?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

One of my co-workers, last year, redid her W-4 forms to have an additional $80 taken out of each paycheck.  That's in addition to what she already has being deducted.  Each year, she gets a tax return in the $3,000+ range.

Today, she comes into the office, face red with rage.  Her tax preparer informed her that the stimulus bill that Obama railroaded through Congress and that nobody, D’s or R’s, tried to examine before voting, lowered the tax tables to help spur the economy.  She’s getting $18 back this year.  If she hadn't readjusted and had the additional $80 taken out of each check, she'd owe the IRS this year.  Another co-worker who usually gets $4,000 a year owes $42 to the IRS this year.  Obama wants to help the middle class.  Yeah, sure looks that way to me.  These are the same idiots who say people like me are hurting the economy because we are using our money to pay off debt and save up money instead of going further in the hole.  We can barely afford the taxes now, how would we do it if we were spending as loosely as they expect us to?!?

And, in addition to, on top of that, this year, the tax tables went back to what they were last year.  NOBODY in my work’s human resources department had been told this.

At least our tax dollars are helping those banks too big to fail to stay afloat and its not going to those banks too small to let survive.  I think I could use one of those drinks Nancy Pelosi has on her plane trips.  We are paying for them, after all.

Comments

( 6 comments — Leave a comment )
ying_ko_4
Feb. 10th, 2010 02:31 am (UTC)
Okay, riddle me this....

Are you ready to live in a world with massive economic destruction by letting those banks fail, GM and Chrysler go under and everything else that will collapse as a result?

I doubt it. I seriously doubt you or anyone else carpin' about the bank bailouts would want to live in that world. From what I can gather, it would make the Great Depression look like a church picnic.

FWIW, I was and remain philosophically against things of that nature (bailouts of that magnitude), but in this instance, I had to realize that the alternative was beyond grim.

I hate the bailouts, but the alternative I would hate much more.

And remember, whenever there is an open bar, Pelosi is buying....
sinetimore
Feb. 10th, 2010 03:13 am (UTC)
I respectfully beg to differ. First of all, those banks should have failed. Their assets would have been bought by other banks (my car loan transfered once and a couple of my other debts changed hands more than once). There would not have been that epic a collapse, because the system would have absorbed the proper debt instead of extending the bad debt and redistributed what was needed. It also would have broken up the political collusion financial giants wield.

I also dislike the lack of oversight for what the funds went to, and the lack of enforcement (the banks have basically dared Congress to bring them in for spending the money on bonuses and such). Meanwhile, the deficit continues to get worse (with a significant amount of it being held by overseas banks like China's), and the only solution that can be thought of is to cut programs that actually help people and raise taxes instead of cutting pork barrel projects and corporate welfare to companies that don't need it like AT&T.

In addition to that, the bailout package was a bailout, not a reform. Much needed reforms to either cut down or eliminate fraud (Ponzi schemes like Milken came up with) have yet to be considered, let alone passed. Milken still has his money from his scheme that shafted insurance companies and retirement funds among others. There's not much disincentive to stay clean when you go to a country club prison where your rights are inconvenienced instead of taken away and you get out and can resume living in your tax bracket. Tightening regulations is another good idea.

Simply put, the bank bailout was selective breeding -- the largest banks continue to operate despite behavior that indicates they shouldn't be trusted. If anything, it has given them more clout on Capitol Hill and made them more brazen. "Sure, we made another round of bad investments and bad loans and we need another bailout. After all, we're too big to let fail." It concentrates too much influence in too few hands and makes them invulnerable. This despite the Constitution no more guaranteeing you the right to a successful bank than it guarantees you the right to a successful burger stand.

The bailout with its "too big to fail, too small to survive" dividing line illustrates how much Congress doesn't get the world. The laws and protections are set up to protect big business while ignoring small and medium businesses, even though that is where the innovation and growth occurs. It wasn't a cure, it was euthanasia. And it was delivered to the wrong patients.

And as far as Pelosi buying, nice to see things continuing despite there not being a Kennedy around....
ying_ko_4
Feb. 10th, 2010 03:19 am (UTC)
All those toxic assets would still be out there. Better minds than mine came to these conclusions. Were it like you said, then I don't believe the Banking industry would want the Gubbmint muckin' around too much in their bidness....

And you can point the fingers at the GOP for a lack of reform on the banking industry. Once again, the Party of No is blocking the way.

The banks really torque me off with their awful behavior. Obama has been making lots of noise, and has proposed taking steps to get the taxpayers money back. Meanwhile other banks have paid back the bridge loans (as most of the money paid out was, loans) and the taxpayers made some money on those loans.

Again, the answer is simple. Fire everyone in Congress at the ballot box.
sinetimore
Feb. 10th, 2010 03:23 am (UTC)
"Fire everyone in Congress at the ballot box."

Dude, I will drink to that! And I agree. If Congress ran the country correctly, we wouldn't be where we are now. So, they are not doing their job. Sweep 'em out and get people who want to do right by us in there.
sinetimore
Feb. 10th, 2010 03:21 am (UTC)
Oh, One More Thing....
My understanding of what triggered the Great Depression was how the stock market operated on margin buying. Margins would be called, and people wouldn't have the money to cover it, so they would be extended time to make it up while continuing to operate. When it finally came time to cough up the cash, it got pulled out of banks or anyplace else with money, and by then, the debt had gotten so big, collapse was the only possible outcome.

Stock markets made adjustments, such as all accounts having to be settled at the end of the day or else (I think Hong Kong is the only one that doesn't require end of the day settling, but they require it the end of the next business day, so not too far out). Some adjustments still need to be made, naturally -- technology has advanced and the exchanges have not. But there are enough safeguards that recession can happen, but something like the Great Depression cannot.
ying_ko_4
Feb. 10th, 2010 03:25 am (UTC)
Re: Oh, One More Thing....
That might have started things, but banks failed at an alarming rate through the mid-30's....then what we're seeing now was going on. Business's cut back on production because there wasn't much demand, so there was mass unemployment...and the circle remained broken until WWII...

Nothing like a major war to get an economy moving. *sigh*
( 6 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

June 2019
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Tags

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com