The Bailout Pork Bill And Responsibility
by Big Dog on Oct 4, 2008 at 11:13 Political
The bailout bill just passed by the Congress and signed into law contained billions of dollars in Christmas Tree ornaments that had nothing to do with bailing anyone out. These items, including provisions for tax cuts, were added to entice politicians to vote for it. We have no business bailing out Wall Street and we have effectively taken 700 billion steps in the direction of Communism*.
I heard Jesse Jackson on Neil Cavuto’s show and Jackson said the bill did not go far enough (surprise) and that if we can give low interest loans to auto makers (we should not be doing that) we should be able to do the same for homeowners. Jackson contended that people should get low interest rate loans from the government in order to restructure their debt and continue to pay for their homes. He insisted that the predatory lending practices led to their problems. Cavuto told him that while some predatory lending took place people were the ones who signed the dotted line. He said they needed to take responsibility for their actions and if they wanted to renegotiate it was up to them to do it with the people from whom they obtained their loans.
This is absolutely correct. Homeowners need to renegotiate with their lenders to get a better deal. It is not up to taxpayers to lend money to them regardless of whether they will pay it back or not. If they default then taxpayers will be left holding the bag (much as we are with Freddie and Fannie loans). Jackson wants to take personal responsibility away from people and have big government come in and take care of them. We no more belong doing that than we belong taking care of bankers or auto makers.
The market should be allowed to react in whatever direction the crisis leads it. People and businesses with money can come in and buy up failing businesses or they can go away. Allow the market to handle the crisis and leave the politicians who caused the problems out of it.
If Jackson thinks people have no responsibility in the contracts that they make and that government should bail them out then we should have some provisions which include a loss of voting rights if you become a ward of the government. If you are not able to understand a contract to buy a home and can be easily swayed then you are unable to understand the voting system and can be just as easily manipulated.
The bottom 50% of wage earners pay only about 4% of the taxes in this country so they will not be affected by the bailout as much as those who will see tax increases in order to pay for this mess. The voting system needs to be changed so that people are afforded more votes if they pay more in taxes. Perhaps each person gets one vote and then people get an additional vote for every $5000 in taxes that they pay. The people who pay for this country should have a greater say in how it is governed much like stockholders in a company who have more votes if they have more stock.
Whether Wall Street executives or distressed homeowners, the philosophy is the same; live with your decisions. If they cause you problems then you can work your way out and be all that much stronger for it.
If government steps in and fixes your bad decisions you will continue to make them. We get more of what we subsidize.
*I heard this phrase on TV but do not know who said it.
Tags: bailout, communism, jesse jackson, pork, taxes
You’ve mentioned the vote per tax scale idea before and I’m still amazed by it even today. What a monumentally unsound idea. We know the rich pay more in taxes because the rich make more money. So now the rich get even more political power because they’re rich? Middle class voters get even more power than lower class voters? I can’t believe you’d suggest such an insanely bad idea…
Agreed 1000% – why should we float greedy overextended debtors? We should be given the opportunity to buy them out after they sink! As a result, I’ve setup bailoutpetition.com. Please sign the petition to repeal this disastrous bailout bill. It’s the only thing left we can do to show Congress how angry we are and to prevent this colossal disaster. http://www.bailoutpetition.com
Adam, the rich should pay more in raw dollars than those who are not rich. You and your libs require the rich to pay a higher percentage of their income than anyone else to taxes and that is monumentally unsound. If the rich have to pay more in percentage than others than they should have more votes in the process.
The problem is, you have this idea everyone is equal and should all get just one vote but then you throw fairness out the door when it comes to taxes and say that not only should the rich pay almost all the taxes in the country but they should pay it at a higher rate and only have the same say in this country as the people who contribute little to no taxes.
Keep in mind, the Constitution does not give you the right to vote. You will not find anything in there that says that you have a right to do so. States send delegates to vote for the president, it is up to the state to decide how to do that. It would not be unfair to allow those who pay the country’s bills to decide how it is run.
You complain that the rich will have more say in things, those who are not outnumber the rich and they get to vote for things that the rich have to pay for.
You call it insane but the fact is that the rich get soaked while the poor and middle class get to decide who runs the country. There should also be a literacy test for voting so that people who are idiots can’t vote.
Obama is the first step to a socialist society in this country, verging on elite style communism. I think he went to church only to serve his cause. Only an atheist or an animal, such as a monkey, would do what he did for babies who survived an abortion. No, as a matter of fact, I just looked it up. Monkeys have respect for their young.
And then comrade Barrack Hussein Obama wants to serve up class-welfare. He wants only elites to steal all the cash.
top 50% of U.S. taxpayers pay 93% to 96% of taxes since 1991
100.00……25.75……42.57……54.69……76.02……93.54
1987: 100.00……24.81……43.26……55.61……76.92……93.93
1988: 100.00……27.58……45.62……57.28……77.84……94.28
1989: 100.00……25.24……43.94……55.78……77.22……94.17
1990: 100.00……25.13……43.64……55.36……77.02……94.19
1991: 100.00……24.82……43.38……55.82……77.29……94.52
1992: 100.00……27.54……45.88……58.01……78.48……94.94
1993: 100.00……29.01……47.36……59.24……79.27……95.19
1994: 100.00……28.86……47.52……59.45……79.55……95.23
1995: 100.00……30.26……48.91……60.75……80.36……95.39
1996: 100.00……32.31……50.97……62.51……81.32……95.68
1997: 100.00……33.17……51.87……63.20……81.67……95.72
1998: 100.00……34.75……53.84……65.04……82.69……95.79
1999: 100.00……36.18……55.45……66.45……83.54……96.00
2000: 100.00……37.42……56.47……67.33……84.01……96.09
Kim is absolutely right – most animals in the wild treat their young far better than what is suggested by Obama’s policies. The fact that people who do not even contribute taxes to the country get an equal decision in what happens with the money those of us do contribute does not make a lot of sense. I personally think a flat tax system would be more fair and reasonable and then everyone would be paying an equal percentage of their income. But since that is not likely to happen, look at our voters as shareholders in the country (since we are certainly the ones footing the bills). The more “shares” (taxes), the more weight your vote holds. I like that thought.
Also, personal responsibility is quickly becoming a thing of the past. Criminals are not responsible, society is. Minorities are not responsibility, racism is. Companies are not responsible, lending practices are. Homeowners are not responsible, tricky mortgages are. Come on, when are we going to realize that the blame game does not work and get back to running our lives and our country with some modicum of intelligence?
What would you call such a system where people’s votes are weighted if they pay more in taxes? Where can I find more information about such a governing system. I agree with your post. Very good stuff.