reDugan wrote on Oct 2, 2008 12:34 PM:
" You are way off on that percentage in Tomah. "
Dugan wrote on Oct 1, 2008 7:01 PM:
" " Once again, the small guy (me and most of you) will be asked to bail out the big guys. They get fat and we get the shaft. So much for the Republican notion of smaller government. When will this end? Hopefully on November 4, 2008. "
This is not about the "small guy bailing out the big guys." I can't believe anyone would think that. If this bailout package doesn't happen, the DOW will go down an additional couple thousand points, LIBOR and the TED spread will soar, and money will become more scarce, putting a huge downward effect on GDP, meaning investment will cease and unemployment will go up significantly. If this doesn't pass, the little guy will realize that its his problem too when he is out of a job, has to go out of business, or can't get a college, home, or car loan. We've been seeing initial unemployment claims over 450,000 a week over the last month or so and this will climb to well over 500,000 and stay there for a long while if this thing doesn't pass. Last, also don't forget that most folks that live in Tomah don't make enough to owe any federal income tax at all, so it's not like the "little guy" is going to have to pay for this. If the government loses any money on these assets - and it may not -, just recall that the top 1% of income earners in the US pay 40% of the federal income taxes, and the top 5% pay 65%, the top 25% pay 86%. In Tomah, you might have a couple dozen folks maximum who are in that top 25%. "
Dugan wrote on Oct 1, 2008 6:53 PM:
" "I agree we can't go back to this high a rate but we should remember this. Clinton raised the highest rate a few points, and the economy boomed, creating a surplus that has been plundered under Bush. Money at the topic never really trickles down. Often, like now, it disappears, or goes to CEOs who may have managed poorly. "
Clinton raised rates but they were still low. Plus the economy would have exploded in the late 90s no matter if the top tax rate was 35%, 39.6% or even 45%, considering the explosion of the tech boom, the stock market boom, the massive investment, the low interest rates, and the collapse in commodity prices and the Asian economies. Clinton simply had a huge wind at his back that for the most part confirmed the correctness of his economic policies by mere coincidence more than anything. This doesn't mean, however, that it George W would have been better off to leave tax rates high, far from. George W faced a large set of problems including 911, a war gone bad, huge wartime spending, an very high oil prices because of worldwide growth and no additional oil capacity. And I hope you don't really believe that money doesn't "trickle down" as it most certainly does. The additional spending and investment by the top income brackets has resulted in much higher GDP growth and the creation of a large number of jobs in this country, particularly relative to our European and Japanese counter-parts. "
To All of You wrote on Oct 1, 2008 12:33 PM:
" Amen. It's nice to see like-minded responses to this thread. Once again, the small guy (me and most of you) will be asked to bail out the big guys. They get fat and we get the shaft. So much for the Republican notion of smaller government. When will this end? Hopefully on November 4, 2008. "
Bailout wrote on Sep 30, 2008 9:23 PM:
" Where's the incentive to run your business in a reasonable manner? You can do whatever you want, take your huge salaries, and then after you run the business in the ground, the government will just come in and keep you afloat.
And taxing the top tier 90%? Great idea...you'll really motivate people to run thriving businesses and work hard to be successful that way. Why would someone work their backside off to become a CEO or doctor or anything else when you're going to take away 90% of their income? All redistribution of wealth does it keep people from striving to be successful. But that's the point right? Make everyone the same. That worked out great in the Soviet Union.
In 2006, the bottom 50% of individuals and families only carried 2.9% of the total tax burden. Can't really give a person much more of a free ride than that. "
Re Dugan wrote on Sep 29, 2008 3:37 PM:
" Good point. Actually the highest rate was 90% or above from the early 1940s to the early 1960s (except for one year when it dipped into the high 80s). This built our middle class, thanks largely to the GI Bill, and the Interstate system.
I agree we can't go back to this high a rate but we should remember this. Clinton raised the highest rate a few points, and the economy boomed, creating a surplus that has been plundered under Bush. Money at the topic never really trickles down. Often, like now, it disappears, or goes to CEOs who may have managed poorly. "
Ideology wrote on Sep 29, 2008 2:34 PM:
" I hope all you conservatives are ready for the cosequences that will come from doing nothing.Nothing worse then a bunch of zealots. "
Dugan wrote on Sep 27, 2008 9:20 PM:
" In the 1950 and early 1960s, the federal income tax rate for the highest income bracket was 91%. From the mid-60s until 1981 it was 71%. We probably shouldn't go back to rates quite that high, but perhaps we should create another much higher income bracket and increase rates high enough to discourage income packages above it. "
RE Real Patriot wrote on Sep 26, 2008 3:39 PM:
" And on November 4th, they will line up to cast thier ballots for John McCain and the taxpayer can expect more of the McSame. "
Real Patriot wrote on Sep 26, 2008 10:25 AM:
" Almost forgot...
You know it's a big news day when the largest bank failure in U.S. history gets relegated to second-tier status on the front pages of the newspapers. After seizing Washington Mutual, which was the country's largest savings-and-loan institution, federal regulators immediately turned around and sold much of the company to J.P. Morgan Chase for $1.9 billion in a deal that will create the nation's largest bank in terms of deposits. WaMu's board was "kept completely in the dark" about the deal, and its chief executive, Alan Fishman, was actually in midair when the deal finally came through. Fishman shouldn't feel too bad, though. He has been on the job for only 16 days and "is eligible for $11.6 million in cash severance and will get to keep his $7.5 million signing bonus," says the NYT. "
Real Patriot wrote on Sep 26, 2008 10:23 AM:
" This blew up a little too early....they were hoping it would blow up in Obama's face after the election.
From the Republican platform:
We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself. "
Mike wrote on Sep 25, 2008 7:52 PM:
" I blame the government for allowing this much debt to accrue without proper safegaurds. "
And who pays the bill wrote on Sep 25, 2008 5:52 PM:
" There is no doubt that the government will move to bail out the failed financial institutions that leveraged risky morgages for corporate profit. We knew it was happening, and more importantly, we knew that a slight downward turn in the economy could cause a horrific spiral in the "money lending business".
But hey, some folks were getting fat, so who cares if tens of thousands of "borrowers" lost thier homes.
Now the taxpayers are being pushed to rush to thier aid. Even with limitations on CEO salaries, the cost of these bad investments have already reaped the rewards for the money lenders. Now, we're going to cover thier debt.
So who covers the debt of the family that lost thier homes? Who will cover the debt and risk of any proposed bailout?
I don't have the answer, but something is seriously wrong when we let corporate risk management be borne by the taxpayer. "
Advertisement 
Advertisement 
