![[Nameplate]](http://www.gcdailyworld.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
Fair ~ High: 32°F ~ Low: 17°F Sunday, Feb. 12, 2012 |
|
Bailout, PleasePosted Friday, August 7, 2009, at 9:58 PM
Bailouts, second stimulus, what is next? I raise a perfectly good question when I ask: Where is my/our bailout?
People (or conservatives) say spending in a recession is not an option. That is their opinion, and I could not disagree more. Honestly, what would a $1,000 stimulus package do for us? I have debts to pay, and if the federal government gave me that, I would use it to pay down my debt. Forget about the stimulus' intention because I am sure most of you would do the same thing as me. How can get out the recession? How about the biggest tax cut known to man? If the federal government gave every taxpaying married couple $200,000, every taxpaying single $100,000, and non taxpayers $25,000, people would be able to get out of debt while purchasing items that would help the economy, like a car, AND would be able to save for the future. Now that would be quite a spending bill, but we are getting our money back. The federal government makes billions (maybe even trillions) from our taxes, so why not give it back in a lump sum? What is wrong with the government giving us back our money? Furthermore, what is wrong with the government making a spending bill that could actually help? Here is another question. Why must Hoosiers wait for the federal government to bail us out? Why does the state government choose to be inactive in this turbulent time? They would rather ban smoking throughout the state than use the "rainy day fund" to help Hoosiers. Where are our state representative and senator trying to fight for our needs? I know exactly where they are, one is working on his Elvis moves while the other is MIA. Gee, thanks for nothing. The point being made is the people need the bailouts more than the big companies. Banks getting bailed out, as well as, creditors, and big business, but where is ours? Why should not we get ours? Can we not be trusted? I would rather trust the people than any corrupt business any day of the week. Now is the time we need our bailouts, especially since they could rejuvenate the economy. Do not tell our leaders that because that would actually make sense. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Hot topics The Grand Finale(8 ~ 11:53 AM, Aug 11)
For The Dads
The Once and Future Subject
Personal Story
Mom's Day
|
Email link
Read comments (19)
Blog archive
![[Feed icon]](http://www.gcdailyworld.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
I am all for the government giving me my money back.
To give the non-taxpayers anything is laughable but that is what I've come to expect from socialists whose goal is to redistribute the wealth.
How about people stop expecting anything from the government, work hard to earn money, pay a flat tax for everyone and get back to paying cash for goods and services.
There is so much to say here, I am just going to sit back and see what people say.
Cow Rancher - pay a flat tax? That is about as regressive as what Britain did when Thatcher was PM. There, the UK taxed its citizens for every head a household had. Your idea of a flat tax is just as bad. Someone making $30,000 paying 5% in taxes is a bit more of a burden than someone making $600,000 and paying 5%. Let's see if you can see why.....
Ahhh yes...I admit my folly.
This is what I was thinking, Radguy. Because the person makes $30K (say a receptionist), the taxes would be more devastating to that person than it would be to the $600K (say a CEO) because 5% to a $600k earner is chump change.
My point had to do with socioeconomic status and the value of money, but I see what you are saying. Thanks for that.
There are 17 reasons the congress can spend money as is specified in Article 1, section 18.
To even consider a bailout, buyout of GM, take over of healthcare or any other use not specified is unconstitutional.
Assuming that this government stops spending and gets control of the budget, then it is only fair that all citizens spend the same percent for taxes. I would far rather spend 17% of my gross income than have to find a tax avoider (accountant) every year to try to keep the government from taking more than their share.
Since we all benefit from our national defense, infrastructure and the printing of money, it is only fair to have a flat tax (fair tax) for every citizen who makes money.
Wouldn't it be nice not to have to prepare your taxes but to only e-mail your annual income totals to the Dept. of Revenue. It would also be nice if the government would pass a law or Constitutional Amendment to never increase the percentage again (but be forced to balance the national budget like we balance our checkbooks.)
By the way, if you make over $70,000.00 per year, you are paying well over 50% in taxes. This is not just federal taxes but all the others added together (like excise, wheel, state, local, sales, hotel and food, gas, death, etc.).
Our founding fathers had tea parties over a fraction of a cent of taxes. Now, we are being socially divided for the top five percent of the income earners paying 90% of all income tax and the bottom 40% of citizens paying nothing.
This system will break, probably sooner rather than later.
Cow Rancher - It's Article I Section 8 (not 18) and the last power granted to Congress is the Necessary and Proper clause. Explain how that is unambiguous. Thanks.
Thank you. I was going from memory.
Explain what you mean by unambiguous.
Is it necessary for our taxes pay for healthcare for those who are too lazy to work? Should our taxes pay for abortion? Should we pay a mother more if she has one, two three or four babies and stays in the welfare system?
