New Reason to Raise Taxes on the Rich: ‘Patriotism’

Originally Posted by August

Sorry to cut off the rest of your post but it is based on a flawed premise. The Administration does not decide any of this. They can propose things but it is Congress that provides bailouts (or not). Congress is controlled by the Democrats and has been for the last 2 years.

Who was in charge of Congress when the earlier bailouts were proposed?
Who proposed them?
Who approved them?

We must be in different worlds:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/19/news...ion=2008091910

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on Friday outlined a series of far-reaching steps - likely to cost hundreds of billions of dollars - aimed at stemming a widening financial crisis that is roiling the financial markets and undermining confidence in the banking system.

"We must act now to protect our nation's economic health from serious risk," Bush said at a White House press conference. "There will be ample opportunity to discuss the origins of this problems. Now is the time to solve it."

"This is no time for partisanship," Bush added. "We need to move urgently needed legislation as quickly as possible without adding controversial provisions that could delay action."

Now, I could be wrong here, but unless Bush changed parties recently, that's the Republicans running this show.

Hate to say it, but this will leave the government with a HUGE debit.
Worth it? Some say yes, the alternative would have been worse.
Probably.

But the better solution would have been for better regulation to PREVENT this in the first place.

"An ounce of prevention...." as it were.

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Anyway, the 95% of the middle class tax cuts sounds great on the surface. Tax those that make over $250,000.00 per year. This figures to about 80 trillion dollars. Obamas plans need about 150 trillion. Were does he propose to make up the difference?

He he, I understand he has shares in a bridge in Alaska that he'd like to sell, probably to someone in Brooklyn. :rotfl:

[August]

Originally Posted by Zayphod

We must be in different worlds:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/19/news...ion=2008091910

Now, I could be wrong here, but unless Bush changed parties recently, that's the Republicans running this show.

Read it again Z. They're just talking about a proposal to Congress. Congress is free to tell them to get stuffed if they want to.

[August]

Originally Posted by Zayphod

Who was in charge of Congress when the earlier bailouts were proposed?
Who proposed them?
Who approved them?

Oops missed this first part

It depends on which ones you're talking about. The Chrysler bailout in 1979 for example was during a Democrat presidency and a Democrat controlled congress. The Dems controlled congress all through the Reagan and Bush Sr years and lost control iirc during Clintons second term. The Republicans controlled Congress from then until half way through Bush's 2nd term (2006).

Originally Posted by August

Oops missed this first part

It depends on which ones you're talking about. The Chrysler bailout in 1979 for example was during a Democrat presidency and a Democrat controlled congress. The Dems controlled congress all through the Reagan and Bush Sr years and lost control iirc during Clintons second term. The Republicans controlled Congress from then until half way through Bush's 2nd term (2006).

Understood.
Who was suggesting the Savings and Loan bailouts then?

[AVGWarhawk]

In the end, it does not matter who created the mess, we as tax payers get to pick up the tab for poor business practices and the materialistic society we live in.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

Congress is controlled by the Democrats and has been for the last 2 years.

Almost correct.

Only one part has been controlled by the Democrats.

The Democrats have a 53% majority in the House of Representatives.

The Senate is tied at 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats, and two independents.

For the purposes of determining the majority party for the purpose of assigning majority and minority positions, the rules of the Senate allow an independent to side with one side or another if they agree to caucus with the party. In this case it is Senator Lieberman.

However, this procedure of allowing an independent to caucus is not the same as a party having a majority in the Senate.

For all practical legislative purposes the Senate is tied 49-49-2

If the two independents would not agree to caucus with one of the parties, the rules of the Senate would then consider the Vice President (as the President of the Senate) and count the President of the Senate for the purposes of determining the majority party for selecting Senatorial offices. In this case, since Vice President Cheney is a Republican, the Senate would be considered to have a Republican majority.

However it is most important to know the difference between a majority party and a party with a majority. In the Senate the difference is important. This current Senate is one of the uncommon ones where one party is the majority party but does not have a majority.

This could only happen in the US.

There are many things that can be blamed on the Democratic Senators but being in the Majority for the past two years aint one of them.

[Skybird]

Today the biggest aid package for the markets had been announced by the US government, several "hundreds of billions" of tax-dollars will be pumped into the system over the coming weeks and months.

I wonder where this money is coming from. If it all just gets newly printed, you can expect a huge jump in inflation. If it is being taken from other parts of the budget, it is missing somewhere else. And if the money is raised by lending, it means that america accept even more debts and a deficitary budget. This money needs to be payed back then - I wonder how they do it without making cuts to other parts of the budget, the military budget - or raising taxes.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Today the biggest aid package for the markets had been announced by the US government, several "hundreds of billions" of tax-dollars will be pumped into the system over the coming weeks and months.

I wonder where this money is coming from. If it all just gets newly printed, you can expect a huge jump in inflation. If it is being taken from other parts of the budget, it is missing somewhere else. And if the money is raised by lending, it means that america accept even more debts and a deficitary budget. This money needs to be payed back then - I wonder how they do it without making cuts to other parts of the budget, the military budget - or raising taxes.

