Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 10 to 18 of 25

Thread: Bi-Partisan Commission

  1. #10

    Default Re: Bi-Partisan Commission

    Quote Originally Posted by FloggingSully View Post
    It would have also been a good idea 24 months ago, or 36 months ago, or 48 months ago.
    I feel the need just to complain in general.

    1. The Republican Congress in the last 2-4 years they were in contol were big government Republicans and were almost as power hungry as the Dems in Congress now. Not to mention like Snackem stated they spent like drunken sailors.
    2. I think one of the biggest issues I had with Bush was that he didn't have the balls to veto all the spending that the 2006 Democrat controlled congress pushed through.
    3. Yes Obama inherited a bad economy but hasn't been doing anything to help it. He also fails to recognize the role that the Dem controlled played in the current state of the economy.

  2. #11

    Default Re: Bi-Partisan Commission

    Quote Originally Posted by UGLY View Post
    While there was a lot to hate about the speech I thought there were some things for me to like.

    What I liked
    the proposal to eliminate capitol gains tax on small and medium business.

    Charge a fee on banks to repay tarp funds

    I like the idea of a spending freeze if they dont things under control, if they do it

    The proposal's related to student loans and debt forgiveness if you are a public servant for ten years.

    Eliminating tax benefits for companies who ship jobs overseas and the idea of increasing our exports.

    There were some other ideas I liked but I cant recall right now.

    I did not like how he continues to blame Bush for the current situation we are in. Yes we know that he inherited a bad economy and deficit but he has done nothing to fix it. He also has not done anything to deal with unemployment, so please quit blaming other people, take responsibility and lead.

    I dont like the health care proposal

    I also hate that I have to see Pelosi in the background.

    I agree with some of what you said, but not all. Charging a fee to banks who recieved tarp funds just mean they will pass that along to us. I don't know what tax benefits companies get for moving overseas, but we should give them incentive to stay instead of punishing them for leaving. Cap and trade doesn't do that. I like the tax forgiveness on student loans, but not for ten years of public service. That sounds to me like a deal with the devil. I would rather pay extra than be dependant on this idea ever ending. Ten years will turn to 12 then 15....... Once government has you they won't let go.

  3. #12
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,935

    Default Re: Bi-Partisan Commission

    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    I agree with some of what you said, but not all. Charging a fee to banks who recieved tarp funds just mean they will pass that along to us. I don't know what tax benefits companies get for moving overseas, but we should give them incentive to stay instead of punishing them for leaving. Cap and trade doesn't do that. I like the tax forgiveness on student loans, but not for ten years of public service. That sounds to me like a deal with the devil. I would rather pay extra than be dependant on this idea ever ending. Ten years will turn to 12 then 15....... Once government has you they won't let go.

    The student loan forgivness is 20 years for all other proffesions and you can only spend 10% of your income on student loan debt.

    IT does not make any sense to me that companies that ship jobs overseas maintain the same tax status as those who keep jobs here.

    The banks are giving out big bonuses and I think they should be on a loan repayment plan just like you and me when we take out a loan.

  4. #13

    Default Re: Bi-Partisan Commission

    I may be way wrong here, but I thought most of the banks already paid back the money they recieved. Anybody know for sure?

  5. #14
    World Champ ODH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,968

    Default Re: Bi-Partisan Commission

    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    I may be way wrong here, but I thought most of the banks already paid back the money they recieved. Anybody know for sure?
    Some have and other have not, I don't have a breakdown but there are definitely some banks who still owe a ton of money to Uncle Sam and there a few that made a lot of noise when they paid off the loan.

  6. #15

    Default Re: Bi-Partisan Commission

    I tried googling this and found articles where Obama wouldn't let them pay the money back. I also did find a list and from that list it looks like the biggest banks have paid it off but there are a lot that haven't. I'm not sure what became of Obama not letting them pay it back, because that was in June of 2009 so it may not make a difference now. But, I interpreted Obama saying that he was going to charge every bank that recieved money (paid back or not) an extra tax. If that is what he meant then they will just pass that on to us in extra fees. Essentially WE pay the tax not the banks.

  7. #16
    World Champ ODH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,968

    Default Re: Bi-Partisan Commission

    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    I tried googling this and found articles where Obama wouldn't let them pay the money back. I also did find a list and from that list it looks like the biggest banks have paid it off but there are a lot that haven't. I'm not sure what became of Obama not letting them pay it back, because that was in June of 2009 so it may not make a difference now. But, I interpreted Obama saying that he was going to charge every bank that recieved money (paid back or not) an extra tax. If that is what he meant then they will just pass that on to us in extra fees. Essentially WE pay the tax not the banks.
    you can say the WE are going to have every business tax passed on to us.
    But this is not necessarily true. Banks that did not need or get any bailout money would not have to pay that tax and have an advantage over their competitors. They should be able to lower fees or reap higher profits.

    AS far as Obama not letting some banks pay back the TARP money, the more reasonable story is that the Treasury Department did not want banks to pay back the loans until they were sure the banks were in a financial situaiton stable enough, that they would not be needing another bailout or facing catastrophe in a short period.

    Criticize Obama (and Bush) all you want, but the financial resuce has been a huge succes. The banking system did not collapse and without the government stabilizing it, it most likely would have.
    Saying that he is going to tax these banks, IMO, is just political posturing, knowing how unpopular the banks are.

  8. #17

    Default Re: Bi-Partisan Commission

    I don't own a business, but if I did then I would certainly push every tax that my business has to pay, on to the consumer. So, yes, I do think the banks will do the same. When you wrote that banks that didn't recieve money wouldn't be taxed, that makes sense. But my question is, are the banks that did recieve money but paid it back, going to get taxed? If so, then why did they pay it back? Seems like you would be punishing someone for coming through on their loan. But, like I said, I really don't know which banks he was refering to.

    If it was just political posturing then I just don't understand what he was trying to accomplish from it.

    Your reasoning about not letting them pay it back so soon sounds good to me. I knew there had to be a reason and I guess what you wrote is as good as any.

  9. #18
    World Champ ODH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,968

    Default Re: Bi-Partisan Commission

    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    I don't own a business, but if I did then I would certainly push every tax that my business has to pay, on to the consumer. So, yes, I do think the banks will do the same...

    If it was just political posturing then I just don't understand what he was trying to accomplish from it.

    ...
    If your competitors are not pushing the same costs onto your customers, then your business couldn't.

    As far as political posturing, the whole point is to score political points with voters by attacking the banks, which are hugely unpopular. Whether he thinks it is just or wise policy does not really matter. He has been beat up enough for rescuing banks and the stimulus plan that he wants to make some moves that are popular.
    I like Obama, but I am not impressed by this action.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •