I would guess that the GOP could have allowed the proposed bankruptcy change instead. That would have made for a much cleaner bill. To get buy-in from the Democrats, not to mention to help address the problem from the foreclosure end, there needs to be something that helps distressed homeowners more directly than giving money to the Bear Sterns and Washington Mutuals on Wall Street.
As it's stated though, it sounds like a provision that would never happen, and if it did, it would be months, maybe years, down the road.
As always, I am grateful to our conservative posters for avoiding any sensationalism.
I don't understand how reducing the capital gains tax helps companies that are losing money or whose balance sheet is near bankruptcy. These companies won't be paying taxes anyway, so this benefit goes to profitable companies who don't need to bailed out. How this eases the credit crunch is baffling to me. It sounds more like an unrelated item that is added on to get votes on the main item, you know, like an earmark.
I disagree. Thing is, without he capitol gains tax, profits are more promising. We don't need this $700 trillion. In fact, it's only about half the money needed to fix it properly. Without fixing it properly, and removing the regulations that cause it, it if a total waste of money. It will just happen again, especially if we bail them out. They will then say, "oh, don't fear. They had to bailed us out in 2008, they will have to again."
Back to the capitol gains. Other copmanies will invest their money into these banks if they can see a future profit. Capitol gains taxes are a tax against investment.
Back to the 20% since that is really this theads purpose. Why is it even there? Take it out. If it's good legislation, create a separate bill for it. It doesn't do anything in this bailout but act as a poison pill, pork, and earmark.
Get that out!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
