Bailout bill

[Izor]

So what are the thoughts here I havent read through pages of bullshit in other threads because I dont have the time atm. I know at a minimum Jerome is against it, seeing as how he seems to just hate big governments and governments that have a lot of power, specifically the power to create money out of thin air and buy out whatever they really feel like, foreign or domestic. My family has been in a frenzy writing their congressmen to no avail, because despite an overwhelming majority of americans that did not want this bill, our representatives decided it was 'in our best interest' anyway. I dont know what you poeple here plan on doing, but I know they have been buying LOTS of gold and silver since our money is about to be worth jack shit with billions and even trillions of money being made up out of nowhere to dillute it.

Anyway who thought it was a good idea to blindly vote yes on this? It shot up like 300 pages in 3 days...who can read all that legal mumbo jumbo AND understand it in that time? Stuuuupid. I'm fairly lucky right now that I've got a stable job reenlistment is looking appealing now

[Jerome Scuggs]

The headline for the New York Times a day or two ago was "Thirty-six hours of Panic and Action", I underlined that phrase in every copy of the paper we had at work and wrote "...but no THINKING?"

451 pages is alot. i keep finding new interesting tidbits every day.

IRS undercover operations: Privacy invasion? The bailout bill also gives the Internal Revenue Service new authority to conduct undercover operations. It would immunize the IRS from a passel of federal laws, including permitting IRS agents to run businesses for an extended sting operation, to open their own personal bank accounts with U.S. tax dollars, and so on. (Think IRS agents posing as accountants or tax preparers and saying, "I'm not sure if that deduction is entirely legal, but it'll save you $1,000. Want to take it?") That section had expired as of January 1, 2008, and would now be renewed.

Starting with the so-called Anti-Drug Abuse Act in 1988, the IRS has possessed this authority temporarily, with occasional multiple-year lapses. A 1999 internal report said the IRS had 126 "trained undercover agents" working in field offices at the time. This is the first time that such undercover authority would be made permanent.

Sens. Max Baucus (D) and Chuck Grassley (R) have been pushing to make it permanent for a while, claiming (PDF) in April that: "Undercover operations are an integral part of IRS efforts to detect and prove noncompliance. The temporary status of this provision creates uncertainty, as the IRS plans its undercover efforts from year to year." (this is a shining example of how creeping totalitarianism happens)

There's another section of the bailout bill worth noting. It lets the IRS give information from individual tax returns to any federal law enforcement agency investigating suspected "terrorist" activity, which can, in turn, share it with local and state police. Intelligence agencies such as the CIA and the National Security Agency can also receive that information.

The information that can be shared includes "a taxpayer's identity, the nature, source, or amount of his income, payments, receipts, deductions, exemptions, credits, assets, liabilities, net worth, tax liability, tax withheld, deficiencies, overassessments, or tax payments, whether the taxpayer's return was, is being, or will be examined or subject to other investigation or processing, or any other data received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to, or collected by the Secretary with respect to a return."

That provision had already existed in federal law and automatically expired on January 1, 2008.

What's a little odd is that there's been little to no discussion of the IRS sections of the bailout bill, even though they raise privacy concerns. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said this week: "I will continue to work with congressional leaders to find a way forward to pass a comprehensive plan to stabilize our financial system and protect the American people by limiting the prospects of further deterioration in our economy." He never mentioned the necessity of additional IRS undercover operations.

[DankNuggets]

so what kind of check balances an error like this?

can the supreme court step in and say that this was unconstitutional or something?

[Vehicle]

What's that quote from Jerome, the NYT's article? I'm all for small-government but I actually am also in favor of undercover-IRS agents if you're going to have a $700 billion bailout.

You should have bolded the quote just before the thing you bolded, I wasn't aware there were undercover IRS agents to begin with, or that there ever had been. And it's also notable that the first use of these agents were in 1988 in the "so-called Anti-Drug Abuse Act." My history could be wrong, but isn't this during the height of the crack epidemic/shitstorm drug war? Presumably, then, this would have been to spy on average Joe's who may have also been drug dealers and weren't declaring those profits on their taxes.

So, basically, I'm all for having undercover-IRS agents watching over corporate CEO's (and while were at it, lets assign one to every Senator,) rather than the guy who sells me weed (he's a pretty chill dude.)

