I'm Sick of Congress

[ntsammy5]

They're all incompetent and crooked as the day is long! We need to vote them all out!


Anyone else?

[ftwildernessguy]

And what a bunch of whiney babies who don't take their job seriously. I mean come on, decide you're not going to vote for the bail out because Pelosi makes a speech that insults you? And then take a day off the next day and leave everything hanging?

[RvUsa]

Preach On Brother!!! Amen!!!

[jugman]

The bailout argument can go both ways, for or against. I think a lot of people have called and e-mailed their reps to not vote for it, is one reason it failed. I think it's a bunch of garbage to bail them out anyway. Don't just tell me this is going to happen show me the proof it is and then we'll talk. I don't believe this will be the end of bailouts if they get started, because there are some big businesses(not banks)out there that have made some bad moves just so they can say they are the leaders. Should we bail them out too, because of being stupid. I don't have all the answers, just some of them, but I don't think the load of crap we're being fed is up to snuff either.

[ntsammy5]

I don't necessarrily disagree on the bailout Jugman, but the way it was handled was infantile. Some good people voted against it for very valid reasons. I still think Congress is dysfunctional and they need to be replaced!

[VACAMPER]

Down with Congress!

[3gr8kids]

Has anyone else received that email going around now about how, instead of using the gazillion billion trillion jillion dollars to bail out all these failed companies, they should give every tax-paying, LEGAL American person 18+ a certain amount of the money? It was actually kind of a cool idea if the math would work out, but it says something like

"I'm against the bailout of AIG. Instead, I'm in favor of giving to America in a "We Deserve It" dividend.
Of course, it would NOT be tax free. Everyone would pay taxes. That sends billions right back to Uncle Sam!
What would you do with the rest?
Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved
Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads
Put away money for college - it'll really be there
Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs
Buy a new car - create jobs
Invest in the market - capital drives growth
Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves
Enable Deadbeat Parents to come clean - or else

Remember this is for every adult U.S. citizen, 18 and older (including the
folks who lost their jobs at Lehmann Brothers and every other company that
is cutting back) and of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.
If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it! Instead of trickling out a puny $1,000.00 ("Republican vote buy") economic incentive. If we're going to do a gazillion billion trillion jillion bailout, let's bail out every adult U.S. citizen!!
As for AIG - liquidate it.
Sell off its parts.
Let American General go back to being American General.
Sell off the real estate.
Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.
We deserve the money and AIG doesn't. Sure it's a crazy idea, but can you
imagine the coast-to-coast block party?! How do you spell Economic Boom? W-e D-e-s-e-r-v-e I-t d-i-v-i-d-e-n-d! I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the "We Deserve It" dividend more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington, D.C..
And remember, this plan only really costs half of what the total amount is because the other half is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam."


Aaahhhhh, if only it could work...............................

[terri01p]

Karla- If you figure it out, if they did do something like that it wouldn't be but about 2000.00 not enough to pay off a mortgage or much of anything else.

[3gr8kids]

Dang it. So much for wishful thinking! (It sounded good, though, right?) ;)

[des1954]

It would be interesting to see how many of those who voted "no" are up for re-election this year.

I don't know enough about "big business" to say if a buyout is good, or not. What I do think is, that for the Gov't to stick their nose into any private enterprise (whether to save it or not) is socialism at its best. For that reason alone, I am against the Gov't bailing out the banks and mortgage companies who made the liberal lending policies to begin with. The bank regulators should have stepped in when banks started writing questionable loans on houses and businesses - and nipped it in the bud. But, noooooooo....it was their buddies whose pockets were getting lined & their buddies who were contributing to election campaigns; so, let's ride this horse until it dies. And now, the US economy is dying. I maintain we all better buy Rosetta Stone & learn how to speak Chinese - cause they are going to own this country someday.

[ntsammy5]

It would be interesting to see how many of those who voted "no" are up for re-election this year.


Probably about 100% except for those retiring or not running. Ans the same for those who voted yes. Because they're ALL up for reelection this year.

