Sammielee24,
You write:
“What has America told investors? That they can take a risk and make money but it's not really a risk because we'll make sure that you don't lose - we'll force the taxpayers to pony up.”
Actually America’s investors have been told quite the contrary, as you seem to comprehend later in your remarks. The current financial downturn’s first impact is to investors whose stock value has plummeted.
We agree that something needs to be done about money managers whose reckless decisions are set to be rewarded with a lifetime of financial freedom.
Financial rules have changed in recent years so that living beyond one’s means was easier than ever, and riskier to the overall economy than ever. It has encouraged those most susceptible to financial downturns to put themselves a tremendous risk by living well beyond their means. Over the past few years money was so easy to buy that purchasing existing businesses to turn a profit was easier than ever, and it has caused quite a bit or harm now that the chickens are coming home to roost for those who took the bait, and it seems for those prudent enough not to. We are all paying for decisions of fools and mongers who wanted to live beyond their means and wanted others to enjoy the same thing. Now we are paying for their “freedom,” which is turning out no to be so free. Government is supposed to impede this sort of reckless behavior. That is, behavior with such a significant risk to the general population. Our government has failed mightily in this respect. All of it.
What we need right now is a leader who is willing to place his own career in the backseat by getting things done building consensus without excessive spending on pork barrel projects. This leader will have to fight all contenders to get this done, regardless of party, social or business affiliation. I have seen McCain do this. I have never seen Obama actually do this. Obama may be the best man for the job, I do not know. I do not know this because on my payroll as a U.S. Senator I have never seen him earn his paycheck by sponsoring a single successful bill requiring a tough consensus, and this is what the next U.S. President will have to do and do well.
Why should I give Obama a leadership promotion until he has earned his pay for leadership where he is first? On the other hand, why should I give McCain a promotion to a job that requires exceedingly good skills as a communicator given his failure in this respect? In the end my vote will go with McCain for one reason: Despite his failure to communicate in this presidential election he must have good communication skills to have successfully sponsored some of the bills he has. Apparently his communicative skills show up in the dank halls of negotiation where the public rarely gets a glimpse.
Dawg,
You write:
“If you "pay a higher tax rate" and you make over 250k a year, then you don't have a good accountant or you don't understand the tax code. It's that simple... anyone with a brain who knows the tax code can finagle a way to keep from paying more percent of income than a middle income worker pays... its' that simple.”
If what you write above is true then Obama is lying. Is this what you think?
If what you write is true it means Obama is playing word games just to get elected. Is that what you want in a U.S. President?
Or, are you suggesting Obama is only promising to increase the tax rate for stupid suckers who happened to fall into more than 250 grand of money? If so, what would that tell you?
Talk about peeing on the tax payer’s leg and calling it rain? Please! If what you write is true it means Obama is wizzing away on everyone and, worse, telling them his peeing qualifies him as President of the United States!
Are you so sure you know what you are talking about?
Marvin Shilmer
Email This Post By Editors, The Skunk · October 16, 2008 · Post a comment · Print This Post ·