PDA

View Full Version : TaxCheat Geitner -- Hand in the Till


flacaltenn
05-16-2011, 10:57 PM
This is pitiful.. Geitner came out today to mark the US debt ceiling as broken. And he has an idea...

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/161571-us-hits-debt-ceiling

The steps Geithner announced Monday will free up $12 billion over two months by halting new investments in the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund and redeeming existing investments in that fund.

Geithner also has the one-time option of not reinvesting securities that mature in that federal employee retirement fund, as the Treasury usually would do. In that situation, the Treasury could free up $67 billion more in headroom on June 30, when some of those securities mature.

Along similar lines, Geithner announced Monday that he was slowing investment in the Government Securities Investment Fund for federal employees’ retirement, which will create another $130 billion.


OMG.. There goes ANOTHER "trust fund".. If I was a Fed employee, I'd be taking to the streets with NoOneReal.
(probably different demonstrations tho)

Even if I TRIED to understand how he can get away with this, I can't fathom how "not reinvesting (matured) securities" is not a legal suit for mismanagement of public funds..

BlueStreak
05-17-2011, 12:10 AM
It's a tactic. Just as "They're not going to pay the troops!" was the last time around.

BlueStreak
05-17-2011, 12:12 AM
When the House goes to "recess" do they, like, play on Jungle Gyms and teeter-totters?

Dave

merrylander
05-17-2011, 07:33 AM
Considering that we are the only nation that plays this childish "debt cieling" nonsense why get yourknickers in a twist?

piece-itpete
05-17-2011, 08:54 AM
There was a guy on Newshour that discussed this - the feds can take money from other programs to stave off default till early to mid August.

It was good, I didn't catch his name. He said both defaulting and raising are bad, that the day of reckoning is coming. Even raising it, he likened it to walking towards a cliff, but you don't know where the edge is.

We're what, 115 billion a MONTH in the red? So raising taxes will work? That's $4600 a year for every man woman and child!

Pete

JonL
05-17-2011, 09:46 AM
We're what, 115 billion a MONTH in the red? So raising taxes will work? That's $4600 a year for every man woman and child!

Pete

How much would it be for men, women, and children in various economic strata (and tax brackets) if corporations like GE began to pay taxes again, and at historically reasonable rates? How about if Bush's irresponsible tax cuts were allowed to expire?

If we want to be at war, we ought to want to pay for it. Let's not forget how we got into this mess. Things were looking pretty good in 1999.

piece-itpete
05-17-2011, 09:51 AM
Yeah, spending the SS money and cutting the military like there'd never be another threat really worked out for us.

No matter WHO pays, simply raising taxes will take 115 billion - 1.3 TRILLION a year - out of the economy. Over 10% of GNP! Over and above what they already take.

How big of a government do you want?

Pete

whell
05-17-2011, 10:10 AM
How much would it be for men, women, and children in various economic strata (and tax brackets) if corporations like GE began to pay taxes again, and at historically reasonable rates? How about if Bush's irresponsible tax cuts were allowed to expire?

If we want to be at war, we ought to want to pay for it. Let's not forget how we got into this mess. Things were looking pretty good in 1999.

We couldn't do THAT! Why, we wouldn't be able to use the tax code to shape and direct social policy, or to reward our political benefactors. How could we possibly let our politicians use tax money to launder political contributions if we did THAT!

And, if you think we looked good in 1999, do you also pay your Master Card with your Visa?

finnbow
05-17-2011, 10:12 AM
Yeah, spending the SS money and cutting the military like there'd never be another threat really worked out for us.

No matter WHO pays, simply raising taxes will take 115 billion - 1.3 TRILLION a year - out of the economy. Over 10% of GNP! Over and above what they already take.

How big of a government do you want?
Pete

First, we're trying to pay for the government expenditures we already incurred over the past 10 years.

Secondly, nobody is talking about making up the deficit solely through taxes. Most reasonable economists (also the Debt Commission) set out a formula of 3:1 (cuts vs. revenue).

noonereal
05-17-2011, 10:40 AM
.

Secondly, nobody is talking about making up the deficit solely through taxes. Most reasonable economists (also the Debt Commission) set out a formula of 3:1 (cuts vs. revenue).

BS, I am.


seriously though that ratio would be inverted if anyone is being serious

JonL
05-17-2011, 10:41 AM
We couldn't do THAT! Why, we wouldn't be able to use the tax code to shape and direct social policy, or to reward our political benefactors. How could we possibly let our politicians use tax money to launder political contributions if we did THAT!

And, if you think we looked good in 1999, do you also pay your Master Card with your Visa?

You mean we couldn't use the tax code to further increase the unsustainable gap in wealth in this country? We couldn't use the tax code to further incentivize corporations to outsource good jobs? You bring up a good point about political contributions... we shouldn't allow corporations to make them.

As I recall, in the late '90s our economy had enjoyed an extended period of growth and prosperity, and our budget had a surplus for the first time in decades. Yes, we were entering a recession, typical and to be expected as part of the normal business cycle. Although I might not agree that tax cuts the way they were implemented were the best way out of the recession, there is a defensible argument to be made in their favor. There is NOT a defensible argument regarding maintaining those cuts once the economy began to improve AND during a time when we were spending enormously on wars and a new Medicaid drug benefit (that itself was implemented in a way to benefit the insurance and pharmaceutical companies far more than the needy seniors).

If there is pain to be had in digging out of our hole, shouldn't a good deal of that pain be borne by those who have benefitted disproportionately from its creation?

whell
05-17-2011, 10:51 AM
You bring up a good point about political contributions... we shouldn't allow corporations to make them.

Yep, we've had this discussion before. The SCOTUS decision was unpopular because it allowed ORGANIZATIONS to be treated the same as individuals for purposes of political speech, including political contributions as a form of free speech. You don't see anyone on the Hill advancing legislation aimed at overriding this SCOTUS ruling. Why? Because unions and PACS are organizations too.

As I recall, in the late '90s our economy had enjoyed an extended period of growth and prosperity, and our budget had a surplus for the first time in decades.

Like I said, if you believe we had a balanced budget in the '90's, you must think you can pay your MasterCard with your Visa.

piece-itpete
05-17-2011, 10:55 AM
Plus, the national debt increased every single year Clinton was in office, according to the CBO, including the SS ripoff.

