Financial Crisis Solution

1. Send Iraq a bill for liberating their country. About $1 trillion should be about right to cover our costs. We are a generous country so we won’t charge them for the loss of our soldiers lives or the work our country did in freeing them.

2. Send Mexico a bill for taking care of their illegal invaders. About $500 billion should be about right. As with Iraq, we can bill them at cost for all the free services we provided and won’t charge for the social losses we endured or ask for any profits.

Give Iraq and Mexico 30 days to pay. During this time we will work out the terms of payment since they don’t have the immediate cash. We will accept either free oil until the debt is paid, or arrange for their oil to be sold on the open market and the proceeds be paid to our treasury to reimburse taxpayers for the services provided.

Things have changed. We need to run the country like a business. Any businessman knows that in times of financial difficulty the first thing you do is tighten up on collecting money due to you. This will bring in at least $1.5 trillion that is long overdue. That would probably cover the current financial challenge and possible more.

If the ungrateful bastards in Iraq and Mexico don’t like it and refuse to pay, send in the Marines and seize the oil wells to pump it until we are paid back. (The nice thing is we already have the Marines in Iraq, so that’s a slam dunk.)

by DiamondRain, Matchdoctor

Spread The Message

TIME is of the ESSENCE!

TAXPayers: Start your United Taxpayers Peaceful Network Force by putting this message in every blog across the internet. Use whatever legal, peaceful method available to you to spread this message to as many as possible. Let us all do our part!
This is our only course of quick action…we need to get our message out there in front of all of America to let our government know where we stand: We Can Do This! Our future generations are depending on us. Let us spread this message across America through our blogs on the internet. Our Blogs can be used as a United, Peaceful, Network Force for the Taxpayers.

“Enough is Enough!
We The People of the United States of America are coming together as a UNITED, Peaceful, Network Force; Demanding Clean-Up, Change, and

Accountability from our President, his Administration, and all Elected Public and Financial Officials. We will no longer remain apathetic

to YOUR senseless, self-serving, greedy, dishonest, criminal behavior. The Party is Over!
It is time you are reminded that you work for The American People. We The People are not happy with your job performance, and demand an

independent, honest; Selected Board of Mainstream Honest Taxpayers to oversee our government and questionable significant others.

This is not a request, this is a requirement. The elite, wealthy, and self-serving, dishonest, criminal people need not apply for the job.

We as a Network of United American Taxpayers are tired of watching you walk down the “Yellow Brick Road” and the “Path to Self-Serving,

Dishonest Riches” at our expense. It appears that we as taxpayers now have what will become over a trillion dollar bill to pay as a

result of your greed and incompetence. We come United as your employer, demanding Legal Accountability. No more passing the buck and

sweeping the “Filth” under the carpet.

Effective Immediately: Those political, governmental, financial and wealthy people involved; You have just received YOUR PINK SLIP.

Let it be known that We The People have sent a firm message to the upcoming elected presidents, administrations, and wall street (as we know it in the past and as of today);

and “ALL” CEO’s, and the financial, political conglomerates and lobbyists…We The People of America have spoken as a peaceful, united, network demanding

legally enforced clean-up, honest change, and accountability! We will not tolerate being treated like stupid, apathetic, helpless people anymore – we are not your slaves.”

The Taxpayers of The United States of America

Talk About Nerve…

So the wall-street conglomerates think that the world owes them a living and that the taxpayer was born to be their slave.

“Just because God created the world in seven days doesn’t mean we have to pass this bill in seven days,” said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas.

Dobb says No Blank Check…

2008 Election –

Find out WHO you are voting for…

Sliming Palin

False Internet Claims

Let’s Think About This – What if…

“weighing down financial companies” is the key words…What if, What’s the worst thing that could happen (that isn’t going to happen anyway down the road) – Seems we have a choice:
1) we can believe and follow the power quo which obviously will mean that your taxes will go up at a time when you are just trying to survive, keeping a home, buying food, buying gas, etc. – The financial companies WILL NOT suffer right along with the taxpayers.
2) let the financial companies take their fall…and wall street (the way we presently know it) right along with them. Then the financial companies and the power quo WILL suffer right along with the taxpayers.