[ftwildernessguy]

It's really all about the public perception of the economy and its relative strength. Wall street didn't drop like a rock yesterday because congress failed to vote in a bail out bill, it dropped because of fear and a lack of confidence. Our whole economy is pretty much electronic - the reality is there is not enough hard money available to cover that which is floating around in cyberspace. Most transactions today don't represent any actual exchange of money, just transferring numbers from one account to another. That's why increasing the FDIC coverage of bank accounts to 250,000 bucks will work - most people don't have nearly that much in a bank account, and in fact don't have near what we are currently insured for, but I bet raising that limit will make people feel better about keeping their money in their accounts despite faltering banks. I sure hope the confidence returns soon - I haven't seen my office this quiet since 911, and insurance companies are digging in their heals and not paying. What I find disturbing is that small business is concerned about tightening credit because they won't be able to get short term loans to cover payrolls. To me, there is a problem with a business in that situation, and apparently it is widespread.

[des1954]

They're all incompetent and crooked as the day is long! We need to vote them all out!


Anyone else?

This guy wasn't a crook....and he said so (therefore, he approved this message)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxeFMHyOx3I

[des1954]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW8cjlatNis&NR=1

If he's good enough for Jackie....he's good enough for me!!

BRING BACK DICK!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_C9vGEJXTU&feature=related

[DisneyBishops]

Lets please vote them all out. Then they can see who they really work for. If i did as bad at my job as they do. Well I would be thrown out.


VOTE THEM ALL OUT. THROW OUT ALL THE CROOKS AND THIEVES. HALF OF THEM ARE SEXUAL PERVERTS. CONGRESS IS THE ONLY PLACE A FELON CAN GET A GOOD JOB.

SO ONCE AGAIN THROW ALL THEM BUMS OUT.

I REFUSE TO VOTE FOR ANY INCUMBANT. (not sure i spelled that right but you get my meaning) LOL

[ftwildernessguy]

You are right about that, Dan. Despite failing to do their job, they are rewarded with reelection and early retirements.

I was just thinking, there are still countries in the world where you could be executed for writing the things we have been writing.

[RvUsa]

You are right about that, Dan. Despite failing to do their job, they are rewarded with reelection and early retirements.

I was just thinking, there are still countries in the world where you could be executed for writing the things we have been writing.

God Bless America Jim!!! Our founding fathers had a revolution because of taxation with out representation, and knew that it may happen again. That is why we have freedom of speech.

We need to hold people accountable, from the bottom up!!! I think the ceo's that caused this mess should be tried for fraud, etc. Their greed has impacted almost everyones lives!

[Born 2 Fish]

I think this is a good idea.

http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/fed_bailout/3_steps_to_change_the_nations_future_10928.htmlc?i ctid=sml

[PolynesianPixie]

The overwhelming majority of Americans rejected the bailout. Who wants their taxes raised by 3 grand to pay off idiots???? It seems like many experts who have looked at the bailout say it won’t work, and will actually make the economy worse.

The bailout doesn’t address the fundamental issues, such as the billions of dollars being spent in Iraq , the obscene US debt that keeps us selling our souls to other countries, the loss of our own countries' manufacturing, and the playing of the markets by the filthy rich and the government.

Until America restores its productive economy, we are all going to feel like we could get blown over in a wind storm! This bail out is a lousy band-aid that does nothing but enable people to keep living beyond their means and not face the consequences when they don't.

[RvUsa]

I think this is a good idea.
http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/fed_bailout/3_steps_to_change_the_nations_future_10928.htmlc?i ctid=sml


Frank, I read that, I am by no means an economist, so I don't know how well that will work, but the very first point sounds a little hinky to me.