Pete

noonereal
05-17-2011, 11:02 AM
Plus, the national debt increased every single year Clinton was in office, according to the CBO, including the SS ripoff.

Pete

as a % of GDP?

piece-itpete
05-17-2011, 11:22 AM
No, in absolute terms.

Pete

Fast_Eddie
05-17-2011, 12:23 PM
I wish Obama would tell Boehner to do whatever he wants. Go on TV and say "They know the risks and they know the consequences. My administration believes it is reckless to intentionally sully the good credit of the United States and understands that good, tax paying American Citizens will pay the price for their extremist measures. But they were freely elected and they need to do what they think is right."

What would Boehner and Co do then? They KNOW they have to approve raising the debt ceiling. Playing political games with it is stupid. Obama should call their bluff.

flacaltenn
05-17-2011, 12:33 PM
Kinda fair and balanced debate goin on..

Whell stole my sarcastic return to JonL about why we can't rescind all those Green GE tax credits..

About the 1990's -- Pete you are brave and usually right, but Clinton did buy on to balancing the budget (even with that lip-biting episode where he repented "for raising your taxes too much"). And as a result, with the help of a Republican majority, the budget went into surplus for a couple quarters. In fact, at the time, I researched how amazed the Treasury was that there was no mechanism for "paying down the debt" in place at that time. See the Feds can't carry over cash from yr to yr, so if there IS a surplus, they have to buy back bonds early. And that hadn't happened in soo long, they forgot how to do that. But WHELL is right, it was STILL done by stealing about 300Bil/yr in payroll taxes from (largely) the "working class".

JonL:

If there is pain to be had in digging out of our hole, shouldn't a good deal of that pain be borne by those who have benefitted disproportionately from its creation?

First - we need some evidence that "the rich" benefitted from the downturn in the economy. MOST of the "tax targeted rich" got PUMMELED in their private 401K and savings. Only the traders who positioned themselves out of Fanny/Freddy and the housing bubble increased their worth. But for these few, the last 5 years is probably close to a wash. We are ALL being economically deflated. Top to bottom.. Yes, there's a gap -- but it's becoming just about as meaningful as the gap between the Howells and everyone else on Gilligan's Island.

Second -- We're seeing the results of criminally poor financial management at the Congressional level. That Geitners recent action is just the latest example of negligient fiduciary responsibility. For THAT -- the guilty have to pay. Just like demanding accountability on Wall Street, we need accountability and some "perp walks" from the govt. Not going to let them continue these criminal acts. Especially, the continuing lie that the SS/MC crisis is still years off. Stop the lying now -- and we can talk about fixing it. You stop the criminal acts, before you swing into repair mode.

Thirdly, we have excused about 1/2 of America from contributing to this crisis by reducing their INCOME taxes to zero (or refunding a negative tax thru EITC). That puts a crimp into the repair effort. Now progressive income is OK I guess to a point. If we hadn't stolen from this bottom half thru excess payroll taxes for most of their lives, I'd have NO compunctions about asking them to contribute a token amount to the fix. Were none of THESE people for the wars that helped shove us into an untenable financial muck-up? Were none of these people for the housing policies that inflated the housing bubble? Were none of these people for all the Green crappola that's been over-hyped at GE? Were none of these people in favor of including drug benefits to MCare?

Fourthly, the better method than targeting specific incomes with higher tax brackets, is to start closing the existing "tax expenditures" (as the left likes to call them) or loopholes. Do it as uniformly and universally as possible. Don't promote the class warfare rhetoric which truly isn't gonna fix the problem.. (See california e.g. where about 30,000 people in that state pay 60% of state income tax. So when THOSE people take a hit in a declining market -- the whole state goes into the red).

But I'm not in a mood to see the Treasury stealing from yet ANOTHER pile of OPiuM (other peoples money). Or punishing the lower class with a dollar devaluation and NOT calling that a tax.

BTW: I was kinda laid back about Obama and his predilection for class warfare and progressive politics. Was hoping he would at least roll back the Patriot act and get us untangled from the Mid East. But when Geitner went thru after the revelation that he couldn't follow simple instructions for filing HIS taxes --- my patience started to run out. This man SHOULD NOT have that job..

piece-itpete
05-17-2011, 12:46 PM
Debt outstanding, treasury department:

09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

noonereal
05-17-2011, 12:47 PM
No, in absolute terms.

Pete

that's what i figured

so really it did not go up at all

piece-itpete
05-17-2011, 01:04 PM
Btw, for the record, both parties were responsible for looting SS.

Pete

flacaltenn
05-17-2011, 01:05 PM
Pete:

Don't sweat it. You are correct in every way except as the govt would explain a surplus. So for us normal math capable folks, you are OK with those numbers.

In terms of the Budget Books, there was a surplus. THEN -- after they stole the 300Bill from payroll tax and showed it as REVENUE --- the treasury made "a purchase" of 300Bill in Bonds (different series from publically traded, practically worthless) as an intergoverment transfer to the "trust fund". So in terms of the public budget books, they ignored the transfer.

Many ardent leftists still argue that those trust fund bonds are actually earning INTEREST! And that the fund is solvent for another couple decades. Those people should have their GEDs revoked.. If you pretend that the trust fund is due interest when you calculate the solvency dates (which they actually do) -- the SIZE of the theft just increases..

When Factcheck states that there was a surplus, they are looking at only the public debt and are not including the intra-governmental debt. Looked at this way, yes, there was a surplus. So much money was coming in through Social Security taxes (and used to buy Treasury bonds) that the general fund exceeded the budget by several hundred billion.

Is this a valid way to view the matter? After all, the money the government owes itself shouldn't count, right? Well, yes, it should. The social security money was already earmarked for future social security payments, and the Social Security Trust Fund will want to get its money back when it comes time to make more payments. So yes, this is real debt and I can't think of any reason to exclude it.
http://quaap.com/D/clinton-surplus-factcheck

All part of the lies and theft and money-laundering that occured since LBJ.. And worse than that --- It's exactly what Geitner is doing today with Fed Employee Retirement monies..

merrylander
05-17-2011, 01:11 PM
Yeah, spending the SS money and cutting the military like there'd never be another threat really worked out for us.

