news-record.com

Skip to the site menu
Skip to search

OPINION

Obama agenda rewards greedy banks, lenders

Friday, November 13, 2009
(Updated 3:00 am)

In Thomas Friedman’s recent column, “Obama’s unifying theme should be nation-building at home” (Nov. 3), he states, “But to deliver this (Obama’s) agenda requires a spirit of shared sacrifice.”

What is meant by “shared sacrifice”? Is it rewarding banks, mortgage lenders and both FNMA and FMAC for their greed, incompetence and stupidity by giving them billions in bailout money after they’ve foreclosed and are foreclosing on thousands of unsuspecting homeowners?

Is it giving huge tax breaks to hedge-fund billionaires so most pay less taxes than a cleaning lady?

Is it bestowing more billions on Wall Street, again rewarding almost inconceivable incompetence and stupidity, while almost none has trickled down to Main Street? And then to see these firms use this obscene largesse to lavish millions in bonuses and raises on their executives and CEOs, the ones who have caused this depression?

Is it squandering more billions of tax dollars on failing dinosaurs General Motors and Chrysler  — most of which will never be recovered, despite initial grand promises?

Is it asking 90 percent to sacrifice for the greater good of the richest 10 percent and then asking them, in turn, to sacrifice nothing?

Is this the kind of nation Obama wants to build? If it is, maybe we’d all be better off moving to Mexico.

John Pugh
Greensboro

Comments

View Comments

This letter has been closed to new comments. Comments are accepted on select letters to the editor between the hours of 7 AM and 5 PM, EDT, Monday through Friday.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

brian444

November 13, 2009 - 4:02 am EST

Well, the richest 10% pay over 70% of income taxes, so they're not really sacrificing nothing. And if you don't pay your mortgage, you should probably suspect that you won't be able to live in your house for free. Mexico will probably let you immigrate if you want, although more people (from what I read) are moving in the opposite direction.

The writer's right about GM, though.

J D R

November 13, 2009 - 5:48 am EST

"Well, the richest 10% pay over 70% of income taxes,"

While a true statement, it is both misleading and bad for America. The broken record reminds us that the Richest as also given significant compensation in ways not captured by payroll taxes. Only poor suckers like you and me and fellow bloggers are paid in ways captured by these high taxes structures.

Pay yourself in Stock and avoid the entire 15.3% payroll tax!
Pay yourself in Stock and don't cash it until you you retire, then grab the lower rate!
Pay yourself in Stock and don't every cash it; pass it along in your estate. Then nobody pays anything!
Declare the couple days you travel overseas and pay yourself as an overseas worker to avoid taxes entirely on the first $75,000!
Have your employer directly pay your Lawyers, Accountants, and Brokers. You pay nothing, the company gets a great deduction!

The list goes on!

... but wait .. you asked to talk to the Board about your compensation and they won't recieve you? They don't even know who you are? Wait a second .. who am I talking to? GUARD -- Remove the riffraff; this was a closed door meeting.

The Business purpose is to announce we are providing you the Diamond Health Insurance Program - directly paid so you pay nothing and the company gets another great deduction!

By the way, for attending today's 2 hours Board Meeting , everyone on The Board is being provided 10,000 shares of company stock. Thanks for being here, tee time is at 1 and make sure you join us back here at 7 tonight for the catered dinner - Kenny Rogers is our entertainment and he will sing on command, "Know When To Hold 'em, "Know When To Fold 'em."

JGALT

November 13, 2009 - 7:47 am EST

You must have been passed over for company options at some point in your career. Taxes are too high. Spending is the problem.

J D R

November 13, 2009 - 8:43 am EST

Agreed spending is the problem.
Agreed taxes are too high ... but only for those that actually have to pay taxes. As detailed above, all pigs may be equal, but some are more equal. Personally I find that wrong.

So the standard argument we are hearing is "If Congress had to live under trhe same Health Care Plan as the rest of us ... " .. why, Sir Galt is the same principle not applied to all those who recieve compensation for their efforts?

JGALT

November 13, 2009 - 9:15 am EST

Some receive payment for results, not effort --some don't. When Obama gets back from Asia and telling those countries with growing economies, what they should be doing, he is convening a summit on what to do about unemployment here. Arrogant and ignorant.

J D R

November 13, 2009 - 9:45 am EST

I am only asking for those payments received to be treated the same for all people, that's all.

Sawdust

November 13, 2009 - 9:16 am EST

FAIR TAX: So easy a Democrat can do it. So easy the Treasury Secretary can do it. So easy the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee can do it. Not that those particular folks would, but they could.