What is Proper about the government buying part of GM and having the president become the salesman of the month with the "clunker" program?
Aren't liberals embarrassed yet?
I know there are many democrats (who are not liberals, who have a proud family tradition in the Democrat party) who hold responsibility and accountability to a high standard. Aren't you tired of defending the mockery this government is making of our Constitution?
Cow Rancher - if you look at every line in Section 8 of the Constitution it explicitly says what Congress can do, except for the last line. What does necessary and proper mean?
Let me ask you this: Is it necessary for levees to be up to par? Is it necessary for the elderly to have a pension? Is it necessary for people who can't get a job to have something to tie them over until they do?
Is it not proper for government to fulfill those necessary aspects of life?
A mockery of the Constitution by THIS government? Where were you when the PATRIOT Act was passed? Where were you when President Bush his conservative cronies think the Constitution is awful and want it to be replaced with the Bible?
No I am not embarrassed about my party nor their actions. Until President Obama says "misunderestimate" and has the Supreme Court hand the election to him, then I'll be embarrassed.
The answer to your questions are no,no,and no.
If a state deems it necessary to make a levee, then that is their prerogotive. The Constitution is designed to give states power and the Bill of Rights is designed to limit the Federal Government's.
Is it necessary for the elderly to have a pension? No. The person should have planned on getting old and should have saved for that imminant event. A pension, by a corporation, however, should be available when the person desires to receive their invested money.
Should a person receive free money for being unemployed? No They should get a job or at least have some plan for their predicament. Safety nets are necessary when you least expect it.
IT IS NOT PROPER FOR GOVERNMENT TO FULFILL THOSE "NECESSARY" ASPECTS OF LIFE.
This is where the liberals and conservatives disagree the most. Conservatives believe you should be held accountable for your actions and the liberals believe someone else should be held accountable for your actions.
Your comparison of George Bush is equally funny as we could all sit back and reminisce about Clinton's blue dress or Carters...well everything about Carter.
Aren't you embarrassed that Obama bowed to another leader, or that he has broken almost every promise he had on the campaign trail, or that he has created 44 czars to duplicate most congressional committees, or that he did not recognize the national day of prayer for the first time since it's inceptions, or that he had the first "gay pride event" ever at our White House last week, or that it took him longer to pick a presidential dog than it did to propose legislation on a carbon cap and trade bill (based on terrible science), or that he sided with the black Harvard professor calling the police officers "stupid", or that....
Hey, what a pleasant first half of a year (and I didn't even say socialist once).
You won't see me with my hands out begging for my share of the bailout. It is not the governments money to spend. It is ours (if you are a taxpayer).
Drew, your plan reminds me of a federal money sharing program described by Robert A. Heinlein in chapter nine and the appendix of his 1939 novel "For Us, The Living." This novel, which was not published while Heinlein was living, is really a thinly disguised set of lectures on social re-engineering. You might enjoy reading it. My understanding of the basic premise is that, since all money is essentially fiat money, then it really makes no difference whether it is spread around by banks or individuals. So, why not bypass the banks themselves and give the paper to individuals and let them create the economy? Fascinating concept, I don't think the experiment has ever been tried in any real society. Heinlein credits a Scottish economist named C.E. Douglas with at least some of the basic concept.
I know this one of the few times I personally respond to anything said in any of my blogs, and I want to make it a good one.
This is how I view government. Because of the Constitution's Preamble where it says government's duty is to "insure domestic tranquility, and promote the general welfare," the government owes its people something. It owes the people good bridges, workable levees, better roads, great schools, decent tax cuts, and a defending military. Government, aside from its faults in the past and the ones to come, needs to be a place where everyone can come together and no one gets left behind. By no one, I mean no one.
I noticed some people have trouble with my interpretation of how government should work, and I am glad those people voice their opinions. I do not care if everyone agrees with me or disagrees, or some people agree and others disagree. I wanted this blog to be about people voicing opinions, and it has certainly done that so far.
Rock on.
Bridges for postal roads-yes
levees-maybe if it supports postal roads
roads -yes
schools-yes, but with local control
tax cuts- only for those who pay them
military-absolutely
Drew,
I just think that there is a general frustration with America that our elected officials are incoherent and don't represent us at all.
It is more important than ever that we look to a government that leaves us alone and lets freedom express itself. To support this administration and it's czars is to support and promote socialism. The Alinsky model is being exercised to the fullest extent in America. To Obama we are just pawns in his game and he is the king. Please read the attached link to read the model.
http://www.itvs.org/democraticpromise/al...
Wow, I just found a revealing article about Alinsky, andties to the Clintons and Obama.
Very interesting:
http://www.tysknews.com/Articles/dnc_cor...