It says allow anyone 3 months or more behind to be guaranteed to refinance their delinquent load with no penalties at 6%, and if I decide to let my house get forclosed, it costs me nothing. I would be happy if this passes, heck, I don't have to pay my house payment for 3 months.... and will save about 2 1/2 percent on my loan..... heck sounds great to me!!! I would have a butt load of cash from not paying, and save hundreds a month... anyone else see a problem with this? LOL

[ntsammy5]

I presonally do not, but this would be a disater for banks -it would put the economy under quicker than you could say Nancy Pelosi. For starters, no one would make a mortgage payment for 3 months or more. That's just starters. Bank liquidity woud simply disappear! :lmao:

[Born 2 Fish]

But don't you think that the folk who are behind are just gonna loose their house anyway due to rates they can no way afford at high interest. This will give them a chance.
The people who are fix'n to loose their house have no money anyways.If the gov. does a bailout,,who do you think is gonna pay THAT money,,it'll be us who are still able to scratch out a living.
At least with this plan, you keep the gov a little more at bay,,and hopefully a little more of our own $ in our pockets.

[bigdisneydaddy]

It would be interesting to see how many of those who voted "no" are up for re-election this year.

I don't know enough about "big business" to say if a buyout is good, or not. What I do think is, that for the Gov't to stick their nose into any private enterprise (whether to save it or not) is socialism at its best. For that reason alone, I am against the Gov't bailing out the banks and mortgage companies who made the liberal lending policies to begin with. The bank regulators should have stepped in when banks started writing questionable loans on houses and businesses - and nipped it in the bud. But, noooooooo....it was their buddies whose pockets were getting lined & their buddies who were contributing to election campaigns; so, let's ride this horse until it dies. And now, the US economy is dying. I maintain we all better buy Rosetta Stone & learn how to speak Chinese - cause they are going to own this country someday.

The "liberal lending policies" were created during the Clinton admin in their push for egalitarianism. They forced banks to lend money to people that normally wouldnt qualify in an attempt to drive up home ownership rates.
Then the same Congress that jammed the unfit applicants down the throat of the lenders jumped in and took watch of the mess that they created ala Freddie and Fannie and milked it some more. Ever wonder how people in congress that make $150,000 (approximately, dont quote me) all seem to end up millionaires in a few short years ?

[ntsammy5]

I see you've been watching Fox again! :lmao:

[DisneyBishops]

I think this is a good idea.

http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/fed_bailout/3_steps_to_change_the_nations_future_10928.htmlc?i ctid=sml

This is just too simple for the politicians. They would take it and screw it up completely.

Again let's vote them all out of office. Let's take back our great country

[homebrew2]

Can Congress Fix A Problem It Caused?

By THOMAS SOWELL | Posted Monday, September 29, 2008 4:30 PM PT

Nothing could more painfully demonstrate what is wrong with Congress than the current financial crisis.

Among the congressional "leaders" invited to the White House to devise a bailout "solution" are the very people who have for years created the risks that have come home to roost.

Five years ago, Barney Frank vouched for the "soundness" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and said "I do not see" any "possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury."

Moreover, he said the federal government has "probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing."

Earlier this year, Sen. Chris Dodd praised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for "riding to the rescue" when other financial institutions were cutting back on mortgage loans. He too said they "need to do more" to help subprime borrowers get better loans.

In other words, Rep. Frank and Sen. Dodd wanted government to push financial institutions to lend to people they wouldn't lend to otherwise, because of the risk of default.

The idea that politicians can assess risks better than people who've spent their whole careers doing so is so obviously absurd that no one should take it seriously.

But the magic words "affordable housing" and the ugly word "redlining" led to politicians directing where loans and investments should go, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and various other coercions and threats.

The roots of this problem go back many years, but since the crisis happened on George W. Bush's watch, that's enough for those who think in terms of talking points, without wanting to be confused by the facts.

In reality, President Bush tried unsuccessfully, years ago, to get Congress to create some regulatory agency to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Gregory Mankiw, his chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, warned in February 2004 that expecting a government bailout if things go wrong "creates an incentive for a company to take on risk and enjoy the associated increase in return."

Since risky investments usually pay more than safer investments, the incentive is for a government-supported enterprise to take bigger risks, since they get more profit if the risks pay off and the taxpayers get stuck with the losses if not.

The government does not guarantee Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, but the widespread assumption has been it would to prevent chaos in financial markets.

Alan Greenspan, then head of the Fed, made the same point in testifying before Congress in February 2004. He said: "The Federal Reserve is concerned" that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were using this implicit reliance on a government bailout in a crisis to take more risks, in order to "multiply the profitability of subsidized debt."