So are we going to buy time and go along with them on a bridge to nowhere, or are we going to just stop and face the music now. Probablity is it looks like a no win situation

What do you thing would really happen…dah – okay, I hear you; so now throw out the media and the political-toxic-garbage-trash, out of your minds and look at it in a different perspective.

If you saw the blog, “Inside the Bush White House”…look at the faces, pay attention to the names, and note that Paulson is a member of Bush’s Administration.

Personally, I don’t like Bush’s “Hilter-Demands”. His attitude is that there is only one way and that is his way…Paulson seems to share his view.

administration is seeking to buy up bad mortgage loans that have been weighing down financial companies

Bush, Democrats Differ on Bailout’s Passage/>

I have read several places that they are going to ‘try and soften the mortgage situation for the home-owners’…extend their payments, etc. How the hell is that going to help at this stage. They will make the appearance that they are trying to help the taxpayers in need, but we have already seen how that all works with Katrina, and Ike, just to mention a couple examples.

Todd Palin – “First Dude”

He has supervised renovations to the governor’s mansion and hopscotched by plane back and forth to Juneau to juggle duties as father and “First Dude,” as he has come to be known. And to a degree that has surprised many state government observers, Todd Palin also has become involved in policy, sitting in on his wife’s meetings, traveling on state business and weighing in on some legislative issues.

Election – Compare and Contrast Obama/McCain

Smart Money.com

The Pres. Candidates on Taxes, Housing and Health Care
By Matthew Heimer
September 18, 2008
ELECTION DAY IS just weeks away, and voters have had what seems like eons to play compare and contrast with the presidential candidates, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama. The 24-7 coverage has picked up every kissed baby, every veiled insult and every regrettable gaffe. Yet somehow, one issue has tended to get lost in the scrum: how the new president, whoever he may be, will affect voters’ personal finances. Yes, we know both men want to curb carbon emissions and catch Osama bin Laden. But who has the better plan to incentivize nonemployer-linked health insurance purchases?

Chances are, you can’t answer that question, nor do you know what either man thinks about estate taxes or mortgage relief. You wouldn’t be alone. Even though economic uncertainty may be at the top of most voters’ worry lists, candidates tend to steer away from financial details on the stump. “Winning the war on terror” and “change we can believe in” make good sound bites; “insurance portability” and “education credits,” not so much. Historically, “you don’t get a lot of traction out of specific economic proposals,” says William Galston, a former Bill Clinton aide and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who studies the interplay of politics and economics. Such vagueness may explain why the candidates are closely matched in voters’ minds when it comes to money matters. In most polls Obama holds a slight edge with voters on economic topics, while in a recent Reuters survey, 12 out of 20 economists for Wall Street banks preferred McCain’s ideas.

Suffice it to say, you deserve to step into the ballot box with a clearer picture. So SmartMoney has dug into the candidates’ stands on economic issues, including regulation of the financial markets, protection for homeowners, and health care, the white-coated, stethoscope-wearing elephant in the room.
The Home Front

For McCain, addressing the housing crisis has involved a sometimes awkward balancing act. Back in March, when Congress started wrestling with the subprime debacle, McCain’s response was stern. “It is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly,” he told an audience in California. When the housing-rescue bill reached the Senate floor in July, McCain called it a “sweetheart deal” for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and didn’t show up to vote for it. Yet one of the most consumer-friendly components of the new law, a program that would allow holders of “nonconventional” mortgages to convert them into 30-year fixed loans, is an idea that had been part of McCain’s campaign platform for months.

