Proposed "Bail out plan"
09-29-2008, 12:05 AM
#61
Lobbyists and earmarking are the easiest kids on the playground to pick on.
We need both surprisingly.
Lobbying is extremely vital. Though corruption can be a concern, its a major method to communicate with the government. Public opinion is often sent down the line via lobbyists.
From wiki: earmarks refer to congressional provisions that direct approved funds to be spent on specific projects, or that direct specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees.
At 18 billion a year, earmarking is far from the most imposing thing on the US budget. It is an extremely important method of apportionment.
We need both surprisingly.
Lobbying is extremely vital. Though corruption can be a concern, its a major method to communicate with the government. Public opinion is often sent down the line via lobbyists.
From wiki: earmarks refer to congressional provisions that direct approved funds to be spent on specific projects, or that direct specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees.
At 18 billion a year, earmarking is far from the most imposing thing on the US budget. It is an extremely important method of apportionment.
Reply
0
0
09-29-2008, 07:12 AM
#62
Elite Member
iTrader: (22)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Sunny Spanish speaking Non US Caribbean
Posts: 3,224
Total Cats: 3
Lobbyists and earmarking are the easiest kids on the playground to pick on.
We need both surprisingly.
Lobbying is extremely vital. Though corruption can be a concern, its a major method to communicate with the government. Public opinion is often sent down the line via lobbyists.
From wiki: earmarks refer to congressional provisions that direct approved funds to be spent on specific projects, or that direct specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees.
At 18 billion a year, earmarking is far from the most imposing thing on the US budget. It is an extremely important method of apportionment.
We need both surprisingly.
Lobbying is extremely vital. Though corruption can be a concern, its a major method to communicate with the government. Public opinion is often sent down the line via lobbyists.
From wiki: earmarks refer to congressional provisions that direct approved funds to be spent on specific projects, or that direct specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees.
At 18 billion a year, earmarking is far from the most imposing thing on the US budget. It is an extremely important method of apportionment.
Earmarks; I know what they are, they are tag alongs that every congressional member puts in any Bill going through congress. That's how you end up paying for things such as the "Bridge to nowhere" in Alaska. Granted, 18 billion a year is not that big a figure but; you have to start somewhere.
Reply
0
0
09-29-2008, 07:22 AM
#63
Elite Member
iTrader: (22)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Sunny Spanish speaking Non US Caribbean
Posts: 3,224
Total Cats: 3
Here's more proof that this is a global issue. Europe is just starting a rescue: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/...tis.php?page=1
You'll see that European banks did indeed hold some of those "toxic" mortgages.
You'll see that European banks did indeed hold some of those "toxic" mortgages.
Reply
0
0
09-29-2008, 10:57 AM
#65
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
plus, someone has to be buying the used KIAs.
Reply
0
0
09-29-2008, 12:07 PM
#66
You see here is where you miss the point.
1. If you remove the gas tax from the pumps, Gas drops over $1.00 a gallon. However the "people dying in the streets" from poverty probably weren't driving much in the first place (unless you count carjackers.)
2. Wealthier people, who drive less efficient cars do pay more. They pay for the extra gas they use for their Hummers, Ferrari's, Corvettes, etc. Additionally the sales and use taxes collected by their state is considerably higher.
3. Last I checked, the homeless gravitate to the cities. Given that, I suggest they consider public transportation. I would be all for subsidizing public transportation to help the poor, but I draw the line at paying them for being poor.
Mark
1. If you remove the gas tax from the pumps, Gas drops over $1.00 a gallon. However the "people dying in the streets" from poverty probably weren't driving much in the first place (unless you count carjackers.)
2. Wealthier people, who drive less efficient cars do pay more. They pay for the extra gas they use for their Hummers, Ferrari's, Corvettes, etc. Additionally the sales and use taxes collected by their state is considerably higher.
3. Last I checked, the homeless gravitate to the cities. Given that, I suggest they consider public transportation. I would be all for subsidizing public transportation to help the poor, but I draw the line at paying them for being poor.
Mark
Reply
0
0
09-29-2008, 12:13 PM
#67
Elite Member
iTrader: (22)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Sunny Spanish speaking Non US Caribbean
Posts: 3,224
Total Cats: 3
Nothing immature in your statement. You guys still have the best political and legal system in the world but that doesn't mean it can't be improved.
It's gotten to the point where most of the new laws enacted by your congress are the result of lobbyists' proposals.
Reply
0
0
09-29-2008, 02:06 PM
#69
Come on naar; you've proven to be a smart and well informed individual. Don't give me the song and dance that lobbyists are needed. How come other developed nations don't have them and they still function?
Earmarks; I know what they are, they are tag alongs that every congressional member puts in any Bill going through congress. That's how you end up paying for things such as the "Bridge to nowhere" in Alaska. Granted, 18 billion a year is not that big a figure but; you have to start somewhere.
Earmarks; I know what they are, they are tag alongs that every congressional member puts in any Bill going through congress. That's how you end up paying for things such as the "Bridge to nowhere" in Alaska. Granted, 18 billion a year is not that big a figure but; you have to start somewhere.
And lobbying does exist in many countries. It may be more regulated, but it exists everywhere. Its defined as any attempt to persuade legislators on a particular vote or policy.
Here in the United States, lobbyists are limited to giving the exact same amount of money as any individual. Bill Clinton once defended lobbying by saying that they're only as powerful monetarily as any standard citizen. Grassroots lobbying (actual citizens speaking to legislators is encouraged in most state level legislative systems. Its a powerful way to get things done.
