(deleted comment)

Date: 2009-02-14 06:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] name-omitted.livejournal.com
I really want to agree with you. The problem is, we are too structured to require certain things. I can't get mortgage without insurance. If AIG had failed, a lot of insurers would not have the "re-insurancce" that would allow them to service so many policies with so little assets. The only financially appropriate thing for them to do would be to stop issuing new policies, and hope old policies come due and can be canceled before some catastrophe strikes.

If they are not issuing new policies, I can't get a mortgage, I can't buy a house, or a car, and so on. The credit freeze just becomes a lot more frozen.

So, as a case in point, we had to go after AIG. Fortanatly, in that case, we took stock, so hopefully the Treasury can sell stock when the times are better and pay off some of the debt.

You are right about infrastructure. At least we will have something to show for it when this mess is over.

Date: 2009-02-14 08:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dwer.livejournal.com
except that, you know, Obama's plan included tax-cuts in it.

And as far as I can tell, Bush is the one who bailed out the failing companies with bad management. Obama wants to make the CEOs behave more responsibly.
(deleted comment)

Date: 2009-02-14 09:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dwer.livejournal.com
Bush's administration ran the disbursement of money. They allowed the money to be given out without any conditions. It's like blaming the Democrats for the administration of the Iraq war because they voted to fund it -- what the administration DOES with the money is the fault of the administration. You can blame the Democrats for not exerting more oversight -- and I do -- but they didn't actually make the mistakes.

Date: 2009-02-14 04:45 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] edgar-suit.livejournal.com
When expenses are greater than income, decreasing income is not the best answer. You either have to decrease expenses or increase income. Americans hate taxes but they also want their programs. Nice things cost money and, hopefully, Americans will realize this some day.

Date: 2009-02-15 03:15 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] reality-hammer.livejournal.com
Tax cuts are an excellent place to start, as even The One agrees.

Date: 2009-02-16 07:40 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] reality-hammer.livejournal.com
Tax cuts alone are superior to what Obama will sign on Tuesday.

Date: 2009-02-15 12:11 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dr-pepper-spray.livejournal.com
You do realize there are quite a few tax cuts in the stimulus package.. Apparently the Democrats agree with you; it is a place to start but tax cuts are not the end all be all.

Date: 2009-02-16 07:42 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] reality-hammer.livejournal.com
There are tax cuts for businesses...which may or may not amount to what is predicted. Businesses with no money to spend will not buy new equipment based on increased depreciation (for example).

As for individuals: a whopping $500 isn't going to stimulate anything. People won't spend anything they perceive to be temporary.

Date: 2009-02-16 04:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dr-pepper-spray.livejournal.com
So people who get a tax cut but don't have jobs will also go out and spend?

a whopping $500 isn't going to stimulate anything. Where were you in 2001?

Seriously, how can you keep a straight face?

Date: 2009-02-16 04:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dr-pepper-spray.livejournal.com
So people who get a tax cut but don't have jobs will also go out and spend? Before you go all "Welfare, blah blah.. People who don't make enough, blah blah" I'm referring to people who've been laid off in the last six months as well as those afraid they might lose their jobs this year.

Profile

Political Cartoons

March 2023

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
121314151617 18
19202122232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Apr. 1st, 2026 12:16 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios