Four More Years? Of This?

[chucky2]

I guess they better get cutting then. Anyone who votes for any tax increase before the Pols have demonstrated they have cut (that's post, not pre) is an insane fool.

It'd be literally the same thing as a crack whore, who's got crack jammed into her pockets, coming to you and saying, 'I've quit the crackz, give me some money so I can get myself up on my own two feet.' Seriously, who in their right mind would be insane enough to give that person money? The answer is, no one.

Right now our Pols are the crack whore, the crack in the pockets is them still spending like drunken sailors, and the wanting of money is increased taxes.

I know in real life no one would be insane to give the adict the money, what I can't figure out is, why are people insane enough to give the Pols more? And we partly have our answer in, People aren't insane to give the Pols more money if it's not their money they're voting the Pols to have, especially when these same people will get Gov services/bennies they support having/others having.

It's disgusting people are like that.....

Chuck

 

[dank69]

I bet if all of the people who have no federal tax burden (or make money by filing tax returns) had to actually pay the federal government... there would be a shit ton more outrage. But to these people nothing is broken so you have faux support of their candidate who promises to make others pay while the budget is increased.

I agree. Even a modest 1% effective tax rate rather than -10% would get some people concerned about where their money is going.

I see a couple of cro-mags have decided to weigh in.

 

[Texashiker]

There would have been no "Bank B" is what you are failing to grasp. Once the big four go down you'll have an unmanageable run on the remaining institutions which will all also fail (provided they aren't killed by CDS debacle first).

So what? Let them fail.

All of your examples are short term issues.

So what if there is a run, that is why FDIC was put into place.

Maybe walmart should orchestrate a failure? We would not want the worlds largest retailer to collapse now would we? Where would be buy stuff at? Could we imagine the horror if super walmarts all over the nation closed? People would be starving in the streets.

Maybe the banking system needs to fail, that way the whole system can be rebooted.

 

[child of wonder]

I see a couple of cro-mags have decided to weigh in.

How can we expect people who have net negative taxes to care about the fiscal responsibility of the government?

Our tax system needs massive reform and, at worst, people in poverty should have an almost zero tax burden.

 

[Texashiker]

Our tax system needs massive reform and, at worst, people in poverty should have an almost zero tax burden.

Part of the problem is the child credit, which encourages poor people to have more children.

Should the people who contribute something get the most out of the system?

The way its setup now, the people that contribute the least get the most in return.

 

[FerrelGeek]

This country is fucked. No one is willing to pay higher taxes and no one wants anything cut.

This. Too many people want their freebies and too few people want to pay. Thing is, you can't tax 'the rich' enough to pay for the freebies that everyone wants. How do you make up ~1.2 $T per year? If we don't find a way to re-energize our private sector, thereby creating tax revenue, we're doomed.

 

[K1052]

So what? Let them fail.

All of your examples are short term issues.

So what if there is a run, that is why FDIC was put into place.

Maybe walmart should orchestrate a failure? We would not want the worlds largest retailer to collapse now would we? Where would be buy stuff at? Could we imagine the horror if super walmarts all over the nation closed? People would be starving in the streets.

Maybe the banking system needs to fail, that way the whole system can be rebooted.

The lack of credit would rapidly cascade through the economy and add huge downward momentum propelling us into a depression like we saw in the 30s, just much more quickly this time. Those companies borrowing that cash need it to pay workers and buy materials they require to operate. Absent that those companies will idle or drastically reduce their operating level...which would put millions of people out of work and stoke the panic to thermonuclear levels.

The Deposit Insurance Fund can only handle about $50B in payouts while total US deposits exist in the trillions of dollars. Even that funding comes from premiums assessed on the banks themselves so as banks fold that revenue dries up.

 

[Texashiker]

The lack of credit would rapidly cascade through the economy and add huge downward momentum propelling us into a depression like we saw in the 30s, just much more quickly this time. Those companies borrowing that cash need it to pay workers and buy materials they require to operate. Absent that those companies will idle or drastically reduce their operating level...which would put millions of people out of work and stoke the panic to thermonuclear levels.

The Deposit Insurance Fund can only handle about $50B in payouts while total US deposits exist in the trillions of dollars. Even that funding comes from premiums assessed on the banks themselves so as banks fold that revenue dries up.

If the foundation is rotten, no matter how much you shore up the walls, the foundation will still be rotten.

I understand your concern, but how many times can the taxpayers bail out the banks?

For that matter, how many times can the taxpayers bail out entire industries before we go bankrupt?

So what is the answer, for the federal reserve to keep printing money by the trainload? Or should we fix the underlying foundation issues?

Obama has allowed the federal reserve to print money out of thin air for 4 years. How long can this pace be sustained?

 

[jstern01]

This. Too many people want their freebies and too few people want to pay. Thing is, you can't tax 'the rich' enough to pay for the freebies that everyone wants. How do you make up ~1.2 $T per year? If we don't find a way to re-energize our private sector, thereby creating tax revenue, we're doomed.

Before you can fix the issue, you need to understand the problem. While many agree if the economy improves tax revenues should also go up. But that is not totally accurate. Many large corporation purposefully record revenue on the books of their off shore subsidiaries to avoid the full tax burden of the US. If we were to lower taxes and eliminate the corporate loop holes, the effective tax rate of corporation as a whole would probably not change much, so the revenue to the gov't would not either.

Cutting the budget on the other side of the coin has its pitfalls as well. If we tackle cutting social programs like Education/Energy/HHS (which is a small part of the budget, but often mention as a starting point), the burden would shift to the states. This would force states, county and local gov't to raise taxes on properties, income (where applicable) and intangible (ie stocks and bonds, investments).

So what is the solution? Both need to happen, we need to trim the entire federal budget a reasonable amount, without impacting their basic functions (clean water,food safety, defense, transportation) and raise taxes across the board in a humane and reasonable way. Cutting taxes and cutting federal/state/local budgets will not fix the problem.

We all enjoy the benefits of these services that are provided. The roads we drive on, the protection of our property and lifes, the investments in science, education and basic R&D.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

The colored pieces of the pie are the only ones that can really be cut somewhat easily... and altogether they're only a third of the total.

The rest is all stuff that cuts for which no majority support exists.

2 to ~4 Trillion growth in ~8 years? And yet we can't cut? really?


EDIT:
The only thread I could find was one I stated that had 2.4 Trillion in 2004. But I'm pretty sure I posted one when it hit 2Trillion. But either way, it's WAY too much money in the Fed's hands.

 

[K1052]

If the foundation is rotten, no matter how much you shore up the walls, the foundation will still be rotten.

I understand your concern, but how many times can the taxpayers bail out the banks?

For that matter, how many times can the taxpayers bail out entire industries before we go bankrupt?

So what is the answer, for the federal reserve to keep printing money by the trainload? Or should we fix the underlying foundation issues?

Obama has allowed the federal reserve to print money out of thin air for 4 years. How long can this pace be sustained?

A simpler and beefed up Volcker Rule that would require enormous penalties from banks that violate. Institute federal minimum sentencing guidelines for financial fraud and reduce (or eliminate) non-prosecution agreements between regulators and firms. Establish a "captain of the ship" rule for high level executives that allows the government to strip compensation when the firm is found to have substantially violated regulation...no more of this "I had no idea bullshit".

 

[BoberFett]

If the foundation is rotten, no matter how much you shore up the walls, the foundation will still be rotten.

I understand your concern, but how many times can the taxpayers bail out the banks?

For that matter, how many times can the taxpayers bail out entire industries before we go bankrupt?

So what is the answer, for the federal reserve to keep printing money by the trainload? Or should we fix the underlying foundation issues?

Obama has allowed the federal reserve to print money out of thin air for 4 years. How long can this pace be sustained?

People give you a hard time around here, and well they should, because some of your opinions are... not well grounded.

But it does seem in this instance that you understand the crux of the problem. None of the fundamentals have been addressed. The bailout was a bandage on a gaping wound. Gangrene is now setting in. The bailout supporters will tell you the sky was falling and something had to be done, but what they won't admit is that the sky is still falling. They only postponed the inevitable, and the eventual crash will be even bigger and more severe.

 

[Texashiker]

A simpler and beefed up Volcker Rule that would require enormous penalties from banks that violate. Institute federal minimum sentencing guidelines for financial fraud and reduce (or eliminate) non-prosecution agreements between regulators and firms. Establish a "captain of the ship" rule for high level executives that allows the government to strip compensation when the firm is found to have substantially violated regulation...no more of this "I had no idea bullshit".

All of that is fine and dandy, but its not going to happen.

The next part of my post is partially directed at the above quote.

They only postponed the inevitable, and the eventual crash will be even bigger and more severe.

As long as the federal reserve has access to printing presses, we can just print more money.

Wall street and the banks need a few trillion dollars, no problem. Which is also what germany did after world war I, and we know how that ended.

Germany had massive debt from world war I, and they tried to print their way out of debt, which collapsed the economy.

Neither of the major parties are going to do anything to address the real issues, which is out of control greed and government spending.

This is not just obamas problem, we have had out of control spending for decades.

Debt is debt, germany tried to print their way out of debt, which is what the federal reserve is trying to do. One question is, will the US economy take the same route as post WW I Germany?

 

[zsdersw]

2 to ~4 Trillion growth in ~8 years? And yet we can't cut? really?

Show me where in that pie it is politically feasible to cut significantly.

 

[Throckmorton]

Show me where in that pie it is politically feasible to cut significantly.

Your demand is based on the assumption that it's an issue of political will. It's not, it's an issue of sustaining the economy or destroying it.

I want him to show me where we can cut spending from without putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work and taking their spending, mortgage payments, tuition payments, and savings out of the economy.

 

[K1052]

All of that is fine and dandy, but its not going to happen.

I'd prefer not to immolate the world economy in the name of punishing the financial sector. What I listed is achievable, politically difficult but probably achievable depending on the outcome of the elections.

