I just want to take a quick poll...

[v8klla]

Originally Posted by slowbubblecar

How would the first part of this affect the average person? Just because a business is making more money doesn't mean it will go to the workers. The business owner will most likely reinvest it in a way to make even more money.

You are exactly right but you are missing one big part of that equation. More money for small business owners = More money to invest / grow the business = More Jobs. I highlighted the important part

[tpunx99GSX]

Originally Posted by v8klla

You are exactly right but you are missing one big part of that equation. More money for small business owners = More money to invest / grow the business = More Jobs. I highlighted the important part

Hard to grow the business when you cant get a loan. Way to "Save the country" on that one John McCain. (Of course when his "Im going to suspend my campaign and save the country" didnt work he blames the other guy)

[A//// Guy]

Haha! So the economy turning to shit is now Mccain's fault? Tom... come on.

Sure he wanted to postpone the debates, and to be honest maybe they should have, because we still dont have a bailout deal that they can agree on.

We are F-ed.

[tpunx99GSX]

Originally Posted by M/// Guy

Haha! So the economy turning to shit is now Mccain's fault? Tom... come on.

Sure he wanted to postpone the debates, and to be honest maybe they should have, because we still dont have a bailout deal that they can agree on.

We are F-ed.

McCain in his press conference said that he was going to suspend his campaign to go work out this deal and get the senate and house running and save this country. McCain put his ownership on it by claiming that by him going to washington it was somehow going to make everything better. Then yesturday he claims that they have reached a agreement (and honestly it should have passed) but in reality McCain had nothing to do with that bill, and when he claims that hes not going to just phone in his vote and that something of this magnitude he really needs to be there and those who phone their votes in arent meant to be leaders, WHAT DOES HE DO? Phones his vote in. GG RETARD. By him taking ownership of this bill (not in the literal) and putting his stamp of approval he said he was going to have his parties backing, The bill did not pass. Sorry John So what does he do? Blames Obama??? For injecting partisanship into this negotiation??? Who was it that called for the candidates to go to washington for a photo op with the president and senate leaders? If you dont see whats going on you are blind.
are you really saying that those 90 minutes of debate hurt the bill? The people really need to know what the next president is going to do about the economy, and that will go a lot further then john mccain and obama taking pictures in the white house. Hell Obama said that he wanted to stay out of washington and let the Committee do their work, instead of bringing all of the lights and cameras into the problem.

[BLaCk_1cE]

2 videos Obama's campaign should be using

http://dmiessler.com/blog/the-two-mc...hould-be-using

Im not for either of the 2 candidates personally, so this is just somewhat of a devils advocate on my part. Im sure I could find just the same towards Obamas campaign as well.

[slowbubblecar]

Originally Posted by v8klla

You are exactly right but you are missing one big part of that equation. More money for small business owners = More money to invest / grow the business = More Jobs. I highlighted the important part

Just because people make more money doesn't mean there will be more jobs. It all depends on the person and the business. I know many small businesses that won't expand no matter how much money they make. People start businesses to make money, not employ people. The same goes for the stock market. People invest in the stock market to generate a return on their money, not to employ others.


I am not set on either canidate, just sharing my point of view in the thread.

[mdost03]

Originally Posted by slowbubblecar

Just because people make more money doesn't mean there will be more jobs. It all depends on the person and the business. I know many small businesses that won't expand no matter how much money they make. People start businesses to make money, not employ people. The same goes for the stock market. People invest in the stock market to generate a return on their money, not to employ others.

Wow, you almost lost me on this one.

It's like building up a car, you make so much power and once you get used to that, you want to have more to get that feeling that you own a fast car. If a business owner is making more and more money, he very well should be looking into expanding his business to continue the money-making.

You say people start businesses to make money. Well why would they shoot themselves in the foot if they are making more to be able to expand and don't hire more people?

[Matt D.]

Tom, watch this and explain how you even sleep at night with supporting your precious Obama and democratic party.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

These criminals who ran these banks into the ground have triggered this bailout plan that you now support. The plan that will be funded by tax payers like us, only to give money to people who don't deserve it.

[slowbubblecar]

Originally Posted by totaleclipse_05

Wow, you almost lost me on this one.

It's like building up a car, you make so much power and once you get used to that, you want to have more to get that feeling that you own a fast car. If a business owner is making more and more money, he very well should be looking into expanding his business to continue the money-making.

You say people start businesses to make money. Well why would they shoot themselves in the foot if they are making more to be able to expand and don't hire more people?