Greenspan added his voice to those urging Congress to create a "regulator with authority on a par with that of banking regulators" to reduce the riskiness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the taxpayers.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not deserve to be bailed out, but neither do workers, families and businesses deserve to be put through the economic wringer by a collapse of credit markets, such as occurred during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Neither do the voters deserve to be deceived on the eve of an election by the idea this is a failure of free markets that should be replaced by political micro-managing.

If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were free market institutions, they could not have gotten away with their risky financial practices because no one would have bought their securities without the implicit assumption that the politicians would bail them out.

It would be better if no such government-supported enterprises had been created in the first place and mortgages were in fact left to the free market. This bailout creates the expectation of future bailouts.

Phasing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would make much more sense than letting politicians play politics with them again, with the risk and expense being again loaded onto the taxpayers.

Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate, Inc

Please note this is not from fox news popcorn::

[ftwildernessguy]

Isn't it amazing that the Republicans get the blame for a bad economy, and the Democrats take the credit for a good one. Economic policies don't have an instant result. As we have seen here, it takes years for the outcome of an economic decision to surface. As Scott said earlier, this problem has its roots with the Clinton administration, who also pushed NAFTA down our throats resulting in loss of manufacturing jobs and our recent problems with contaminated food from central america.

[seabee]

And we're left to clean up their mess again. Funny how those who live their lives responsibly are the ones who are hosed everytime. Why do we even bother. We bust our butts everyday just to pay for what we have (in no way lavish) and provide food and heat for our family. These people live like kings when they shouldn't be and it is up to us to support them too. I raise the you know what flag on that. Live free and PROSPER-yup, at your fellow American's expense. Think the Founding Fathers had that in mind?

[ftwildernessguy]

Nicole, I used to get really worked up over that stuff, but now I just figure I work for my Disney trip every year. When the government decides that all the welfare recipients deserve a trip to Disney every year too, that's when I will bag it all and go on public assistance.

[RvUsa]

Name one company or corporation that pays 1 single penny of income tax, sales tax, any kind of tax at all.

I am tired of the politicians saying give them a tax break, raise their taxes, give them a bailout.

Lets see if you can name one company....

[bigdisneydaddy]

Name one company or corporation that pays 1 single penny of income tax, sales tax, any kind of tax at all.

I am tired of the politicians saying give them a tax break, raise their taxes, give them a bailout.

Lets see if you can name one company....

In actuality the cost of taxes and everything else are paid by the consumer of the product.

[ntsammy5]

Nope, we paid it all.

[bigdisneydaddy]

Nope, we paid it all.

Enlighten me Al ?

[ntsammy5]

all the taxes that corporations paid

[big kahuna1]

Originally Posted by RvUsa
Name one company or corporation that pays 1 single penny of income tax, sales tax, any kind of tax at all.

I am tired of the politicians saying give them a tax break, raise their taxes, give them a bailout.

Lets see if you can name one company....


Here is one...MINE!! I pay business taxes, you may call them licenses, I pay intangible taxes, the employer pays a social security tax also, I pay unemployment tax, and since I am a Sub S corp. I personally have to pay an income tax on any profit the corporation makes even though I DID NOT SEE A PENNEY OF IT! A chapter C corp. also pays it but in a different manner than a sub S but it is paid. None of which are passed on.

Shall I continue with the education or shall I send the tax bills to you to pay? Please provide your address and I will be happy to do so.:thumbsup2 Do we have a deal?

[des1954]

Here is one...MINE!! I pay business taxes, you may call them licenses, I pay intangible taxes, the employer pays a social security tax also, I pay unemployment tax, and since I am a Sub S corp. I personally have to pay an income tax on any profit the corporation makes even though I DID NOT SEE A PENNEY OF IT! A chapter C corp. also pays it but in a different manner than a sub S but it is paid. None of which are passed on.

Shall I continue with the education or shall I send the tax bills to you to pay? Please provide your address and I will be happy to do so.:thumbsup2 Do we have a deal?

Most businesses incorporate those costs into what the customer ultimately pays. When Rick & I were a Sub S corp, we figured all those items into what we charged customers for our products & services. Hence - the customer is the one who pays the cost.

