Here are some more of the great comments I received during the weekened regarding the government’s bailout plan. If you have something to say about the bailout or economic situation, please leave your comment here.
“I’m not sure anyone has the answers to our financial problems, although having said that a few things are note-worthy to mention–first, even if the $700 billion the government may wind up spending on trying to restore liquidity and some measure of confidence into the markets may not solve the problems by itself but if it returns some liquidity therefore helping return a measure of confidence in the markets it will go a long way toward turning the markets around.
“Second, if whomever becomes president, IF and that is always a big if, he and the Congress finally get it enough to use that $700 billion the right way in a timely manner and they get fiscally more responsible about wasting and spending on pork that does little to help the average Joe and do the right things that help create jobs and therefore returns some faith and stability to the markets this will make all the difference in how long or how severe things will get. I hope for the best and play very defensively. If that means holding back and waiting a while then that’s fine because I try to always look out for myself.
“The thing that does worry me to some degree right now is what the next serious problem will be and I do have some idea that it could very well be something to do with the credit card companies or market. I say this because rates seem to be on the rise, some have had their credit amounts lowered and defaults on cards are definitely on a notable rise, this is a bit unsettling to me and one has to wonder, or ask the next question–that being, what is the true health of the credit card industry? I really hope this doesn’t turn into another credit-related blizzard, eventually even the government can only do so much to help and if they can’t we’re all in deeper trouble than anyone wants to admit.”
M.W.
—
“Instead of the bailout plan, why doesn’t the government follow Warren Buffett? Have the financial institutions issue preferred stock with a 10% dividend and warrants to the government. The financial institutions would then have sufficient cash and the opportunity to take care of their own bad debts. In three to five years, the government can collect on the preferred stock and warrants. This would have eliminated pork deals. If it’s good enough for Buffett, Goldman-Sachs and GE, why isn’t it good enough for the U.S.A.?”
R.S.
—
“I am tired of the political ads and the cliché-laden speeches of the candidates. It’s been especially horrible in New Hampshire this year as both parties obviously consider this to be a real battleground state for our Senate seat and for our four Electoral College votes. I dread listening to these politicians, to their empty promises, and their vague generalizations. Their 30-second clips will not get my vote. I would like to get rid of all of them. I don’t imagine that our forefathers ever imagined that we would have “professional politicians” running our country. Can you imagine Thomas Jefferson filling out a census bureau form stating profession: “politician”? I don’t believe we will see a marked improvement in our governmental process until we eliminate these “professional politicians” from office. Professional politicians must always think about their next term in office and how best to prepare themselves for the re-election process. This ever-present focus on the next term does not lay the groundwork for making the tough decisions of today. As a result, we, as a nation, never take the tough medicine that austerity measures dictate. We keep borrowing; we keep spending; we keep putting ourselves and our children into deeper debt. The lobbyists, big business, and the PACs continue to push their agendas with healthy campaign contributions to our political “leaders.” And our “leaders” continue to take the easy road by postponing the austerity measures we desperately need.
“Here’s my solution to the financial crisis today and, more importantly, to the profligate spending and failures of our government at large:
“1. TERM LIMITS. Initiate the process to introduce (and pass) an amendment to the constitution limiting terms in the House and the Senate to one term. With only one term to serve, we get rid of the “professional politicians” and reduce (maybe eliminate) the influence of campaign-contributing lobbyists. Many would argue that in doing this, we would eliminate the continuity in Washington, rid the process of those “experienced” members. I’ll take my chances without those “experienced” members at the helm. Their track record has not been that great!
“2. MANDATORY BALANCED BUDGET. Initiate the process to introduce (and pass) an amendment to balance the budget without any loopholes. No borrowing from the social security and Medicare funds. Any extraordinary borrowing to fund wars, new highway construction, etc., would have to come from tax revenue. Any changes or exceptions could only come about by a California-style referendum in favor.
“3. LINE ITEM VETO. We need to give the president line item veto to rid the bill-packaging process of all the pork. It’s abhorrent that these “professional politicians” in times of national crisis can still have the gall to fill last week’s bill with pork to fund rum research and build NASCAR racetracks!
“I believe the above changes would drastically change the landscape in Washington and it would rid our country of a growing entitlement mentality, fostered by a Congress that knows only how to spend without concern for the future.”
Thanks and best regards,
W.B.P.H.
—
Have something to add to the discussion? Please leave your comments here.
1 response so far ↓
1 FRANK KIELNIARZ // Oct 11, 2008 at 5:04 pm
We need to eliminate the corporate, or business, federal income tax. It is not paid by the business but simply collected by them from the consumer. Doing this conduit service costs a lot of money that could be used for more enticing purposes. to suggest a few: reduce the price of the company’s goods or services; raise the wages of the employees; pay a bigger dividend. I opt for the latter. The shareholders own the business and should therefore be allowed to decide what to do with their share of the company’s earnings. My suggestion is in the range of 75 to 85% payout. The shareholder should be allowed to decide if it would be in cash or additional shares.
An additional benefit of this idea is that it would eliminate the need for corporate incentives and loopholes. These only serve to reduce the income tax paid which would now be ZERO. Yes, the individual taxpayer would have to pay taxes on these dividends at ordinary income tax rates but this money would only be taxed once, not like it is now at once plus.
On the spending side, the general rule should be that the government would do only those things that the citizens COULD NOT do for themselves not WOULD NOT do. There is a huge difference between these words.
Leave a Comment