It took spending 1-1/2 BILLION dollars a month...sm
Posted By: oldtimer on 2008-09-05
In Reply to: Interesting view on the economy... - sam
over years on the war in Iraq to get us to this point, borrowing from other countries, the highest deficit ever, printing money by the government with no gold behind it to drive the value of our dollar down around the world. Nothing to do with the democrats. When Bush became president we had a huge surplus. Did you forget that?
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Wow, spot on . . .10 billions dollars a month . . .
for that war. For what? OIL. That money could go a long way to making sure EVERYBODY had healthcare and dramatically speed up the process of developing alternative energy sources! Why can no one see how much sense this makes?
8600 earmarks = 6 BILLION DOLLARS!
to that line by line lie Obama told when he wanted to be elected? He hasn't looked at one page, let one line by line...... thanks to all who put such a thug and liar in office! 
Charging is not spending money...it is spending someone elses money!
When you are debt free (as we are) THEN you spend money...anything else is just going into debt. I highly doubt he pays cash for anything.
One month -- (sm)
That would be about the time we get a president and staff in there who actually know what to do.
About a month ago
I posted a link to the following OpEd article, which I was touting as the best idea I'd heard yet to resolve the economic crisis:
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 12/27/08:
The Real Bailout Needed is a Consumer Bailout
by Steven Leser Page 1 of 1 page(s)
www.opednews.com
5
votesBuzz up!
SAVE FAVORITESVIEW FAVORITES
The economic disaster that I predicted back in April of 2008 in these articles click here and here is here. What enabled me to predict what was coming was my evaluation of five key areas of the economy. They are:
1. Consumer savings and spending/ability to spend
2. Corporate income, health and spending/ability to spend
3. Government financial health and ability to spend
4. The lending and banking (and financial) system and its ability to extend credit
5. Inflation & scarcity of resources
I made the point that for the first time in American history, all five of these areas were problematic.
Looking at the same indicators now, eight months later, there are some real and some apparent changes. Number 4 - The lending, banking and financial system has been bailed out, but it is still reeling from the Lehman brothers’ bankruptcy, several bank failures, and the threatened failures or near failures of several more institutions. On the surface, Number 5, Inflation & scarcity of resources seems have improved. Indeed several news reports have suggested that Deflation is what is now the concern. This is an illusion.
The two main commodities driving up prices were energy and food, both because of supply fears. Both have come down in price/cost somewhat, energy in particular, but WHY have they come down in price. Is there suddenly more supply? No, there is no more supply. They are down due to a temporary decrease in demand. As soon as there is the beginning of a return to economic normalcy, and people start to use the additional income to consume, the price increases in both food and energy will return. The governments of the world should take NO action to try to deal with the apparent but temporary deflationary conditions.
Having stabilized the financial system and the auto industry with bailouts, the government should turn to the most critical economic issue, the one that really is threatening to make this a prolonged downturn and that is consumer savings, huge consumer debt and resulting inability for consumers and households to spend and buy goods and services. Businesses cannot survive without the consumer and yet the average household is completely broke and drowning in debt.
I conceived the idea for this article about a week ago and was dreading having to perform the requisite research into the actual numbers supporting my positions. Thankfully, another author on OpEdNews, James Quinn, wrote an excellent article that completely outlines just how terribly in debt the American Household now finds itself titled “The Great Consumer Crash of 2009.” Among his research, he found that "Household debt reached $13.8 trillion in 2007, with $10.5 trillion of that mortgage debt." He also had a chart that showed that the average household debt per person in 2007 was $47,000. As staggering as those numbers are, that was a year ago. It is likely that total household debt is now up to $15 Trillion Dollars.
