- This topic has 5 voices and 27 replies.
-
Posts
-
I figured I would put this in the Senate Chambers because it is essentially a-historical. I also wanted to kick the Hornet?s nest a little and see what would fall out.Given the amount of government debt being auctioned off since 2008 and the forecasts for continued trillion dollar deficits for at least the next 3-5 years on top of an already 12 trillion dollar national debt perhaps it is wise to have a discussion of how the government and by extension us are going to repay this debt and avoid a disastrous federal government default. Even a partial default on interest payments would be a disaster and destroy the US government credit rating raising both interest rates and the cost of servicing existing debt to prices we probably do not really want to think about.As I see it the US has four options for getting debt and/or the budget under control, well really only two cut spending or raise taxes. Because I don?t see Congress cutting spending anytime soon I will focus my discussion on how the government can raise the necessary revenue to service the debt and whether they can do it without killing the economy and their ability to raise revenue at the same time. I am not convinced that revenue can be significantly raised without at least some spending cuts. Where any spending cuts should come from is a whole other discussion altogether and one I will try to avoid. Here are the five ways I see the Feds raising revenue. I will discuss each in Turn after listing them.1. Continue the current income taxes with a rise in marginal rates2. Some sort of Flat Tax on income3. The Fair Tax or a variation4. A Value Added Tax (VAT), this is slightly different than the Fair Tax5. Some combination of the aboveNow to start.First, continuing the current system while perhaps, no certainly, raising marginal rates. First off, this will most likely not be able to raise the massive amounts of revenue required to meet both budget outlays and service, much less pay down the national debt. In order to do so, marginal rates would have to be ruinous on the wealthy and even start hitting the lower middle class and even perhaps those just above or below the poverty line. At a minimum, this is a politically unacceptable solution. That is mainly why I do not see this idea going anywhere. Of course, the current system started out complex and has only grown more so, check out the original Form 1040 from 1913.Second, the Flat Tax. Steve Forbes proposed this when he ran for the Republican nomination several years ago. If I remember right so did Ross Perot in ?92 and ?96. Generally the Flat Tax has been proposed at a rate of between 17%-19% with few, if any deductions. The problem with this as I see it is not the idea but the probable implementation. We have seen with the current tax regime that Congress cannot resist tinkering with the tax code to favor some while disadvantaging others in the name of ?fairness?. What is there to make us think that a flat tax would be any different? Flat Tax proponents make much of the so-called ?post-card Tax Return? but how long can this last? I have to regretfully conclude that the Flat Tax is not realistic because it would require scrapping the current system and instituting a new one. This is not something I see Congress doing, they have too much fun tweaking the tax code every year to make it simple, even if it would mean more revenue for them to waste.Third, the Fair Tax.I will say up-front that I think the fair tax is a horrible idea that would see everybody?s cost of living rise and would particularly see the cost of durable goods and real property skyrocket. You visit the Fair Tax website and they try to lay it out all reasonable but a little thought shows that prices on just about everything will skyrocket and the extra income from no income tax will not make up for this. My other major objection is the idea that everybody will get a monthly refund check from the government based on income. I do not see how this is anything but a huge government entitlement program in disguise. If you think people depend on the government now, wait until EVERYBODY in the country is getting a check every month from the government for several hundred dollars. They call this check a prebate and I encourage everyone to read up on it and tell me I am wrong about it, be prepared to explain why it is a good idea to get every family in the country used to getting what appears to be a monthly government handout?Lastly the Fair Tax would work something like a VAT but is calculated differently. That is why it is called a consumption tax. Some people call it a national sales tax, a sales tax of 23% as proposed. Liberals object to it because it is not progressive enough. The number of things you pay that would be subject to the fair tax are also kind of astounding, anyone fancy paying a 23% tax on your rent every month on top of what you already pay or 23% on top of the purchase price of your home?Perhaps one of the weirdest parts of the fair tax plan is that would not tax ?intermediate? goods but only tax ?finished? goods and what they are is not well defined. Example: Is a toilet you buy for the house you are building a finished good or is it just an intermediary good because your house is the finished good?Fourth, The Value Added Tax (VAT)This is in my eyes the one most likely to be implemented of any of the top four but probably not exclusively. I also hate it and I will explain why with an example. I had to purchase a battery for my truck this week because it died while I was in Italy, (I think I left the headlights on while it was in the garage ). In the states you would expect to spend about $50-$75 plus a $10-$15 core charge to get a new battery. I had to buy mine on the economy and did not have to pay the VAT because NATO forces are exempt (we get a special form to buy tax-free). I still ended up paying 145? (around $200) because of environmental fees. If I had paid the VAT, the total would have been 173? or $242, that is $42 in VAT or ?sales? taxes as its stateside advocates like to call it.The best thing about a VAT from its proponent?s perspective is that it is a hidden tax. The consumer generally does not see it unless you read your receipt because the price you see on the shelf is the price you pay at the register. In Germany the VAT is 19% on everything except food, which has a 7% VAT. Krauthammer has a pretty good column about the VAT this week.Fifth, and what I consider most likely is a combination of some or all of the above.The simple answer is that the government will need additional revenue. The question is where this money will come from. My pessimist tells me that we will see a continuation of the current system with a rise in marginal rates and an institution of some kind of VAT. That gives the Feds an easy way to lower marginal rates and keep people happy while incrementally jacking up the ?hidden? VAT that is the true cash cow. When I first came to Germany in 1995 the VAT was 16%, it is now 19% and politicians are saying it may need to go as high as 23%. It was a huge issue in the German elections last year. I will also say there is a pretty big black market in Germany, especially for services. It is often possible to get a cheaper price if you agree to pay cash for a service because then you pay less and the service provider can make more because he will not have to pay the VAT.My internal optimist says we will figure out something by a combination of cutting spending and taxes. But that voice is getting quieter all the time. I can see a point where the Federal government taxes America into poverty because of too much debt and too much entitlement.
Very good nutshell view of the situation; I agree that the present system is flawed, going back to the original concept (1040 from 1913) might help though and agree the Congress isn't likely to make wholesale changes since it would require the trashing of the IRS. If not a complete trashing, at least, an overhaul that would disrupt the cash flow and put lots of bureaucrats out of work; the IRS has far too much influence (read power) to become a victim to anything even approaching that.Flat tax, likely, would do the above and like all things that appear too good to be true, is.... Too simple.I haven't looked at the Fair Tax but I think I can take your assessment (as well see eye to eye on most things) until I get a chance to check it out for myself.Totally agree on VAT having dealt with it, albeit, minimally in Canada and England. It sucks according to most folks I've talked to (both places).
From scout: My internal optimist says we will figure out something by a combination of cutting spending and taxes. But that voice is getting quieter all the time. I can see a point where the Federal government taxes America into poverty because of too much debt and too much entitlement.
Me too.
