ScottGardner
Well-known member
IRS says: "For 2004, taxpayers filed 132.4 million U.S. individual income tax returns"
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=156040,00.html
The Banking Bailout Vote!
- Thread starter Beakman
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
IRS says: "For 2004, taxpayers filed 132.4 million U.S. individual income tax returns"
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=156040,00.html
DrJRapp
Well-known member
Perhaps overly simplistic using the number of returns filed ...ie: my wife is a taxpayer as well as myself, but together we file only one return.
Last edited:
the biggest heist of all time
I really would be worried about who is going to end up with this money.
we live in a capitalist system and trying to control a self regulating system is a recipe for disaster!even if we face bad times we need to hold it together the best we can.I am a republican but I will have to say that if president bush does this and it turns into a disaster (everything else he touches has turned out really bad) he will go down as this biggest blundering idiot of US history!
I really would be worried about who is going to end up with this money.
we live in a capitalist system and trying to control a self regulating system is a recipe for disaster!even if we face bad times we need to hold it together the best we can.I am a republican but I will have to say that if president bush does this and it turns into a disaster (everything else he touches has turned out really bad) he will go down as this biggest blundering idiot of US history!
TrumpetDoug
Well-known member
Just google: US population. Almost all source indicate over 300 million. I would suspect that Jerry is right about only counting tax returns. Besides, how many people don't file any?
Doug - out
DrJRapp
Well-known member
Unfortunatly the burden will only be born on those who do file.
I don't think most people, including Congress are looking at the cost correctly. The 700 b will be paid out to acquire bad loans. What we don't correctly see is that the government, through whatever agency it establishes will acquire the property collaterlizing those loans. That property still has value once the economy is stabilized. The property will be sold off and the proceeds will be used to offset the up-front cost.
If the so called "bailout" convinces the institutions that they ultimately have a parachute, which is the sole purpose it serves, they will start lending again and perhaps in six months or so the economy will start to move forward again. If we do nothing the markets will take much longer to normalize. How many people will loose their jobs in the interim?
Unfortunatly I am one of the victims of this whole collapse. As a homebuilder my very livelyhood depends on the health of the mortgage industry. We haven't been able to get a construction loan to build anything since March of 07. A year ago I had 56 employees and now I have 1 and she's part time. My former lead superintendent was a young man who 2.5 years ago got married and purchased a small starter home at that time. 7 months ago his wife gave birth to a baby girl. Now, he is loosing his home, not because of any poor decisions on the part of his mortgage banker in granting his loan but the snowball effect of this whole credit crisis. Soon it will be my turn since I myself, haven't had any income in over a year aside from my Navy pension, and sooner or later my reserves will run out unless something changes. Believe me, once you've seen the effects up close and personal like I have, $2k for every man woman and child in the US doesn't seem like much of a price to pay to prevent the spectre of massive unemployment. If some money winds up in the wrong hands in the process, well, that may just be the cost of doing business, I'm afraid to say.
Last edited:
kwr
Well-known member
Shuffling the deck chairs chaps - it is a lot of money that the US taxpayer is being asked to hand over to the architects of the problem. I am getting the feeling that only a major depression will bring Paulson and the bankers to their senses. The ideology has failed and the proponents of that ideology are not part of the solution.
Kevin
Kevin
ScottGardner
Well-known member
Population != Taxpayers.
Children don't pay and where I live there are a lot of children.
Jerry has a good point about couples. But The percentage of married couples is about %50 of American households (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003305384_married15.html). So even if we assume half of all taxpayers are married 130+ (130 / 2) we still end up with 195 which leaves about $3500 per taxpaying person. If we take the other route and use 111 (the estimated number of households is the US) we end up with a bill per household of $6300.
Take your pick. Its still a lot any way you look at it and I just want to know where it is going.
ScottGardner
Well-known member
This story from NPR explains the problem pretty well.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95099470
Couple of key points:
and this excerpt:
As Jerry has pointed out the problems we are facing are not new. They are getting worse however and just throwing money at the problem will not solve it, just prolong the inevitable.
It seems to me that if we don't do something substantial now we are in for a much bigger fall later. Its like throwing more wood on a raging fire to keep it raging. Sooner or later it will consume ALL the wood.
We need controlled reduction not continued burn.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95099470
Couple of key points:
and this excerpt:
As Jerry has pointed out the problems we are facing are not new. They are getting worse however and just throwing money at the problem will not solve it, just prolong the inevitable.
