Why should taxpayers be funding
Posted By: sm on 2009-02-06
In Reply to: Liberal means free thinking...... - sm
any network? Just for the record.....it is O'Reilly.
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
Taxpayers do not fund PBS
You obviously do not watch PBS. It is solely viewer funded and publicly owned. (Although lately I HAVE seen paid commercials on there)
I'm beginning to see the reason some of the posters here sound so ignorant.
Obama robbing taxpayers? Do you
bwitch and moan when we give OPEC 700B a year for oil? With this stimulus, an energy policy will be started to relieve us of that huge bill EVERY YEAR!! Not to mention national security. Just that one fact alone makes it worth the money, IMHO. Also, you would pay taxes anyway, no matter what!! Did you mind paying your taxes so the FAT CATS could get fatter over the last 8 years? Do you bwitch and moan about that? Give me a break.
Keating 5 cost taxpayers $125 billion.
x
Taxpayers will pay for Gonzales' private attorney
This is incredible.
Lawyers from the Justice Department's civil division often represent department employees who're sued in connection with their official actions. However, Gonzales' attorney recently revealed in court papers that the Justice Department had approved his request to pay private attorney's fees arising from the federal lawsuit.
Dan Metcalfe, a former high-ranking veteran Justice Department official who filed the suit on behalf of eight law students, called the department's decision to pay for a private attorney rather than rely on its civil division "exceptional."
"It undoubtedly will cost the taxpayers far more," he said.
According to a person with knowledge of the case, the Justice Department has imposed a limit of $200 an hour or $24,000 a month on attorneys' fees. Top Justice Department attorneys generally earn no more than $100 per hour. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.
Asked why Gonzales made the request, Gonzales spokesman Robert Bork Jr. said that his client "values the work that the department's civil attorneys do in all cases" but thinks that "private counsel can often be useful where (department) officials are sued in an individual capacity, even where the suit has no substantive merit."
Charles Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said the department wouldn't have any comment on the reasons for the approval and wouldn't answer questions about the cost to taxpayers.
Geithner plan will rob American taxpayers
Geithner plan will rob American taxpayers: Stiglitz
Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:12am EDT
By Susan Fenton and Deborah Kan
HONG KONG (Reuters) - The U.S. government plan to rid banks of toxic assets will rob American taxpayers by exposing them to too much risk and is unlikely to work as long as the economy remains weak, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said on Tuesday.
"The Geithner plan is very badly flawed," Stiglitz told Reuters in an interview during a Credit Suisse Asian Investment Conference in Hong Kong.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's plan to wipe up to US$1 trillion in bad debt off banks' balance sheets, unveiled on Monday, offered "perverse incentives," Stiglitz said.
The U.S. government is basically using the taxpayer to guarantee against downside risk on the value of these assets, while giving the upside, or potential profits, to private investors, he said.
"Quite frankly, this amounts to robbery of the American people. I don't think it's going to work because I think there'll be a lot of anger about putting the losses so much on the shoulder of the American taxpayer."
Even if the plan clears banks of massive toxic debt, worries about the economic outlook mean banks could still be unwilling to make fresh loans, while the prospect of a higher tax burden to pay for various government stimulus plans could further undermine U.S. consumers, he said.
Some Republican lawmakers have also expressed concern over the incentives offered by the government, which could end up providing private investors with more than 90 percent of the funds to buy the troubled assets. But President Barack Obama has said the plan was critical to a U.S. economic recovery,
Stiglitz, a professor at New York's Columbia University and a former World Bank chief economist, also urged G20 leaders at their London summit next month to commit to providing greater resources to developing countries and said China should be given bigger voting rights in the International Monetary Fund.
"The voices of developing countries, and countries like China that will provide a lot of the money, are not heard."
China would be hard pushed to reach its targeted 8 percent economic growth this year, but the important thing was that at least the Chinese economy was still growing, he said.
Stiglitz welcomed China's proposal on Monday for an overhaul of the world monetary system in which Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of the People's Bank of China, said the IMF's Special Drawing Right has the potential to become a super-sovereign reserve currency.
Stiglitz has long called for the U.S. dollar to be replaced as the only reserve currency. Basing a reserve system on a single currency whose strength depends on confidence its own economy is not a good basis for a global system, he says.
"We may be at the beginning of a loss of confidence (in the U.S. dollar reserve system)," he said. "I think there is support for some sort of global reserve system."