That was part of my point. SOMEONE has to raise taxes to pay for this huge bill.

They were just showing on NBC Nightly News the other day the Fed having to print more dollars just to cover this huge deficit. Just print more.

As a taxpayer myself, it would have been nice if someone had at least asked "Hey, you guys wanna foot this bill?"

Originally Posted by Platapus

There are many things that can be blamed on the Democratic Senators but being in the Majority for the past two years aint one of them.

That, along with the fact that both houses have been essentially rubber-stamping 'YES' on to everything that the Republican-held White House has requested means that I hold (1) Republicans to blame for not providing the correct amount of control rods in the reactor, making it go into a melt-down situation and (2) Democracts to blame for going along with it.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Skybird

T
I wonder where this money is coming from. If it all just gets newly printed, you can expect a huge jump in inflation. If it is being taken from other parts of the budget, it is missing somewhere else. And if the money is raised by lending, it means that america accept even more debts and a deficitary budget. This money needs to be payed back then - I wonder how they do it without making cuts to other parts of the budget, the military budget - or raising taxes.

Republicans don' worry about such trifling details. Spend now, let your kids pay off the debt.

Originally Posted by Platapus

Republicans don' worry about such trifling details. Spend now, let your kids pay off the debt.

Yup, see my earlier point:

My opinion on who does what:
1. Democracts = Tax and Spend.
2. Republicans = Borrow and Spend.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Republicans don' worry about such trifling details. Spend now, let your kids pay off the debt.

Sometimes I get the impression that some people are wondering why they should ever pay back at all.

The decision today gives short relief for the imminent future. But it holds great risks and unpredictables for the medium and longterm future. It is not the great miracle solution that makes the issue a thing of the past.

I would predict that the effect lasts a while - and then has been eaten up, and new major falls threaten the market - and more state aide will be demanded. However, I estimate the Fed already has consummed the better part of its reserves and potential influence. After this crisis has digested both Wall street and the Fed, both will no longer remain to be the onces they had been before.

[Blacklight]

Those greedy fat-cats that we all love to hate are also major investors.

But unfortunately, those investors are investing mostly overseas now because doing business is so much cheaper over there. And they're keeping their money and re-investing it overseas so they aren't trickleing it down like the Republican Trickle Down theory says it should work. So while they're making the cash, they arent growing anything in the US so the lower classes are losing jobs and getting paid less. In my state, jobs are almost impossible to find now unless you have a masters degree and even positions that require those are pretty full and new businesses just don't like starting up here (and those that are here are trying to move overseas and are laying people off on a constant basis).

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

There are many things that can be blamed on the Democratic Senators but being in the Majority for the past two years aint one of them.

You're forgetting the all important Speaker and Committee chairman gigs that go to the majority party, or in this case the party which the two independents have chosen to caucus with. They dictate which bills will even make it out of committee and control debate on the ones that do.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Blacklight

But unfortunately, those investors are investing mostly overseas now because doing business is so much cheaper over there. And they're keeping their money and re-investing it overseas so they aren't trickleing it down like the Republican Trickle Down theory says it should work. So while they're making the cash, they arent growing anything in the US so the lower classes are losing jobs and getting paid less. In my state, jobs are almost impossible to find now unless you have a masters degree and even positions that require those are pretty full and new businesses just don't like starting up here (and those that are here are trying to move overseas and are laying people off on a constant basis).

Saw an interview with former Deutsche Bank director Endres an hour ago. He said that the american economy nowadays makes 60& of the gross national income with finance transactions exclsuively, and only 40% by producing goods. that is queer in itself, not only in america, but in pri8nciple. A barell oil, he added, was being turned at least eleven times before it reaches it's final customer. eleven levels earns money by trading it, woithiut procuzctively producing anyrthing, or assisting in anything non-material but valuable, like transportation.

That is madness in my opinion.

The "several hundred billion" dollars the government's aide package includes, meanwhile have been traslated. It could become as much as one trillion dollars - tax-dollars, that is.

Now compare: how much is the estimation for the dmaage done by hurricane Ike? I have 5 or 12 billion dollars on mind, but I might remember wrong. - that means that eventually the state will spend 20 times as much tax-dollars on buying foul credits (that'S what you get: foul credits!) on saving the banking system than Ike has caused in damages.

Anyone still saying that the market needs not a certain level of regulation? Compared to bankers, hurricanes seem to be amateurs.

A problem are the high numbers themselves. human mind is totall,y incapable to form a mental image, a mental representation of how much a billion or a trillion is. since bankers do not have any feeling or sensing of it, the also feel not the needed level or responsibility and sensibility. If you are living in a world made of billions and trillions, sinking a hundred milliosn here or a billion there necessarily means nothing to you and leaves you unimpressed. You lose ground under your feet, and you lose your sense of reality. It is the same in politics. I mean it serious when saying that such bankers and politicians must be removed from office and be put into psychiatric therapy. They are mentally ill, and I mean it exactly like that.

This could as well be one of Philip K. Dick's alternate reality worlds we live in where we get governed by aliens or simulacra dressed as humans and raising the image of a reality that is not real, but just an illusion to keep us happy.