Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!







Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 23rd, 2008, 01:14 PM   #41
PeteC
Get Up and Go
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Oak Park, Michigan
Posts: 2,556
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
Here's some clarity for you all.....

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aSKSoiNbnQY0
For those that do not notice when reading that "article", it is a commentery by Kevin Hassett. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. I am not sure I would accept that as "clarity" so readily.




Quote:
What the article doesn't mention is that Raines is a top consultant in the Obama campaign.
This is being disputed by both Raines and the Obama campaign.

Quote:
Mr. Raines worked for 91.1 million dollars per year while at Fannie and when he left he received a 1 million dollar a year pension that will last until his death, paid for with tax payer's money.
I would love to see reputable information verifying his "91.1 Million per year salary. A $1 mil pension is a lot, no doubt. And I, as a taxpayer, do not want to pay that. But, not to split hairs, this pension was agreed on before any taxpayer money was given. I know, a fine point, and taxes will probably go to him later.

Quote:
All the while he drove the place into the ground.
Carla Fiorina drove HP into the ground and got a great severance and now is invovled in the McCain campaign.

Quote:
Now he is Senator Obama's economic advisor in the presidential campaign.
Again, disputed.

Quote:
I can't believe that Fannie & Freddie were able to make political contributions with tax payer dollars. How can that be legal?

This whole story stinks to high heaven.

I thought the contributions made (to both parties) were by individual employees not from the corporate level.
PeteC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23rd, 2008, 01:17 PM   #42
gehtowheeler
what dreams are made of
 
gehtowheeler's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-03-07
Location: davison
Posts: 468
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to gehtowheeler
Default

should of let it go under gov should stay out of private industry
gehtowheeler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23rd, 2008, 01:27 PM   #43
PeteC
Get Up and Go
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Oak Park, Michigan
Posts: 2,556
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

After a little reading, it seems that Raines Total Compensation between 1998 and 2004 was about $91.1 million, including $52.6 million in bonuses. That is a far cry from $91.1 million salary per year.

Just clarifying.

p.s. I am not defending Raines. I am just clarifying a salary statement made by 3-Foot
PeteC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23rd, 2008, 09:00 PM   #44
motrctyman
Just The Spouse's spouse
 
motrctyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12-12-05
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 1,881
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by General Lee View Post
New train of thought to contribute to discussion:[/COLOR]Ya' know...one of the lessons my dad taught me when I was younger and we'd go hunting together, is to try to stop animals from suffering as much as possible. If you had a poor shot and the animal was injured but not dead, finish the job. Don't let it suffer.

I think the gov. needs to learn when to let shit die. If we prop up a suffering animal and expect it to rebound to full health...we got issues...
So...............
you sayin that McCain should have been PUT DOWN???
motrctyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23rd, 2008, 09:01 PM   #45
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,376
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by General Lee View Post
Is it?

I'd agree if I felt that "consideration" was actually...Oh, what's the right word...concrete.

If there was some measurable benefit to the taxpayers that'd be different, IMO. "Consideration" is an ambiguous word thrown in there to make the plan seem to be "in the public's best interest". When all hell's breaking loose, the big man can say that he did consider us!!! We can't blame him!!!
Well, i think it is. The problem with things that are concrete is that they are...
Oh, what's the right word...concrete.

Somewhere they need to strike the balance. The reason I posted the entire text of the plan was to show how short and vague it is. I'm sure this was intentional, so that they would have the flexibility to act quickly and change and adjust the plan as situations dictated. That danger in that of course is that the lack of oversight can lead to corruption and abuse and the administrators of the plan using it to further enrich themselves and friends and family.

The other side of the coin is that if they over burden the plan with oversight and review and require every action to require and act of congress (maybe literally) and a 6 month study to ensure that no one is harmed by it and that it will be the best for each and every tax payer then you'll end up with a program that can't move quickly enough or act broadly, or narrowly, enough to be effective.

The ideal situation is somewhere in the middle. Hopefully they can find it.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2008, 07:20 AM   #46
General Lee
Slice of Starsage Anyone?
 
General Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 5,070
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to General Lee
Default

Ron Paul FTW!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Paul
Editor's note: Ron Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas who ran for his party's nomination for president this year. He is a doctor who specializes in obstetrics/gynecology and says he has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s and was elected again to Congress in 1996. Rep. Paul serves on the House Financial Services Committee.


Rep. Ron Paul says the government's solution to the crisis is the same as the cause of it -- too much government.

(CNN) -- Many Americans today are asking themselves how the economy got to be in such a bad spot.

For years they thought the economy was booming, growth was up, job numbers and productivity were increasing. Yet now we find ourselves in what is shaping up to be one of the most severe economic downturns since the Great Depression.

Unfortunately, the government's preferred solution to the crisis is the very thing that got us into this mess in the first place: government intervention.

Ever since the 1930s, the federal government has involved itself deeply in housing policy and developed numerous programs to encourage homebuilding and homeownership.

Government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were able to obtain a monopoly position in the mortgage market, especially the mortgage-backed securities market, because of the advantages bestowed upon them by the federal government.

Laws passed by Congress such as the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to make loans to previously underserved segments of their communities, thus forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks.

These governmental measures, combined with the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy, led to an unsustainable housing boom. The key measure by which the Fed caused this boom was through the manipulation of interest rates, and the open market operations that accompany this lowering.

Don't Miss
Obama blames lobbyists, politicians for crisis
Commentary: McCain, Obama botching response to crisis
Commentary: How to prevent the next Wall St. crisis
In Depth: Commentaries
When interest rates are lowered to below what the market rate would normally be, as the Federal Reserve has done numerous times throughout this decade, it becomes much cheaper to borrow money. Longer-term and more capital-intensive projects, projects that would be unprofitable at a high interest rate, suddenly become profitable.

Because the boom comes about from an increase in the supply of money and not from demand from consumers, the result is malinvestment, a misallocation of resources into sectors in which there is insufficient demand.

In this case, this manifested itself in overbuilding in real estate. When builders realize they have overbuilt and have too many houses to sell, too many apartments to rent, or too much commercial real estate to lease, they seek to recoup as much of their money as possible, even if it means lowering prices drastically.

This lowering of prices brings the economy back into balance, equalizing supply and demand. This economic adjustment means, however that there are some winners -- in this case, those who can again find affordable housing without the need for creative mortgage products, and some losers -- builders and other sectors connected to real estate that suffer setbacks.

The government doesn't like this, however, and undertakes measures to keep prices artificially inflated. This was why the Great Depression was as long and drawn out in this country as it was.

I am afraid that policymakers today have not learned the lesson that prices must adjust to economic reality. The bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the purchase of AIG, and the latest multi-hundred billion dollar Treasury scheme all have one thing in common: They seek to prevent the liquidation of bad debt and worthless assets at market prices, and instead try to prop up those markets and keep those assets trading at prices far in excess of what any buyer would be willing to pay.

Additionally, the government's actions encourage moral hazard of the worst sort. Now that the precedent has been set, the likelihood of financial institutions to engage in riskier investment schemes is increased, because they now know that an investment position so overextended as to threaten the stability of the financial system will result in a government bailout and purchase of worthless, illiquid assets.

Using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to purchase illusory short-term security, the government is actually ensuring even greater instability in the financial system in the long term.

The solution to the problem is to end government meddling in the market. Government intervention leads to distortions in the market, and government reacts to each distortion by enacting new laws and regulations, which create their own distortions, and so on ad infinitum.

It is time this process is put to an end. But the government cannot just sit back idly and let the bust occur. It must actively roll back stifling laws and regulations that allowed the boom to form in the first place.

The government must divorce itself of the albatross of Fannie and Freddie, balance and drastically decrease the size of the federal budget, and reduce onerous regulations on banks and credit unions that lead to structural rigidity in the financial sector.

