|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
SEC. 118. FUNDING.
21 For the purpose of the authorities granted in this
22 Act, and for the costs of administering those authorities,
23 the Secretary may use the proceeds of the sale of any secu24
rities issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States
25 Code, and the purposes for which securities may be issued
1 under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, are ex2
tended to include actions authorized by this Act, including
3 the payment of administrative expenses. Any funds ex4
pended or obligated by the Secretary for actions author5
ized by this Act, including the payment of administrative
6 expenses, shall be deemed appropriated at the time of such
7 expenditure or obligation. |
Chapter 31 of Title 31 governs the forms and procedure for public debt, including the selling of bonds and adjusting of interest rates on current retirement bonds.
They're tacking the $700billion onto our national debt. Nice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So, what will the 700bn be after interest paid when it is finally paid off? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Priorities, Kuros: first you stop the bleeding, then you address the cause. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Priorities, Kuros: first you stop the bleeding, then you address the cause. |
Gopher, you and I both know that Congress was completely capable of raising taxes on this issue. I would not be snarking if they had. But they took the coward's out on this one. You know its true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I disagree. It is simply unreasonable and utterly unrealistic for you to expect Congress to raise taxes, especially at that level, at this point, as the election is looming before us, in 2008. A Democratic Congress raising taxes like that? Seven-hundred billion dollars in new taxes? What would have happened to B. Obama's candidacy? I do not fault the Democrats for not wanting to jeapordize their very real chance of winning the presidency this election.
Before you retort with an attack, I agree with you that we need leadership who will raise taxes, reduce the govt's budget overall, and make a sustained longterm effort to redeem the national debt, or at least reduce it to a manageable size. I am talking sustained, firm, straight-talking leadership over a period of twenty-five to thirty-five years, bare minimum. RFK promised to be such a leader in 1968. He proposed significant healthcare reform at an Indiana med-school that year. Med students asked him in the usual gotcha way: "Who will pay for this?" RFK simply responded, without even flinching: "You will."
But I do not believe that that will occur anytime soon. People do not like to think longterm. They usually become dismissive and hostile about it. They prefer the comfort of simplistic partisan politics ("the other side caused this," "elect us and we will 'change' all of it," "whenever we experience problems, it is not our fault, but the other side, who held power before us, and therefore did this," etc., etc., until the end of time).
What can I say? The older I become the more I lose faith in people, generally. If you and I and others like us were running the govt, things would be totally different, different in the American economy, different in world affairs, different across the board. But people like us usually (a) do not want to have anything to do with govt; or (b) remain unelectable because of our frankness on issues such as sacrificing now for longterm security. C'est la vie, Kuros.
I still support this bill as an immediate-action measure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
I disagree. It is simply unreasonable and utterly unrealistic for you to expect Congress to raise taxes, especially at that level, at this point, as the election is looming before us, in 2008. A Democratic Congress raising taxes like that? Seven-hundred billion dollars in new taxes? What would have happened to B. Obama's candidacy? I do not fault the Democrats for not wanting to jeapordize their very real chance of winning the presidency this election.
Before you retort with an attack, I agree with you that we need leadership who will raise taxes, reduce the govt's budget overall, and make a sustained longterm effort to redeem the national debt, or at least reduce it to a manageable size. I am talking sustained, firm, straight-talking leadership over a period of twenty-five to thirty-five years, bare minimum. RFK promised to be such a leader in 1968. He proposed significant healthcare reform at an Indiana med-school that year. Med students asked him in the usual gotcha way: "Who will pay for this?" RFK simply responded, without even flinching: "You will."
But I do not believe that that will occur anytime soon. People do not like to think longterm. They usually become dismissive and hostile about it. They prefer the comfort of simplistic partisan politics ("the other side caused this," "elect us and we will 'change' all of it," "whenever we experience problems, it is not our fault, but the other side, who held power before us, and therefore did this," etc., etc., until the end of time).
What can I say? The older I become the more I lose faith in people, generally. If you and I and others like us were running the govt, things would be totally different, different in the American economy, different in world affairs, different across the board. But people like us usually (a) do not want to have anything to do with govt; or (b) remain unelectable because of our frankness on issues such as sacrificing now for longterm security. C'est la vie, Kuros.
I still support this bill. |
Hate to say it Gopher, but you're sounding a lot like me here. Well the lat paragraph at least. Only difference is I view the US in worse shape than you do at this point in time.
And I agree, given current political circumstances (an election in a month), there is no way Congress would ever think of raising taxes or do anything radical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Couldn't they give it more of a snappy name that makes American feel more secure?
Something to help them remember freedom or their patriotism?
What seems shocking to me is that, at no point have I heard any talk of the government making an effort to SAVE money; cut a program; or make any effort to free up funds.
I understand it would be a finger in a hole in a dam but geez, someone keeping their eyes focused on SOME MEASURE of fiscal responsibility would be grand |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bigfeet
Joined: 29 May 2008
Location: Grrrrr.....
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| So, what will the 700bn be after interest paid when it is finally paid off? |
I doubt if it will be paid of in our lifetime. America already owes 9 trillion dollars even before this mess. So we get to be stupid and our kids get to pay for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
N. Pelosi seems to have bought into the idea that the govt has invested and will recoup these funds -- and has thus shielded taxpayers from the entire thing.
| Quote: |
[N.] Pelosi said the provisions added by Congress will protect taxpayers from having to pay for the bailout.
"We sent a message to Wall Street -- the party is over," she said at a press conference with Reid and other Democratic leaders from the House and Senate.
The core of the bill is based on Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's request for authority to purchase troubled assets from financial institutions so banks can resume lending and so the credit markets, now virtually frozen, can begin to operate more normally.
But Democrats and Republicans -- concerned about the potential taxpayer cost - have added several conditions and restrictions to protect taxpayers on the down side and give them a chance at some of the potential upside if the companies benefit from the plan. "People have to know that this isn't about a bailout of Wall Street. It's a buy-in so we can turn our economy around," Pelosi said... |
And I am displeased to see that Congress grandfathered the existing "golden parachutes." Unacceptable. We are paying for them now.
| Quote: |
| [Institutions] also will not be allowed to write new contracts that allow for "golden parachutes" for their top 5 executives if they are fired or the company goes belly up. But the executives' current contracts, which may include golden parachutes, would still stand. |
CNN Reports |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jandar
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Does it outlaw "Default Swaps"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jandar
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
N. Pelosi seems to have bought into the idea that the govt has invested and will recoup these funds -- and has thus shielded taxpayers from the entire thing.
| Quote: |
[N.] Pelosi said the provisions added by Congress will protect taxpayers from having to pay for the bailout.
"We sent a message to Wall Street -- the party is over," she said at a press conference with Reid and other Democratic leaders from the House and Senate.
The core of the bill is based on Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's request for authority to purchase troubled assets from financial institutions so banks can resume lending and so the credit markets, now virtually frozen, can begin to operate more normally.
But Democrats and Republicans -- concerned about the potential taxpayer cost - have added several conditions and restrictions to protect taxpayers on the down side and give them a chance at some of the potential upside if the companies benefit from the plan. "People have to know that this isn't about a bailout of Wall Street. It's a buy-in so we can turn our economy around," Pelosi said... |
And I am displeased to see that Congress grandfathered the existing "golden parachutes." Unacceptable. We are paying for them now.
| Quote: |
| [Institutions] also will not be allowed to write new contracts that allow for "golden parachutes" for their top 5 executives if they are fired or the company goes belly up. But the executives' current contracts, which may include golden parachutes, would still stand. |
CNN Reports |
Screw the Golden Parasites, all executives of any bank or financial institute currently in default, in the USA should have all of their personal wealth confiscated for use in the bailout, period end of discussion.
All stock held by any BOD member at any bank in the US will have their assets frozen until further notice, that means no selling of stock no exercising of stock options by any current board member of any financial institution (that includes all their stock even non-financial holding like Ford and GMC).
That's what I call action.
All this other stuff is just more smoke in front of some well angled mirror. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The bill has failed. Though better than the Paulson "plan" it wasn't a very good one anyway and Congress will be sure to go back to the drawing board. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hater Depot wrote: |
| ...and Congress will be sure to go back to the drawing board. |
I am not certain that anything substantial will occur before November. Partisanship and recrimination are dominating this process now. I know academics on campus who are publicly -- that is, openly advising their classes -- that this entire thing is a neocon conspiracy to establish fascism and that they should all urge their legislators to reject any such plan to deal with this so-called crisis, or "this very convenient 'crisis,'" as one has explained to me. Some are complaining and administrators are in turn sending out existing policy statements about using classrooms and university time and resources to engage in politics to no avail.
Getting ugly all around. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khyber wrote: |
| What seems shocking to me is that, at no point have I heard any talk of the government making an effort to SAVE money; cut a program; or make any effort to free up funds. |
And what is not shocking to me anymore is the elephant in the living room no one is talking about which has more to do with the current crisis than anything: the massive, bloated, supremely wasteful, unproductive military budget.
The amount of money simply lost, that is, that the Pentagon just cannot find, dwarfs the amount needed for the bailout. Add to that the tens of trillions for which we have receipts and the culprit becomes obvious.
Watch the September 10, 2001 press conference at which Donald Rumsfeld announces that the Pentagon cannot find $2.3 Trillion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