This suggests several conclusions. First, as I said earlier, the consumer is too deep in debt to be the engine that this country needs to drive the country out of the recession/depression. Second, without intervention, consumer debt will stifle the country's productivity and economic growth for the next 5-10 years. Third, if the consumer is the main force that drives the economy and affects whether the economy grows or contracts (recession), but the consumer cannot power the economy because they are in debt, something has to be done to fix that. It's a slight alteration of the old Sherlock Holmes quote, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”. Turning the economy around with a broke consumer is impossible, so what remains? Bail out the consumer.
What would a Government Bailout of the Consumer Look Like?
The government bailout of the consumer that I am proposing dwarfs all other government bailouts to date. It probably is the largest government spending initiative by any measurement in the history of humankind. It involves the government offering to each consumer and household to pay all of their debt. In exchange, the consumers who agree to be bailed out will pay the government .125% more of their income in taxes each year for three years for every unit of debt that corresponds to one percent of their annual income up to a maximum of 12.5%. Let me illustrate:
Joe and Sally have a combined income of $100,000 per year. They have $60,000 in debt. They opt for a complete bailout of their debt. In return, they will pay an additional (60 x .125)% or an additional 7% in taxes for three years. So, the Government pays out $60,000, the government gets back $21,000 over three years (7% of Joe and Sally's $100,000 a year income or $7000 for three years), and Joe and Sally are debt free.
Another example is John. John makes $60,000 per year and has a mortgage of $150,000 and other debt of $8,000 of which $6,000 is taxes and $2000 is credit cards. John opts for the total bailout. The Government pays $158,000 and wipes out John's debt. John owes the government $7,500 additional in taxes each year for three years, or $22,500. Even though the Government paid more to bail John out, the payback is capped at 12.5% in additional taxes per year for three years.
There is another component to my proposal. The Government will pass legislation limiting the amount of credit that can be granted to consumers by percentage of annual income and type of debt so that the country will not again find itself in a position where a huge percentage of consumers are over leveraged. The government would also make it illegal to charge the kinds of percentage rates on credit cards we have seen in the past. Also, for those opting for the bailout, any negative reports on their credit ratings would be wiped clean.
The total potential Government bailout outlay is the total of household debt or $15 Trillion Dollars. Actual bailout total will be lower because although many consumers would opt for this bailout, many others would not depending on each households circumstances, so the total amount that the Government would put out would be considerably less than $15 Trillion, but it would not surprise me to see the amount exceed $5-8 Trillion, financed by Government bonds. The Government would get a percentage of that back in the temporary additional taxes I proposed, probably between 20% and 30% over three years. So, assuming that the Government outlays $5 Trillion for the bailout, it would get back $1 to $1.5 Trillion.
What everyone should understand is that in exchange for the government spending that money, we would have an American consumer that was essentially out of debt and per the additional legislation would never again get in debt to the point that the indebtedness would endanger the whole country's economic health. Households would be able to spend money again, and all of those businesses that currently hold consumer debt accounts would receive a sudden and massive infusion of cash and would be paid for all of that debt. The totality of this program would result in a massive boost to the economy. Considering this, even the money that the Government would not receive back from consumers that it bailed out, it would likely receive back and more from the money that it injected into the economy generating business, income and retail taxes. Another great benefit of a consumer bailout is the mortgage crisis would be over. Households would own their homes free and clear and the banks would have been paid in full. Other organizations like Visa would be back in good financial health. Visa is currently hurting and requesting government assistance. Helping the consumer as I have outlined is the right way to help banks, business and the financial industry and the economy at large. Everyone wins this way.
I also posted a link to Part 2, posted in response to the many comments the author received on the first article:
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 1/4/09:
The Real Bailout Needed is a Consumer Bailout - Part 2
by Steven Leser Page 1 of 2 page(s)
www.opednews.com
3
votesBuzz up!
SAVE FAVORITESVIEW FAVORITES
The excellent responses, even harsh criticism from some to my first article on my proposed Consumer Bailout http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Real-Bailout-Needed-is-by-Steven-Leser-081227-715.html helped crystallize some of the finer points of the proposal. They also made me surer than ever that the best thing to do to bring about a recovery is to address bailout efforts to the consumer.