Scout:I really enjoyed your tour d 'horizon concerning our plight and options to spare our grandchildren a life ofreduced circumstances. In my opinion any rational plan to raise revenue must be designed with a similarplan to reduce outlays. Unless this is done all our efforts will come to naught and the trough will still beempty. There is a pie chart for federal revenue available and at some other time you may decide to delveinto just where you think cuts can be made.For this post, your analysis was most impressive on both the positive and negative aspects of the various options.For a whole host of reasons which I choose not to discuss, many Americans have adopted the view that taxesare some kind of infernal torture with which they must pay, but about which the may complain. This is applicable to state, local and federal taxes--all of them. As far as I know there has never been a referendumnor a consensus as to just what services the People expect from their various levels of government, thepriorities among these services and the amount the People are willing to pay for them. Normally a hugecacophony and sturm und drang results from discussions of these subjects which reveals that we havebecome a nation of factions finding it increasingly difficult to find common ground.My guess is, that given all the factors you covered, that we should prepare ourselves for the coming of some sort of VAT in the 25 percent range with fine print excluding certain items and/or annual refunds forpeople below certain income levels. This option has been around a long time and has many benefits for the government with which I am sure you are familiar. If you are a tax lawyer, you may want to start screaming now. When this was being discussed years ago, the Treasury Department had a power point presentationwhich suggested that if a VAT was implemented all other taxes would be redundant. Fees were not considered taxes. The presentation also showed that when you added up all you pay now in taxes hidden and otherwise at all levels, a 16 percent ( believe that was the proposed figure at the time) would be less thanthe average citizen paid under our present system. Recognizing that all bureaucrats lie and that statisticians are essentially tools of tools, the numbers in that proposal were still interesting.So we shall see what the wise men proffer. Do you know what the greatest attraction of a VAT is to me?Those that consume more pay more and nobody has to worry about the arrival of spring and calculatinghow many lies you might get away with this year.Nice job an the post--always a pleasure to read them.
I think if push comes to shove, cutting spending is really quite necessary. This may not happen with Democrats in control, but could very well happen once they fall from power. I read a bit about the VAT since I'm not familiar with it, and it looks like it is merely a tax scheme to prevent non-payment. There's an interesting graph you can see at USA Today which shows U.S spending vs. revenue.http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-04-12-deficit_N.htm
I can see the VAT on the horizon and with it the complete destruction of state's rights and any type of local autonomy because then the Feds will have the state and local governments by the short hairs by controlling funding. That is what happens here in Europe, the central government doles out VAT revenue and through it they control what the states/provinces can and can't do. The only revenue that goes directly to local gov. comes from small fees and the minimal property taxes they are allowed to collect. The state gets both VAT and income tax revenue. The same will happen in the US if a VAT is instituted.The Fair Tax is a disaster waiting to happen. The opportunities for social engineering under the Fair Tax proposal are almost endless because they can tinker with the prebate to favor some people over others. I also think it is not really fair because the proposal seems to favor businesses. Only makes sense since it was developed by a businessman.The only real solution is to cut spending to the point that we can also safely lower taxes to spur growth. What is the chance of that? I am thinking along the lines of snowball fights in hell.The only rule I can think of about bureaucracy is that it always grows and never shrinks. The only way to effectively shrink the federal and local governments I can think of is by following Jefferson's advice and doing a little bit of that time to time watering of the tree of liberty by the patriots. It is the only way we will get the heavy boot of over-governance of our collective neck. What that would do to the debt is anyone's guess. I would bet at that point we really would see foreign troops on American soil. To read a fictionalized account of what could happen see Tom Kratman's A State of DisobedienceI just cant really see either major party doing something to remedy the situation. The Republicans would be afraid to make the hard decisions because it would alienate too many moderates, and the Democrats are apparently bound and determined to get everybody addicted to government largess regardless of the cost. Our only hope is revolution or as I have said more than once, a viable 3rd Party. We also need to think about pushing a Balanced Budget and debt limitation amendment to the constitution. Something like that might avert a tax revolt. Remember it was unfair taxation that was a major factor leading to our break with England in the first place. What makes anyone think that unfair taxation won't do it again?
