i asked my co-worker the other day why the $750 billion bailout didn't go directly to homeowners to help pay off their mortgages, which would eventually get to the banks? he responded, that the banks are the backbone of our financial system and they need the money to loan out and keep our economy going. it's more immediate.
however, in reality many of these banks and lenders are holding on to the money to cover their own back-side.
its beginning to look like socialism is a good thing when the rich need it to stay...rich, but we still shouldn't consider setting up systems to help the poor and middle class.
however, in reality many of these banks and lenders are holding on to the money to cover their own back-side.
its beginning to look like socialism is a good thing when the rich need it to stay...rich, but we still shouldn't consider setting up systems to help the poor and middle class.
8 comments:
Hey Dave - I don't understand your last paragraph. Would you expound a little? I hope all is great with you.
it means the us government will bail out the banks but not the people. my question is, why is it ok to bail out large corporations but not the people. to me its socialism for the wealthy. which people seem to be ok with, but heaven forbid we help the poor directly like we help the banks.
anyway, things are good here. keeping busy. how are the kids?
I hate to say it folks, but I have to agree with the Dave on at least part of this.
It seems disingenuous to complain about a future of socialism, redistributing wealth and increasing government programs on the backs of taxpayers when the bailout is a current example of redistributing wealth and increasing government programs on the backs of taxpayers.
what, exactly did the bail-out bail out? for the record, I am pretty upset that they did it. i think it was a financially irresponsible thing for the government to do. but in the end, the polititians are just trying to cover up their own financial irresponsibility that allowed this problem to happen.
also, in the end, i'm glad my hope is not in a bank account.
james, you just made my day!
the bail out, bailed out lenders, freddie mac, fannie mae and AIG who were on the verge of going under.
now as a response to james, "on the backs of the tax payers". i can only pray that the taxpayers get back with interest what they fronted for this bail out. however, that doesn't look likely and if it ever happens, it won't be any time soon.
-dlp
if you do the math, the bail out probably cost us about $5k per tax-paying citizen. we just have to vote john mccain in and we'll get it back right away. j/k.
by the way, for some very enlightening research do a search of the tax rates and tax rate history. i wonder how much more than the middle class "the rich" need to be taxed before it's "fair" in Sen. Obama's eyes.
one of the things obama said during the last debate that i thought most silly was that the "rich" should have no problem doing a little extra to help the country recover. i'm loath to give money to folks that are irresponsible with their financial decisions.
my wife and i chose to buy a house at the price and int. rate we have. no one held a gun to us, we said no to several "good deals", and i'll never ask someone else to "fix" my credit or reimburse me for any loss of equity in my house.
that said, i still don't understand why congress approved the bail-out.
i also loath to give my money to those who are financially irresponsible with it. but the fact is, both democrats and republicans have spent a lot of my money irresponsibly. look are you debt over the last eight years. i also believe strongly that we as individuals should be financially responsible. i tell my students all the time, "dont take tips form the government on how to spend money"
as far as obama's comment about the rich stepping up to help out, as much as i hate giving money to those who spend irresponsibly, its would be a little easier knowing i make 250k a year.
hey, when evangelicals step up and start giving 10% or more of their own income away to people who will spend their money wisely. i will be first in line to say the government needs to step back.
-dlp
ya, but dave the "rich" are aleady giving more. look at the current tax rates based on income and on the history for the last 15 years. the bush administration has raised taxes on the wealthy more than clinton did.
plus, socialism didn't work in germany and russia, doesn't work in china and won't in the states.
it's all a ploy to get us to ask people we don't know to give more money to a government that is frankly too big to solve the problem.
Post a Comment