To recap briefly before I go on, I wrote:
... the consumer is too deep in debt to be the engine that this country needs to drive the country out of the recession/depression. Second, without intervention, consumer debt will stifle the country's productivity and economic growth for the next 5-10 years. Third, if the consumer is the main force that drives the economy and affects whether the economy grows or contracts (recession), but the consumer cannot power the economy because they are in debt, something has to be done to fix that....
the consumers who agree to be bailed out will pay the government .125% more of their income in taxes each year for three years for every unit of debt that corresponds to one percent of their annual income up to a maximum of 12.5%. One of the more serious components of the current crisis that is just starting to become apparent is the catastrophic budget shortfalls in state and local budgets. Five to fifteen trillion dollars in additional taxable income for businesses all around the country would fix that portion of the crisis immediately as it seems to fix just about every other portion of the crisis. That is what I think is compelling about my bailout proposal. If you make a list of the problems in the economy and analyze the effect of this proposed consumer bailout, it eliminates them one by one from the bottom up...
There is another component to my proposal. The Government will pass legislation limiting the amount of credit that can be granted to consumers by percentage of annual income and type of debt so that the country will not again find itself in a position where a huge percentage of consumers are over leveraged. The government would also make it illegal to charge the kinds of percentage rates on credit cards we have seen in the past. Also, for those opting for the bailout, any negative reports on their credit ratings would be wiped clean.
Let me address some of the more important criticisms of the proposal:
Criticism 1 – This Consumer Bailout is not Affordable
Anytime you are talking about a government program costing in the trillions of dollars it is natural to have questions about how this program would be funded so these questions and criticisms are good and to be expected.
One thing that should be obvious is that those who would opt to have the government pay their debt would pay back on average between 20% and 30% of the money directly to the government in increased taxes over three years. That is part of the design of the bailout proposal.
Second, what happens with the money that is given by the government to consumer's creditors? Those creditors have to pay taxes on it. Whether the creditor is a bank, some other lending agency, Visa, or any other creditor, that business will pay taxes on that income. Let's assume a low average effective business tax rate of 25% to be conservative. Of the money lent to consumers, another 25% will be paid back to the government within one year in the form of taxes paid by creditors. Now we are up to 45%-55% of the total bailout being paid for by those who benefited most by it.
Third, what do the creditors do with the 75% of the money they receive that they do not have to pay in taxes? They invest it, they buy other goods and services, they pay salaries and other operating costs, pay back their own debt obligations, etc. Much of that also results in taxable income by those receiving this money. Let's assume that 2/3rds of that money, or 50% of the original outlay becomes additional taxable income. 25% of that (again, assuming an average effective business tax rate of 25% is 12.5% of the total bailout. Now we are up to 57.5% to 67.5% of the outlay by the federal government paid back to it in taxes. We can go another iteration and say that 50%-12.5% is 37.5% of the original outlay becomes taxable income for entities further down the road. We can say that 25% of that will probably end up being taxable income and results in another 6.25% of the original total outlay being paid back in taxes. Now we are up to 63.75% to 73.75% of the total bailout outlay being repaid.
Finally, what then happens to the economy when consumers are debt free, their former creditors are awash in cash, as a result Visa and the banks and lending industry are no longer in crisis, in fact the opposite? When there is more disposable income all around, more money is invested, lent (properly this time with the additional regulations I specified in place) and spent. We call that an expanding economy. What happens in an expanding economy? Federal income tax receipts grow. Some of that is already accounted for in my above explanations, but some isn't. I don't know if we get back to 100% of the bailout being paid back directly or indirectly, but if we don't, we get close.
Criticism 2 – This Bailout Proposal Penalizes People Who Have Kept Up With Their Bills
Of all the top criticisms, this one was the most difficult for me to understand. People who have kept up with their bills are still hurting in this economy. Their investments have suffered, they are at risk just like anyone else for layoffs, if they are small business owners, they might be getting less business or the people that owe them money may be having difficulty paying their bills. All of those things mean that no matter how thrifty you are, you are probably feeling ill effects from this economy or at the very least; the current crisis makes you more at risk to be hurt.