It seems to me that if we don't do something substantial now we are in for a much bigger fall later. Its like throwing more wood on a raging fire to keep it raging. Sooner or later it will consume ALL the wood.
We need controlled reduction not continued burn.
Last edited:
ScottGardner
Well-known member
I want to make a couple more points then I'll shut-up for a while:
Take a look at nature. Nature does not allow entities to grow out of control. Nature has many checks and balances to prevent this, everything from lightning to predators. In every case where we have interfered (that I'm aware of) it has always lead to the opposite of the desired result. When we put natural fires out too quickly the forest overgrows and when it does burn its uncontrollable. When we remove a predator the resources get consumed to quickly and all life becomes threatened.
We need checks and balances and we need to let weak systems die. There is no avoiding some bloodletting especially where some were (temporarily) benefiting from a doomed system.
We simply can't continue to prop up a system that is doomed to fail, if we do even more will suffer when it does.
A few quote on fear:
or how bout this one:
We need to stop managing by crisis. Stop being reactionary and start being more proactive.
.
Take a look at nature. Nature does not allow entities to grow out of control. Nature has many checks and balances to prevent this, everything from lightning to predators. In every case where we have interfered (that I'm aware of) it has always lead to the opposite of the desired result. When we put natural fires out too quickly the forest overgrows and when it does burn its uncontrollable. When we remove a predator the resources get consumed to quickly and all life becomes threatened.
We need checks and balances and we need to let weak systems die. There is no avoiding some bloodletting especially where some were (temporarily) benefiting from a doomed system.
We simply can't continue to prop up a system that is doomed to fail, if we do even more will suffer when it does.
A few quote on fear:
or how bout this one:
We need to stop managing by crisis. Stop being reactionary and start being more proactive.
.
Last edited:
Folks,
Please remember that there are still a vast multitude of fiscally conservative, solvent lenders out there. Some of them are the diversified corporations and small private companies, many who came into the finance industry through deregulation. I work for one of them, although in a far, far distant capacity from finance. They do run tight ships.
Lending will still exist if we (sorry- when we) refuse to bail out the scammers, albiet on a much more financially realistic and saner level. Please don't buy into the first scare tactic presented by the primary benifactors, and incidentally, the very same whom are the architects of this mess.
Please remember that there are still a vast multitude of fiscally conservative, solvent lenders out there. Some of them are the diversified corporations and small private companies, many who came into the finance industry through deregulation. I work for one of them, although in a far, far distant capacity from finance. They do run tight ships.
Lending will still exist if we (sorry- when we) refuse to bail out the scammers, albiet on a much more financially realistic and saner level. Please don't buy into the first scare tactic presented by the primary benifactors, and incidentally, the very same whom are the architects of this mess.
ScottGardner
Well-known member
Here is the bill:
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/09/28/ayo08c04_xml.pdf
Here are a couple key points that bother me (as I read it):
The Secretary is in complete control of where the money goes but MAY listen to recommendations made by others.
The Secretary who has intimate ties with the banking industry gets to decide conflicts of interest. Talk about putting the mouse in charge of the cheese.
Farther down in the bill under "SEC. 115. GRADUATED AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE"
As I read it this is what it amounts to:
President tells Secretary what to do, Congress has 15 days to stop payment designated by Secretary but President can veto thus forcing it to happen.
In effect the President can do anything he wants.
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/09/28/ayo08c04_xml.pdf
Here are a couple key points that bother me (as I read it):
The Secretary is in complete control of where the money goes but MAY listen to recommendations made by others.
The Secretary who has intimate ties with the banking industry gets to decide conflicts of interest. Talk about putting the mouse in charge of the cheese.
Farther down in the bill under "SEC. 115. GRADUATED AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE"
As I read it this is what it amounts to:
President tells Secretary what to do, Congress has 15 days to stop payment designated by Secretary but President can veto thus forcing it to happen.
In effect the President can do anything he wants.
Last edited:
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
Where to now?
Well guys. What now that the bill did not pass in the HOR.
This may be way to simplistic but I've heard the W espouse the theory, repeatedly, that if we don't tax the rich, the rich will make the money and the profits will somehow magically "trickle down" through the rest of the economy.
Or words to that effect.
Seems like the W, and others who shared the above view, set us up for the "perfect storm" (corporate greed) and us schmucks are being asked to pay for his incredibly poor judgement and tax policies.
Despite the pain that we all will suffer for having the most insanely stupid president this country has ever had, and for the course and direction he set for this country for the first six years of his term, I pray and hope that the citizens of this country can recognize their past mistakes and deal with this issue in an honest, forthright manner. No more games. No more illusions.