When the Vat comes the best of all possible worlds would have it supplant ALL other taxes, fees excepted.Under this scenario, the end user just adds 25 percent to the cost of the item and pays. There will be no income tax, no property tax, no capital gains tax--nada, nil, guhor rien, niente nichts. There will have to be some mechanism that exempts old geezers, certain items, perhaps food as you suggested, people below acertain dollar minimum (perhaps a rebate check). Remission of monies to the states would seem to be quite simple.Just set up a formula whereby if New York paid in X dollars, the Feds would slice out their portion Y andremit the remainder Z to the states. States with big populations or big spenders get more--North Dakota gets less. The huge flaw in the pipe dream is that it begs for the rise of a barter or black market economy which,here in upstate New York, is already alive and well and of great concern to the local tax gatherers.Let us wait and see what happens--as we are broke I am vitally interested.As for your view that cutting taxes is some sure fire way to jump start the economy, bring about thecreation of a large number of living wage jobs and restore our economic engine to full potency, I remain unconvinced. Here in the rust belt trickle down economics essentially gave us little and we still rememberDavid Stockman's comments with no small degree of chagrin. I live four miles from Lackawanna, New York and it is a scar upon the earth because of our economic shortsightedness.Guten Abend Herr soldat scout
Scout:We live in good times. At one time, not too long ago, the Smith Act would have us jailed for advocating and at one point even discussing or professing to believe in the violent overthrow of the government.Jefferson would be pleased that that law was held to be unconstitutional, although it might still be on the books!Logjams are eliminated by the use of explosives when all else fails--interesting.
When the Vat comes the best of all possible worlds would have it supplant ALL other taxes, fees excepted.Under this scenario, the end user just adds 25 percent to the cost of the item and pays. There will be no income tax, no property tax, no capital gains tax--nada, nil, guhor rien, niente nichts. There will have to be some mechanism that exempts old geezers, certain items, perhaps food as you suggested, people below acertain dollar minimum (perhaps a rebate check). Remission of monies to the states would seem to be quite simple.Just set up a formula whereby if New York paid in X dollars, the Feds would slice out their portion Y andremit the remainder Z to the states.
What you have just described is the Fair Tax. Please tell me how the prebate is not an entitlement program or at least will not promote dependency on the government?I am not advocating the violent overthrow of the government just discussing possible ways that the current gridlock in government may be ended. I would much rather see many minor parties start getting elected. That will not happen so long as we have direct representation. Congress and government will continue to be dominated by the two major parties without some change to a fractional system such as they have in most parliamentary democracies.Lastly Willy, please explain to me how high debt, high spending, an high taxes help the economy? It seems self evident that lower debt, lower spending, and lower taxes leave more money for private industry to create jobs. To the best of my knowledge the government does not produce consumer products (GM and sundry and various banks excluded). Government is a net drain on the economy because every dollar taken out of private hands reduces the amount of private capital available for business to invest and put to work.
If what I described is the FAIR TAx–so be it and I cannot tell you whether an adoption of this would increase or decrease the number of people who regularly depend upon government transfer payments to defray or to assistin the defraying the cost of living. I have no data on this at all. I do know that if this program wereabolished the IRS would , in theory, be eliminated and that would be a very very good thing.I agree that gridlock is here to stay and as I see it there must be a monumental crisis facing us that will convince us that government in its present form can no longer perform the duties assigned to it. TheDeclaration of independence says that it our right as THE PEOPLE to alter or abolish a government that failsto to do so and under certain circumstances informs us that it is our duty. If you think an establishedgovernment, ensconced and with a huge standing army is going to just roll over because the people are upsetabout things, I suggest you are very wrong. Sometimes the only way you overthrow a government is by violent means--American Revolution, Mexican revolution, French Revolution, Russian Revolution plus many many more.I too do not necessarily advocate it, but it remains a valid and legal option in our quiver along with thedocument that tells our young people that patriotism is love of country, not love of government and the truepatriot is always vocal when the government is seen as following the wrong path. Dissent is as Americanas chicken fried steak.Taxes--ugh--I hate talking about them, but I pay them as it is my duty.We are in a pickle--we owe too much money. We must cut spending. It is a sine qua non for future solvency. We must pay off our credit cards and our loans that the government has used to finance two wars,a new drug program and the bailouts. The spending must stop. When it comes to raising taxes there isa problem. I referred to David Stockman's admission about Reagan's tax cuts being bogus along with trickle down economics and all the rest. Just google "David Stockman and Trickle Down Economics" for a good review of the subject from an insiders point of view. He writes better than I do, he is better informed and he was there. Go ahead--check it out--it is very good reading--do it now!Finally--if we could be sure that a tax cut would be used to create jobs rather than buying a chalet in the south of France or a new Mercedes for the youngest child, I might agree. I find it difficult to agree thatall true patriots will take their new income and rush to hire people at a living wage, open new businesses and build factories so that we are a producer of goods again rather than on the road to being a hollow huskdependent upon hard working Asians to fund our adventures at home and abroad.Speaking of abroad and cutting taxes!Ron Paul spoke recently and enraged many by telling the Conservatives that they loved Empire--there are 700 bases abroad and I understand there a seven carrier groups. He is an interesting person and sayswhatever he wants because he knows he will never be elected president. I bet he sleeps well at night.