[RvUsa]

Steve, what deb said. LOL,

Do you sell or do you provide a service? Either way, when you decide how much to charge, you determine the amount of taxes that you are going to pay at the end of the year, and you incorporate that into your what you are charging. In the end, you or no other company actually pays the tax, you pass it on to the end consumer. Yes it comes out of your pocket, but it went into your pocket out of the consumers pocket.

If you didn't have to pay taxes and unemployment you would charge less for your product or services. It is called embedded tax. When you buy something for your business, like paper, or widgets, you are paying that companies embedded taxes for them, and because you paid more for that widget than you would if there were no taxes, you pass it along to your consumer. If you are selling to another company instead of an end consumer, then you pass your embedded taxes on to them and they pass them on to the end consumer.

So what does that mean to you and me and everyone else? We are the onlyu ones who pay taxes.

I am a firm believer in the concept of the fair tax. It needs work to be viable, but in principal it will work, as long as politicians and special interests don't screw it up. It eliminates the embedded tax and makes EVERYONE pay the exact same amount of tax. If anyone has a couple minutes to read some good info and make decisions for yourselves, check out www.fairtax.org

Sorry for the ramble, I am just getting tired of the rich be rewarded for their incompetence, and the rest of us pay for it.

[bigdisneydaddy]

I thought thats what I said ?

[ntsammy5]

Yeah that's what you said Scott, but everyone else wanted to say it too.

It's nice to blame the democrats, but CRA had very little to do with this, Fannie & Freddie did have a lot to do with it but so did the deregulation of Wall Street and the artificially low rates that the Fed introduced the investment banks and mortgage brokers/originators. It was BOTH the Republicans and Democrats who are to blame, in other words, POLITICIANS. What you see on TV is a simplification of the whole story - I read a FED study that was 150 pages with charts & graphs that said it was only touching the surface of the problem. This will be studied for decades!

Consumers had a lot to do with it too. How many people do you know who are in McMansions that they over bought? Maybe not too many, but people who kept trading up and bought expensive 2nd & 3rd homes for speculation are another big part of this.

AND, we haven't even hit the mess from HELOCs yet - that shoe hasn't dropped yet!

[homebrew2]

So as John, Scott, Al and others have said it is the end consumer that pays
ALL costs of a good or service.

Well then... what is to be learned from all these bright folks, just this.......

Any time a politician says he will tax "Big...Oil,Tobacco, Steel" or whatever......
to give the little guy a break; you should never give
them your vote. Why not?

Because they are either;

1. An Imbecile because they actually believe what they are saying......Or

2. A LIAR because they DOknow what has been previously said,
and seek to deliberately mislead you about it.

In either case they certainly do not deserve your vote.:thumbsup2

[des1954]

It's nice to blame the democrats, but CRA had very little to do with this, Fannie & Freddie did have a lot to do with it but so did the deregulation of Wall Street and the artificially low rates that the Fed introduced the investment banks and mortgage brokers/originators.
Consumers had a lot to do with it too. How many people do you know who are in McMansions that they over bought? Maybe not too many, but people who kept trading up and bought expensive 2nd & 3rd homes for speculation are another big part of this.

OMG!! For once, I have to agree with my brother!! Actually, we can look back to Reagan and thank him for the start of deregulation of industries. One I can definitely cite is the telco industry. Before dereg, you didn't have $11 or $12 monthly fees and surcharges tacked on to your monthly service. Oh yeah, you have the freedom to choose carriers now, but you will not avoid any FCC charges (which actually goes into telco pockets) and all the other absurd fees. How many of you have a monthly fuel surcharge tacked on to your power bill that you never saw in the 1980's? When we moved to our second home in 1987, the best mortgage interest rate we could get was from our Credit Union, and that was 11.87%!! Could it be that 20 years later we are finally feeling the effect of "Reaganomics"?