No matter WHO pays, simply raising taxes will take 115 billion - 1.3 TRILLION a year - out of the economy. Over 10% of GNP! Over and above what they already take.

How big of a government do you want?

Pete

You are assuming that the wealthy spend their money here and not on the Riviera, or Paris, or London, or Berlin.:rolleyes:

piece-itpete
05-17-2011, 01:29 PM
No sweating, I see the debt increased, therefore, no surplus. 1+2=3, except government :)

The two parties are Janus. Talking out both sides of the mouth, get you coming and going, I bet one could go on like that a while lol. They work for themselves.

Rob, we need to figure out how to get them furrners to spend money here! Maybe Chicago pizza? Hmmm... Got it! Great Lakes beer!

Pete

JonL
05-17-2011, 01:29 PM
JonL:



First - we need some evidence that "the rich" benefitted from the downturn in the economy. MOST of the "tax targeted rich" got PUMMELED in their private 401K and savings. Only the traders who positioned themselves out of Fanny/Freddy and the housing bubble increased their worth. But for these few, the last 5 years is probably close to a wash. We are ALL being economically deflated. Top to bottom.. Yes, there's a gap -- but it's becoming just about as meaningful as the gap between the Howells and everyone else on Gilligan's Island.


I know that the disparity in wealth in this country has increased dramatically over the past decade... for whatever reason. I also know that during that time the taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans has decreased dramatically. Perhaps a good start to increasing revenues (while also responsibly reducing spending) would be to restore the tax structure to where it has historically been during periods of protracted economic growth fueled by a vibrant middle class. BTW, I'm not suggesting that the downturn benefitted the wealthy, but it certainly didn't cause the same degree of hardship that it caused the middle class and below. I am suggesting that our tax policy has benefited the wealthy to the detriment of the rest of us.

I surely don't get your Gilligan's Island analogy.


Second -- We're seeing the results of criminally poor financial management at the Congressional level. That Geitners recent action is just the latest example of negligient fiduciary responsibility. For THAT -- the guilty have to pay. Just like demanding accountability on Wall Street, we need accountability and some "perp walks" from the govt. Not going to let them continue these criminal acts. Especially, the continuing lie that the SS/MC crisis is still years off. Stop the lying now -- and we can talk about fixing it. You stop the criminal acts, before you swing into repair mode.


It would be nice to reduce the hyperbole in DC and start discussing issues in a rational manner that isn't totally influenced by lobbying and pandering.


Thirdly, we have excused about 1/2 of America from contributing to this crisis by reducing their INCOME taxes to zero (or refunding a negative tax thru EITC). That puts a crimp into the repair effort. Now progressive income is OK I guess to a point. If we hadn't stolen from this bottom half thru excess payroll taxes for most of their lives, I'd have NO compunctions about asking them to contribute a token amount to the fix. Were none of THESE people for the wars that helped shove us into an untenable financial muck-up? Were none of these people for the housing policies that inflated the housing bubble? Were none of these people for all the Green crappola that's been over-hyped at GE? Were none of these people in favor of including drug benefits to MCare?


The reason so many lower income people pay little or no income tax is because far too many people have subsistence level incomes or below. I don't know what you mean about "stealing" from people with payroll taxes. We all get services from the gov't, and they need to be paid for. The fact that people (of whatever means) may have been "for" or "against" various policies in a general sense has no bearing on if those people as individuals or as a member of a particular class should pay or not pay for the policies. We are all in this together. If our elected (?) leaders take us into war, it is incumbent upon them to demand that we pay for it. If we do not want to pay for it, we need to get our leaders to change their policies. Our leaders lacked the courage, foresight, or principle to demand that we make sacrifices to achieve our objectives.

Furthermore, it's disingenuous to "blame" normal people for supporting various policies that were so convoluted and arcane in their implementation as to be totally unintelligible. Do think anyone who benefitted from housing policies was given an explanation about CDOs, mortgage backed securities, economic bubbles, bank failures, foreclosures, etc, while they were being told that homeownership was the American dream and that real estate was a "sure thing?" As to the drug benefits, there was TREMENDOUS opposition to the way it was implemented because it was confusing to the supposed beneficiaries and a windfall for the actual beneficiaries - the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies. I also believe that a majority of Americans would favor a sound "green" energy development policy if it was funded by eliminating oil company tax breaks, and I bet most would even support it if it included a modest gas tax of a couple of pennies per gallon.


Fourthly, the better method than targeting specific incomes with higher tax brackets, is to start closing the existing "tax expenditures" (as the left likes to call them) or loopholes. Do it as uniformly and universally as possible. Don't promote the class warfare rhetoric which truly isn't gonna fix the problem.. (See california e.g. where about 30,000 people in that state pay 60% of state income tax. So when THOSE people take a hit in a declining market -- the whole state goes into the red).


No argument that loopholes should be closed. However, this mantra of "class warfare" is a stupid red herring. Only the most radical of leftists are saying anything that approaches class warfare rhetoric. It's a nice way for those who are benefitting from the increasing income disparity to deflect criticism of the unfair policies that help them. It's as if a bully keeps poking his finger in your eye and when you punch back he gets you arrested for assault.


But I'm not in a mood to see the Treasury stealing from yet ANOTHER pile of OPiuM (other peoples money). Or punishing the lower class with a dollar devaluation and NOT calling that a tax.



How much taxation is legitimate before you call it "stealing?"

flacaltenn
05-17-2011, 03:20 PM
Oh My JonL:

Important stuff first --- How much taxation is legitimate before you call it "stealing?"


When I referred to Geitners hand being in the Fed Employee Fund, that's not taxation, but it is STEALING. Just plain ole fiduciary mismanagement. White collar crime. I'm not (bigL) libertarian enough to call ANY taxation theft or stealing.


Only the most radical of leftists are saying anything that approaches class warfare rhetoric.

Not really.. Hard to find ANYONE in Dem leadership that hasn't used the phrases "millionaires and billionaires" in referencing their target for redistribution. In fact, referring to their only viable party of opposition as the "party of millionaires and billionaires" is part of the revolution. I just laugh when I think of Fox New's audience as composed of "millionaires and billionaires". And Obama was outed as a Progressive several times during his campaign and folks tried to warn that there would be ample support for the radical Progressive agenda.

