The Idiot's Cure For the Financial Crisis

I say no one should pay their taxes, until the government can prove that they can allocate tax payer money in a responsible way. I am not trying to sound un-American, but I think its horse shit that our money could be spent on shitty Wall Street people who gambled people’s money away.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

There’s the list.

I’m with you on this one RJ. I already had a bunch of reasons not to vote for Steve Israel, this is just another one.

from the link–Bill Title: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes
[/quote]

What the hell? Are they deliberately trying to obfuscate what they’re voting on, or are all bills in the House named this inappropriately? Really. Why not name it something identifiable and/or not retarded.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
rainjack wrote:
<<< Then we, as citizens, have an obligation to vote for the other guy.

I emailed Knollenberg, Levin and Stabenow when this whole thing started and again yesterday, but who is the other guy?

Even most of the ones who voted against it this time did it not because they don’t want the government in the middle of it, but because they want THEIR version of it.

I doubt if there’d be anybody in most states and districts that wouldn’t vote for some version of this bailout with some tweaking.

The other guy? Whoever is running against the incumbent who ignores your wishes. [/quote]

What I mean is the other guy will probably wind up being essentially the same as the first guy on this score

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I say no one should pay their taxes, until the government can prove that they can allocate tax payer money in a responsible way. I am not trying to sound un-American, but I think its horse shit that our money could be spent on shitty Wall Street people who gambled people’s money away.[/quote]

why not? that sounds like a good thing, except for the legal ramifications. Why not a grass roots effort to file extensions? As long an extension as you can get. Legally, of course, but still, tourniquet their bloodline.


While I admire your efforts RJ, Americans simply will not tolerate capitalism. They WANT a big government that nannies them. We have today WHAT WE WANTED. Let’s admit this truth. That’s why Obama will win and why the Dems control Congress. Americans want Socialism/Fascism. And then there’s the matter of the coming economic collapse…we just had a huge bubble burst in real estate. Now the bubble is bursting on Wall Street. Americans will demand that government ‘do something’.

Welcome to National Socialist America.

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
I say no one should pay their taxes, until the government can prove that they can allocate tax payer money in a responsible way. I am not trying to sound un-American, but I think its horse shit that our money could be spent on shitty Wall Street people who gambled people’s money away.

why not? that sounds like a good thing, except for the legal ramifications. Why not a grass roots effort to file extensions? As long an extension as you can get. Legally, of course, but still, tourniquet their bloodline. [/quote]

this is why they already have the money. this would just keep me from getting my rebate.

I have an investment banking friend who has been sending me emails about why we need this bailout. I want to pass forward my response as some type of rant.

TARP is not the best approach.

The current problem is overextension of capital and purchasing of inherently bad assets. While the short term solution seems to be a huge capital infusion by the government. TARP doesn’t seem to address the underlying problems of the economy. Increasing liquidity at the expense of $700 billion, to add additional debt, isn’t ideal. We, as a society, need to take steps to deleverage ourselves, waste less money, and redirect capital into tangible assets. Jobs, roads, bridges, science and innovation. When did it become acceptable to leverage assets, to leverage more assets, to make balance sheets look more substantial on paper without producing anything? What are we making that people want to buy, that average people can use, that adds value and efficiency to our society?

A more painful but possibly a more “correcting” approach would be to allow more banks to fail. Private banks made the decision to purchase the high-risk mortgages. Private banks must deal with that decision. Could a more reasonable approach be a decentralization of capital? Spread out the risk, insure defaulting mortgages, and pull money back into the middle-class. TARP is a fundamental trickle down approach, give money to the banks, banks will give loans, customers will take the loans and increase spending.

Imagine the amount of spending that would take place if every American citizen got a $2600 check in the mail. Better yet, how about a plan that would increase infrastructure, manufacturing, technology, and “green collar” spending resulting in a large expansion of jobs? What about a plan to give full scholarships to science, technology, and engineering based education initiatives?

If we are going to transfer assets and not produce anything tangible we have wasted an opportunity to educate, work, and create from the ground up. TARP is like the guy with the biggest arms in the gym who gets pushed over by the wind because he has weak legs. We have weak legs.

[quote]dknz13 wrote:
I have an investment banking friend who has been sending me emails about why we need this bailout. I want to pass forward my response as some type of rant.

TARP is not the best approach.

The current problem is overextension of capital and purchasing of inherently bad assets. While the short term solution seems to be a huge capital infusion by the government. TARP doesn’t seem to address the underlying problems of the economy. Increasing liquidity at the expense of $700 billion, to add additional debt, isn’t ideal. We, as a society, need to take steps to deleverage ourselves, waste less money, and redirect capital into tangible assets. Jobs, roads, bridges, science and innovation. When did it become acceptable to leverage assets, to leverage more assets, to make balance sheets look more substantial on paper without producing anything? What are we making that people want to buy, that average people can use, that adds value and efficiency to our society?