J D R

November 13, 2009 - 9:46 am EST

If the Fair Tax allows skirting as the current laws do, I'm totally against the Fair Tax.

JGALT

November 13, 2009 - 10:10 am EST

JD, on a prior post you discussed the Federalists and a standing army. You were right in your rendition of them warning of standing armies as a potential threat to liberty but but not in your conclusion. They saw a threat from Britain, France,Spain and Indians that could not be remedied by a militia (For instance, western boundary areas). They saw during the revolution that militias were no match for professional armies-- armed, trained and disciplined. The expense and threat of a standing army was not as problematic as the potential lack of one and they would make no provision against legislative powers to have one( North Carolina was against the concept in the Articles of Confederation). They saw the remedy as having the two year budgetary appropriation constraint. The need for a navy was a slam dunk as you stated. Hamilton's Number 24 covers this. They do spend much time on the contrary side of arguements as they are overcoming stated objections to the Constitution.

J D R

November 13, 2009 - 10:14 am EST

I'm not sure I follow the logic .. but have not yet read 24 .. thanks for the heads up.

JGALT

November 13, 2009 - 10:33 am EST

Skirting (avoidance) of current tax laws is encouraged, appropriate and applauded. Evading tax laws is illegal. I support a flat tax with forebearance on lower incomes-- but it ain't going to happen. I do encourage everyone who thinks taxes should be higher, to send in more money. If you think the government is a good steward of your money and you like the services you get-- send in more than you owe! ( #25 also for above comment)

J D R

November 13, 2009 - 10:50 am EST

I am only asking for payments received (compensation for work, beit labor or brilliance or investment returns or outright gifts or whatever) to be treated the same for all people.

The reason is if they were being hit as we are, they would join in the "battle" for a fiscally responsible gov'ment. As it is they have no skin in the game. That you & others do not see that or do and do not support that is beyond me. If you could explain I'd appreciate it.

J D R

November 13, 2009 - 2:19 pm EST

Amazing how this blog goes silent when one asks for a reasoned response.

Here's a post by conservative N-R Blogger rwrn .. who on November 12, 2009 - 3:20 pm EST confirmed my 8:43 am statement about our common interest in fairness:

"Funny how the very Congress that cares so much for us makes themselves exempt from the wonderful healthcare plan they say is best for us. Does this also mean they are exempt from going to jail if they refuse to purchase said healthcare? Of course it does. Ain't Congress great?"

http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/11/11/article/it_s_not_too_late_...

J D R

November 13, 2009 - 5:49 am EST

OMG, I forgot ... due to the progressive nature of income taxes those in the "upper brackets" never actually pay the published amount 'cause the first dollars are paid at the lower rates ... but it looks good to the unsuspection public. Suckers!

... and after the first $108,000 we'll even spare you the 15.3% FICA wages ... but don't worry, we'll make sure you collect "your share" - we have our lobbists working on it right now.

danagain

November 13, 2009 - 7:07 am EST

Gee what happened to hope & change for the little guy?

rmacz

November 13, 2009 - 7:33 am EST

I was wondering the same thing.......and it was also called change we could believe in.

J D R

November 13, 2009 - 9:04 am EST

You're so right .. Obama is once again to blame for the 150 years of congressional slime.

truth

November 13, 2009 - 9:21 am EST

Wondering the same thing Dan. The letter lambasts Obama for taking care of the rich and JDR piles on top of it about how Obama and the democratically controlled Congress allows all this special tax treatment for the rich. They've got the power. Change the tax laws.

As far as foreclosing on unsuspecting homeowners, I just can't get that image out of my head. Surprise!!! You didn't pay your mortgage and now we're gonna take your house. Ha ha ha. Never saw that one coming, did ya???

J D R

November 13, 2009 - 10:17 am EST

"... and JDR piles on ... how Obama and the democratically controlled Congress allows all this special tax treatment for the rich."

Truth - read better:

"You're so right .. Obama is once again to blame for the 150 years of congressional slime."

danagain

November 13, 2009 - 3:54 pm EST

Yeah but he promised us transparency in govt. And Pelosi promised us the most ethical congress ever.

J D R

November 13, 2009 - 4:49 pm EST

Transparency has nothing to do with unraveling decades of tax law expressly designed to screw you and me to the advantage of a specific few ... it is clear to see we are getting screwed.

Ethics has similarly little to do ... 'cause ethics means "conforming to accepted standards" and the accepted standard is to screw you and me to the advantage of a specific few.