I am saying people invest to make money, not employ people. Some smaller businesses don't have any plans on expanding. I wonder if any of the local shop sponsors on here plan on going global? Some businesses are comfortable with where they are at. Adding offices and hiring more employees lead to more risks. Some people aren't comfortable taking those risks.

[tpunx99GSX]

Originally Posted by Matt D.

Tom, watch this and explain how you even sleep at night with supporting your precious Obama and democratic party.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

These criminals who ran these banks into the ground have triggered this bailout plan that you now support. The plan that will be funded by tax payers like us, only to give money to people who don't deserve it.

Sure they dont deserve it, But if we do nothing we run the risk of having a stock market crash (you seen what happened. after the bailout failed). Granted the stock market droping 777 points was mostly in part of fear. But without this bailout it will be near impossible for small businesses to get loans, students to get loans, Possibility of peoples credit card limits to be lowered, etc. This affects everyone, and if you choose to believe the youtube propaganda that the economy isnt going to be affected if we do nothing then you have some reading to do. This really is something i would like to be wrong on, I would love to think everything is peachy keen and everything will be fine if we do nothing, but that just will not be the case.
Obama pushed for more regulation, making the bill not help pay CEO salaries, and taxpayer protections. McCain is for Deregulation and offered no additional input on this bailout. And then tried to take credit for Obama's additions.
You are letting your emotions affect your judgement on this one by saying "Well they got us into this so lets shoot down anything that has dem backing" instead of thinking logically on what is best for this country.

[1QUICK4]

Saw this on another forum
Taken from Bloomberg.com

Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.

But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

Turning Point

Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.

It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.

Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.

Greenspan's Warning

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''

Mounds of Materials

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have helped avert this mess.

[Kracka]

Originally Posted by slowbubblecar

Just because people make more money doesn't mean there will be more jobs. It all depends on the person and the business. I know many small businesses that won't expand no matter how much money they make. People start businesses to make money, not employ people. The same goes for the stock market. People invest in the stock market to generate a return on their money, not to employ others.

You couldn't be more wrong here. Even if the small business owner doesn't ever decide to expand he will still have more money and therefore be spending more. The more money that is spent the more jobs that are required to make the goods and perform the services being purchased. No matter how you cut it, unless the person is stuffing money under his bed never to see daylight again, more money = more jobs.

Also, please keep in mind that sometimes in order to make more money you need to employ more people. Whether it be a web designer, tax accountant, or even the UPS man.

[Matt D.]

Originally Posted by tpunx99GSX

Sure they dont deserve it, But if we do nothing we run the risk of having a stock market crash (you seen what happened. after the bailout failed). Granted the stock market droping 777 points was mostly in part of fear. But without this bailout it will be near impossible for small businesses to get loans, students to get loans, Possibility of peoples credit card limits to be lowered, etc. This affects everyone, and if you choose to believe the youtube propaganda that the economy isnt going to be affected if we do nothing then you have some reading to do. This really is something i would like to be wrong on, I would love to think everything is peachy keen and everything will be fine if we do nothing, but that just will not be the case.
Obama pushed for more regulation, making the bill not help pay CEO salaries, and taxpayer protections. McCain is for Deregulation and offered no additional input on this bailout. And then tried to take credit for Obama's additions.
You are letting your emotions affect your judgement on this one by saying "Well they got us into this so lets shoot down anything that has dem backing" instead of thinking logically on what is best for this country.

Youtube propaganda? Yeah, okay. How about some more Youtube videos of Ron Paul? http://www.connietalk.com/ron_paul_o...my_092908.html

President George W. Bush gave another address to the nation today, and hopped it up with stark warnings about Congress' failure to pass a bank bailout package. Bush said that the nation is "facing a choice between action and the real prospect of economic hardship for millions of Americans." What is he, behind?

Pres. Bush warned that "this is not the end of the legislative process," and that he still expects a measure to be reached.

And since the legislation lost by only 12 votes, we highly encourage you to pick up the phone just once and have your voice heard!

GWB threatened that "the consequences will grow worse each day if we do not act," and that the "economic damage will be painful and lasting."

Even more ominous, Bush stated that "It matters little what path a bill takes to become law. What matters is that we get a law. We're at a critical moment for our economy."

It matters little how a bill becomes a law? What do they waste all that time on the legislative process in history classes for then? Keep your eyes peeled, though, because this could very well be the case.