I surely don't get your Gilligan's Island analogy.

More important stuff there. Maybe it's an age thing. You had the filthy rich Howells on that island trying to maintain their status and pretend that they were still elite and superior in social graces. When in reality, they were eating crap off the beach and living in a hut. Those RICH that the class warfare revolution want to tax are one Federal Reserve policy change away from living in hut like the rest of us. So much invested in shaky or risky investments. They are in a position to lose MORE in a downturn than then the lower 50% who don't contribute at all.

So the point is -- it's ludicrous fiscal policy to bet the farm on the income of the top 5 or 10%. Unless of course, you want to discover (like California) that all your social programs and govt pretend altruism gets dumped every time the market tanks. It's like financing your health care system off tobacco tax revenues. Not a very wise or stable thing to do.

flacaltenn
05-17-2011, 03:27 PM
Whoops --'nother important clarification...

I don't know what you mean about "stealing" from people with payroll taxes. We all get services from the gov't, and they need to be paid for.

For over 30 years, Congress allowed EVERY working American to be payroll taxed (SS/MC) at rates that FAR EXCEEDED what was required to run those programs. That's the groundwork for the theft. The actual implementation of the theft was when they took those revenues INTENDED TO PAY INSURANCE PREMIUMS and spent them on any crap they liked at the time. AND -- they did that knowing that both SS/MC were structured as "pay as you go" programs with no means of "lock-boxing" those HUMONGEOUS overcharges. (Amounts to at least 6 TRILLION bucks so far).

JonL: That's clearly theft that hurt the "working class" more than others. Can't be construed any other way. Why we ever trust the Fed Govt to run "Universal" anything again is beyond me...

JonL
05-17-2011, 03:52 PM
Oh My JonL:

Important stuff first ---

When I referred to Geitners hand being in the Fed Employee Fund, that's not taxation, but it is STEALING. Just plain ole fiduciary mismanagement. White collar crime. I'm not (bigL) libertarian enough to call ANY taxation theft or stealing.


Seemed to me that any time you were speaking about taxation you called it stealing, including taxation that occurred before Geitner. Sorry if I misinterpreted.


Not really.. Hard to find ANYONE in Dem leadership that hasn't used the phrases "millionaires and billionaires" in referencing their target for redistribution. In fact, referring to their only viable party of opposition as the "party of millionaires and billionaires" is part of the revolution. I just laugh when I think of Fox New's audience as composed of "millionaires and billionaires". And Obama was outed as a Progressive several times during his campaign and folks tried to warn that there would be ample support for the radical Progressive agenda.


Your examples hardly qualify as "class warfare rhetoric" to me. Nor does Obama's being "outed" (Outed??? WTF???) as a Progressive seem to me to be class warfare rhetoric. I think you have a very thin skin, or pretend as much to be able to take cheap shots based on labels rather than on substance.

Maybe I should've raised the "class warfare!" cry of outrage when Reagan talked about welfare queens. Maybe I should do it now every time someone invokes the meaningless statistics about which HALF of the population pays more taxes without also talking about how the income is also apportioned.

More important stuff there. Maybe it's an age thing. You had the filthy rich Howells on that island trying to maintain their status and pretend that they were still elite and superior in social graces. When in reality, they were eating crap off the beach and living in a hut. Those RICH that the class warfare revolution want to tax are one Federal Reserve policy change away from living in hut like the rest of us. So much invested in shaky or risky investments. They are in a position to lose MORE in a downturn than then the lower 50% who don't contribute at all.

So the point is -- it's ludicrous fiscal policy to bet the farm on the income of the top 5 or 10%. Unless of course, you want to discover (like California) that all your social programs and govt pretend altruism gets dumped every time the market tanks. It's like financing your health care system off tobacco tax revenues. Not a very wise or stable thing to do.

I'm plenty old enough to remember Gilligan's Island, Thurston Howell III and "Lovey." Your analogy is way into the realm of hyperbole. What's the wealth distribution like in this country DESPITE the disastrous economic conditions that have existed for the last few years? And no one is advocating that a restoration of historically sustainable progressive tax rates is the ENTIRE solution, but it should certainly be a part of it. Just because a downturn might affect tax revenues doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue a reasonable tax strategy anyway. Hell, my house might burn down one day. Should I live outdoors instead of facing that possible disaster? Finally, you cannot compare a state's budgetary situation to that of the Federal government. The Feds are allowed to run a deficit, the states are not. There is nothing wrong with the ability to run a deficit at the federal level, the problem is being irresponsible about it, the way Bush was by cutting taxes and engaging in reckless spending at the same time during a period of economic growth when somewhat higher taxes could have been tolerable. I believe it is sound fiscal policy to run a deficit during an economic downturn and run a surplus during economic prosperity.

Oh, this is interesting... you wrote "So much invested in shaky or risky investments. They are in a position to lose MORE in a downturn than then the lower 50% who don't contribute at all. "

So I should subsidize their gambling addiction? They may be in a position to lose much more in dollars than the lower 50% but not in lifestyle or security.

BlueStreak
05-17-2011, 05:08 PM
Zzzzzzzzz, Zzzzzzzzzzz, Zzzzzzzzzzzzz, Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz....................God, you guys are boring.

I think we should just let wealthy individuals and corporations off scot free. That's right, give them whatever they want, no taxes, hack wages and salaries in half or two thirds, repeal all labor and environmental laws, tell everyone no more paid vacations, personal days, employer sponsored health or dental benefits, no government oversight of anything at all........just let them completely run amok. So long as the rest of us are equally free to do whatever we please with impunity as well. So the libertarians can finally see what they've been asking for.

I, for one, wouldn't mind busting a few scab heads. Sounds like fun.

Dave

d-ray657
05-17-2011, 05:41 PM
Maybe I should've raised the "class warfare!" cry of outrage when Reagan talked about welfare queens. Maybe I should do it now every time someone invokes the meaningless statistics about which HALF of the population pays more taxes without also talking about how the income is also apportioned.