 

[Darwin333]

There would have been no "Bank B" is what you are failing to grasp. Once the big four go down you'll have an unmanageable run on the remaining institutions which will all also fail (provided they aren't killed by CDS debacle first).

Credit unions are in no way a replacement for commercial banking and I question the sanity of anyone who says they are.

Take them into receivership, strip out the bad debt, cancel all fraudulent deals, sell off the rest in pieces.

Solves the problem and ensures it can't happen again on anything close to this scale. What did we do instead? We helped them get even bigger so now they really have us over a barrel.

 

[Darwin333]

Your demand is based on the assumption that it's an issue of political will. It's not, it's an issue of sustaining the economy or destroying it.

I want him to show me where we can cut spending from without putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work and taking their spending, mortgage payments, tuition payments, and savings out of the economy.

Not only is that not possible it will never be possible to withdraw deficit spending from the economy without having a negative effect on economic growth. It is mathematically impossible.

Basically, your argument can be used to argue that we should forever run a deficit as large as the one we currently are as a percentage of GDP.

 

[Darwin333]

A simpler and beefed up Volcker Rule that would require enormous penalties from banks that violate. Institute federal minimum sentencing guidelines for financial fraud and reduce (or eliminate) non-prosecution agreements between regulators and firms. Establish a "captain of the ship" rule for high level executives that allows the government to strip compensation when the firm is found to have substantially violated regulation...no more of this "I had no idea bullshit".

The banksters committed countless crimes per current law at the time (and now) and not a single one has been prosecuted or even indicted. What makes you think a few more laws would change anything? Even the fines they levy are a joke, when a company profits $100M from doing something against the law and gets fined $10M that $10M is simply part of their "cost of doing business".

 

[Throckmorton]

Not only is that not possible it will never be possible to withdraw deficit spending from the economy without having a negative effect on economic growth. It is mathematically impossible.

Basically, your argument can be used to argue that we should forever run a deficit as large as the one we currently are as a percentage of GDP.

No, we should run as large a deficit as needed to not destroy the economy which would make the deficit worse.

The way to reduce the deficit is to grow the economy, not send it into a tailspin.

 

[Texashiker]

The banksters committed countless crimes per current law at the time (and now) and not a single one has been prosecuted or even indicted. What makes you think a few more laws would change anything? Even the fines they levy are a joke, when a company profits $100M from doing something against the law and gets fined $10M that $10M is simply part of their "cost of doing business".

Bank laws are like gun control laws, why not enforce the ones we have now, instead of passing more laws?

 

[K1052]

Take them into receivership, strip out the bad debt, cancel all fraudulent deals, sell off the rest in pieces.

Solves the problem and ensures it can't happen again on anything close to this scale. What did we do instead? We helped them get even bigger so now they really have us over a barrel.

What you propose would have taken months if not several years. The government has no such mandate or even the infrastructure required to do something like that on such a massive scale with no notice. An act of congress would be required. Meanwhile the economy would be a smoking ruin.

Consolidation was an unfortunate but necessary compromise that had to be made at the time. It's possible to unwind that over the long term as well if the gov will pass regulation to that end.

 

[K1052]

The banksters committed countless crimes per current law at the time (and now) and not a single one has been prosecuted or even indicted. What makes you think a few more laws would change anything? Even the fines they levy are a joke, when a company profits $100M from doing something against the law and gets fined $10M that $10M is simply part of their "cost of doing business".

By enormous penalties I would mean a fine amounting to several times whatever was earned by violating. Make it severely unprofitable to break the rules.

 

[BoberFett]

As long as the federal reserve has access to printing presses, we can just print more money.

Wall street and the banks need a few trillion dollars, no problem. Which is also what germany did after world war I, and we know how that ended.

Germany had massive debt from world war I, and they tried to print their way out of debt, which collapsed the economy.

Neither of the major parties are going to do anything to address the real issues, which is out of control greed and government spending.

This is not just obamas problem, we have had out of control spending for decades.

Debt is debt, germany tried to print their way out of debt, which is what the federal reserve is trying to do. One question is, will the US economy take the same route as post WW I Germany?

Printing our way out of debt will shift ever more money to the top 0.01%.

The people who back things like QE are the same people who whine about income disparity and the 1%. They apparently don't realize they're helping enrich those they despise.

 

[jman19]

There is no doubt that lending is important to the economy, but why should the government continue to bailout failed business practices?

Let the bad banks fail, something like a credit union will take their place.




A flat tax, so everyone pays their fair share.

Sorry, there is no way credit unions could have stepped in to replace institutions like BoA, Citi, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, etc.

And if you think FDIC insurance was going to save consumer deposits from a massive bank run... you are just dead wrong.

The bailouts were an unfortunate necessity. What needs to happen now are tougher regulations and criminal investigations in to wrong doing. No more slaps on the wrist with fines levied against the institutions. Real people need to be accountable for fraud. And regulations need to be tough enough to make the financial system stable yet open enough to make sure capital ends up in the right hands. Not an easy task by any stretch.