If what I described is the FAIR TAx--so be it and I cannot tell you whether an adoption of this would increase or decrease the number of people who regularly depend upon government transfer payments to defray or to assist in the defraying the cost of living. I have no data on this at all. I do know that if this program were abolished the IRS would , in theory, be eliminated and that would be a very very good thing.
First off, I trust the government to spend our money wisely about as much as I trust guy hawking Rolexs in a subway station to be selling me the real thing, which is not at all.There are several things wrong with the fair tax but the two biggest problems are:1. It will not get rid of the IRS because income reporting will still happen and they would be responsible for collecting the revenue.2. The prebate is a system ripe for corruption in a couple of ways. First it essentially establishes an entitlement system regardless of what they call it. It would establish a database of every person in the country because they base the prebate on you and your dependents and you get a payment based on that. How that will not be considered an entitlement and lead to dependency I do not know. It has a built in feature of potentially paying lower income people more than they pay in consumption taxes. That is the same as people getting a larger refund than they paid in payroll taxes. I do not object to getting back every dime in payroll taxes but getting a more is not a refund, it is a payment. The prebate proposal is also ripe for adjustment just like the earned income credit is today. There is nothing to stop congress from raising the prebate for lower income earners while penalizing the ?wealthy?. That leads back to the whole rich people are evil mantra of the left. Somehow the wealthy are at fault because they are wealthy? I don?t get that logic at all.
I agree that gridlock is here to stay and as I see it there must be a monumental crisis facing us that will convince us that government in its present form can no longer perform the duties assigned to it. The Declaration of independence says that it our right as THE PEOPLE to alter or abolish a government that fails to to do so and under certain circumstances informs us that it is our duty. If you think an established government, ensconced and with a huge standing army is going to just roll over because the people are upset about things, I suggest you are very wrong. Sometimes the only way you overthrow a government is by violent means--American Revolution, Mexican revolution, French Revolution, Russian Revolution plus many many more. I too do not necessarily advocate it, but it remains a valid and legal option in our quiver along with the document that tells our young people that patriotism is love of country, not love of government and the true patriot is always vocal when the government is seen as following the wrong path. Dissent is as American as chicken fried steak.
I agree with you to the extent that I think revolution is a legitimate means of replacing a government that becomes illegitimate by its actions and the laws it passes. I do not think we are at that point yet and probably will not be for many years, it will have to get much worse before people get mad enough to do something. By that point, I do not know whether the military would act to stop it, the soldiers in the army are Americans too remember and probably the most patriotic bunch in the country if you define patriotism as love of country as I do. The average Joe is not a brainwashed automaton as the media and Hollywood would have us believe.
Finally--if we could be sure that a tax cut would be used to create jobs rather than buying a chalet in the south of France or a new Mercedes for the youngest child, I might agree. I find it difficult to agree that all true patriots will take their new income and rush to hire people at a living wage, open new businesses and build factories so that we are a producer of goods again rather than on the road to being a hollow husk dependent upon hard working Asians to fund our adventures at home and abroad.
