[quote]I'm confused... How is capping salaries for non-government related positions even legal? Let alone within congressional jurisdiction.[/quote] It's not unless it is a string attached to receiving a bailout, which by the way also isn't technically under their constitutionally defined set of roles as far as I'm aware.
[quote who="stevendedalus" reply="13" id="2050737"] $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient. • A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film. Sounds weird but I think it has something to do with incentives to produce domestically. • $650 million for the digital television conve
[quote]Every $ billion infusion will get a good deal of it back by circulation. That's how the eonomy works whther it be welfare checks or science research. [/quote] No it won't. For every dollar spent by the government you will be lucky if 25 to 50 cents makes it into the actual economy. How does $650 million for the digital converter coupon program stimuluate the economy? It won't because the only reason they need that money is that the original program was horri
[quote]As usual picking out trivia to suit the argument.[/quote] Really? Please check the following link and try to explain how any of the items listed are going to stimulate the economy: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/gop.stimulus.worries/index.html <p
[quote]Actually the latest GUESS [/quote] And another little note about your emphasis on the word "guess". Isn't that what science is all about? Making a guess and attempting to find evidence to either prove or disprove that guess? Like the latest "guess" is that gravity works by two massive objects attracting each other. Or that evolution is caused by genetic mutations where successful ones survive and unsuccessful ones die off. Just because it's a "gues
[quote]Actually the latest GUESS as to how it works has to do with it killing the toxoplasmosis subcellular brain parasite. But I assure you it was not intentionally discovered by people who understand how the brain works. Just google the name of her medicine... And ok, seeing things that aren't there isn't a choice but an indication of brain damage... but most "mental disorders" have nothing to do with brain chemistry issues. [/quote] I'm not saying that anyone fully understands the
[quote]I still don't understand how so many still have faith in Obama. But hey, ignorance is bliss for the Democrats.[/quote] Obama aside I still don't understand how the incumbency rate can be around 90% when the approval rating in congress in in the teens. We have some members of congress that admit that they have basically been told to vote how they're told to vote by the party leadership rather than how their constituents want them to vote and yet somehow the same jokers are
[quote]Like i said though there are some that chose to be that way but I can promise you that alot dont.[/quote] Exactly.
[quote]How can you say there is no starving? Are you in fact stating there is no such thing in the US?[/quote] I'm beginning to think that taltamir lives in some sort of utopian society where the homeless are only homeless by choice and no one every goes hungry unless they choose to. What a wonderful place that must be.
[quote]I would say I'm surprised at this move, but this is what democrats have been waiting for all along. They are making their push towards socialism, and who knows what will happen next. [/quote] If they win this one the next move will be for the government to start setting all executive wages not just the top ones. After that it will be to set the wages of workers. Eventually the government will want to set all wages, yet I guarantee that in all of their meddling they
I completely agree. If the government wants to cap executive salaries of those companies being bailed out that's fine, but to go so far as to cap all executive salaries is a really good way to destroy our economy.
Under normal circumstances the government should not be allowed to have a say in the matter, however once the companies took tax payer money the game should change. Personally I think the bailouts should have been written in such a way that if a company takes money they agree to a minimum of a 12 month moritorium on bonuses, business paid vacations, etc. Basically if you're going to take tax payer money then you have to give something up in return. There should have been inc
[quote]I consider being CRAZY a choice. But maybe I am wrong. The medication for mental disorders are extremely primitive, based on experimentation with not clue as to HOW or WHY it works, and is typically geared towards suppressing the symptoms (chemical lobotomy) even while worsening the situation. The psychiatric industry is a sham.[/quote] Do you or anyone you know have a mental disorder? I'm guessing not or else you wouldn't be making these comments that wholy ignorant.&nbs
[quote]First of all we are a consumer based economy because the vast majority of manufacturing was forced (financially) to move out of the country. The only way we would see a manufacturing revitalization is a reduction on corporate taxes in addition to reduction of union influence.[/quote] Yep, and that's what needs to happen, we need to reduce the corporate taxes to attract those businesses back. The whole ida that we would become a "service" economy was a very bad idea a
[quote]How about we ask Government to balance the budget?[/quote] That would certainly be a start. It would be nice for the government to lead by example for a change.
[quote]This push for spending created an artificial bubble that only delayed the inevitable and just like interest compounded into the problems we are seeing today. The bottom line is fiscal responsibility promotes health of a company, household, and country.[/quote] Agreed. However the problem is that we live in a consumer based economy and we have nothing to fall back on. If people start to save money rather than spend it we end up with massive unemployment which only ma
[quote]Isn't this a clear arguement NOT to give bail outs?[/quote] The clear argument was that businesses mismanaged funds and made too many risky investments in the first place. Yes let's throw taxpayer money after a failing business strategy without even bothering to ask what the business plans to do differently, brilliant idea. But yes this should be a clear argument that no more bailouts should be given. How can we expect any investor to be confident in the mar
[quote]How will they survive if we scold these companies for making such huge expenses? Would like to know your thoughts on this.[/quote] I think what should have been done with the bailouts is that a moritorium or at least 12 months was put on bonuses, business paid vacations, etc. That way it's not that they won't ever be able to get bonuses and whatnot but for the year after getting a bailout they aren't allowed to as a kind of penalty for needing federal money.
The thing that bothers me is the idea that a company (bank or otherwise) receives taxpayer money to save them from collapse and then a couple months later sends some employees on an expensive retreat. It just seems like it's in really bad taste. If it weren't for the taxpayers the entire company would have likely gone under yet they can somehow afford to go on an expensive holiday? It just doesn't jive. If their business is hurting they should first cut out the extrave
[quote]There are no starving in the USA, all the homeless in the USA are homeless by choice (usually because they think the government is out to get them or because they ran away from home)... [/quote] Wow, just wow. I don't deny that there are some out there that are homeless by choice but there are many that are not. A large portion of homeless people have mental disorders and can't afford their medication. Without the medication they can't hold a job and end up in
[quote]Wouldn't it be more straightforward to look at income tax rather than using a sales tax, and then complicating it to try and avoid such effects? Introducing such complications is why governments so rarely manage to actually simplify the tax system, even when they may want to, and instead make things worse than they were before.[/quote] I suggested a federal sales tax because the eventual goal would be to eliminate the income tax. I used the whole "fair tax" plan as a mode
[quote]What's wrong with strengthening autoworkers, along with automakers.[/quote] Absolutely nothing, but that isn't what was done.
I definitely agree that some serious reform needs to happen to our current tax system, it is just too complicated, which tends to lead to loop holes being exploited by those who can afford to find them. That said we don't need abrupt reform which is likely to shock and bother the average tax payer, you can't throw out the current tax system and switch to a flat tax overnight without a lot of uproar, however if you make slow subtle switches over a long period of time then you can move to
The problem with your theory is how you define "poor". Depending on that definition many poor don't pay taxes as it is so a tax cut to them results in no difference. A 10% tax cut on a 0% tax bracket is still 0%. Instead what we need is an across the board tax cut that benefits everyone. Yes the rich will see more dollars back in their pockets because 10% of 100,000 is more than 10% of 1,000. And honestly the best way to boost the economy is by creating real
[quote]The tax cuts sounded like a measure to (in part) appease republicans, and some 'pork' projects were dropped from what I've heard.[/quote] That may be true but there is still a ton of pork in the bill and many republicans didn't think the tax cuts went far enough. The bottom line is that Pelosi and Reid didn't care about anything the Republicans wanted and just filled the bill with all of their wants and desires. For the record I think the entire idea of any stimul