Bush and the Playboy Playmate - Why are taxpayers paying for this?
Bush team backs Anna in fight over fortune
By Inside Track
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
An unlikely fellow Texan has teamed up with Playboy playmate Anna Nicole Smith in her U.S. Supreme Court fight to claim her late husband’s fortune: George Bush!
The Bush administration’s top lawyer, U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, filed arguments on Smith’s behalf and wants to take part when the case is argued before the justices.
The high court will decide early next year whether to let Clement share time with Smith’s attorney during the one-hour argument on Feb. 28.
Smith, 38, has been desperately trying to collect millions of dollars from the estate of oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall II, whom she married in 1994 when he was 89 and she was a 26-year-old topless dancer in Houston. Marshall died in 1995 and Smith has been in a legal battle with his only son, E. Pierce Marshall, over his fortune ever since.
In previous rulings, federal bankruptcy judge sided with the Trim Spa spokesgal in her claim on the estate, awarding her $474 million, which was subsequently reduced to about $89 million by a federal district judge, and then tossed out altogether by a federal appeals court.
The current issue is the question of when federal courts may hear claims that involve state probate proceedings. Clement contends the justices should protect jurisdiction in disputes.
The zany reality TV star lost in Texas state courts, which found that Marshall’s son was the sole heir to his father’s estate.
Although both Bush and Marshall graduated from Yale University, were both in the oil business and held government positions in Washington, the Bush administration’s filings in the case are strictly technical.
Yeeeeeeee-haaaaaaa!
http://thetrack.bostonherald.com/moreTrack/view.bg?articleid=118756
Good grief! Taxpayers get stuck with the bill...
and Franklin Raines gets a over a million per year in "retirement..."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/28/national/main663502.shtml
And where this funding coming from?
xx
Yep, and GW tried pulling funding because....
he was just a big scab on the asss of this country and was called on it.
Long day here! Funcing = FUNDING!
Time to hang up my keyboard!
Agree that funding is big question
Society has been busting a gut to push smokers out of existance, and its working. Basing funding on that is really off the mark. How about taxing the almighty insurance companies profits - that's where the majority of healthcare money has gone and continues to go.
We are not funding an illegal immoral war...
we are funding our troops in combat sent there by our duly elected Congress. There is nothing illegal about that. If you are suggesting we withdraw funding from our troops who are in combat, that is definitely UNpatriotic and I would venture to say borders on treason. And what a nice message to send to our men and women in harm's way..."you are dying for nothing in an illegal immoral war and you are taking money we could be using for extending entitlements higher up the income ladder." Yeah, that is patriotic. Oh yeah. Ask a soldier how patriotic that is. You, my friend, need to buy a vowel and get a clue yourself.
And please, stop with the name calling. Your post was was judgmental, so pot calling the kettle black there. The last 4 years you have had a Congress controlled by Democrats, so any "ruining" that has been done during this time certainly has had Dem help.
All of the front-running Dem candidates, Clinton, Obama and Edwards...all said at the New Hampshire debate they could not commit to having the troops out of Iraq by 2013, so for all their posturing, they are not going to end the war either.
Protest may be patriotic...so should be good taste and basic care about how men and women in harm's way perceive what they hear you say and do. But of course...you don't care about that...and to me that is the height of selfishness. It is more important for you to protest than it is to support men and women in combat. In what alternate reality can you find that patrotic?
Let's stop funding Viagra...
...might result in more men willing and ready to fight for their country!!
Bush threatened to cut off PBS funding..
if they didn't stop telling the truth. So, I guess it is politics as usual, right? Also, could you provide a valid link proving this accusation. I really am curious.
You can go broke funding them for all I care..
nm
Obama receiving illegal funding.
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/241ee34b-28b0-48cf-b533-53cfa4c1d213
So now we taxpayers are expected to pay for a motorsports racing track facility and a mine rescue tr
What the ... ?
A tax exemption for wooden arrows made for use by children?
And economic development for American Samoa?
An increase in the rum excise tax for Puerto Rico?
Do these senators think we CAN'T read? Or just hoping that we WON'T?
I meant rather than funding ABORTION, which was the point of the original sm
poster's concerns - that the US family planning money will go overseas to provide abortions. If that $ is being spent anyway, shouldn't we be spending it on contraception?
Wouldn't that money be better spent on CONTRACEPTIVE funding and education sm
world-wide? How about we stop unwanted pregnancies before they occur?
|