A more painful but possibly a more “correcting” approach would be to allow more banks to fail. Private banks made the decision to purchase the high-risk mortgages. Private banks must deal with that decision. Could a more reasonable approach be a decentralization of capital? Spread out the risk, insure defaulting mortgages, and pull money back into the middle-class. TARP is a fundamental trickle down approach, give money to the banks, banks will give loans, customers will take the loans and increase spending.

Imagine the amount of spending that would take place if every American citizen got a $2600 check in the mail. Better yet, how about a plan that would increase infrastructure, manufacturing, technology, and “green collar” spending resulting in a large expansion of jobs? What about a plan to give full scholarships to science, technology, and engineering based education initiatives?

If we are going to transfer assets and not produce anything tangible we have wasted an opportunity to educate, work, and create from the ground up. TARP is like the guy with the biggest arms in the gym who gets pushed over by the wind because he has weak legs. We have weak legs. [/quote]

Good post. I would only argue that we can make investments you speak of without crippling inflation. I wouldn’t suggest spending 700B on anything unless we are cutting other spending. Even then we would be better off if we just cut spending. We don’t need the gov’t to invest in anything. All they have to do is free up the capital by spending less of it.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
While I admire your efforts RJ, Americans simply will not tolerate capitalism. They WANT a big government that nannies them. We have today WHAT WE WANTED. Let’s admit this truth. That’s why Obama will win and why the Dems control Congress. Americans want Socialism/Fascism. And then there’s the matter of the coming economic collapse…we just had a huge bubble burst in real estate. Now the bubble is bursting on Wall Street. Americans will demand that government ‘do something’.

Welcome to National Socialist America.[/quote]

I will say that modern Americans are very confused. We have been trained especially since the 60’s to turn to government in our time of need. There are many who do want socialism in a self conscious manner, but there are many more who don’t even know exactly what that is, but vote that way because it makes them feel good. Most Americans do not consciously want fascism, but also do not grasp the fact that what they are voting for is the yellow brick road leading there.

Contrary to what you’re saying here though, I am somewhat heartened by the immense stubborn resistance to federal involvement in this mortgage bullshit, but it also demonstrates the exit poll syndrome again. People are screaming they don’t want more government intrusion and then the polls inch toward Obama.

Typical exit poll exchange:

Pollster: What are your views on these 5 things?

Voter: This, this, this, this and this.

Pollster: Who did you vote for?

Voter: The person who’s promised the exact opposite.

Tiribulus-

We have witnessed time and again that people don’t know the issues. They believe what they are told repeatedly. There is very little independent thought.

I am also encouraged and surprised that Americans have rejected this bailout it is a fundamentally wrong approach to correcting the problem.

In the past 8 years we have noticed a significant increase in government intrusion. George Bush has presided over one of the largest expansions of executive power in history. Government intrusion is no longer a democrat or a republican issue but rather a philosophy of the executive office.

Obama, McCain are both manifestations of this philosophy. It boggles the mind of the logical person that Americans trust the government to solve their personal problems. From Katrina to FEMA to Iraq to the current financial markets crisis. Hell, even to our postal service, government involvement has not only not helped but it has hurt, painfully so, in most instances.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

There’s the list.

I’m with you on this one RJ. I already had a bunch of reasons not to vote for Steve Israel, this is just another one.

from the link–Bill Title: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes

What the hell? Are they deliberately trying to obfuscate what they’re voting on, or are all bills in the House named this inappropriately? Really. Why not name it something identifiable and/or not retarded.[/quote]

No shit. Are you sure that’s the right record?

[quote]tedro wrote:

A. Remove the capital gains tax completely. Investors will flood the real estate and stock market in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendous�??and immediate�??liquidity in the markets. Again, this costs the taxpayer nothing.
[/quote]

Isn’t this just another way of instating a kind of trickle-down economics? Or, as they used to say, horse and sparrow economics?

And, again, in the end doesn’t this widen the gap between the rich and the poor?

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
tedro wrote:

A. Remove the capital gains tax completely. Investors will flood the real estate and stock market in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendous�??and immediate�??liquidity in the markets. Again, this costs the taxpayer nothing.

Isn’t this just another way of instating a kind of trickle-down economics? Or, as they used to say, horse and sparrow economics?

And, again, in the end doesn’t this widen the gap between the rich and the poor?[/quote]

I’m not sure it does. The poor don’t have money to invest anyway, so they would not be doing any in the first place. The middle class has some, but takes the biggest net hit on their actions because they have less money to throw around than the rich. Consequently, their investments do not move as much, because the taxes on any action are a much bigger factor in their budgets than in the rich. Reducing or eliminating the capital gains tax will help them as well to be able to possibly make money.

And then again, we have small business owners who may be considered “rich” by tax bracket but are in reality anything but.