A question here. Who gets to determine how an individual spends the money they earn? I would suggest that it is an individual prerogative and not for anyone else to judge. It is the height of arrogance to suggest that an individual should not have the right to spend the money they earn as they see fit. If they choose to buy a chalet or Mercedes that is their choice. Wage income is a different animal than welfare payments. Where is the outrage that welfare money is used to buy drugs or prostitutes? Welfare recipients did not earn that money, taxpayers like you and I did, so where is the outrage. It is disingenuous at best to complain of how people spend or would spend money they earn.I agree that we should produce more domestically and maybe there is a government role in promoting that. I more think that the expectation of numerous benefits has something to do with that, while good for the worker they do cost money and that comes out of the bottom line. It is expensive to employ Americans and I do not see how you can fault a corporation for buying overseas where the labor costs and thus the cost of goods is less. The answer is to bring the cost of production down domestically but that would entail a loss of some benefits and that is probably not going to happen. Americans are too used to their perks to give them up. That is also why healthcare will probably not get repealed and will become another anchor around the taxpayer?s neck like every other social program.
Ron Paul spoke recently and enraged many by telling the Conservatives that they loved Empire--there are 700 bases abroad and I understand there a seven carrier groups. He is an interesting person and says whatever he wants because he knows he will never be elected president. I bet he sleeps well at night.
You are probably absolutely right both about why he feels he can say what he says and his chances of ever getting elected. I have said it elsewhere and repeat it here. Ron Paul has some good fiscal ideas but he is very flaky in areas like foreign policy and some domestic issues and that will keep him from getting elected if nothing else. He is too polarizing for electability.
Key points you made as I see them:1) The IRS will remain.2) The prebate will be ripe for gaming ala earned income credit.3) Revolution will proceed with ballots for quite awhile before bullets replace them.4) Our military isn?t the typical large professional standing army that the founders feared? not yet. (More likely we need to fear any reactionary action if the volunteer effort, that was lately proposed by the President comes to pass.)5) He who earns the money should not have the gov?t telling him what to spend it on. (Yes I agree better to spend domestically if we can but we also need to make the money go as far as possible? the gov?t need to get out of several businesses to let them become competitive again.)6) Ron Paul may be unelectable but those that are may need to take a page or two from is book.I agree on all counts.
Scout:The point I was making about spending had nothing to do with outrage--I am hardly a leveler. The point I was trying to make is that there is no direct evidence that a tax cut will automatically lead to people spending theiradditional money on things that would benefit the economy. If you would read the referenced Stockman article (google--Stockman and Trickle Down Economics), I would not be typing this post as he would argue the case much better than I can. You may not agree with all he says, but he sure has street cred.There is also no outrage against people spending given money on drugs or prostitutes. Come on Scout--we are, I assume, men of the world and know that rational behavior is not always observed whether one be the former governor of New York, a former President of the US from Arkansas or the mayor of Washington D.C. .One final point. We have had massive unemployment here--second poorest city in the USA and now the state is broke too. I know a family where both mom and dad worked, were laid off and now with three kids worka total of five less- than- full- time jobs and still cannot keep their heads above water. The jobs pay poorly,require a transportation solution that defies imagination and were it not for food stamps and subsidizedhousing, they would be on welfare. If they choose to get a six pack of Rolling Rock and a quart of Kesslers to numb the pain, am I going to begrudge them their little pleasure--hardly. The fact that alcohol is legal andsome drugs are not is merely a cultural decision. Prostitution and mind altering substances, like taxes will always be with us under any system of government except perhaps in Mao's China which did finally find a way to stop the opium use among the toiling masses.