It’s a tricky situation for the Arizona senator. He shares the instincts of free-market Republicans who are outraged at the potentially huge cost of the bailout and the perceived free pass it gives some borrowers. But he can’t afford to seem coldhearted to voters who don’t share those views. To reach them, McCain “needs to dissociate himself from the Bush league in the public eye, and that means having a sensible plan for getting out” of the mess, says Georgetown associate finance professor James Angel.
For more SmartMoney Magazine features, turn to the October issue1.

Obama didn’t show up for the housing vote either; he was wrapping up a media-saturated tour of the Middle East and Europe. But as a Democrat, he’s less shy about involving the federal government in fixing the housing debacle  or, indeed, in consumer lending in general. Obama wants to create a standardized “home score” that would make it easier for consumers to compare the costs of mortgages. He’s advocating a “Credit Card Bill of Rights” that would restrict the ability of credit card issuers to add new fees and hike interest rates. And he has also said banks receiving aid from the Federal Reserve should face bigger disclosure and liquidity requirements that might head off subprime-like blowups in the future. The key word here, of course, is future. In Washington circles, “all this tough talk is happening after the fact,” notes Ann Lee, a former hedge fund partner and an adjunct finance professor at Pace University.
Health Insurance

To ease voter anxiety about losing insurance, both McCain and Obama propose fairly radical changes  policies that would loosen the ties between your health coverage and your job.

Obama’s proposals owe a debt to an unlikely source: former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Like the universal-coverage plan that Romney helped enact as governor in Massachusetts, ObamaCare would set minimum standards of coverage for every health care plan, and no plan would be allowed to exclude people with preexisting medical conditions. Obama would create a “National Insurance Exchange” where consumers could choose among private plans and a new public plan that met the standards. Many small businesses and individuals who currently struggle to pay for coverage would get it through this exchange. Bigger employers could either continue to provide insurance for their workers or pay a 6 percent payroll tax to fund the public plan.

Many observers believe that under Obama’s plan, most businesses would decide that paying for the public plan was a better deal than providing their own insurance. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that the cost to the government would reach $1.6 trillion over 10 years  much more than Obama has estimated  as more consumers nestled under the federal wing. That price tag antagonizes conservatives; they also fear the plan would drive private insurers out of business. To address that objection, the Obama plan has a loophole: Unlike in Massachusetts, adults wouldn’t be required to buy insurance. But if coverage isn’t mandatory, many healthy people won’t bother buying it  potentially making the program much more expensive, as only the sick sign up.

McCain’s plan revolves around changing the tax code. Currently, people who get insurance through work get a hidden tax break: The value of their insurance isn’t included in their taxable income. McCain’s plan would eliminate this break and instead give every consumer a tax credit  $2,500 a year for individuals, $5,000 for a family  to pay for coverage. Armed with this infusion of cash, the theory goes, consumers would shop for the insurance whose balance of cost and coverage they liked. Insurance companies would rush to design policies for this market. And many employers would stop providing insurance  ideally diverting some of their resulting savings to increase employees’ pay.

Skeptics of MediCain have plenty to chew on. There’s a big gap between the value of McCain’s tax credits and the current cost of insurance. In 2007 the average health plan cost $4,479 for a single person and $12,106 for a family, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation  and for many with preexisting health problems, it was much higher. “The plan’s not credible until he tells us what he’s going to do to make the individual market an affordable alternative for people with illnesses,” says Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change.
Investments & Taxes

Historically, the stock market fares a little better when there’s a Democrat in the White House. Still, Wall Street economists believe by a margin of more than three-to-one that a McCain presidency would be better for stocks than an Obama administration, at least in the first year after the election. That belief may come down to one thing: the tax code. Taxes on capital gains and dividends fell under both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The Bush-era cuts are set to expire at the end of 2010, but McCain wants to make them permanent. Obama, by contrast, would let them climb back up from their current 15 percent to as high as 25 percent. Some economists think that capital gains tax cuts in 1997 and 2003 played a big role in the rallies that followed those years, and some McCain supporters argue that raising the rates would have the opposite effect.

McCain also wants to cut the top corporate rate, from 35 percent to 25 percent. That could leave public companies with more profit to return to shareholders through share buybacks or dividends  or, of course, they could plow the windfall into golf junkets and $14,000 bottles of Bordeaux. To show their disapproval of the latter kind of behavior, both Obama and McCain are advocating bigger roles for shareholders in controlling executive pay.

It may cut against the stereotypes of their parties, but this year there are more tax-break ideas coming out of Obama’s camp than McCain’s. Obama has proposed a flurry of so-called refundable credits, which result in cash refunds when they exceed the amount that the taxpayer owes Uncle Sam. He’s proposing a $500 credit to middle-income families who save $1,000 or more a year; an $800 credit for taxpayers who pay mortgage interest but don’t itemize their tax deductions; a college tuition credit of as much as $4,000 for families earning up to $114,000 a year; and a “Making Work Pay” credit equal to the first 6.2 percent of salary or wages, up to $8,100. Roberton Williams, principal research associate at the Tax Policy Center, says Obama’s proposals are more ambitious than his recent Democratic predecessors’ in targeting their benefits to the middle and working classes.

But while Obama’s cuts are more numerous, McCain’s are bigger in the aggregate. McCain wants to make permanent the income-tax cuts passed under Bush in 2001 and 2003, which would otherwise expire at the end of 2010. In terms of tax revenue lost, McCain’s proposals would exceed Obama’s by $1.4 trillion over 10 years. In contrast, Obama wants to restore tax rates to their pre-Bush levels for people making more than $250,000 a year, to pay for his health care proposals and other priorities. “People at the top end would pay the price under Obama,” says Williams. The top 1 percent of earners would likely see their after-tax income fall.

In case you’re wondering, $111,645 is the magic number for comparing the tax policies. If you make less than that, Obama’s proposals would put more money in your pocket than McCain’s; if you make more, McCain’s your man. Of course, plenty of voters, from unemployed steelworkers to Warren Buffett, vote according to their values rather than their wallets. Whichever you pick, save the date: Tuesday, Nov. 4.

Hundreds of Billions – Got Some Popcorn…

“These illiquid assets are clogging up our financial system, and undermining the strength of our otherwise sound financial institutions. As a result, Americans’ personal savings are threatened, and the ability of consumers and businesses to borrow and finance spending, investment, and job creation has been disrupted,” Paulson said.

That is just a portion of our Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson’s report as of this morning. Well, golly gee, they actually mention their concern for the American’s Personal Savings as a result of their mess. Far be it from an unknown like little o’me, and others like me,(The American People); to wonder just why the taxpayers need to support-(welfare comes to mind) the stupidity of these big and powerful conglomerate’s.

Well, those conglomerate’s cannot say that they have not been on welfare now, can they. What could we label them as: ‘High-Rise-Welfare’ or maybe summarize it as, ‘The Pig’s At The Trouth(sp) Got Their Fill’…Now the trouth is empty so the Mighty Reserve Truck is going to give them some more to pig out on.

Well American taxpayers, might as well see if you can afford to buy some popcorn so you all can sit back and watch as the movie unfolds. I think it is going to be a long movie.

Election-Economic-Contest

Obama and McCain Differ Sharply on Economic Policy
By Roger Lowenstein
August 27, 2008

THE ELECTION IS shaping up as a contest between two sharply different economic approaches. More than in Clinton-Bush or Clinton-Dole — more even than in Bush-Kerry — this election will offer a stark choice. Do you favor a continuation of low-taxation policies and a limited role for the government? Or do you think Washington should actively try to rebuild infrastructure, develop alternative-energy supplies and lessen wage inequality? On these economic issues and more, John McCain and Barack Obama are miles apart.

Commentary in the press has focused on the extent to which either candidate would reverse the Bush tax cuts. But while McCain and Obama differ on taxes, something far more fundamental is at stake: not just the policies that have held sway over the past eight years but those of an entire generation. Ever since the Reagan era, both parties have drifted rightward. Bill Clinton articulated this truth with his famous dictum, “The era of big government is over.”

