»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Bail out bill, for WHO?
| The Alley |
|
Bail out bill, for WHO? |
|
WTBAKELAR
since 2008-09-09
Posts 1089Utah, USA 
|
435 pages written by attorneys, Did your Representitive read it? Did he vote for it? Was it in YOUR best interest? Section 325 provides essential tax breaks for the wool research fund, You need wool RIGHT? Section 503 gives tax breaks for the manufacturer of wooden arrows used in toys for children. Price tag, $6 million, This should save the banks and Wall street, How about this one? Puerto Rican and Virgin Island rum producers get $192 million. Section 309, tax credit for economic development in America, defined as American Samoa. Section 316, a tax break for railroad track maintenance, Section 317, a tax break for racetracks. Nascar gets tax breaks? Section 502, qualified television and film productions given an extension of favorable expensing rules, $10 million. Do we really need to help out the film industry? Section 111 provides for the expansion and modification of advanced coal project investment credits. Section 113, increased funding for black lung disability fund. Saves our mortgages? Please tell me this is not what I voted for, that the real issues are being brought to bare, that our elected representitives care more about this Country than their selves and how much power they can amass. Please tell me That both of the Presidential Candidates voted against this. Sadly they both voted for it. GOD BLESS AMERICA, QUICKLY PLEASE. The answer is always NO, Until the question is asked. |
||
| © Copyright 2008 Wm. Tracey Bakelar - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I agree, the bill is a joke and we're the ones who end up paying for it. Good post, thanks for bringing it to our attention. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
The presidential candidate who touts his keen ability to supress earmarks was not only NOT able to lead his colleages -- but, was not able to supress these earmarks. We have a couple of choices in front of us though -- we can either reboot the system -- which means killing the currency and establishing a new central bank -- which would mean the end of fungibility and a return to pure barter until the new system and currency were established (let's look at how much fun that was in Iraq after the fall of Sadam Hussein's regime for example), or we can create some more funny money -- out of thin air -- and purchase the assets of these flailing titans of finance -- which paves the way for the next bubble -- alternative energy.. this should kick the can down the road for about another 20 years until every possible windmill has been built -- then we're going to face problems we haven't created yet. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Local Rebel: I don't know why this bill didn't make it illegal to hoard pennies in coffee cans. This would immidiately solve the liquidity crisis by pumping billions into the economy overnight, create jobs (counting pennies,) and make it less profitable to steal copper piping from foreclosed homes. How could this obvious and simple remedy have been overlooked? Makes one wonder what really goes in the Capitol. Best, Jimbeaux  |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Reb, McCain never touted himself as able to suppress all earmarks, he stated that he never participated in the practice himself personally in his legislation and that he was against the common practice of them as an abuse of the taxpayer and that as president he would veto bills that contained them. And he was successful when he returned to D.C. in the initial meeting with the President and Congressional leaders by standing with John Boehner in his denunciation of the Democratic version of the bill being floated and the fact that the Democrats were locking the Republicans out of the process of trying to improve it, which led to the subsequent shouting match. But, of course, I didn't hear that in the MSM coverage. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well you know Denise, I am a rebel, and that’s kind of like a Maverick, so, I may not choose to answer what you want to talk about and instead just bring up my own, canned talking points. Where we’re in complete agreement, Denise, is that McCain has been a longtime critic of earmarks – even of Sara Palin’s excessive earmark requests. And while he claims to have never asked for earmarks, he’s merely let his fellow legislators from Arizona take care of that, or used back-channels to ask others to request them for him. And, we’re in agreement that he has vowed to "take back earmark funds from Fiscal Year 2007-2008" – not a power the executive branch has BTW – so it will be interesting to see what his plan is for that. And he has said that he will veto every bill with wasteful pork-barrel spending – so why did he vote for this one? This was his first opportunity to stand firm on his commitment – yet – he didn’t do it. And, as much as I’d like to see the executive branch have the line-item-veto (the main reason I was on Newt Gingrich’s call list for contributions in 1996), it’s already been decided that it’s not Constitutional. So, we have this system where things get tacked on to bills – and quite frankly – it’s one of the best tools for compromise and reaching across the aisle that exists in the legislative houses. The rhetoric that is coming out of this campaign on this issue in particular though has me, frankly, baffled. McCain complains about the DNA study of bears – but, he voted for the bill that contained it – and, even though it’s been one of his laugh lines – he knows that it was about reducing the cost of estimating bear populations by cataloging the hair samples that are found instead of tracking bears in the woods. He ‘suspended his campaign’, went to Washington, couldn’t get the Republicans in the house to vote for the President’s bill – which was being opposed by Democrats because it gave the Secretary of Treasury absolute authority over the 700 billion with no oversight whatsoever – and the bill failed – after he and his campaign started claiming victory for it’s passage. It’s funny, but sad, because I was originally under the impression when the two nominees emerged in the spring that the country couldn’t lose with either candidate. But, unfortunately – the Senator from Arizona has completely lost my respect with his loss of respect for straight talk.  |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Both sides have their spin machines and talking points, that's for sure, and none of them are perfect. But I tend to give more credence to what I hear from McCain, Joe Leiberman, and Lindsey Graham than I do to Obama, Pelosi and Frank. I personally heard McCain say that any legislation on this bail-out that would get his support had to have independant oversight, among other things, and that was prior to his going back to D.C. and prior to Obama taking credit for the same pre-requisite. The Republicans were not even being allowed to participate in the discussions with the Democrats, having meetings without informing or inviting the Republicans, similar to what they did after the initial logjam where Pelosi called a meeting, supposedly of two Democratic Representatives and two Republicans, and then nine Democrats show up! One of the add-ons that the Republicans got rid of was that absurd 20% to ACORN. That in itself was a great service to the taxpayers. And I was particulary glad that the Democrats had their scheme blow up in their faces when they announced an agreement had been reached even before McCain got to D.C., and that he could just go away, in an attempt to make him look bad. The Democratic policies that contributed in a major way to this current financial crisis is disgraceful. It may have started out with good intentions, but let's face it, people who can't afford mortgages shouldn't have been given them, and financial institutions shouldn't have been forced by the government and intimidated by community activist groups like ACORN to give them. It's not a right for everyone to own a home. It's a privilege, if you can afford to pay for it. Period. And then the Democrats want to turn around and continue these same wreckless policies. I don't get it, I really don't. I think another major reform should be to make it illegal for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from future political contributions. As it is right now, or was until two weeks ago, they basically owned Congress. Shameful. And now we get stuck with the bill. |
||
|
wranx Member Elite
since 2002-06-07
Posts 3689Moved from a shack to a barn |
The miscreants we elect to represent us, simply don't. The $700 billion bailout will certainly come to pass no matter the hew and cry from the constituency... We, the People become irrelevant the moment they take office. They become our "leaders" when what we thought we were electing were representatives |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
“The Bush administration made the crisis even worse by deregulating Wall Street. This led to the huge over-leveraging of financial institutions, which has vastly complicated the country's economic policies. It is especially disturbing that Secretary Paulson personally profited from these policies, earning hundreds of millions in compensation from Goldman Sachs during his years there as its CEO.” The President Who Provoked A Panic http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/03-10 |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