[big kahuna1]

It looks like I have 3 or 4 people here who if they truly believe what they are saying then I should have 3 or 4 addresses in my mail box. I will go check. Well, I am very disappointed...No addresses?:confused3

Yes, many and you may be able to even say most business can pass these costs on but not all so my offer still stands. BETTER YET I will even sweeten the offer. I will pay your gas and hotel costs to come to my business for ONE DAY so you can try and pass those charges on to my customers. I will even buy your luch and dinner. BUT, you will have to sign an agreement to pay ALL my taxes for this year when you FAIL! So, like I said before, if you truly believe what you said to be true then I expect several names and addresses/offers in my mail box by days end.;)

I am not trying to belittle anyone or be mean or anything else. I just want to insert a little reality into the business/corporate world of taxes...for at least my business. :thumbsup2

I will be checking my mail box through out the day.:thumbsup2

Also, in my opinion, deregulation had nothing to do with the fannie/freddie crap. Corruption of our politicians and the CEO's of Fannie/Freddie is what brought on this financial boondoggle that is upon us. But not to worry, they will go scott free and will even be relected to office by their respective districts.:sick:

[ftwildernessguy]

In my situation, my fees are very much dictated by insurance companies, who care little about my overhead or the amount of taxes I pay. So while you may look at my taxes being paid by the insurance companies, the reality is my taxes come out of that ever shrinking part of my balance sheet called profit. So I pay my taxes from my personal gross, just like everybody else. I think, though, what we are seeing here is the difference between small/micro businesses and big business.

[RvUsa]

Jim, and Steve, I guess I may have over simplified, but Jim put it well. I should have said that no company or corporation has ever paid 1 cent of taxes, it is only paid by INDIVIDUALS. If you are a small company, either by yourself, or a couple of people, the taxes are coming out of an Individuals pocket. If you are a small company with a couple people working for you, then if you didn't pay taxes, then those INDIVIDUALS that are working for you may even get paid more. LOL

Steve, I understand what you are saying, like I said I don't know what you do, but if you are getting your companies income from someone other than yourself, then you have to agree, that they are paying your taxes for you. You DEFINITELY have less money in your pocket after you pay them, but when you set the price for your widget, or service, you had to factor in the amount of taxes you expected to pay, and adjusted the price of the service or widget to at least partially cover the cost of those taxes. If your taxes aren't being paid by your business's income, then you are paying your taxes with the income from a second job, or your wife's Job, either that or you are independently wealthy LOL and then why do you have a company anyway? :lmao: So yes YOU pay the tax bill, you may even pay it with your personal checking account like I did... but the money in that checking account came from your customers, and the price they paid you was effected by the amount of taxes you expected to pay. You can send me your tax bill, but you will have to send it postage prepaid, cuz I am broke, I don't have a company anymore because I am now disabled. LOL

Jim you are in a unique situation, where your income is SET by another person or company and like you said, you can't change that. But what you do have control of is whether or not you continue to do what you do. Any change in your taxes don't effect what you charge, they effect if you are going to keep doing what you do or not.

[big kahuna1]

John,

I am in the same business as Jim. My offer still stands but I have yet to receive any volunteers.

[RvUsa]

:rolleyes1 Fine, there always has to be that 1 guy who totally messes up my perfectly good argument.... :rotfl2: Well in this case it is 2 you and Jim. But I will stick by it to the bitter end!! I am stubborn like that!:thumbsup2

[ftwildernessguy]

John,

I am in the same business as Jim. My offer still stands but I have yet to receive any volunteers.

You mean you sit at a messy desk and write on this board all day, too?

[big kahuna1]

Fine, there always has to be that 1 guy who totally messes up my perfectly good argument.... Well in this case it is 2 you and Jim. But I will stick by it to the bitter end!! I am stubborn like that!

Your argument is perfectly good for the majority of businesses...just not mine.:thumbsup2

You mean you sit at a messy desk and write on this board all day, too?

You made me look at my desk. That was not nice. I was really trying not to look at all the files sitting there. Now I'll have to do some work...so I can pay the tax man:thumbsup2

[ntsammy5]

OK. I'll agree with you guys - in theory it should work, but in practice it rarely does because not everything can be passed along to the consumer which means the business owner makes less because he's paying more to Uncle Sam. Sucks big time.