While Republicans have pushed tax cuts, Democrats have played defense: Try to balance the budget; create a market incentive here, a social policy there. Neither party has challenged the basic primacy of markets. McCain would continue this noninterventionist approach. He has little truck with public-sector economic initiatives, although his proposal to cap and trade carbon dioxide emissions is an exception. In general, the Arizonan clearly wants to restrain government spending.

Last month’s column warned against trying to read too much from campaign tea leaves. Presidents often fail to live up to their platforms; Obama or McCain could surprise us. Moreover, presidents are always more than the sum of their platforms; character also counts. Still, there is good reason to think that Obama, backed by a Democratic Congress, would enact much of what he is promising. Democrats were afraid to challenge the laissez-faire approach when it was delivering results. But they aren’t afraid now. Thanks to Hurricane Katrina, $140-a-barrel oil and the mortgage collapse, the notion that markets can solve every economic problem is no longer tenable. And the country’s growth has been grossly uneven. For all the magic that markets work, they have not been able to get lower- and middle-income wages moving again.

For more SmartMoney Magazine features, turn to the September issue1.

So what is Obama proposing? Start with $60 billion in “infrastructure” development. This would include high-speed rail and rebuilding the energy grid. Tack on $15 billion a year for energy technology. He would also double spending on basic research, subsidize high-speed Internet hookups and make more funds available for education and a new health care regime. The gangly Illinoisan’s guiding premise: Government should be more than a cop keeping markets efficient and fair; it should also be a force for “good.” Like it or not, this is a radical departure.

One way of thinking about liberals in the recent past is that they supported social policies that didn’t interfere with market results. Bill Clinton favored international trade, then tried to help workers that it disenfranchised. The Republican approach was not much different. But to judge from his protectionist campaign talk, Obama’s will be. On helping low-income workers, Bush’s (and apparently McCain’s) prescription is to let growth trickle down. Clinton favored a progressive tax code to soften the disparity in market wages. Obama wants to index the minimum wage to inflation, thus forcing the market to pay people at the bottom more.

Even McCain, if elected, is likely to be more centrist than Bush. McCain has a simple and, to my mind, sensible program for a universal health care subsidy. And he (like Obama) favors an increased and necessary dose of reregulation for financial markets. But McCain’s tax policy is anything but centrist. He would extend the Bush tax cuts on (mostly rich) individuals. He also would cut the corporate rate — a good idea, since corporate investment accomplishes more for society than does personal investment in mansions and yachts. According to the Tax Policy Center, McCain’s tax cuts would add $4.3 trillion to the national debt over 10 years.

Obama would also extend the Bush tax cuts — but only for people making less than $250,000. Unlike McCain, he would raise the capital gains tax and certain corporate taxes. Obama also would cut taxes for a motley assortment of interest groups — students, seniors, mortgage owners, low-income workers and savers. All but the last two are of dubious merit (seniors are already a favored group).

Obama’s tax policy would add $3.3 trillion to the debt. That is $1 trillion less than McCain’s. However, Obama’s assumptions about how much new revenue he could raise are aggressive. And the tax center’s calculations do not include the effects of either candidate’s new spending proposals. Since Obama would spend more, neither he nor McCain can claim to be a budget balancer or even close.

The contrast in how they apportion the tax burden is striking. Under McCain, people earning more than $1 million would pay $58,000 less in taxes than now; under Obama, $247,000 more. Also under Obama, after-tax income of the lowest half of the country would rise by 2 to 5 percent; under McCain, it would be virtually unchanged.

Where do I come out? Taxes were higher in the ’90s, when the economy and the market hummed along, so a tax hike wouldn’t scare me. But a heavy government hand might. Obama must show that federal projects need not turn into boondoggles and that backing worthy causes won’t devolve into anointing political favorites. McCain must show that with policies similar to Bush’s, he can get better results. It’s a debate worth having.

Smart Money