You forgot to mention the distribution of wealth. It is even more out of whack than the distribution of income. This is important, of course, control of capital is directly proportional to control of opportunity. Over the last ten years, the top one percent have absorbed an amazing proportion of the entire country's increase in wealth. (http://web.mit.edu/ipc/publications/pdf/07-002.pdf)

Regards,

D-Ray

merrylander
05-18-2011, 07:20 AM
Harold Myerson came up with a good idea in this mornings WaPo. We can cut the deficit simply by cutting of the welfare we pay to certains states that take more out of the pot than they put in. Sista Sarah's Alaska being a prime example.

whell
05-18-2011, 10:26 AM
Harold Myerson came up with a good idea in this mornings WaPo. We can cut the deficit simply by cutting of the welfare we pay to certains states that take more out of the pot than they put in. Sista Sarah's Alaska being a prime example.

Bad idea, because there are "donor states", like the one I'm in in Michigan, that have been getting the short end of the stick for years. It'll never happen, I suspect, but before we think about balancing the Fed budget, let's at least equalize the funds that are coming back to the states, so the states can balance their budgets more effectively.

flacaltenn
05-18-2011, 10:30 AM
D-Ray:

I actually looked at that MIT proof of "wealth gap" paper and it's not what you seem to think it is. Most all of the graphs depict a questionably useful variable of "bargaining power" which is derived from a ratio of income to productivity. Thus -- because computers hit the desk top in the 1980's and an influx of 14Mil low wage immigrants came in thereafter -- it would take weeks to debate whether that paper says ANYTHING about a simple wealth or income gap widening. I believe you that there is an increasing WEALTH gap -- it's just that it doesn't look like those graphs..

D-Ray and JonL:

Sorry JonL that you've missed all the class warfare skirmishes. Don't know how you missed the daily Pelosi-Reid soundbites about economic justice and morality of giving the rich tax breaks. Or the attempts to impose CEO salary caps into the businesses affected by TARP. But the Revolution (based largely on class envy) was in FULL swing til the last election. That's when the 1st round skirmish ended. And when I said that Obama was "outed" during the campaign, I was refering to his impromptu remarks with Joe -- that plumber guy. Whom he tried to convince would be better off -- if we just spread the wealth around.

D-Ray & JonL -- do you think that this wealth gap happened because "the rich" STOLE this money from you or the poor? Do you really think that if they get $100,000 bonus that someone in the lower echelons just got robbed?

Let's put some names to this to make it specific.. Can you tell me why Jay Leno should have to pay for 10 additional HUmVees this year? Why the Williams sisters (Venus/Serena) need to defer building their families' security to the tune of subsidizing ethanol production by a couple extra milllion dollars? Why not pick on Elvis?? He's DEAD and he's still making MILLIONS per year.. Why not just take ALL of that? Justin Bieber was pan-handling on the streets just a few ago -- certainly he doesn't need all that income! ALL these folks are 1st generation rich. No dynasties there. Not a threat to me. Why are they your target for our fiscal mismanagement crisis? Why not take an extra 3 or 4% from the Illinois lottery winner? THAT --- was just accidental luck.. Or the guy who's sitting on his ass collecting royalties on the pop-open cans? Or the cardiologist who does 250 bypasses a year? Are THESE the people who contributed to our present sad state of affairs?

The idea that the govt has an equal claim to my Grandma's Steinway as I have or that these people are rich because they screwed 'the middle class' or the working poor is ridiculous.

The answer is -- I want accountability FIRST. I want our money OUT of Chrysler and GM. I want the rest of stimulus RETURNED to the treasury because the fact that it still isn't spent just PROVES it was pirate booty for a bunch of politicians. I want perp walks from Barney Frank et al who said that Fanny/Freddy would never cost Americans a nickel. Most of all -- I want Geitner to get his hands out of the Fed Employees Fund and appoint someone who doesn't use it like a private slush fund..

THEN -- we can talk about shaking down Jay Leno and Kobe Bryant and Arriana Huffington for some cash.

finnbow
05-18-2011, 10:53 AM
Alaska "takes more out of the pot than they put in"??????

With respect to Federal tax revenues, this is unquestionably true. Alaska is second only to New Mexico in terms of the ratio of Federal Funds Received/Federal Taxes Paid. New Mexico's ration is 2.00 and Alaska's is 1.87.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf

As for Geitner having his hand in the till, he's being forced by an incompetent Congress in general (and a doomsday-threatening Republicans in particular) to do his best to keep the country financially afloat until a settlement on the debt crisis is reached. If he does nothing between now and Aug 2, and as a result, causes T Bills/Bonds yields to increase dramatically, Congressional tactics to reduce the deficit will actually increase it. I'm no fan of Geitner, but he's doing the right thing here.

flacaltenn
05-18-2011, 11:11 AM
So FinBow:

Your just peachy with purposely mismanaging an employee trust fund to fix a "cash flow" problem. That is won't have an adverse outcome on the people vested in that account or the taxpayers?

Get those CongressCritters BACK to D.C. NOW.. Show some f)(ing urgency... Where's the OVERSIGHT? or leadership?

We're just doomed..

merrylander
05-18-2011, 12:23 PM
D-Ray & JonL -- do you think that this wealth gap happened because "the rich" STOLE this money from you or the poor? Do you really think that if they get $100,000 bonus that someone in the lower echelons just got robbed?



Well the lower echelons are not even keeping pace with inflation. But I agree, we should not add extra taxes on the wealthy, they create jobs. So the top 5% have 65% of the nations wealth, so where are the fu*king jobs?:rolleyes:

merrylander
05-18-2011, 12:25 PM
BTW, you will note that the majority of free-loading states are Red.:p

finnbow
05-18-2011, 01:06 PM
So FinBow:

Your just peachy with purposely mismanaging an employee trust fund to fix a "cash flow" problem. That is won't have an adverse outcome on the people vested in that account or the taxpayers?

Get those CongressCritters BACK to D.C. NOW.. Show some f)(ing urgency... Where's the OVERSIGHT? or leadership?

We're just doomed..

I'm absolutely not peachy with it. OTOH, I see no alternative. Had we gone into default several days back, the cost of financing our debt (once an agreement gets done) would outstrip any potential savings from the agreement.

If you're following the whole budget mess, the "Gang of 6" has now become the "Gang of 5" as Tom Coburn bailed out of frustration/disgust/whatever. I actually admire Coburn's singular (within the GOP) to stand up against Grover Norquist and his loss will be felt within the Group.

