet I am.
Most of the change is going to have to come from health care and entitlement reform, but also from things like cutting the defense budget. Which is why I applaud the move by Gates to reign in some of the larger cases of waste, abuse, and the needless spending in the defense budget, not run around like my hair is on fire screaming that Obama is gutting the military.
We need temporary stimulus spending, then all sorts of reform.
-
How about cutting back on the wasteful spending on domestic programs?
Welfare fraud? etc?
Oh, I thought so. Never a mention of that.
-
And this is perfect. Absolutely perfect. I want you all to see what Cal just wrote.
Then I want you all to look at where you tax money goes, and how much goes where.
Look at how much goes to defense, and how much goes to what Cal calls "welfare". And yet Cal's focus, and the focus of the overwhelming numbers of people like him, the types of people who go to tea parties, and Joe the Plumber, are on money that goes to people who supposedly don't work for it and game the system.
Nevermind that untold billions are lost on other programs - someone somewhere is getting a $450 check they don't deserve.
Now ask yourselves why you're so concerned with the relatively small amount of money that goes to these programs, and the even smaller amount of money that goes to these programs that is abused by the lazy, and then ask yourselves why you're so damned concerned about the money that is wasted there, and yet entirely unconcerned about money that is wasted on defense, or farm subsidies, or any of the other big ticket expenditures in the budget.
Really, ask yourself.
The majority of your tax money goes to Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense spending. You can look at how it all breaks down here.
Now, I don't want to focus on Cal because he doesn't know anything. But this is something we hear all the time on the right. It's an obsession, actually - imagining that the tax dollars you work for go to people who don't work for it all and are gaming the system. Steve mentions it routinely as well.
Problem is, this really isn't where the majority of your tax money is going. In fact, take a look at the safety net programs that are funded and tell me which ones you'd like to do away with.
Or are you serious - you'd rather concentrate on rooting out the eleven single moms who had another kid for bump in her welfare check?
Really?
I'm not expecting much self-reflection out of you guys, but honestly ...get in the goddamn game.
-
And this is perfect. Absolutely perfect. I want you all to see what Cal just wrote.
Then I want you all to look at where you tax money goes, and how much goes where.
Look at how much goes to defense, and how much goes to what Cal calls "welfare". And yet Cal's focus, and the focus of the overwhelming numbers of people like him, the types of people who go to tea parties, and Joe the Plumber, are on money that goes to people who supposedly don't work for it and game the system.
Nevermind that untold billions are lost on other programs - someone somewhere is getting a $450 check they don't deserve.
Now ask yourselves why you're so concerned with the relatively small amount of money that goes to these programs, and the even smaller amount of money that goes to these programs that is abused by the lazy, and then ask yourselves why you're so damned concerned about the money that is wasted there, and yet entirely unconcerned about money that is wasted on defense, or farm subsidies, or any of the other big ticket expenditures in the budget.
Really, ask yourself.
The majority of your tax money goes to Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense spending. You can look at how it all breaks down here.
Now, I don't want to focus on Cal because he doesn't know anything. But this is something we hear all the time on the right. It's an obsession, actually - imagining that the tax dollars you work for go to people who don't work for it all and are gaming the system. Steve mentions it routinely as well.
Problem is, this really isn't where the majority of your tax money is going. In fact, take a look at the safety net programs that are funded and tell me which ones you'd like to do away with.
Or are you serious - you'd rather concentrate on rooting out the eleven single moms who had another kid for bump in her welfare check?
Really?
I'm not expecting much self-reflection out of you guys, but honestly ...get in the goddamn game.
Or are you serious - you'd rather concentrate on rooting out the eleven single moms who had another kid for bump in her welfare check?
Really?
I'm not expecting much self-reflection out of you guys, but honestly ...get in the goddamn game.
Not a lot different than using the nickel and dime AIG bonus outrage to divert attention from the big picture huh?
So some guys get pissed over relatively small stuff. (even thopugh society crumbles over the generations) Oh well.
Makes it easier for you to chalk up the potentially disastrous inflation and the real depression it copuld cause with a flip "Well he had to do something I guess."
I mean Obam must have a grip on it.
After all he was a cracker jack community organizer....
WSS
-
Like I said, I don't expect much self-reflection, just more lashing out.
You even wanted to blame the financial crisis on poor people who couldn't afford their homes, Steve. You're probably the biggest offender.
Seriously, go see where your tax money goes.
-
Thanks. And I'm used to the feces. Plus, my baby just shit on my hand. That's worse than virtual feces.
-
Heck, I hate to chime in & cherry pick your post, but I am worried most about this in particular. Yes a hypothetical scenario was averted but at what cost?
At a great cost, but not nearly as great as the implosion of the financial system and a worldwide depression. You may think losing 650,000 jobs in a month is bad, and I do too. But I think it's better than 800,000 or a million. and you may think a recession that lasts three years is long, and I do too. But it's better than a depression/recession that last ten years.
No one is arguing that these steps are designed to feel good, or make everyone whole again. Sometimes they're incredibly hard to swallow, as sometimes you're rewarding bad behavior (AIG bonuses, help for negligent lenders and homeowners). But you still do it if you think it helps save taxpayer money in the long run.
There's a story about Lehman Brothers in today's WSJ that is instructive in this regard. Shorter version: it's going to cost them a lot more money to bring in people to wind their company down than it costs AIG (read: us) to retain their people (with bonuses) to wind their investments down. And AIG is a much bigger company than Lehman is. Or was.
Point being, if it costs taxpayers less to give AIG people bonuses than it does to hire an outside firm to do the same job, which should we do? I'd argue that even though you're giving money to people who helped caused this mess (though not necessarily - not everyone at AIG is guilty) it's still better than spending more to feel good about it.