Besides, the question remains: if we can fix this with a largely free market solution, why not? I, as a poor person, am completely ok with widening the gap a little farther if it means a better resolution than gov’t bureaucracy screwing things up. In my opinion the less artificial tampering the better. Gov’t action is infamous for unintended consequences (such as this crisis), and I don’t think that more is the best solution.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

I’m not sure it does. The poor don’t have money to invest anyway, so they would not be doing any in the first place. The middle class has some, but takes the biggest net hit on their actions because they have less money to throw around than the rich. Consequently, their investments do not move as much, because the taxes on any action are a much bigger factor in their budgets than in the rich. Reducing or eliminating the capital gains tax will help them as well to be able to possibly make money.
[/quote]

But that’s what I’m saying- the middle and lower class are not going to benefit from this because they don’t have the money in investments.

And while the money that the upper middle class saves may be, relative to the lower classes, more significant, how much is that really going to end up being?

Who that will benefit is the richest people, the people who already have a good deal of money in the stock market and who pay a lot of taxes.

Again, you’re waiting for it to trickle down to the poorer people, and it has been shown that this theory does not work. Why do it again under a different name?

Depends on the business you’re talking about. If you ask any of them, they say they are not, but if your net income is over a certain amount, there’s no way you can dodge that bullet.

[quote]
Besides, the question remains: if we can fix this with a largely free market solution, why not? I, as a poor person, am completely ok with widening the gap a little farther if it means a better resolution than gov’t bureaucracy screwing things up. In my opinion the less artificial tampering the better. Gov’t action is infamous for unintended consequences (such as this crisis), and I don’t think that more is the best solution.[/quote]

Because it is the “free market solutions” and deregulation that got us into this mess in the first place.

I can’t agree with that part of this. I think it’s like putting a band aid on your knee for a shotgun wound to the chest.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
tedro wrote:

A. Remove the capital gains tax completely. Investors will flood the real estate and stock market in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendous�??and immediate�??liquidity in the markets. Again, this costs the taxpayer nothing.

Isn’t this just another way of instating a kind of trickle-down economics? Or, as they used to say, horse and sparrow economics?
[/quote]

What do you think the bailout is?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I am in PA, a swing state, I cannot afford the luxury of a 3rd party vote.[/quote]

So, when you get drunked up to go pull the lever on election day, will you be drinking Iron City, Rolling Rock, or Yuengling? And will you be stopping at Sheetz or WaWa?

[quote]dhickey wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
tedro wrote:

A. Remove the capital gains tax completely. Investors will flood the real estate and stock market in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendous�??and immediate�??liquidity in the markets. Again, this costs the taxpayer nothing.

Isn’t this just another way of instating a kind of trickle-down economics? Or, as they used to say, horse and sparrow economics?

What do you think the bailout is?
[/quote]

A propping up of financial institutions so that they don’t collapse and drag the world into a depression?

As opposed to giving the rich even more money and hoping that they’re sloppy enough for some scraps to fall off the table and help the rest of us…

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
tedro wrote:

A. Remove the capital gains tax completely. Investors will flood the real estate and stock market in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendous�??and immediate�??liquidity in the markets. Again, this costs the taxpayer nothing.

Isn’t this just another way of instating a kind of trickle-down economics? Or, as they used to say, horse and sparrow economics?

And, again, in the end doesn’t this widen the gap between the rich and the poor?[/quote]

In this situation it is to free up capital. People are free to sell assets they would ordinarily not sell because of tax implications.

The Senate just passed a version of the $700 billion goat screw that included a temp ban on the AMT, which is also a measure to free up cash.

The name of this game is to try and entice people with money to spend it. It works every time it is tried.

Another way to free up cash would be to raise the limit on Sec. 179 asset purchases. Clinton had it capped at $24K/year. The Bush tax cuts raised it to $100K. I am not sure what it i this year, but it will be over $100K.

The idea is to give people an incentive to buy stuff they probably would not buy without the added incentive of tax breaks. This gets cash moving, which is the supposed intention of the $700 billion ass rape.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
tedro wrote:

A. Remove the capital gains tax completely. Investors will flood the real estate and stock market in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendous�??and immediate�??liquidity in the markets. Again, this costs the taxpayer nothing.

Isn’t this just another way of instating a kind of trickle-down economics? Or, as they used to say, horse and sparrow economics?

What do you think the bailout is?

A propping up of financial institutions so that they don’t collapse and drag the world into a depression?

As opposed to giving the rich even more money and hoping that they’re sloppy enough for some scraps to fall off the table and help the rest of us…[/quote]

Why not use the rich people’s money to free up the credit crunch instead of putting it on the back of the not-so-rich?

Or would you rather punish everyone just to make sure you got the guy you were pissed at?

Get off the rag about the rich. Unless you have the money to bail us out.

what makes you believe that “the other guy” is not corrupt as well ?