All of the people would benefit greatly from an economy that gets moving again. Those who do not request a bailout would not be financing those who do. This bailout is self-financing as I illustrated above.
Criticism 3 – This Bailout Encourages Bad Behavior
It definitely would encourage bad behavior if we don't include the additional legislation that I propose that specifies how much credit can be lent to a consumer based on his income. These limits are different depending on the type of debt that would be incurred. I'm guessing that total non-auto and non-mortgage credit would be such that the monthly payments could not exceed around 10% of monthly income of a household and total outstanding non-auto and non-mortgage debt could not exceed 5% of yearly household income. The legislation would also prevent lenders from charging exorbitant interest rates.
Criticism 4 – The New Legislation you propose that would Limit Creditors in How Much they can lend to Consumers is Unworkable
For people who earn almost all of their income from a straight salary, these limits are straightforward. For those whose income is commission based or dividend based or whose income is otherwise variable, or for those who have high net worth, there needs to be another section to the legislation that better deals with their circumstance. My suggestion would be that for people who have a net worth over $250K, they could have consumer debt up to 1/3rd of their net worth.
January 4, 2009 at 07:54:15
1 1 View Ratings | Rate It
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 1/4/09:
The Real Bailout Needed is a Consumer Bailout - Part 2
by Steven Leser Page 2 of 2 page(s)
www.opednews.com
3
votesBuzz up!
SAVE FAVORITESVIEW FAVORITES
Those with variable incomes and net worth below $250K should have their debt totals determined by the following
Take the mean and median of their last 48 months worth of income and apply the 10% consumer debt limit to whichever figure is smaller..
Criticism 5 – This Bailout Could Result in Inflationary issues, Perhaps Even Hyperinflation.
Inflation is a concern, but I believe the risks can be managed. The bailout would be financed by issuing more bonds and as I already wrote, would be almost completely paid back either directly or by its effects on the economy. This bailout would not be financed by printing money. The Fed would have to be involved and would probably have to raise interest rates concurrently to ward off inflation. If you listen today to the government, the fed and private groups, they are all saying we are in a dangerous Deflationary situation. I still think there are inflationary risks with food and energy if we start to consume in similar quantities as prior to the beginning of the current crisis, but as I said I think this can be managed..
Criticism 6 – This Bailout is Really a Bailout of the Banking/Lending/Consumer Finance Sector (or other hated group) and I don't want to Bail them Out.
It seems that everyone wants to punish someone and everyone forgets that if we set out to punish people instead of focusing on what is going to fix this economy, we all will end up suffering for it. Libertarians want to punish the households and consumers who borrowed too much, Progressives want to punish the banks and consumer finance industry, Republicans want to punish organized Labor. For the current crisis to happen it required mistakes by consumers/households, banks, credit card companies, those who provide the underlying securities and financing for banks and credit card companies (the bond market, etc) and the government for failing to oversee all of the above and take action when things trended the wrong way. Now is not the time to concentrate on blame and recriminations. In fact, my bailout proposal bails out everyone, which is one of the reasons it has been a lightning rod for criticism. Everyone's pet economic and ideological whipping boys are helped.
We need everyone to have a 'Jeffersonian Louisiana Purchase' moment. What I mean by that is you have Jefferson, who was in his time probably close to what a Libertarian is today and believed that the government only had a the smallest amount of powers, i.e. only those specifically outlined in the constitution and no more. He did not believe in the elastic clause, and he definitely did not believe what his ideological opposites did, that if the Constitution did not explicitly forbid the government from doing something, that the government could do it.