So there's no political upside in this for the Obama administration. They're faced with bad choice, or worse choice. The only thing they're focused on is trying to revive the economy. There will be missteps along the way. There will be taxpayer money lost or misspent. In the end, we'll see how well it all works and if they deserve credit for turning this ship around, or something else.
Very simply, isn't this what caused the problem?
No. I'm not sure what you mean. When people say more debt doesn't solve the problem of debt, they're assuming the problem was debt. Except that it wasn't. The main driver in this was leverage, not debt.
At a great cost, but not nearly as great as the implosion of the financial system and a worldwide depression. You may think losing 650,000 jobs in a month is bad, and I do too. But I think it's better than 800,000 or a million. and you may think a recession that lasts three years is long, and I do too. But it's better than a depression/recession that last ten years.
No one is arguing that these steps are designed to feel good, or make everyone whole again. Sometimes they're incredibly hard to swallow, as sometimes you're rewarding bad behavior (AIG bonuses, help for negligent lenders and homeowners). But you still do it if you think it helps save taxpayer money in the long run.
There's a story about Lehman Brothers in today's WSJ that is instructive in this regard. Shorter version: it's going to cost them a lot more money to bring in people to wind their company down than it costs AIG (read: us) to retain their people (with bonuses) to wind their investments down. And AIG is a much bigger company than Lehman is. Or was.
Point being, if it costs taxpayers less to give AIG people bonuses than it does to hire an outside firm to do the same job, which should we do? I'd argue that even though you're giving money to people who helped caused this mess (though not necessarily - not everyone at AIG is guilty) it's still better than spending more to feel good about it.
So there's no political upside in this for the Obama administration. They're faced with bad choice, or worse choice. The only thing they're focused on is trying to revive the economy. There will be missteps along the way. There will be taxpayer money lost or misspent. In the end, we'll see how well it all works and if they deserve credit for turning this ship around, or something else.
Oh, I'm cool with the bend, not break thing, but what I was getting at is what you've isolated below*:
I know that the problems rested in the whacked leverage these types of loans create, and not the debt itself. What I am saying is that the system in place that adjusts & corrects these things is(was) at fault and is now being rewarded to utilize that very system that should have been used 5 years ago. Sure it may cost more now to the taxpayers to use AIG rather than Outside company X, but isn't that what this is about? Long term? Also, when was the last time the public got to sit in on a government procurement meeting when these types of value comparison decisions get made? Again, when the budgets & stimulus plans eclipse the $10 trillion mark, the public outcry shifts from "they're taking the more expensive choice" to "they're spending how much? (like we say yesterday)."
To simplify (for me, maybe not for you), as a painter, instead of buying cheap regional hardware store branded paint X, we purchased more expensive product because S-W would support us and go to bat with us if a customer came after us for a coatings performance or system failure. If it was the product, they'd take the heat. If the job was poorly spec'ed S-W would go to the designer/architect and provide an alternative product submittal that would perform better. Often times, the architect would listen and go with what "we" recommended, but if they didn't and we had a problem, we were covered because we were pro-active about it.
*
(Legacy Fan @ Apr 16 2009, 06:39 AM) *
Very simply, isn't this what caused the problem?
No. I'm not sure what you mean. When people say more debt doesn't solve the problem of debt, they're assuming the problem was debt. Except that it wasn't. The main driver in this was leverage, not debt.
-
Like I said, I don't expect much self-reflection, just more lashing out.
You even wanted to blame the financial crisis on poor people who couldn't afford their homes, Steve. You're probably the biggest offender.
Seriously, go see where your tax money goes.
Like I said, I don't expect much self-reflection, just more lashing out.
Yeah how dare I.
You even wanted to blame the financial crisis on poor people who couldn't afford their homes, Steve. You're probably the biggest offender.
Great comeback Heck.
Speak mouth.
But yes dear people who take or sell shaky and irresponsible loans or "investments" and the crooked politicians tyhat push them really are to blame.
Not your (and the empty suit's) pat answer : "It was BOOOOOOSH I tell ya!!
I seen him sneaking out of the barn!!!!"
Seriously, go see where your tax money goes.
Seriously who cares? It won't save me anything and who cares?
Hopefully Obamas power mad cronies will wise up and see the brick wall his idiotic long range spending will send us onto and put the kibosh on it before there's real trouble.
The skimulous? Who cares. Peanuts. It's the long term damage we need to worry about.
Hey does it concern you that the smartest man in the world was clueless about the ethics of so many members of his proposed cabinet might be just as informed about their abilities?
Nah didn't think so.
(and thanks for the monkey shit Dan.)
WSS
-
But Leg, if you're asking me if I'm worried about the size of the budget, and the projected deficits, and the specter of higher taxes, you bet I am.
Most of the change is going to have to come from health care and entitlement reform, but also from things like cutting the defense budget. Which is why I applaud the move by Gates to reign in some of the larger cases of waste, abuse, and the needless spending in the defense budget, not run around like my hair is on fire screaming that Obama is gutting the military.
We need temporary stimulus spending, then all sorts of reform.
But Leg, if you're asking me if I'm worried about the size of the budget, and the projected deficits, and the specter of higher taxes, you bet I am.
Most of the change is going to have to come from health care and entitlement reform, but also from things like cutting the defense budget. Which is why I applaud the move by Gates to reign in some of the larger cases of waste, abuse, and the needless spending in the defense budget, not run around like my hair is on fire screaming that Obama is gutting the military.
We need temporary stimulus spending, then all sorts of reform.
Yeah I agree.
I tried to avoid the gutting the military thread as long as I could (because I knew where it started & where it was heading) I only chimed in after reading that the Lefty version of "Bunker" figured we ought to arbitrarily cut the military in half. I'm definitely all for streamlining.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login