J D R

November 13, 2009 - 4:55 pm EST

I will ask you the same thing I asked Sir Galt:

Do you not see rules are written specially for a select few?
Does it not make sense that if instead they were hit with the same taxes you and I pay, they would have skin in the game and would therefore join the "battle" for a fiscally responsible gov'ment?

If you could explain your position I'd appreciate it.

danagain

November 13, 2009 - 7:18 pm EST

"Do you not see rules are written specially for a select few?"

How many select few?

"Does it not make sense that if instead they were hit with the same taxes you and I pay, they would have skin in the game and would therefore join the "battle" for a fiscally responsible gov'ment?"

They pay more, granted there are loopholes but they pay much more than I do.

How bout those on the other end? Will they petition for a fiscally responsible govt. when they get their govt. welfare, WIC, SCHIP, etc. etc.?

It works both ways.

J D R

November 13, 2009 - 7:46 pm EST

"How many select few?"

Start with those paid in Stock.

"They pay more, granted there are loopholes but they pay much more than I do."

No they don't. OM .. yes they do in terms of raw dollars but not in terms or percentage .. you get all whiny at the "poor who get the earned tax thing" .. they pay less in terms of percentage. What' the difference?

"How bout those on the other end? Will they petition for a fiscally responsible govt. when they get their govt. welfare, WIC, SCHIP, etc. etc.? "

See above.

"It works both ways."

Are you really this shallow?

danagain

November 13, 2009 - 8:16 pm EST

"Are you really this shallow?"

We've been at this for years, but don't display your perceived elitism.

If you don't like the laws then elect people who will change them, ooopppss, you already did that.

I'll take a producer who is paying taxes and living within the law any day over leeches who live off my work in perpetuity.

Bernie Madoff not included.

J D R

November 14, 2009 - 7:38 am EST

Dan I asked you a simple question that was in no way probing of your personal life, your secret product, your family, your nothing .. and you cannot even grace a thoughful answer. You tell me who is being elite.

Here's your shallow response - Bernie Madoff broke the law, he is bad - maybe he was not even a producer ( although you did not actually say that so I am only inferring ) ... but he did employ a bunch of people .. a standard blog definition of producers.

You did say this: as long as "a producer [is] living within the law" he is at some level "acceptable". Required is an undefined role as a producer and compliance with the laws and paying some taxes. You find this preferred to the "leeches" who pay no taxes and instead tap into the federal money you provide.

Did I get it accurate?

The fact that those could be wall streeters with a brilliant accounting team taking advantage of decades of loophooles might pay token taxes ... or simply be a small businessmen taking an agressive stance and hoping to not get audited ... all are OK.

The fact that these "producers" can also pay no taxes seems to escape the conversation - and then the services provided must come from somewhere .. it just ain't from them .. seems to not really be a concern.

Then WIC coupons or food stamps cashed by leechs on Welfare ... typically in full compliance with the law ... well then it must really be OK too. If those leechs help their neighbor - maybe welfare granny taking care of grandchildren so parents can go to a job .. is the welfare granny now a producer ... or still a leech?

So all your talk about incompetent government and the stupid laws they author is just Dan being silly ... nothing but Dan-talk ... because as long as "Producers" follow the law .. even if that means no need to pay taxes .. then you are OK with it.

I asked who is the leech. Thanks for the answer.

truth

November 13, 2009 - 4:05 pm EST

Obama is only to blame for what he does or doesn't do. I haven't seen him do anything to attack these type of tax practices. I haven't heard a real agenda or call from him to Congress to get to work on this. Sure, it takes time and I'm willing to wait and see what he does in the next 3 years. But, I got a feeling it will be a bunch of nothing because he knows whether the guy in the seat is wearing red or blue, he doesn't stand a chance even if he wanted to change things. He's bought and paid for like every politician before him.

The funny thing about this letter is that it could have easily applied to the 2 Presidents before Obama. In fact, much of what was said about Bush could be said about Obama. What has he done better than Bush besides make promises? I'm waiting but I'm still not seeing.

neocon

November 13, 2009 - 8:02 am EST

Where are all the liberals bleating about Hussein 'lining the pockets of His rich buddies'?

ghost from white oak

November 13, 2009 - 9:16 am EST

It is known as " paying off your election debt or to the victor go the spoils" which ever you prefer..

J D R

November 13, 2009 - 9:48 am EST

Dang Ghost I wish you would get over your BDS.

eMail Updates

Learn More
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search