Until the big-government apologists realize the error of their ways, and until vocal free-market advocates act in a manner which buttresses their rhetoric, I am afraid we are headed for a rough ride.
General Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2008, 07:48 AM   #47
howell_jeep
Last Free Man
 
howell_jeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-09-06
Location: Howell Twp, MI 48836
Posts: 10,848
iTrader: (69)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by General Lee View Post
Ron Paul FTW!
x2
__________________
I SHOOT RAW!
---

Exercise your rights! Open Carry!
howell_jeep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2008, 08:07 AM   #48
84Scrambler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 11-07-05
Location: Lansing
Posts: 5,943
iTrader: (8)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to 84Scrambler
Default

For a medical doctor, the guy really knows economics. Too bad CNN and Fox decided he shouldn't be allowed a legitimate shot at the presidency.
84Scrambler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2008, 11:09 AM   #49
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,111
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteC View Post
I would love to see reputable information verifying his "91.1 Million per year salary. A $1 mil pension is a lot, no doubt. And I, as a taxpayer, do not want to pay that. But, not to split hairs, this pension was agreed on before any taxpayer money was given. I know, a fine point, and taxes will probably go to him later.
I stand corrected it was 91.1 million over several years. That's what happens when I quote from memory. It's still a lot of money for poor leadership.

From what I understand, Fannie has always been funded by tax payer dollars, even when the pension was agreed upon.

But here's what wiki has to say on it.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

Fannie Mae receives no direct government funding or backing; Fannie Mae securities carry no government guarantee of being repaid. This is explicitly stated in the law that authorizes GSEs, on the securities themselves, and in many public communications issued by Fannie Mae.

Neither the certificates nor payments of principal and interest on the certificates are guaranteed by the United States government. The certificates do not constitute a debt or obligation of the United States or any of its agencies or instrumentalities other than Fannie Mae.


[edit] Assumed guarantees
There is a wide belief that FNMA securities are backed by some sort of implied federal guarantee, and a majority of investors believe that the government would prevent a disastrous default. Vernon L. Smith, 2002 Nobel Laureate in economics, has called FHLMC and FNMA "implicitly taxpayer-backed agencies."[11] The Economist has referred to "[t]he implicit government guarantee"[12] of FHLMC and FNMA. In testimony before the House and Senate Banking Committee in 2004, Alan Greenspan expressed the belief that Fannie Mae's (weak) financial position was the result of markets believing that the U.S. Government would never allow Fannie Mae (or Freddie Mac) to fail.[13]

[edit] Federal subsidies
The FNMA receives no direct federal government aid. However, the corporation and the securities it issues are widely believed to be implicitly backed by the U.S. government. In 1996, the Congressional Budget Office wrote "there have been no federal appropriations for cash payments or guarantee subsidies. But in the place of federal funds the government provides considerable unpriced benefits to the enterprises... Government-sponsored enterprises are costly to the government and taxpayers... the benefit is currently worth $6.5 billion annually."[14]. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are required to hold less capital than normal financial institutions: e.g., it is allowed to sell mortgage-backed securities with only half as much capital backing them up as would be required of other financial institutions. Specifically, regulations exist through the FDIC Bank Holding Company Act that govern the solvency of financial institutions. The regulations require normal financial institutions to maintain a capital/asset ratio greater than or equal to 3%.[15] The GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are exempt from this capital/asset ratio requirement and can, and often do, maintain a capital/asset ratio less than 3%. The additional leverage allows for greater returns in good times, but put the companies at greater risk in bad times, such as during the current subprime mortgage crisis. FNMA is also exempt from state and local taxes. In addition, FNMA and FHLMC are exempt from SEC filing requirements; however, both GSEs voluntarily file their SEC 10-K and 10-Q.



So no direct funding but implict funding? WTF is that supposed to mean?