Jefferson was given an opportunity to purchase the Louisiana territory from France but the problem was that the Constitution did not explicitly give him the power to make that deal. Recognizing that the purchase would solve several strategic issues for the country, not to mention more than double its territory, Jefferson made the deal. The point of this long-winded anecdote is that we are in an emergency. Exigency dictates that we accept that we may need to look beyond what would normally be the boundaries of our ideology to resolve the situation
------------------------
What I did not hear from those who criticized the idea is any alternate solution that resolved the current crisis and certainly none that addressed the issue of the overwhelming number of US households drowning in debt. Indeed, those who criticized the idea of bailing out consumers never acknowledged the seriousness of the household debt situation. As I wrote in the first article:
James Quinn, wrote an excellent article that completely outlines just how terribly in debt the American Household now finds itself titled "The Great Consumer Crash of 2009." Among his research, he found that "Household debt reached $13.8 trillion in 2007, with $10.5 trillion of that mortgage debt." He also had a chart that showed that the average household debt per person in 2007 was $47,000. As staggering as those numbers are, that was a year ago. It is likely that total household debt is now up to $15 Trillion Dollars.
Before thinking about the economy in terms of the overwhelming debt of the average household, I thought that infrastructure spending was the best way to pull the economy out of crisis. The adding of jobs and putting people back to work that would be accomplished by infrastructure spending is great. This does not address the debt issues, however. The unemployed would then be able to pay their rent/mortgage and try to keep up with payments on whatever debt they have, but there will still be little of the spending that is needed to fuel a recovery. I think the infrastructure-spending plan alongside a consumer bailout is a good idea, but by itself, it is going to make very little difference. This economy is going nowhere if we fail to address household debt.
she must have her quota in for the month
x
I am pro-choice up the the end of 3rd month.
I am definitely against partial-birth abortion.
and don't forget the new *word of the month*
racist. They've added that since hurricane Katrina.
keep your head in the sand - a month ago
they are VERY_CLOSE, this is no black sheep in his family....
1000 bucks a month
That is a lot to pay for health insurance. There does need to be reform so that it is more affordable, I just don't see how mandatory coverage is going to do it.
They forgot about 9/11 about a month after it happened.
i pay off my cards EVERY month, living
x
Agree a lot; but can we consider that the President only in for a month??.....sm
I am not going back to partisan politics, I think there are going to have to be many changes and many "solutions" before this economy can evea start to turn around, I pray it is sooner rather than later, but President Obama really has been condemned by many before he could even finish saying the oath of office....there is a lot of thinking and work that has to be done.
I don't have a white history month, either, but I'm okay with that.
X
If we did have a white history month
we would be called racists.
How many of you would leave your 4-month-old special-needs baby to run for VP? nm
Chrysler closing all 30 plants for 1 month.
x
Just a few dollars more.......... sm
Crysler is now asking for another $5B to "survive." You know, with all the bailouts and stimulus packages and defcits, I'm beginning to look at $5B as not so bad. How sick is THAT? 
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100789303&ft=1&f=1001
taxpayer dollars?
what makes you think that everyone having an abortion is paying for it themselves?
I agree that our tax dollars should be used to pay for it...
it is not a law passed by our congress (and our Constitution says only Congresses have the right to pass laws), it was foisted on us (like everyone here says we are "foisting" our opinions on them) by activist judges and is unconstitutional....those of us opposed to it should not have our tax dollars funding it. Yep, I agree with that!
How does this relate to $27 mil US tax dollars
This week's topic will be Palins pastor, not Rev Wright/Obama. You already had your best shot at this, which just a few posts ago, you said didn't matter (pastors, candidates, etc). Remember to stay on task. Spotlight on the republicans week, just what you all have been waiting for.
I have $32 dollars in savings
and a $52,000 dollar house that me and DH have only been paying on for two years as our "investment". (We bought it because the mortgage payments were as much as our rent payments so mine as well at least own it right?)
What I don't understand, if I started a business and it went under, would they bail me out?