And that terrorism bit is fucking terrifying. Pretty much means every branch of government can look into what every American is buying or selling on a case-by-case basis under the guise of terrorism, a term that Bush administration judges have defined as "anything." The implications could be rather far reaching.

And Dank, the Supreme Court can only review a law if it's brought up through the right channels. As in, it has to go through federal district courts, a series of appeals, and then it has to be brought to the Supreme Court who chooses wether to accept the appeals court decision or to hear the case. In short: it takes a long ass time (unless the government wants it to happen, see: Florida recount,) and I don't think any companies that are being bailed out are going to say "no we'd rather go under" and file a lawsuit.

[kthx]

Hey, I am finally unbanned by douchebag liberal Kolar so now I can finally post my views again. This bailout bill was the largest load of shit ever, it had tax relief for wooden arrow makers, tax relief on tuna fish imported into a city that cans it, it was stuffed with so much bullshit, and they made it out to be something that if it didn't pass it would destroy the world economy.. so why did they have time to add stupid shit like the above into it. I basically started on friday, I removed all my money from my 401k and invested in gold, because when the shit hits the fan, which even todays -400 loss on the dow basically tells us is bound to happen soon, and the value of the US dollar is at an all time low because we are just printing trillions of dollars that have no worth, it will be the only thing worth anything. Its pathetic that the representatives of our country would go against the will of the American people like this to pass this bill, I am still irate about it. I have been one of the few people who voiced the fact that Bush wasn't the worst president, or at least isn't as bad as everyone said he was, but now I have changed my mind.

[Jerome Scuggs]

What's that quote from Jerome, the NYT's article? I'm all for small-government but I actually am also in favor of undercover-IRS agents if you're going to have a $700 billion bailout.

It doesn't authorize undercover agents for the bailout, it authorizes them permanently. Previously they were given limited provision mandates - granting them operations until an expiration date. If it was for the bailout - why not give them a few years?

It seems laws must constantly be changed in face of unforeseen events, and the inevitable conclusion is permanent loss of liberty.

kthx's saying he is buying gold sort of got me thinking about something I noticed: gold is still like, 900 an ounce, perhaps not after today though. I think it's peculiar that gold was so cheap... remember when it was above $1000 an ounce, when fears about are market were much less significant? Why has demand not driven up the price? It's a peculiar discrepancy and I don't see any particular reason for it.

[kthx]

Probaly because of the same reason that the American markets were about to crash even though we bailed out AIG, and fanny/freddy.. Because this was basically the democrats October Surprise, and a lot of the big players know it. However, it will cause market uncertainty eventually and will cause major problems. I mean come on.. what better issue to attack than the ONLY one McCain said he was weak in. Still, all this bs is going to come crashing down eventually so still, staying in gold.

[Vehicle]

Well Jerome I think you can answer that question pretty easily. It's the doctrine that with fear (wether real or imagined) comes the sacrifice of civil liberties.

Consider the shitstorm directly following 9/11 granting the NSA sweeping powers.

Or, to go way back in time, consider the Gulf of Tonkien. Now debunked as a sham, it gave whoever was President then (I forget) the ability to invade Vietnam. (Was it LBJ?)

This is just another example: Everyone screams that if this doesn't get passed right now the whole global economy will fail, no Democrat is going to stand on the floor and argue over the permanant extension of a program that only ended (if it truly did end) because it's contract was up? And, either way, my guess is that that provision was merely a technicality, do you really think those secret-IRS-agents closed their offices on January 1st?

Best thing a history teacher ever told me in high school: history repeats itself, it's not linear, it's cyclical.

[Squeezer]

I don't like the bailout either, but what choice was there?

Let a large portion of this country go homeless, lose all their savings and become an even bigger burden on our generation just to teach them a lesson?

Or to maintain Scuggs silly ideal of government (which btw is unpossible. There's too much free flowing wealth in the global market to leave it completely unregulated by govt. forces. It would simply create a worldwide bourgeoisie? What do you really think would happen if we removed all restrictions on the collection of capital? Relative wealth would sway even farther in the opposite direction) and let the "free market," take care of it?

