Cartoon from here.
Cartoon from here.
Orson Scott Card is a professional writer. He is a Democrat, and he is disappointed by the professional news media. So he has taken to writing political editorials. Here is excerpt from one of his articles.
This housing crisis didn’t come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It’s a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can’t repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can’t make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before. (from here)
Who caused the problem? It was not President Bush. It was not the Republican Party. Click here to read all of Card’s article.
Cartoon from here.
Cartoon from here.
The pain in the economy will likely increase with added burden placed on those who employ people.
Take myself for example, I run a small business and employ about 10 workers. Sure, from time to time, many businesses will profit above $250,000, but what about the years when the business profits fall below that threshold? Over the course of the last 20 months b/n Jan 07 to Aug 08, my business revenue was around $120k. That’s what many small business owners experience, as business revenue is anything but smooth. Not every small business operates in the commerce sector where revenue is a constant flow like a convenient store. Instead many small operations do business only with larger customer, other businesses, who purchases goods and services periodically.
The excess profits during good years, is used to keep operations alive during slower times or to recoup from the previous year’s lack of business activity. And with operating a business in most urban areas, $250,000 doesn’t last a very long time.
Increasing taxes on small businesses who may bring in more than $250,000 during a particular year, will cause the price of their goods produced to increase, forcing the customer to pay more for what they purchased. But during tougher economic times, the increased costs from taxes cannot be passed through in the cost of good produced, and will have to be passed down in the payroll. This affect on payroll will either mean, decreased salaries or decreased employment.
Question, if a new Congress passes tax increases to entities earning more than $250,000 during any one year, and then provide those federal revenue receipts to those who make less than $250,000, how much good will this do create, if this policy creates decreased worker salaries, increased unemployment or inflation in consumer prices?
LikeLike
There IS no honesty in politics, Tom. That’s why we are in this mess.
For that matter, there’s little honesty in big business. I know. My student loans tell me that story every day.
For that matter, there’s little honesty even in colleges we think should be honest. Union Institute, prime example.
Free the Mary Jane smokers and fill up the jails with these white collar criminals.
LikeLike