No, probably not. *sigh*
GOOD! Now those tax dollars can be......... sm
used where there are supposed to be used....here in the good ol' USA. And people wonder why our economy is in such bad shape!
Yes, and we need those dollars staying here too!
..
tax dollars go to many things we dont want
There are many many people who do not believe in war and especially the war in Iraq yet our tax dollars are being spent to kill innocent people in other countries..So, if you dont want to spend your tax dollars on stem cell research..fine, then let the anti war peoples tax dollars go to things other than war. I would much rather my taxes go to finding ways to cure disease and ease suffering and pain in life than war.
White Phosphorus, In Our Name And With Our Tax Dollars
VIDEO |
Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre
A Film by Sigfrido Ranucci
RAINews24
11.08.05
WARNING: This video contains graphic and possibly disturbing footage. |
QuickTime
DSL | 56K
Windows Media
DSL | 56K
RealMedia
DSL | 56K |
I agree. I think those federal dollars could be used...
for other things. It is not like the news is not out there. Kids know more today at 10 or 11 than I knew at 15 or 16. It is discussed on TV ad nauseam, all of the shows aimed at kids have discussed every aspect of sex you can imagine including STDs, AIDS, homosexuality, abortion, keeping a child rather than aborting, birth control, the whole 9 yards. And I figure most parents have had "the talk" with kids. The culture has been created that sex is an expression, it is no longer saved for marriage, multiple partners don't matter and you don't even have to like each other...that is the culture that has been created. No amount of birth control programs, sex ed programs, is going to put that horse back in the barn. We reap what we sow.
So why spend even more federal dollars on this? It makes no sense to me. You do the best you can to talk to your kids and explain the consequences of choices...but in the end, you cannot force them not to engage in premarital sex. It is ultimately their choice, and federally funded programs at this stage in our culture...waste of money in my view, because it is only repeating what is already out there.
Just my two cents.
Dollars you have in your pocket won't be worth anything.....
As value decreases now, world is found on shaky ground, too, so my thought is that they are probably going to come up with a currency that will be used by all countries involved (from research I've done) and the dollars you have in your bank account, savings account (?) and pocket won't be worth a red minted cent!
Oh, it isn't $700 billion any more... it is
now $850 billion!!, I am shocked both Senators from LA, 1 Dem (Landrieu) and 1 Rep (Vitter), voted NO.
34 BILLION...............
To the poster who said ALL the garbage had been taken out of the stimulus bill, which of course hasn't, I suppose you believe the Dept of Commerce spending 34 BILLION of our money is just fine, especially since they are a huge anti-American group to begin with. Do your homework.....Dept of Commerce is not the least bit interested in businesses in this country.
Gee, $1.2 billion?
pretty soon we'll be talking about real money!
So, the 2 million dollars went back to Alaska.
nm
You will never be able to deny that $559 billion
su
That would have been 30 billion to ACORN of the...sm
return on the investments. That and other returns going to special interests.
Think about it. This is an investment. NOT a bailout. They need to get rid of that word.
If the dems wanted to write in 30 billion dollars to the ACORN from future profits....and others....they know this is an investment.
They need to tell the public this.
These profits need to be returned to the taxpayer, and to Social Security and pay down the national debt.
Not more special interests.
That's a big holdup of all the add ons that the dems put on, that need to be changed for the good of the people.
They need to get back closer to three pages....instead of 103 pages of earmarks for special interests.
I thought it came out of the 700 billion as...
part of the consumer housing protection part of it. The way I understand the 700 billion is that is how much is allotted but nothing in the bill said specifically how it was going to be spent other than to "rescue" the economy. The bill did have mortgage protections in it, meaning "try to keep people in their homes." So, I believe that he is saying 300 billion of the 700 billion would go to that purpose.
$14 billion in taxes isn't even a
Certainly, no reason to legalize a dangerous substance, which is what pot is.
Let's reverse all the smoking restrictions and get all our kids hooked on cigarettes instead, if that's our logic. We'll make a lot more than $14 billion!