IMHO, the GOP has built a Tea Party monster which demands "no compromises" (as if they have the monopoly on truth). Beyond that, they all made their solemn "no tax" pleges to Grover Norquist. Ain't this the same party who birthed this mess about 8 years ago?

piece-itpete
05-18-2011, 01:18 PM
Compromises built the Levithian. Time to cut, cut, cut.

That makes any red blooded rightie happy :)

The SS 'trust fund' was already empty when Shrub took over.

Pete

finnbow
05-18-2011, 01:29 PM
Compromises built the Levithian. Time to cut, cut, cut.

That makes any red blooded rightie happy :)

The SS 'trust fund' was already empty when Shrub took over.

Pete

I understand your sentiment, Pete. However, we shouldn't allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. For example, if the GOP holds our for, say, 4 trillion in cuts, but only gets 3.5 trillion should they let the Aug 2 deadline pass? I say no, because interest rates on the remaining debt will skyrocket, thereby eating up the savings. I'd rather have the American people have the difference (0.5 trillion) than our creditors in the form of higher interest rates.

piece-itpete
05-18-2011, 01:42 PM
Pssst - let me tell you a secret - there is no way we'll default



.

BlueStreak
05-18-2011, 01:51 PM
So FinBow:

Your just peachy with purposely mismanaging an employee trust fund to fix a "cash flow" problem. That is won't have an adverse outcome on the people vested in that account or the taxpayers?

Get those CongressCritters BACK to D.C. NOW.. Show some f)(ing urgency... Where's the OVERSIGHT? or leadership?

We're just doomed..

Why not? I hate it, but I'd think YOU would be jumping for joy.

Private industry finds ways to fuck their employees to raise cash all of the time. Everything from BS "incentive" programs, that are really just devised to escape giving COLA raises to all employees, to just straight up eliminating benefits at will, to slowly passing the burden of payment for benefits back to the employee, to finding inventive ways to "allow" employees to work off the clock. And don't tell me they don't do it, because that's the biggest goddamned lie there is. And I don't believe it is ALWAYS justified either. That's a damn lie too.:rolleyes:

So, if government starts acting more like private industry, I'd say that you have gotten what you want; Workers are getting fucked to make things easier for the employer.

So shut up and be happy.:p

Dave

flacaltenn
05-18-2011, 02:24 PM
Pete:

I'm with you on the "no compromises". However, I think it's more important to fix the leaks before you refill the tub. Do we know what's left in Stimulus/Tarp? Do we know that Fanny/Freddy are NOT still writing sub-prime junk? As far as how fast we cut, cut, cut -- I think that's less important than setting the proper course and having a plan.

Compromising on important issues like one are like a vegan family and a "normal" family planning ThanksGiving dinner. There's gonna be a lot of extra work. No one's gonna have a good time. And a lot of stuffing is gonna go to waste..

FinnBow:

I could be wrong your Bow-ness, but I believe Timmy the Cheat has the ability RIGHT NOW to put TARP baloney back in the Treasury. He probably also has the discretion to SELL Chrysler on a short ride to hell. From the article I posted -- it seems like he "only" has to come up with about 100Bill. (WTF -- when we talk about "only 100Bill over a MONTH'S time).

merrylander
05-18-2011, 02:41 PM
Pssst - let me tell you a secret - there is no way we'll default



.

You never know, Bonehead and Dr. No are just dumb enough to accidentaly screw up.Hell they screw-up all the time on purpose.

flacaltenn
05-18-2011, 02:44 PM
BlueStreak:

Why not? I hate it, but I'd think YOU would be jumping for joy.

Private industry finds ways to fuck their employees to raise cash all of the time. Everything from BS "incentive" programs, that are really just devised to escape giving COLA raises to all employees, to just straight up eliminating benefits at will, to slowly passing the burden of payment for benefits back to the employee, to finding inventive ways to "allow" employees to work off the clock. And don't tell me they don't do it, because that's the biggest goddamned lie there is. And I don't believe it is ALWAYS justified either. That's a damn lie too.

So, if government starts acting more like private industry, I'd say that you have gotten what you want; Workers are getting fucked to make things easier for the employer.

So shut up and be happy.



Employers CAN do all that crappola. I don't jump for joy about it. I've had to go thru Chapt 13 at a Silicon Valley startup and lay off 6 of best friends and colleagues. I take making a business healthy as deadly serious because people's lives are involved. Can't tell you the number of times I was asked to defer salary for a couple weeks so that my team could get paid. My boss ate stock certificates for 6 months because he believed in the venture.

Reality is Dave, when the sheets don't produce profit, it gets too risky to ride the hairy edge of disaster. You need to have a safety margin for tomorrow and looking ahead. And unfortunately, employees are easier to retrieve than reliable customers or stockholders.

But here's the outrage for me. We are largely in this crisis (that was seen coming for 30 years) because Congress stole over $6TRILL from workers paychecks by charging them too much for a "trust fund" premium for MC/SS. Promised to pay it back when it was needed. NOW THAT IT"S NEEDED, we have a treasury sec who's dipping into ANOTHER trust fund to cover that debt. It shows that there is no humility or repentance about the theft. That the American public will allow the charade to continue and NOBODY is ever gonna get punished.

Indian Trust Fund, Highway Trust Fund, Social Security Trust Fund. NONE of these have any meaning because of the incompetence and the arrogance of our Fed govt. It's time to Tea Party or find something equivalent to change the status quo... These bozos sit on the butts after a year or so in Wash DC and become part of the crime syndicate. Trust them with my HEALTHCARE. HELL NO!! Not when these perps are now cutting THOUSANDS of exemptions to ObamaCare for their friends and sponsors. And Nancy Pelosi admitted that she had no idea what might be in her famous bill before it passed.

Can you smell the abysmal FAILURE in any of that???

Toss 'em all.. Every election...

merrylander
05-18-2011, 02:48 PM
Do we know that Fanny/Freddy are NOT still writing sub-prime junk?