Like I said it smells really bad. Yet another example of government intervention making problems. Now their answer to fixing their own mess? More government intervention. Stop the train I want off.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2008, 12:25 PM   #50
amc78cj7
Senior Member
 
amc78cj7's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-07-05
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,352
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo View Post
who will get taxed more?
I say we tax the lower class more. They already are used to a restricted diet due to low income. Are they really going to miss a few more "change"?
__________________
I'm not quoting idiots who promote unsafe recovery strap techniques anymore. :miff:
amc78cj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2008, 12:28 PM   #51
amc78cj7
Senior Member
 
amc78cj7's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-07-05
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,352
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Well, i think it is. The problem with things that are concrete is that they are...
Oh, what's the right word...concrete.


The ideal situation is somewhere in the middle. Hopefully they can find it.
I agree. We take all the irresponsible financial institutions, all the politicians, and all the nimrods that bought a house way above their means and we bury thim in the middle of a bunch of concrete. Problem solved.
__________________
I'm not quoting idiots who promote unsafe recovery strap techniques anymore. :miff:
amc78cj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 25th, 2008, 09:14 PM   #52
doomsick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 338
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

a bandaide, how long it will last is anyones guess... 1, 2 years... who knows.
doomsick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 26th, 2008, 08:23 AM   #53
PeteC
Get Up and Go
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Oak Park, Michigan
Posts: 2,556
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
I stand corrected it was 91.1 million over several years. That's what happens when I quote from memory. It's still a lot of money for poor leadership.

From what I understand, Fannie has always been funded by tax payer dollars, even when the pension was agreed upon.

But here's what wiki has to say on it.......

.

Yea, pretty much how I understood it too. Of course, I am no expert, this is why we employ experts to handle this kind of thing.

I hope you realize what I meant about the pension being agreed upon before the tax money influx. That it was agreed on before the bail out started, and that tax money was used.

I guess Washington is in quite the mess today, with some very conservative Republicans members of the house throwing a monkey wrench into the whole works last night.


I just hope whatever they do is the right thing for the country, and the people. Not just Wall Street.
PeteC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 26th, 2008, 08:32 AM   #54
PeteC
Get Up and Go
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Oak Park, Michigan
Posts: 2,556
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2007JK View Post
I say we tax the lower class more. They already are used to a restricted diet due to low income. Are they really going to miss a few more "change"?


Yea, they don't need it anyway.


I heard a blurb on the radio the other day that kind of summed it up for me.

This is very generic, sorry:

So, this big time Wall Street guy makes tens of millions in his money deals for the year. But he only pays 15% on his earnings instead of the 35% (I think that was the number used). How you might ask? He lists them as capital gains instead of income. I don't remember the persons name, or more specifics, but this was stated as coming from a financial story/disclosure or something along those lines.

Now, again, I am no expert. But this is one of the problems I have seen my whole life. At a certain level of income, taxes become a game. Tax shelters, loop holes, deferments, etc. ,etc. It all seems geared towards letting those with more pay less, percentage wise. The more money you make, the more opportunities you have to pay less than the established rate in taxes.

The lower, and most middle class income people do not have the ability to defer taxes, or find loopholes in the system. They don't have enough left after living expenses to do that. So they pay the full tax rate on thier income. Whatever that percentage might be.

This is where fair taxation should come into play.

I don't agree with the notion of simply taking money from the rich and giving to the poor. But I do believe in everybody doing thier share. Maybe a flat tax is the answer. Maybe eliminating loopholes that required people to pay the full rate established by law. But something should be done.

Just like Fair Trade, people get upset when they see a drastic imbalance.
PeteC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 26th, 2008, 10:40 AM   #55
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,111
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteC View Post
Yea, they don't need it anyway.
This is where fair taxation should come into play.

I don't agree with the notion of simply taking money from the rich and giving to the poor. But I do believe in everybody doing thier share. Maybe a flat tax is the answer. Maybe eliminating loopholes that required people to pay the full rate established by law. But something should be done.

Just like Fair Trade, people get upset when they see a drastic imbalance.
I like the Fairtax myself. Consumption taxes have a record of working very well in the past.

http://www.fairtax.org/
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:18 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Cracker Enterprises - Powered by Linux
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=
Page generated in 0.28117 seconds with 42 queries