Drew, the problem with blogs and such is that it is difficult to put the "smile" into what you write. I actually tick off conservatives as much as I do liberals. One of my conservative friends told me: "since you moved to Colorado, you're brain has frozen!" I don't mean any disrespect and I usually try to inject some humor. Enjoy the book, I enjoy your blog.
Rather than a flat tax, which is still an income tax, I support the idea of a national retail sales tax. Income taxes are notorious in the difficulty of collection, just look at the IRS, the most hated government organization created. The overhead of administration and the nightmare of forms and so forth boggles the mind. Also, people simply cheat. Criminals don't pay the tax at all, others under report their income or over report their deductions. I would bet there is not a single person who reads this who has not misreported their income at least once - which is a violation of the income tax law. Everyone, at one stage or another, gets paid "under the table" - it's like speeding, we all do it and figure that we will (usually) get by with. Finally, an income tax, to work, pretty much requires withholding, which requires tons of paperwork and administration by every business out there, small and large.
A national retail sales tax, on the other hand, bypasses these inherent weaknesses and unfair activities. No withholding means that each wage earner gets all of his pay, and that small business men avoid much of the paperwork that gives them headaches and keeps them awake at night.
A sales tax contains an instant and easiest tax shelter known - simply put your money in the bank instead of spending it. Automatic shelter, without having to read about any 401k legislation.
Yes, there is paperwork involved for the retailers. Stuff happens, but this paperwork is already in place for state sales taxes, and is far less daunting that the IRS codes
Criminals, who do not pay income taxes right now (they don't report their income) still buy things and would pay the sales tax.
And, think of this ...
Wealthy people would automatically and voluntarily pay large chunks of their income to the government, simply because they will purchase many things of value, and contribute huge amounts to the federal coffers.
Finally, basic goods that are needed and necessary for all people, and would hit lower income folks the hardest, could be exempted from the tax. You can even provide vouchers or rebates to the less fortunate.
The savings involved in simply getting rid of the IRS alone would total hundreds of billions in just a few years. Studies have shown that a national retail sales tax could result in more usuable government revenue while at the same time reducing the tax load on all citizens.
Sounds farfetched, doesn't it? But, I think it is worth a shot, after all, look at the system we have - the IRS. Give me a break, anything has to be better than that. After all, the idea of an income tax was part of Karl Marx's plan to socialize western democracies. He outlines it the book, "Das Kapital," and his friend Frederich Engels was instrumental in disseminating it and influencing legislators with the concept.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?p...
Lil Hahn...cow rancher is gonna go crazy. How dare you offer something for the less fortunate! haha
I did realize the danger of encountering cow rancher's wrath while writing that. Life can sometimes be dangerous.
Lil'Hahn,
I would support a sales tax, too. It would encourage saving and reduce foolish spending by those who don't budget.
Another good idea.
PS hitman648: It is a fact that the less fortunate can be taken care of by generous people and by churches. It is also a fact that conservatives donate much more to charity than do liberals.
I just don't want a government telling me who receives my charity. Charity should be voluntary and on top of the tithe (if you belong to a church).
I guess I find it a slap in the face, Cow Rancher, that you do not think it is government's role to help people. The very people who live in this country and pay its taxes. As Lincoln said in the Emancipation, this is a government "of the people."
How can any moral person say it is the duty of government to not provide for its citizens? For a government to ignore the needs of its people is one that is corrupt.
Your interpretation of a government is exactly what I expect from any liberal-socialist or the newly coined "progressive.
Please consider it a slap in the face if you wish, but maybe what you really need is the board of education to the backside.
This country is not Canada, France, or thankfully San Francisco. Thankfully, most people in America are semi-conservative and believe the government should be minimal to promote freedom. This is not to be (i.e read the whole Constitution)a huge government to suck the income from the producers to give to the non-producers. Since you want the freebies I would assume you are a non-producer. I don't blame you, it is much easier to be a member of a socialist or communist country than a capitalistic, free country.
Go meat!
Since this blog is about the bailout, I can't help but bring up the Democrats efforts to pass this healthcare plan (tied to the budget).
Both Brad Ellsworth and Evan Bayh have decided not to have any public debate on the bill.
Bayh is using Obama's group "Organizing America" to have people drop off a letter or make a brief statement to Obama's group for Bayh.
Ellsworth is having his staff set up 15 minute meetings for individuals, in the presence of his staff in Evansville.
of these people intend on voting for the healthcare bill despite what their constituents say. Here is a link that is interesting about the approach they are taking.
So much for a transparent government. I am glad I didn't vote for either of these poor representatives!
Bothhttp://www.garylsnyder.com/my_weblog/2009/08/does-this-mean-no-town-hall-meetings-for-evan-bayh.html