As Congressman Ron Paul mentioned after Congress voted: the Fed just pumped over $600 billion of credit into the market this week without any Congressional approval. So they have the vehicle and the administration will attempt to get this bailout passed without the people's - and likely even Congress' - approval.

Government got us in this mess, it's their job to get us out of it. Throwing more money at the problem is not the solution. Since when do you pay off debt with more debt? Do you take out a loan to pay off a loan? Tom, I know you aren't the brightest bulb on the tree but even you aren't that dumb.

[BLaCk_1cE]

^I gotta get that shirt haha. wait why am i laughing, that shirt pisses me off.

[john]

Originally Posted by Kracka

You couldn't be more wrong here. Even if the small business owner doesn't ever decide to expand he will still have more money and therefore be spending more. The more money that is spent the more jobs that are required to make the goods and perform the services being purchased. No matter how you cut it, unless the person is stuffing money under his bed never to see daylight again, more money = more jobs.

Also, please keep in mind that sometimes in order to make more money you need to employ more people. Whether it be a web designer, tax accountant, or even the UPS man.

A lot of wealthy small business owners do just keep their money. I am an accountant and deal with them everyday. The risk is a HUGE issue for small businesses. Most of them do NOT go out and spend the money. They save it. This is even more clear the older the person is/if they started the business on their own.

There are alot of niche markets and that is why small businesses can be successful. Not everyone is going to grow, grow, grow like walmart. It just can't happen.

Even if you pretend that a person making more money will spend it, most of our goods come from overseas anyhow.

There is no proof that an increase in income will lead to an increase in spending or any growth in the company. There are too many large assumptions to be made.

Most small businesses are S-Corps, LLCs, or partnerships anyhow. They don't pay federal taxes, they are passed on to thier individual tax returns. MN charges a fee based on assets, sales, and payroll (called apportionment) which is relatively small (usually 0, $100, $300, $1000). The larger the apportionment the more the pay. I believe you have to have over $1 million (weighted total) for the $100 fee anyhow.

Small businesses are not killed by taxes. The owners bitch that they get charged with self employment taxes but a mediocre accountant can make the benefits of owning a business greater than the tax.

There is no tax that will ever kill a business or hold one back. If you don't make money, you don't have to pay the tax. Plain and simple.

[john]

The reason the dam bill didn't pass is because nobody wanted to get their name behind voting for it. They know when they are up for election, they will see their name on TV saying: .... supported the $700 billion bailout of corporate america and he will raise your taxes.

Hard to pass a bill when 66% of all republicans voted against it.

It was clear when they were working on the bill that they didn't want Obama and McCain their. I can't believe that McCain tried pulling the: "I am going to put my campaign on hold" way out of the debate. It is like he thinks everyone is stupid. McCain wouldn't add any value. He tried all he could to get his name on this and it failed because of his republican party.

[tpunx99GSX]

Originally Posted by john

The reason the dam bill didn't pass is because nobody wanted to get their name behind voting for it. They know when they are up for election, they will see their name on TV saying: .... supported the $700 billion bailout of corporate america and he will raise your taxes.

Hard to pass a bill when 66% of all republicans voted against it.

It was clear when they were working on the bill that they didn't want Obama and McCain their. I can't believe that McCain tried pulling the: "I am going to put my campaign on hold" way out of the debate. It is like he thinks everyone is stupid. McCain wouldn't add any value. He tried all he could to get his name on this and it failed because of his republican party.

talk about a backfire. And then blames obama. Real Smart.
Sad thing it is that this election has more drama then a TV Show. Granted ill be sitting with popcorn watching Sarah Palin show the world just how stupid she really is.

[john]

I can't wait to see the interview. I don't have any idea how people can try to back her. She is just too stupid. Just the thought of her being the second in charge is freightening. What happens if McCain can't serve his term??? We are screwed!

[slowbubblecar]

Originally Posted by Kracka

You couldn't be more wrong here. Even if the small business owner doesn't ever decide to expand he will still have more money and therefore be spending more. The more money that is spent the more jobs that are required to make the goods and perform the services being purchased. No matter how you cut it, unless the person is stuffing money under his bed never to see daylight again, more money = more jobs.

Also, please keep in mind that sometimes in order to make more money you need to employ more people. Whether it be a web designer, tax accountant, or even the UPS man.

Wouldn't it be more effective to give a tax break to consumers? Everyone would benefit. Consumers would spend their extra income at businesses and businesses would have more money from the increased spending. They could then use that money to grow their business, buy crap or put under their matress.

[Halon]

Interesting power point someone sent to me.