| Author |
|
Michael Huber
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 August 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 3338
|
| Posted: 29 September 2008 at 3:41pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
When I first heard of this plan, admittedly without much knowledge of what it contained, just what the press was tossing out, it just didn't sound like something ideologically Republican. It goes against party line to involve government in managing something like this. And honestly, name one enterprise that government, anyone's, has managed efficiently and at a profit instead of a loss? And if you can, name two.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Howard Mackie
Byrne Robotics Security
Armed and Dangerous
Joined: 16 February 2005
Posts: 666
|
| Posted: 29 September 2008 at 4:02pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
<<Oh, and having read excerpts from Pelosi's speech today, I'm not sure that she could sell ice water in Death Valley.
I don't think she can be blamed for the bailout plan's defeat (if "blamed" is, indeed, the appropriate term). But she certainly didn't do her side any favors by blasting Republicans right before asking Republicans to vote with her.
Heck, even my dog knows you play nice if you want a treat!>>
Yet another thing we can agree on. It was a stupid, stupid speech. Unless she was trying to scuttle it.
Howard
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Howard Mackie
Byrne Robotics Security
Armed and Dangerous
Joined: 16 February 2005
Posts: 666
|
| Posted: 29 September 2008 at 4:04pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Question for those on the board who seem to know far more about economic than I will ever know. What do you think the current situation holds for the age of rampant government deregulation?
Howard
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Marc Baptiste
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3633
|
| Posted: 29 September 2008 at 4:24pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
I SOOOOOO want even ONE Republican member to say they voted against this bill because Pelosi hurt their feelings. As of right now ALL those who are speaking out against the bill claim they did so on principle.
Frankly, if Pelosi DID intend to scuttle bill by giving that speech, I say BRAVO. She's smarter than I thought.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robin Taylor
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1325
|
| Posted: 29 September 2008 at 4:34pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Why am I in Michael's sig? LOL
RT
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
|
| Posted: 29 September 2008 at 4:36pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
It definitely was a bipartisan bill - Bush, McCain, Obama and Pelosi all supported it. Many Republicans and Democrats both split ranks on this one.
The Democrats could pass or fail any proposal if you think about it. They have enough votes that they could have passed it in the House even if every, single Republican had voted against it.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matthew Hansel
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3468
|
| Posted: 29 September 2008 at 5:20pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Sent to me by a friend...it is...interesting.
MPH
I’m against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.
Instead, I’m in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in
a We Deserve It Dividend.
To make the math simple, let’s assume there are 200,000,000
bonafide adults in the U.S.
Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman
and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..
So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00.
My plan is to give $425,000 to every pers on 18+ as a
We Deserve It Dividend.
Of course, it would NOT be tax free.
So let’s assume a tax rate of 30%.
Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.
That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.
But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket.
A husband and wife has $595,000.00.
What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?
Pay off your mortgage – housing crisis solved.
Repay college loans – what a great boost to new grads
Put away money for college – it’ll be there
Save in a bank – create money to loan to entrepreneurs.
Buy a new car – create jobs
Invest in the market – capital drives growth
Pay for your parent’s medical insurance – health care improves
Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean – or else
Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks
who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company
that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.
If we’re going to re-distribute wealth let’s really do it...instead of trickling out
a puny $1000.00 ( “vote buy” ) economic incentive.
If we’re going to do an $85 billion bailout, let’s bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!
As for AIG – liquidate it.
Sell off its parts.
Let American General go back to being American General.
Sell off the real estate.
Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.
Here’s my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn’t.
Sure it’s a crazy idea that can “never work.”
But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!
How do you spell Economic Boom?
I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion
We Deserve It Dividend more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC .
And remember, The Chuck plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.
Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Trevor Giberson
Byrne Robotics Chronology
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 1888
|
| Posted: 29 September 2008 at 5:33pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
I saw this on another board Matthew. Divide 200 million into $85 billion and you get $425, not $425,000.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Retour
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 May 2006
Posts: 932
|
| Posted: 29 September 2008 at 5:43pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Why would anyone vote for this bailout? The legislators don't know what's on the books of the banks. Paulson doesn't. The Fed doesn't. The American people don't.
The American people are overwhelmingly against this bailout of these gamblers and anyone running for office is considering that when casting his/her vote (see how this thing was attempted to be rammed through per the New York Times below).