Stamp out tobacco and legalize pot. We're doing some real good thinking here.
And hey! You! Drop that Twinkie and put your hands in the air! Wipe those crumbs off your lips! This is the Fat Police you're dealing with, buster, and you're goin' downtown. Lookout boys! He's got a can of whipped cream under his shirt!
(Later, at home): Son, I'm so disappointed in you. Why can't you smoke pot like all the other kids?
Obama campaign gave over 800K dollars
xx
Obama gave ACORN 800 THOUSAND dollars
nm
I just heard billions of dollars in bigger government...
xx
A trillion dollars being spent, 1100 pages
and the American people aren't allowed to look at it let alone the house and senate don't get time to read it? WTFrig is that all about?
700 billion dispersed to every citizen would only come to
.
I heard this morning it was over $850 billion...
with added stuff...one particular one I saw was for wool research and wooden children's arrows of all things. The Republicans did manage to get some tax cuts in there that will help to a point so that maybe not so much of the $700 billion will have to go out...because people will be encouraged to invest again. A drop in the bucket probably, but at least a try. Now it has to go back to the house and no telling what they will want to add. The bill went from what was posted on the internet (about 10 pages I think) to 450+. Sigh. THAT kind of experience we don't need anymore of. Bring on Sarah Palin. I wish we could replace every member of congress with common sense folks like Sarah Palin. THAT is change I can believe in. I am sick to DEATH of Washington Politics as usual.
As to Dodd and Frank...I hear that! Not willing to accept one iota of the blame when they should have all of it. And where is the mainstream media? Out to lunch? Can you imagine what will happen to this country if Obama is elected, with a Democrat majority and mainstream media cover? What is WRONG with people? Hellooo. Sigh.
Mccain did say that he had a plan to use 300 billion...
of the 700 billion to buy back bad mortgages and renegotiate them to a fixed rate so that people could stay in their homes. Obama said this morning that was a bad idea and it rewarded bad lenders. But it WOULD protect the homeowners. He can't have it both ways, and neither can you.
Obama has not said how he will fix the economic crisis either. He talks in generalities. He said that yes, maybe some programs should be cut, but won't given even ONE example. He says he still plans to raise taxes on the rich (which are the businesses, the corporations, most of the jobmakers in this country). Now you tell ME how THAT is going to HELP the economy.
McCain has said he would FREEZE spending except for the most necessary programs. THAT is what will HELP the economy. If Obama said freeze spending his base woudl go apoplectic.
McCain has said more specific things than Obama has said about getting us out of his crisis. You just aren't listening to anyone but Obama and the Obama campaign. I am listening to BOTH of them.
errr...$2.1 billion committment....
Why can I not type?
The deficit is coming down. It is down by 18 billion just recently
how do you know no one has anyone serving over there. You have no way of knowing that.
Remember the $150 billion in TARP "sweeteners"
That one was sorta like a bribe to get pubs onboard. This bill rider is a bit different, maybe a tad more understandable but nonetheless, pretty hard to swallow, given the circumstances. Apparently, whereas Congress gets an automatic COLA raise, judges' raises have to be subjected to vote. In 6 of the last 13 years, judges were denied COLA raises (leaving their salaries stagnated at a mere $169,300 annually). This particular measure was the only remaining unresolved issue remaining on this lame duck congressional session. They will be getting 2.3% raise, if it passes. Here's a link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081210/ap_on_go_co/judicial_pay_raise
Keating 5 cost taxpayers $125 billion.
x
Fannie/Freddie going to cost 7 billion...
if we are lucky.
Yeah.Like it's hard to live with $12 Billion
Dem vs. GOP spending
You can look this all up, but thought this might help. We'll see if it works. This doesn't even include the last 2 years. Note the very first column - 37 presidents over 198 years.
If they don't like spending.......
Where did over $10 trillion go over the last 8 years?
|