1) The IRS will remain.2) The prebate will be ripe for gaming ala earned income credit.3) Revolution will proceed with ballots for quite awhile before bullets replace them.4) Our military isn?t the typical large professional standing army that the founders feared? not yet. (More likely we need to fear any reactionary action if the volunteer effort, that was lately proposed by the President comes to pass.)5) He who earns the money should not have the gov?t telling him what to spend it on. (Yes I agree better to spend domestically if we can but we also need to make the money go as far as possible? the gov?t need to get out of several businesses to let them become competitive again.)6) Ron Paul may be unelectable but those that are may need to take a page or two from is book.I agree on all counts.Hey! Let us not make up history--the private sector came crawling to the government to save them as theymade some bad business decisions, were unequipped to deal with competition and buffeted by the fiscalstorm that they helped produce. They got bailouts, my neighbor did not! Where is the bailout window forordinary people? You can argue that the President acted wisely in saving corporations that were too big to fail, but the stench of the act will be around for a long time. Unless I was asleep that day in class, one of theprimary assumptions about a healthy free enterprise system is that companies that make bad decisions getto fail and go out of business--creative destruction--good for all of us. Was this lesson a lie?
Willy,How can consumer spending, 70% of the economy, not spur job creation? I have read the article and many more and there are gaping holes in the trickle-down does not work theory. Tax cuts may not trickle down as much as rigid Reagan diehards believe but there is a trickle down effect. I am not advocating tax-cuts as a way to spur the economy but as a way to force government to shrink. I think I have made it clear that I would like to see many social spending programs go away and let people sink or swim like big boys and girls. I am a hard-hearted callous person I guess. I just don't see why the productive should subsidize the unproductive. It may lead to social unrest, but then, I would make many more crimes capital than are today, and I would use it more liberally. My basic philosophy is that government and government regulations are a big part of the problem, not a part of the solution. I cringe every time I hear somebody say there ought to be a law. To be honest, in cases of mass unrest because the checks quit coming I might even be in favor of a temporary suspension of Posse Comitatus and giving them a "whiff of Grapeshot" as Napoleon famously put it. I would certainly not be averse to pulling the lanyard myself under certain circumstances.You missed my point about personal spending. If a person wants to spend money they earned on drugs and prostitutes that is fine, I have a problem with welfare recipients spending what are essentially public funds on illegal activities. I don't want to debate whether drugs and prostitution should be legal, fact is they are not. If you want legal drugs and prostitutes, go to Amsterdam, no one is stopping you just dont spend you taxpayer provided money on them, get a job first and you can spend ever dime you make on it. I would even go so far as to deny social assistance to convicted criminals and might even advocate measures to make them criminals social outcasts as well. The point is no-one has thew right t tell me or anyone how to spend money they earn, but taxpayers certainly have the right to tell people feeding at the government trough how to spend the funds we are generously providing them for sustenance.Please spare me the evil corporation rant. I suppose next you are going to blame the housing crash on predatory lending practices and evil banks? ::) I don't buy it, every one that got a mortgage had to sign a contract, if they signed it without reading or understanding then as s they say in German, selber schuld, it is their own fault. If they bought a house thinking to sell at a profit before the rate reset, ditto. The banks did not make people buy houses they could not afford. I dd not buy a house because I made the rational decision that I wanted to save and pay cash or a significant down payment. What is lacking in the debate about the housing crisis is any talk of personal responsibility but that is lacking in talk about society in general so I should not be surprised.The discussion is not about spreading blame, but about how to get out of the mix. Pointing fingers now is counter productive and wont actually fix anything. More taxes and additional entitlements are not the answer to federal spending and federal debt, fiscal restraint and actually paying down the debt instead of making the national equivalent of minimum monthly payments is.
Hey! Let us not make up history--the private sector came crawling to the government to save them as they made some bad business decisions, were unequipped to deal with competition and buffeted by the fiscal storm that they helped produce. They got bailouts, my neighbor did not! Where is the bailout window for ordinary people?
Nobody, individual or business should have gotten bailouts. Tax-dollars should not go to the idiot down the street anymore than they should go to the idiots in corporate boardrooms to save them from stupid decisions.