A friend sent the stuff below and I apologize if anyone get glazed eyes but it is both amusing and informative.
...
When the House of Representatives opened for a special Sunday session today, after an alleged agreement had been hammered out on the Paulson $700 billion bailout bill, many members from both sides of the aisle stood up to denounce the agreement. Enraged constituent sentiment obviously continues to drive them. Below, a sampling of statements:
Rep Scott Garrett (R-NJ), addressing taxpayers: "This morning, we should be very much alarmed... Obviously, Washington is not listening to your wishes. Those who used to work for Goldman Sachs will support this deal... Those who have blocked reform in the past will support this deal. I will not support this deal." Garrett is co-sponsor, along with Marcy Kaptur, of a bill to create a House Select Committee to probe the bailout, including political corruption, behind it. (HR 1452 and it is sort of like the Pecora Commission, which led to the passage of the Glass-Steagall Act. Ferdinand Pecora went after the criminals then and today we're going after them again. Great isn't it? The winds of change are blowing.)
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio): "These Wall Street criminals have so much political power, they can shut down the normal legislative process."
Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas): Conservative Poe charged that "this is the same politics of fear we're hearing from the financial fat cats on Wall Street. Back room deals trouble me because they usually turn out to be bad deals for America."
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio): "The $700 billion bailout is driven by fear, not fact."
Caucuses of both parties were scheduled to meet in the afternoon, including a Democratic offshoot called the "skeptics caucus," according to the Los Angeles Times. Members of the latter grouping were going to hear from economists who oppose the plan.
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.): Speaking on CNN's 'Late Edition' today, Cantor said, "I think the devil is in the details... And, as you know, in Washington, there may be a tentative deal, but oftentimes, when the writing starts, the renegotiations begin... I think the important thing that the Republican members in the House want to see is that taxpayers are not the ones left holding the bag."
The New York Times reported that in order to put a bipartisan sheen on the final agreement, the Democratic leadership targeted about two-dozen Republicans who were planning to retire this year, or those who faced little or no opposition to their reelection in November. Democrats reported that they were far from having a majority necessary to pass the bailout only from their ranks, and that they wouldn't be able to count on Dems who were in potentially tough races, to put the package over the top.
...
Ben Stein has a nice piece in the NY Times about all of this. Published in the New York Times September 27 (link below), writer Ben Stein states that the $700 bailout package "looks a lot like theft on a spectacular scale." Per Stein, the current chaos was caused by "wild, casino-type operations of big finance players," using derivatives contracts that are nothing more than "an immense wager." Why should they be bailed out?
Stein also nails Paulson's demand that there should be no judicial review of his decisions, which he warns "would amount to an abrogation of the Constitution," making Paulson's decisions and those of his cronies in the banking world, "sacrosanct and above the law."
Credit default swaps and other exotic financial instruments are just crazy "side bets," Stein statess, so why not just get rid of them, "and start again without them." Stein goes on, "maybe the bailout should not be of the banks at all, but of homeowners themselves." He states that one way to stabilize the market would be to make the government the buyer of last resort of homes. "Why not? We do it for farmers. Why not for the individual homeowner? Oh, right. Because Treasury Secretaries don't know any of those people."
Read the whole thing because I really think he, among many others, hit the nail on the head. It is worth reading. The first url has a link to the actual Stein piece. The second link is the Stein piece but you might have to log into the site. I am not sure.
Mr. Paulson’s Dangerous Proposal
In Financial Food Chains, Little Guys Can’t Win
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Retour
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 May 2006
Posts: 932
|
| Posted: 29 September 2008 at 5:57pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
I don't know a lot about economics but I think regulation will be making a comeback, a big comeback and not just enforcing the stuff we have on the books.
If HR 1452 is pushed hard a lot will come out and people won't like it. You know? People already smell skunks all over the place.
All these politicians (who now are changing their opinions of government regulation) know dereg was a failure. The only trouble is that many of them voted for deregulating everything but they can get out of that like anyone else: admitting they were wrong.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Howard Mackie
Byrne Robotics Security
Armed and Dangerous
Joined: 16 February 2005
Posts: 666
|
| Posted: 29 September 2008 at 6:07pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Also, amidst all of this, I wonder how ANYONE can continue to defend the policies of George W. Bush.
Howard
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12843
|
| Posted: 29 September 2008 at 6:07pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Um, is there going to be anything left to regulate?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
