I'm Sick of Congress

[ntsammy5]

I presonally do not, but this would be a disater for banks -it would put the economy under quicker than you could say Nancy Pelosi. For starters, no one would make a mortgage payment for 3 months or more. That's just starters. Bank liquidity woud simply disappear!

 

[Born 2 Fish]

But don't you think that the folk who are behind are just gonna loose their house anyway due to rates they can no way afford at high interest. This will give them a chance.
The people who are fix'n to loose their house have no money anyways.If the gov. does a bailout,,who do you think is gonna pay THAT money,,it'll be us who are still able to scratch out a living.
At least with this plan, you keep the gov a little more at bay,,and hopefully a little more of our own $ in our pockets.

 

[bigdisneydaddy]

It would be interesting to see how many of those who voted "no" are up for re-election this year.

I don't know enough about "big business" to say if a buyout is good, or not. What I do think is, that for the Gov't to stick their nose into any private enterprise (whether to save it or not) is socialism at its best. For that reason alone, I am against the Gov't bailing out the banks and mortgage companies who made the liberal lending policies to begin with. The bank regulators should have stepped in when banks started writing questionable loans on houses and businesses - and nipped it in the bud. But, noooooooo....it was their buddies whose pockets were getting lined & their buddies who were contributing to election campaigns; so, let's ride this horse until it dies. And now, the US economy is dying. I maintain we all better buy Rosetta Stone & learn how to speak Chinese - cause they are going to own this country someday.

The "liberal lending policies" were created during the Clinton admin in their push for egalitarianism. They forced banks to lend money to people that normally wouldnt qualify in an attempt to drive up home ownership rates.
Then the same Congress that jammed the unfit applicants down the throat of the lenders jumped in and took watch of the mess that they created ala Freddie and Fannie and milked it some more. Ever wonder how people in congress that make $150,000 (approximately, dont quote me) all seem to end up millionaires in a few short years ?

 

[ntsammy5]

I see you've been watching Fox again!

 

[DisneyBishops]

I think this is a good idea.

http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/fed_bailout/3_steps_to_change_the_nations_future_10928.htmlc?ictid=sml

This is just too simple for the politicians. They would take it and screw it up completely.

Again let's vote them all out of office. Let's take back our great country

 

[homebrew2]

Can Congress Fix A Problem It Caused?

By THOMAS SOWELL | Posted Monday, September 29, 2008 4:30 PM PT

Nothing could more painfully demonstrate what is wrong with Congress than the current financial crisis.

Among the congressional "leaders" invited to the White House to devise a bailout "solution" are the very people who have for years created the risks that have come home to roost.

Five years ago, Barney Frank vouched for the "soundness" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and said "I do not see" any "possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury."

Moreover, he said the federal government has "probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing."

Earlier this year, Sen. Chris Dodd praised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for "riding to the rescue" when other financial institutions were cutting back on mortgage loans. He too said they "need to do more" to help subprime borrowers get better loans.

In other words, Rep. Frank and Sen. Dodd wanted government to push financial institutions to lend to people they wouldn't lend to otherwise, because of the risk of default.

The idea that politicians can assess risks better than people who've spent their whole careers doing so is so obviously absurd that no one should take it seriously.

But the magic words "affordable housing" and the ugly word "redlining" led to politicians directing where loans and investments should go, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and various other coercions and threats.

The roots of this problem go back many years, but since the crisis happened on George W. Bush's watch, that's enough for those who think in terms of talking points, without wanting to be confused by the facts.

In reality, President Bush tried unsuccessfully, years ago, to get Congress to create some regulatory agency to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Gregory Mankiw, his chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, warned in February 2004 that expecting a government bailout if things go wrong "creates an incentive for a company to take on risk and enjoy the associated increase in return."

Since risky investments usually pay more than safer investments, the incentive is for a government-supported enterprise to take bigger risks, since they get more profit if the risks pay off and the taxpayers get stuck with the losses if not.

The government does not guarantee Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, but the widespread assumption has been it would to prevent chaos in financial markets.

Alan Greenspan, then head of the Fed, made the same point in testifying before Congress in February 2004. He said: "The Federal Reserve is concerned" that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were using this implicit reliance on a government bailout in a crisis to take more risks, in order to "multiply the profitability of subsidized debt."

Greenspan added his voice to those urging Congress to create a "regulator with authority on a par with that of banking regulators" to reduce the riskiness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the taxpayers.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not deserve to be bailed out, but neither do workers, families and businesses deserve to be put through the economic wringer by a collapse of credit markets, such as occurred during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Neither do the voters deserve to be deceived on the eve of an election by the idea this is a failure of free markets that should be replaced by political micro-managing.

If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were free market institutions, they could not have gotten away with their risky financial practices because no one would have bought their securities without the implicit assumption that the politicians would bail them out.

It would be better if no such government-supported enterprises had been created in the first place and mortgages were in fact left to the free market. This bailout creates the expectation of future bailouts.

Phasing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would make much more sense than letting politicians play politics with them again, with the risk and expense being again loaded onto the taxpayers.

Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate, Inc

Please note this is not from fox news

 

[ftwildernessguy]

Isn't it amazing that the Republicans get the blame for a bad economy, and the Democrats take the credit for a good one. Economic policies don't have an instant result. As we have seen here, it takes years for the outcome of an economic decision to surface. As Scott said earlier, this problem has its roots with the Clinton administration, who also pushed NAFTA down our throats resulting in loss of manufacturing jobs and our recent problems with contaminated food from central america.