Jerry, I am truly sorry for your current situation.
GG
Well guys. What now that the bill did not pass in the HOR.
This may be way to simplistic but I've heard the W espouse the theory, repeatedly, that if we don't tax the rich, the rich will make the money and the profits will somehow magically "trickle down" through the rest of the economy.
Or words to that effect.
Seems like the W, and others who shared the above view, set us up for the "perfect storm" (corporate greed) and us schmucks are being asked to pay for his incredibly poor judgement and tax policies.
Despite the pain that we all will suffer for having the most insanely stupid president this country has ever had, and for the course and direction he set for this country for the first six years of his term, I pray and hope that the citizens of this country can recognize their past mistakes and deal with this issue in an honest, forthright manner. No more games. No more illusions.
Jerry, I am truly sorry for your current situation.
GG
eknuds01
Well-known member
You're right, Gordon. This whole thing is Bush's fault.
eknuds01
Well-known member
Jerry -
This is indeed sad news. My dad's business has totally collapsed. Thankfully he can go back to his old CPA practice. But his mortgage business has bitten the dust. My folks live in Naples, FL and as you know, South Florida was one of the hardest hit areas when the real estate bubble blew up.
I think they made the right choice here but I have heard that they may redo
the bill? to make it better?
george w bush did not cause this problem I don't think he even understands at all what's going on. it was overspending and greed for more than what you need and can afford that caused this problem the banks where the devils on the shoulders of the american people telling them :devil:It's OK go right ahead.I think it may be time to realize that the simple things in life are what matter freinds,family and building biz on a solid sturdy and a staight forword fundation. people spent to much energy chasing that super sized mortgage and to pay for all those ridiculous cars and its finally coming to an end. you do not need a new car every two years or some giant house that uses up all of your income just beacuse you and your wife make 200,000.00+ a year . look at warren buffett's house I think their is a lot to be learned from that guy.unfortunately many hard working and honest business
people are going to be hurt from all of this all we can do is to hold on tight and to each other hopefully the storm will be over soon.If the goverment
wants to invest in something that will pay dividends we need to invest in the schools of this country heavily we are grossly uneducated . the way kids talk today you would think they can barely speak the world will pass us by folks.anyway that is just my 2cents
the bill? to make it better?
george w bush did not cause this problem I don't think he even understands at all what's going on. it was overspending and greed for more than what you need and can afford that caused this problem the banks where the devils on the shoulders of the american people telling them :devil:It's OK go right ahead.I think it may be time to realize that the simple things in life are what matter freinds,family and building biz on a solid sturdy and a staight forword fundation. people spent to much energy chasing that super sized mortgage and to pay for all those ridiculous cars and its finally coming to an end. you do not need a new car every two years or some giant house that uses up all of your income just beacuse you and your wife make 200,000.00+ a year . look at warren buffett's house I think their is a lot to be learned from that guy.unfortunately many hard working and honest business
people are going to be hurt from all of this all we can do is to hold on tight and to each other hopefully the storm will be over soon.If the goverment
wants to invest in something that will pay dividends we need to invest in the schools of this country heavily we are grossly uneducated . the way kids talk today you would think they can barely speak the world will pass us by folks.anyway that is just my 2cents
Last edited:
ScottGardner
Well-known member
Here's one more troublesome point I find in the bill
Page 108 Section C says (in essence as I read it) that:
If a Parachute classification avoidance tactic is used (such as being kept on the payroll as say a consultant but still receiving a big chunk of cash) the "Secretary may prescribe such guidance, rules, or regulations as are necessary."
or not (again as I read it)
Page 108 Section C says (in essence as I read it) that:
If a Parachute classification avoidance tactic is used (such as being kept on the payroll as say a consultant but still receiving a big chunk of cash) the "Secretary may prescribe such guidance, rules, or regulations as are necessary."
or not (again as I read it)
eknuds01
Well-known member
Well said, Fish.
DrJRapp
Well-known member
Good point, but I suggest that is a separate discussion. Talk about waste.....I don't believe our educational problems stem from lack of funding but rather how funds are distributed and with lack of discipline and motivation ON THE PART OF THE STUDENTS, and It goes much deeper than that.
Last edited:
soooooooooo true. I was just giving one example of a place to start. there is diffidently a lot of deep issues this country needs to address.just like an addict we may have to hit rock bottom before we can begin to build again.