'Nuther right wing spin, Freddy and Fannie do not write mortgages, banks write them. Freddie and Fannie guarantee them and securitize them. Wells Fargo was one of the biggest offenders in sub primes.:rolleyes:

piece-itpete
05-18-2011, 03:03 PM
Freddie/Fannie will only back mortgages that meet their guidelines. In the run up to the bubble they had to loosen their standards to remain relevant, my understanding.

The problem with trust funds and government is the 'trust' part. But Barnum was right...

Flac I agree, I'd have had some respect for Obama if he would've done a sweeping overhaul of government. But the Dems are now the party of the status quo, the Reps at the state level are instituting sweeping reforms that the Feds will be seeing next GOP takeover :)

And 'fix' SS by raising the retirement age? So I have to wait till 70 for my pittance, that I'm about to pay twice for!, but if you work for the government you get a great retirement at 50-55?? THAT is why the GOP will win. Ultimately Americans have a sense of fairness.

Pete

flacaltenn
05-18-2011, 03:11 PM
MerryLander:

You are correct about who originates the writing. However, the banks only write them largely because they have a guaranteed buyer in Fanny/Freddy. As long as they follow the conforming rules SET BY the Feds, Fanny/Freddy will buy it. THUS -- Fanny/Freddy are the launderers of all the bad paper. They repackage it and sell it in bundles so that banks can keep pumping them out. The standards for this laundering (sp?) are all set by the FEDs.

My info says -- the junk is still getting written... Because Congress hasn't addressed the Fanny/Freddy problem or the 100sBill of $ to keep them afloat.. Leftists want to claim that Fanny/Freddy were just victims of the evil banks. If they were competent to do their job -- that would be impossible..

A lot of what Wells Fargo did to damage themselves was to write 2nd mortgages for 100% of value. That's not a conforming loan under the Fanny/Freddy guidelines. And that's just stupid. But I don't think there's a strong secondary market for this kind of junk. So it didn't infect the whole system as much as the bundles that came thru F/F.

merrylander
05-18-2011, 03:21 PM
MerryLander:

You are correct about who originates the writing. However, the banks only write them largely because they have a guaranteed buyer in Fanny/Freddy. As long as they follow the conforming rules SET BY the Feds, Fanny/Freddy will buy it. THUS -- Fanny/Freddy are the launderers of all the bad paper. They repackage it and sell it in bundles so that banks can keep pumping them out. The standards for this laundering (sp?) are all set by the FEDs.

My info says -- the junk is still getting written... Because Congress hasn't addressed the Fanny/Freddy problem or the 100sBill of $ to keep them afloat.. Leftists want to claim that Fanny/Freddy were just victims of the evil banks. If they were competent to do their job -- that would be impossible..

A lot of what Wells Fargo did to damage themselves was to write 2nd mortgages for 100% of value. That's not a conforming loan under the Fanny/Freddy guidelines. And that's just stupid. But I don't think there's a strong secondary market for this kind of junk. So it didn't infect the whole system as much as the bundles that came thru F/F.

Well if junk is being written then obviously the rules are NOT being followed. Since the broker and the originating bank take their points and run, they don't give a tinker's dam about the rules - what you folks like to call a "Moral hazard" - and that assumes these bastards have morals.

It was the big boys on Wall Street that screwed-up with their derivatives, first in assembling them and then betting against them. Note that Goldman Sachs reputation is currently circling the bowl.

But of course admitting where the blame really lies would deprive the righties of their favourite whipping boys.

Face it, if you want lessons in how to screw-up a financial system, just ask America.

piece-itpete
05-18-2011, 03:30 PM
Immediately following the crash Freddie/Fannie tightened up standards, then as the depth became apparent they loosened them in an attempt to lubricate the market.

In other words, something something KY something something lol.

Pete

flacaltenn
05-18-2011, 04:39 PM
Wait... Let me clearer about this, because this is a persistent sticky point on this board..

Fannie/Freddy Ring Master or Victim of Subprime?? From the NY Times (for crying out loud)..
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets
-- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to
extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to
qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a
nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under
increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among
low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain
its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing
Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These
borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify
for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much
higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than
conventional loans.



In fact -- not only were the politicians pushing for lower standards and for Fannie/Freddy to scoop up more, but they gave them TAX INCENTIVES to do so..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis
In 1995, the GSEs like Fannie Mae began receiving government tax incentives for purchasing mortgage backed securities which included loans to low income
borrowers. Thus began the involvement of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with the
subprime market.[117] In 1996, HUD set a goal for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that
at least 42% of the mortgages they purchase be issued to borrowers whose household
income was below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in
2000 and 52% in 2005.[118] From 2002 to 2006, as the U.S. subprime market grew
292% over previous years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac combined purchases of
subprime securities rose from $38 billion to around $175 billion per year before
dropping to $90 billion per year, which included $350 billion of Alt-A securities.

Fannie Mae had stopped buying Alt-A products in the early 1990s because of the
high risk of default.


AND -- they had enough morons stupid enough to do this waaay until the bust..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/18/AR2008081802111.ht

Discussing the company's successes, Mudd said one of Fannie Mae's achievements in 2006 was expanding its involvement in the market for subprime and other nontraditional mortgages. He called it a step "toward optimizing our business."

Internal documents show that even late in the housing bubble, Fannie Mae was drawn
to risky loans by a variety of temptations, including the desire to increase its
market share and fulfill government quotas for the support of low-income borrowers.

"By entering new markets -- especially Alt-A and subprime -- and guaranteeing more
of our customers' products at market prices, we met our goal of increasing market
share from 22 to 25 percent," Mudd wrote in a 2006 year-end report to the Fannie
Mae board dated Jan. 3, 2007.

In other internal documents, there was a common refrain: One of Fannie Mae's
objectives for 2006 was to "increase our penetration into subprime."

Buying Alt-A and subprime mortgages was part of Fannie Mae's effort to meet the
challenge. Fannie Mae sought to reap the rewards and protect itself from the
downside of the investments through a feat of financial engineering it called its
"Risk Transformation Facility," which was meant to transfer the riskiest elements
to other investors. {{{flacaltenn -- doesn't it make you proud that this is a GOVERMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISE???}}}


"We engaged in the subprime market, for the first time closing deals to guarantee
and securitize subprime loans, with help from the new facility that allows us to
sell off the riskiest layers," Mudd wrote. By October, the company had signed $3
billion of such deals.