Our leaders could have actually gave a shit this time but whatever. Do it halfassed and as reactionary as possible because that's what got us into this mess. They're not going to lose any money.

[kthx]

Squeezer, the country was fine, we already bailed out the people you were talking about when we bailed out Fanny and Freddy, here is the third option.

Put the Kolaresque liberal douches in jail who thought that it was unfair and racist to not give loans for people to buy houses that they couldn't afford.

Newt: Set the capital gains tax to 0 for a few years and let the market fix itself by people investing in our markets tax free.

With the bailout money, instead of giving it to the CROOKS who fucked it all up in the first place, make it a LOAN with an interest rate, that had to be paid back, and give it to the people who are actually trying to pay their mortgages to help them out, while reducing their APR to make their payments easier to bear in a time where many of our natural resources are so expensive.

[DoTheFandango]

i don't know, I don't understand enough about politics, economies, or even just plain simple life to say whether this was a good move or bad move, but I can't honestly say I'm comfortable with either option. We don't bail them out, the market may seriously die and we're all fucked. But it may right itself, too. If we do bailout, we (i mean those Americans who will be paying taxes for years to come, and ages yet unborn) pay it off and then if the market dies we're really fucked. But it also may solve our problems. Listening to pundits and politicians makes me even more confused, as this isn't a party split, it's a general unease in our Congress, all of them unsure about what the FUCK is going on right now.

[Fluffz]

kthx's saying he is buying gold sort of got me thinking about something I noticed: gold is still like, 900 an ounce, perhaps not after today though. I think it's peculiar that gold was so cheap... remember when it was above $1000 an ounce, when fears about are market were much less significant? Why has demand not driven up the price? It's a peculiar discrepancy and I don't see any particular reason for it.

Because gold doesnt save u from inflation. Get a 100% state assured inflation bond from the EU if you realy think money is going to inflate. On top of that gold actually is high and if a global collaps aint happening people will sell gold and buy stock. Also read about how traditional gold dealers are turned away by the increasing numbers of private speculators and the instability they bring into a market that was famous for its safety.

[Zeebu]

it may not be a skyrocketing investment, but they have a point: an ounce of gold will always be worth an ounce of gold.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Or to maintain Scuggs silly ideal of government (which btw is unpossible. There's too much free flowing wealth in the global market to leave it completely unregulated by govt. forces.

The reason the Federal Reserve (and previous national banks) were chartered was because the market couldn't provide enough free-flowing wealth.

They've injected over a trillion dollars into the global market over the past week and a half, not to mention the 50-100 billion incremental injections they've been doing since around this time last year.

Considering that the supply of money is by these centralized banks, how is this a market problem? How could it have been a market problem in the past 100 years?

Or, to take this from another angle: what do you mean by "too much" free-flowing wealth? What is "not enough" free-flowing wealth? By what standard does our government judge the "free-flowiness" of wealth? Can you say that the government has accurately judged, given current circumstances?

Speaking of my idea of government being impossible - mind you, my idea of government happens to be the default condition of human existence. Are you saying that our existence is not possible?

It would simply create a worldwide bourgeoisie? What do you really think would happen if we removed all restrictions on the collection of capital? Relative wealth would sway even farther in the opposite direction) and let the "free market," take care of it?

"Worldwide bourgeoisie"... like the people in charge, living off of the incomes that we labor to produce, while giving us nothing in return? Who not only fail to live up to their goals and promises - but somehow convince us that in order to really solve the problems, we must give them more power?

And relative wealth? What about the relative wealth between the richest king two hundred years ago - and the poorest American today? That seems to be an increasing inequality that the market causes, yet I hear no complaints.

[Jerome Scuggs]

i don't know, I don't understand enough about politics, economies, or even just plain simple life to say whether this was a good move or bad move, but I can't honestly say I'm comfortable with either option. We don't bail them out, the market may seriously die and we're all fucked. But it may right itself, too. If we do bailout, we (i mean those Americans who will be paying taxes for years to come, and ages yet unborn) pay it off and then if the market dies we're really fucked. But it also may solve our problems. Listening to pundits and politicians makes me even more confused, as this isn't a party split, it's a general unease in our Congress, all of them unsure about what the FUCK is going on right now.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=105