and so are you and I via our tax dollars and our charitable giving. BTW, I never said the government was not helping out. I just asserted that they were not as efficient as the private sector in rendering aid.
The government probably isn't as efficient as the private sector, though it's a bit unclear. (For example, Medicare is considered more efficient than private sector health care) At the same time, the private sector is not nearly as comprehensive as the government. You'll help people more effectively using the private sector - you'll also leave a many more people behind.
I wrote about this in the obama supporting faith based intiatives thread. when i worked a power company, the government took funds to help low income people, gave them to the power company, but the power company disbursed those funds through local charities and churches to make sure they went to those who needed it. for me, that was the best solution, of course I wouldn't recommend for a general program like welfare. but if there are specific funds for specific causes, the government can use similar tactics with tripping over itself.
yeah he speaks plain english....and the fact that you idiots can do nothing more then bash people who take a logical opinion totallly undermines and voids your opinion. The comments made by Biden and his token Obama are blatant communism...plain and simple. We are going to tax the rich and redistribute wealth. What he really means is we are going to tax the rich, dangle a carrot in front of the lemengs and sheeple and keep the rest. I am not against paying a tax to run the government but what i am against is social programs that deteriorate the nature of self responsiblity, like the recent financial problem that is purely based on greedy bankers and people making stupid decisions. How about a flat tax say at 10% across the board....if you make $20,000 you pay $2,000.....if you make $200,000 you pay $20,000.....but that would be, dare i say it FAIR! and thus erode the power that the dems have by keeping the poorer people enslaved by government cheese instead of giving them hope and motivating them to do more with their lives, which would in turn mean MORE tax revenue to the government....what a novel concept. But you see if they actually did this then these very people would turn conservative. nobody who works hard wants their money taken away from them and given to people who didn't earn it. The fact that 40% of the people in this country don't pay any income tax is absurd and then we top that absurdity by giving them a "unearned income tax credit"? ie a tax refund? give me a freaking break....there is absolutely no logic in this concept....
Medicare has a 30+% fraud rate... The private sector is always better then governemt....please explain your comment "you'll also leave a many more people behind" because this just oozes of Marxist socialism. The beauty of capitalism is you work, you get paid....you don't work you are poor.
LOL - this comment is particularly hilarious in the light of taxpayer-funded multi-trillion dollar bailouts of investment banks for taking asinine credit risks on derivatives and swaps in exchange for billions of dollars of bonuses. My god, you are self-owning yourself so rapidly you have basically triple-mortgaged your BBS street cred. Can you say unregulated market for swaps and credit derivatives? Oh wait no, you can't, because you have no clue.
this is blatantly racist, how is obama a token, he was voted for dumbass, do you even know the meaning of the word you are using are do you just think all black people in powerful positions are tokens not deserving based on merit
It also has very tiny administrative costs compared to private sector health insurance. Fraud is certainly an issue though. The idea of social services is to provide for basic needs for the poor, homeless, etc - we're not talking capitalism vs government. We're talking non-profits vs government. Government social services cover a whole lot more people than non-profits do because they have much more infrastructure to use.
The guy wants to raise taxes on people who makes more than him, while himself gives almost nothing to charities. Yeah, that's the kind of leader we need.
it would be hilarious that people are still arguing class warfare as we're bailing out the wealthiest of the wealthy if it weren't true
Except we are not trying to bail out the wealthiest of the wealthy, you have completely missed the point.
we're bailing out their mistakes, I know the point, trying to prevent further disaster after letting the wolves run wild.
he's got a bunch in his house, which he acquired via a sweet heart real estate deal, brokered by MBNA.
We are not trying to, but they are the ones who are receiving the most protection. This is a fundamental argument that is always the natural response as to why the rich should pay more in taxes -The simple answer is because they have a lot more to lose and derive more indirect benefit from having a government than you or I ever could. Accordingly who do you think should be forced to pay for this? Taxes are going to go up now no matter who is president - there is absolutely no question. There is no amount of spending you can cut to get to a trillion dollars.
thanks sam, that's the point I should have made, who is going to receive the most benefit from this. not even close. but don't hate them because they're prosperous, just help them when they put us in danger.
This may be the case, but my understanding of both the 1980's and 1930's bailouts that this is being compared to is that both of those ended up netting a profit for the government. The BSC bailout is also expected to net a profit. Not sure on AIG, though it appears AIG is trying to pay back that loan now and get itself back on its own feet.
No **** the more money you have the more protection you get from a market bail out, but you could argue the bail out are worth a lot more to the middle class since any major problem affects greatly their lifestyle and retirement. In case you didn't know, we already have a progressive income tax system, close to half of the population hardly pay any federal income taxes. Who pays for this trillion dollars? Do you realize the bail out is NOT giving money away. If the government do this correctly, tax payers might come out ahead. All the new mark to market rules have severely compressed the values of many assets, if they can buy them for pennies on the dollar, this might even be a big windfall.
LOL - so essentially your argument is "you need that food more than I need that yacht, middle-class retiree, due to the principle of diminishing marginal returns!" Yeah you could make that argument. But if you made it anywhere other than as an economic hypothetical to illustrate the principle of utility, you should be drawn and quartered. LOL, in case you didn't know we actually don't have a progressive taxation system which is why Buffet pays less % than his secretary. And in case you didn't know, the right wing is continuously trying to make this system more and more regressive every single year. Signs point to doubtful on this not costing taxpayers trillions. The new operation isn't going to just lend out high interest loans (it's doubtful if AIG ever will pay its loan back btw, its asset sales are expected to top 40b. Where's the other 45 going to come from? ), it's going to take sh-t assets off the books and sell them off at crap prices. How is that not a straight giveaway?
My understanding is that the government is buying assets at lower prices, would probably hold onto them until things settle and the markets get moving again, and then will sell them again when demand is higher. The problem with these assets is that if you held them to maturity, they are probably worth more than they are being sold at unless all hell really breaks loose in the economy and defaults skyrocket and the like. But because all these companies need funds and no one has credit to give out, they've been forced to sell them at discount prices just to clear up their balance sheets.
Bingo though - the market seems to think that's a huge possibility which is why these things are so toxic to begin with. I don't see anybody talking today about how much $$$ the gov is going to make off of this, the initial assessment is that it's going to require a huge cash outlay from an already deficit-racked government.