By March 2007, when Mudd sent the board an update, major subprime lenders were
failing, delinquency rates were climbing, and the emerging crisis was impossible
to ignore. The subprime sector "is in partial meltdown," Mudd wrote. He reported to directors that Fannie Mae's investment in subprime mortgage assets totaled about $55
billion. Mudd told the board that Fannie Mae had run its subprime portfolio through a
stress test to determine the losses in a hypothetical scenario that involved a
two-percentage-pointrise in interest rates and two years of 5 percent declines in
home prices. The resulting prediction: "zero credit losses net of earnings."

Yeah -- no problem there.

In short -- Fannie/Freddy weren't the only bundlers out there. But they do take in more than 1/2 of all single dwelling residential mortgages in the US. And because they were pressured by CRA requirements and pestered by the "social engineers" and offered tax bribes to back the crap --- They were the vacuum cleaner that sucked enough to create the whole frenzy..

Remember that Mudd said they had $55Bil of toxic crap on hand in 2007, they had already bundled and pass-off about 10 times that much since the late 90's. Banks didn't jump into this risky edge of the business until much later.

The way that the govt-ass-kissers can claim that Fannie/Freddy were innocent victims is due to an OFFICIAL govt cover-up (I mean report) from a hurridly organized Congressional Committee that of course absolved themselves and the GSEs from any and all responsibility.

flacaltenn
05-18-2011, 04:46 PM
Sorry Pete/Merrylander. That last post of mine was gettin' edited when you guyz posted. Not a response to your comments, but to provide links and verbage to my assertions.. BTW: last quote in post above in WashingtonPost.com

I know MerryLander. Don't need fancy math modeled derivatives up in the great white north. Just a snowmobile, a hammer and something to catch the maple syrup in...


Note to Pete:
Fannie --vacuum cleaner -- KY-- something something.. I think we got it covered boys..

d-ray657
05-18-2011, 04:50 PM
Pete,

What you call "reforms" I call attacks on working people. If they were reforming, they would be doing away with corporate welfare in the form of property tax abatements, the new business tax cuts governor buster gave away before he stripped union rights, the cow-towing to the chamber of commerce and the Kock brothers. That is reform, not balancing the budget on the backs of working people.

Regards,

D-Ray

BlueStreak
05-18-2011, 05:26 PM
Pete,

What you call "reforms" I call attacks on working people. If they were reforming, they would be doing away with corporate welfare in the form of property tax abatements, the new business tax cuts governor buster gave away before he stripped union rights, the cow-towing to the chamber of commerce and the Kock brothers. That is reform, not balancing the budget on the backs of working people.

Regards,

D-Ray

For once, I got all long winded, and YOU simplified what I was trying to say.:confused:

I think it's sad and pathetic that the only thing we can come up with to solve our problems is to plunder it from our working people and our retirees. I don't call it "reform" either. I call it "financial cannibalism". Class warfare disguised as "reform". And it stands as a glaring manifestation of the ugliness that now infects our national character like a spreading cancer.

To my mind it makes no difference whether you raise my taxes, or cut my compensation. You are still forcing me to give up something that I work for, and demanding that I continue working just as hard, if not harder. Either way, you are taking something that does not belong to you and demanding something that you are no longer paying for.

Dave

d-ray657
05-18-2011, 05:31 PM
For once, I got all long winded, and YOU simplified what I was trying to say.:confused:

Dave

Don't be so shocked.:p

Regards,

D-Ray

BlueStreak
05-18-2011, 05:41 PM
Don't be so shocked.:p

Regards,

D-Ray

Ahhhhh, so your learning the fine art of "bluntness"?

Dave

merrylander
05-19-2011, 07:36 AM
Sorry Pete/Merrylander. That last post of mine was gettin' edited when you guyz posted. Not a response to your comments, but to provide links and verbage to my assertions.. BTW: last quote in post above in WashingtonPost.com

I know MerryLander. Don't need fancy math modeled derivatives up in the great white north. Just a snowmobile, a hammer and something to catch the maple syrup in...



You will note that home ownership as a percentage of population is marginally higher in Canada than here. Also note that because derivatives and other such financial voodoo are anathema there, no Canadian banks had to be bailed out. In fact have you ever wondered what the TD in TD Ameritrade stands for.:p

piece-itpete
05-19-2011, 07:59 AM
Ohio is a good example of reform at the State level. You might disagree how he's doing it, but Gov. Kasich is doing SOMETHING about our 8 billion deficit and job hemmoraging (second only to Michigan). All former Gov. Strickland did was smoke and mirrors, one time money, cleaning out every last reserve to maintian the status quo.

To the Dems I say, where's the beef? Come up with something. Anything. Not one time shots, it appears that just about everyone agrees these are structual problems.

The left is allowing the right to define the solutions. I think it's because they're backed in a corner.

Pete

PS I'll bite Rob :) What's TD stand for?

merrylander
05-19-2011, 08:45 AM
Ohio is a good example of reform at the State level. You might disagree how he's doing it, but Gov. Kasich is doing SOMETHING about our 8 billion deficit and job hemmoraging (second only to Michigan). All former Gov. Strickland did was smoke and mirrors, one time money, cleaning out every last reserve to maintian the status quo.

To the Dems I say, where's the beef? Come up with something. Anything. Not one time shots, it appears that just about everyone agrees these are structual problems.

O'Malley is doing a pretty good job here in Maryland without all the union bashing.

The left is allowing the right to define the solutions. I think it's because they're backed in a corner.

Pete

PS I'll bite Rob :) What's TD stand for?

Toronto Dominion, one of the large Canadian banks. You may also see the initials RBC (Royal Bank of Canada, my bank) showing up in some of the financial buyouts.:D

JonL
05-19-2011, 10:19 AM
I use TD Bank. Amazing customer service, long hours, open on Sundays, and virtually no fees. I don't think there's an American bank that comes remotely close.

merrylander
05-19-2011, 10:23 AM
I'll give an example, I had written a check on my RBC account when I discovered that a $CDN funds check I had sent them had not been deposited. I had Bof A wire $200 up to cover the missing funds - cost me $40. RBC discovered where my deposit had gone astray, they not only corrected it but put an extra $100 in my account as an apology.