 

[seabee]

And we're left to clean up their mess again. Funny how those who live their lives responsibly are the ones who are hosed everytime. Why do we even bother. We bust our butts everyday just to pay for what we have (in no way lavish) and provide food and heat for our family. These people live like kings when they shouldn't be and it is up to us to support them too. I raise the you know what flag on that. Live free and PROSPER-yup, at your fellow American's expense. Think the Founding Fathers had that in mind?

 

[ftwildernessguy]

Nicole, I used to get really worked up over that stuff, but now I just figure I work for my Disney trip every year. When the government decides that all the welfare recipients deserve a trip to Disney every year too, that's when I will bag it all and go on public assistance.

 

[RvUsa]

Name one company or corporation that pays 1 single penny of income tax, sales tax, any kind of tax at all.

I am tired of the politicians saying give them a tax break, raise their taxes, give them a bailout.

Lets see if you can name one company....

 

[bigdisneydaddy]

Name one company or corporation that pays 1 single penny of income tax, sales tax, any kind of tax at all.

I am tired of the politicians saying give them a tax break, raise their taxes, give them a bailout.

Lets see if you can name one company....

In actuality the cost of taxes and everything else are paid by the consumer of the product.

 

[ntsammy5]

Nope, we paid it all.

 

[bigdisneydaddy]

Nope, we paid it all.

Enlighten me Al ?

 

[ntsammy5]

all the taxes that corporations paid

 

[big kahuna1]

Originally Posted by RvUsa
Name one company or corporation that pays 1 single penny of income tax, sales tax, any kind of tax at all.

I am tired of the politicians saying give them a tax break, raise their taxes, give them a bailout.

Lets see if you can name one company....

Here is one...MINE!! I pay business taxes, you may call them licenses, I pay intangible taxes, the employer pays a social security tax also, I pay unemployment tax, and since I am a Sub S corp. I personally have to pay an income tax on any profit the corporation makes even though I DID NOT SEE A PENNEY OF IT! A chapter C corp. also pays it but in a different manner than a sub S but it is paid. None of which are passed on.

Shall I continue with the education or shall I send the tax bills to you to pay? Please provide your address and I will be happy to do so. Do we have a deal?

 

[des1954]

Here is one...MINE!! I pay business taxes, you may call them licenses, I pay intangible taxes, the employer pays a social security tax also, I pay unemployment tax, and since I am a Sub S corp. I personally have to pay an income tax on any profit the corporation makes even though I DID NOT SEE A PENNEY OF IT! A chapter C corp. also pays it but in a different manner than a sub S but it is paid. None of which are passed on.

Shall I continue with the education or shall I send the tax bills to you to pay? Please provide your address and I will be happy to do so. Do we have a deal?

Most businesses incorporate those costs into what the customer ultimately pays. When Rick & I were a Sub S corp, we figured all those items into what we charged customers for our products & services. Hence - the customer is the one who pays the cost.

 

[RvUsa]

Steve, what deb said. LOL,

Do you sell or do you provide a service? Either way, when you decide how much to charge, you determine the amount of taxes that you are going to pay at the end of the year, and you incorporate that into your what you are charging. In the end, you or no other company actually pays the tax, you pass it on to the end consumer. Yes it comes out of your pocket, but it went into your pocket out of the consumers pocket.

If you didn't have to pay taxes and unemployment you would charge less for your product or services. It is called embedded tax. When you buy something for your business, like paper, or widgets, you are paying that companies embedded taxes for them, and because you paid more for that widget than you would if there were no taxes, you pass it along to your consumer. If you are selling to another company instead of an end consumer, then you pass your embedded taxes on to them and they pass them on to the end consumer.

So what does that mean to you and me and everyone else? We are the onlyu ones who pay taxes.

I am a firm believer in the concept of the fair tax. It needs work to be viable, but in principal it will work, as long as politicians and special interests don't screw it up. It eliminates the embedded tax and makes EVERYONE pay the exact same amount of tax. If anyone has a couple minutes to read some good info and make decisions for yourselves, check out www.fairtax.org

Sorry for the ramble, I am just getting tired of the rich be rewarded for their incompetence, and the rest of us pay for it.

 

[bigdisneydaddy]

I thought thats what I said ?

 

[ntsammy5]

Yeah that's what you said Scott, but everyone else wanted to say it too.

It's nice to blame the democrats, but CRA had very little to do with this, Fannie & Freddie did have a lot to do with it but so did the deregulation of Wall Street and the artificially low rates that the Fed introduced the investment banks and mortgage brokers/originators. It was BOTH the Republicans and Democrats who are to blame, in other words, POLITICIANS. What you see on TV is a simplification of the whole story - I read a FED study that was 150 pages with charts & graphs that said it was only touching the surface of the problem. This will be studied for decades!

Consumers had a lot to do with it too. How many people do you know who are in McMansions that they over bought? Maybe not too many, but people who kept trading up and bought expensive 2nd & 3rd homes for speculation are another big part of this.

AND, we haven't even hit the mess from HELOCs yet - that shoe hasn't dropped yet!

 

[homebrew2]

So as John, Scott, Al and others have said it is the end consumer that pays
ALL costs of a good or service.

Well then... what is to be learned from all these bright folks, just this.......

Any time a politician says he will tax "Big...Oil,Tobacco, Steel" or whatever......
to give the little guy a break; you should never give
them your vote. Why not?

Because they are either;

1. An Imbecile because they actually believe what they are saying......Or

2. A LIAR because they DOknow what has been previously said,
and seek to deliberately mislead you about it.

In either case they certainly do not deserve your vote.