My cousin lobbys for the local fire department. He goes to lunch with our representatives to secure funds and resources for his fire department. What would his fire station do without the extra help?
I read the summation of the plan on Rueters. Needless to say, it scares me shitless. Obama had a nice slipup in the debate where he mentioned taxpayers being paid back by wall street, he said something along the lines of if and when wall street comes back, they can repay taxpayers. Key word there being "if". IF wall street is broken and the system of credit is failing, Ron Paul and all those Austrian Economists will be rejoicing in the streets.
Reply
0
0
09-29-2008, 03:48 PM
#73
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080929/...ncial_meltdown
As for the lobbying comments, seriously I just don't see how it's ok for this to work this way. Basically whoever pays the most, gets the governments support... To me sounds very similiar to how the mob used to (still most likely) payoff the police...
They can say its for this, or that...or raising funds, or charities or whatever they want...but basically its like a good old fashioned bribe/auction to get the laws that benefit them passed...
Anyway, I'm kinda glad they shot down the Bailout. I'm sure it'll get voted in after some adjustments...but as it stands, they are bailing out the banks, which bails out wall street, which as I stated does alot fo good in general for the economy, and is necessay.....but absolutely does nothing for the many many homeowner's that are losing their homes.
I actually have no qualls with letting the prices of homes deflate back to normal, but continuing to foreclose on homes is what needs to be addressed.
Very crude suggest:
Take the 700billion, divide it up by the homeowners and apply it to their mortgage balance...then rewrite the loans, based on the lower loan amount, into FIXED rate mortgages. Although crude, you guys get where I'm going with this..
Basically, IMO if the balances on people mortgages aren't lowered/partially forgiven to make the debt = to the median values, the foreclosures will continue, as will the uncertainty of the market, as will the decline in home values.....
As for the lobbying comments, seriously I just don't see how it's ok for this to work this way. Basically whoever pays the most, gets the governments support... To me sounds very similiar to how the mob used to (still most likely) payoff the police...
They can say its for this, or that...or raising funds, or charities or whatever they want...but basically its like a good old fashioned bribe/auction to get the laws that benefit them passed...
Anyway, I'm kinda glad they shot down the Bailout. I'm sure it'll get voted in after some adjustments...but as it stands, they are bailing out the banks, which bails out wall street, which as I stated does alot fo good in general for the economy, and is necessay.....but absolutely does nothing for the many many homeowner's that are losing their homes.
I actually have no qualls with letting the prices of homes deflate back to normal, but continuing to foreclose on homes is what needs to be addressed.
Very crude suggest:
Take the 700billion, divide it up by the homeowners and apply it to their mortgage balance...then rewrite the loans, based on the lower loan amount, into FIXED rate mortgages. Although crude, you guys get where I'm going with this..
Basically, IMO if the balances on people mortgages aren't lowered/partially forgiven to make the debt = to the median values, the foreclosures will continue, as will the uncertainty of the market, as will the decline in home values.....
Reply
0
0
09-29-2008, 03:57 PM
#74
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,498
Total Cats: 4,080
Remember when Microsoft was forced to split due to monopoly laws? You'll see a sharp rise in the amount of money they invested in lobbying that year....like millions, funny thing is, it correlates with them ultimately not having to split.
Reply
0
0
09-29-2008, 04:02 PM
#75
^^great example...
And doesn't alot of this money end up in "campaign donations" and whatnot, basically in the pockets of whoever is in charge...
I'm not knocking you naar, just the system...
From an outsiders POV, seems like those with the most money ultimately can buy the lawmakers...not really a far stretch considering whats seen in the judicial system, healtcare system, etc... Rich keep getting richer
And doesn't alot of this money end up in "campaign donations" and whatnot, basically in the pockets of whoever is in charge...
I'm not knocking you naar, just the system...
From an outsiders POV, seems like those with the most money ultimately can buy the lawmakers...not really a far stretch considering whats seen in the judicial system, healtcare system, etc... Rich keep getting richer
Reply
0
0
09-29-2008, 04:05 PM
#76
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: SWAMPS OF FLORIDA !!!
Posts: 1,161
Total Cats: 0
I beleive it is called "GREASING" --- Am I too cynical?
I find it hard to beleive that they are all there because they want to help the population of America and there individual states.
By the way Brainy -- I just used your post as an example of corrupt government. It had nothing to do with Microsoft.
Reply
0
0
09-29-2008, 04:09 PM
#77
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: SWAMPS OF FLORIDA !!!
Posts: 1,161
Total Cats: 0
^^great example...
And doesn't alot of this money end up in "campaign donations" and whatnot, basically in the pockets of whoever is in charge...
I'm not knocking you naar, just the system...
From an outsiders POV, seems like those with the most money ultimately can buy the lawmakers...not really a far stretch considering whats seen in the judicial system, healtcare system, etc... Rich keep getting richer
And doesn't alot of this money end up in "campaign donations" and whatnot, basically in the pockets of whoever is in charge...
I'm not knocking you naar, just the system...
From an outsiders POV, seems like those with the most money ultimately can buy the lawmakers...not really a far stretch considering whats seen in the judicial system, healtcare system, etc... Rich keep getting richer
Reply
0
0
09-29-2008, 04:23 PM
#79
Go to 11 min 30 sec.
Bill Clinton defending lobbying.
Reply
0
0
09-29-2008, 04:25 PM
#80
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
here's what's funny. the personal donation limit is 2300 dollars for the actual race.
but there is no limit to what a political action committee can spend to promote a certain candidate.
but there is no limit to what a political action committee can spend to promote a certain candidate.
Reply
0
0
