<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Was the Bailout the Right Move?	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.jerseysmarts.com/2008/10/05/was-the-bailout-the-right-move/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.jerseysmarts.com/2008/10/05/was-the-bailout-the-right-move/</link>
	<description>Joe Palazzolo&#039;s Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:03:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: John Maszka		</title>
		<link>https://www.jerseysmarts.com/2008/10/05/was-the-bailout-the-right-move/comment-page-1/#comment-852</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Maszka]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 20:53:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jerseysmarts.com/?p=467#comment-852</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[This bailout is just one more example of the indivisible handjob stroking irresponsible CEOs and CFOs with billions so that they can run the American economy even further into the ground. So much for Keynesian economics. If the goal is to stimulate the economy, why not give the money directly to the American taxpayers? We could do twice as much good for the economy by giving half as much money directly to hardworking American taxpayers. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush administration.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This bailout is just one more example of the indivisible handjob stroking irresponsible CEOs and CFOs with billions so that they can run the American economy even further into the ground. So much for Keynesian economics. If the goal is to stimulate the economy, why not give the money directly to the American taxpayers? We could do twice as much good for the economy by giving half as much money directly to hardworking American taxpayers. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush administration.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Steve Peek		</title>
		<link>https://www.jerseysmarts.com/2008/10/05/was-the-bailout-the-right-move/comment-page-1/#comment-851</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steve Peek]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:17:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jerseysmarts.com/?p=467#comment-851</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[$700 BILLION BAILOUT CAN BE WIN-WIN-WIN FOR CITIZENS, BANKERS AND CONGRESS

My Senator, Barbara Boxer, responded to an email asking her not to vote for the bailout plan without considering more options.  She said the primary reason she voted YES was because she heard from California the news that without the bailout California would not be able to &#039;sell voter-approved highway, school, and water bonds.&#039;

Congress simply does not get that they not only have to do something, they have to do it right.  What if there is a way to make everyone a winner?
 
Unfortuntely, I am old enough to recall previous decades.  One recollection is of a time when all gasoline taxes went to the department of highways, both state and Federal.  Before Congress moved these taxes to the general fund, my memory is we had little problems paying for infrastructure in our country.  We were the world leader in expanding and improving roads.  It makes me wonder why now we can&#039;t keep California highways ahead of growth even with selling bonds.
 
Another memory is from the same era: when taxes collected for Social Security were earmarked only for Social Security, again, before Congress moved this money to the general fund.  By correlating average U.S. salaries, cost of living, annual interest earned and cost of administration over the last thirty years, it is very clear that had Social Security money been kept out of the general fund it would today be, at worst, solvent and able to bear the increased demands placed on it by Baby Boomers.  At best, assuming an investment return of 2% over prime, it would currently have an enormous surplus -- enough to get us past the Baby Boomer demographic.  It might be interesting for you to have someone run the numbers.
 
One of the reasons so many people opposed the bailout has to do with Congress, the institution.  We may still have faith in our individual elected officials but Congress as a whole has provided so many examples of short sighted thinking, graft and corruption, and lack of intelligent thinking in the bills passed in teh last thirty years that the majority of Americans have a difficult time trusting the collective members currently sitting Washington.

Why not place $2,000 in every American citizen’s Social Security account (roughly $700 billion) and then loan the money to the financial institutions in trouble.  Think about it.
 

Good luck, God bless,

Steve Peek]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>$700 BILLION BAILOUT CAN BE WIN-WIN-WIN FOR CITIZENS, BANKERS AND CONGRESS</p>
<p>My Senator, Barbara Boxer, responded to an email asking her not to vote for the bailout plan without considering more options.  She said the primary reason she voted YES was because she heard from California the news that without the bailout California would not be able to &#8216;sell voter-approved highway, school, and water bonds.&#8217;</p>
<p>Congress simply does not get that they not only have to do something, they have to do it right.  What if there is a way to make everyone a winner?</p>
<p>Unfortuntely, I am old enough to recall previous decades.  One recollection is of a time when all gasoline taxes went to the department of highways, both state and Federal.  Before Congress moved these taxes to the general fund, my memory is we had little problems paying for infrastructure in our country.  We were the world leader in expanding and improving roads.  It makes me wonder why now we can&#8217;t keep California highways ahead of growth even with selling bonds.</p>
<p>Another memory is from the same era: when taxes collected for Social Security were earmarked only for Social Security, again, before Congress moved this money to the general fund.  By correlating average U.S. salaries, cost of living, annual interest earned and cost of administration over the last thirty years, it is very clear that had Social Security money been kept out of the general fund it would today be, at worst, solvent and able to bear the increased demands placed on it by Baby Boomers.  At best, assuming an investment return of 2% over prime, it would currently have an enormous surplus &#8212; enough to get us past the Baby Boomer demographic.  It might be interesting for you to have someone run the numbers.</p>
<p>One of the reasons so many people opposed the bailout has to do with Congress, the institution.  We may still have faith in our individual elected officials but Congress as a whole has provided so many examples of short sighted thinking, graft and corruption, and lack of intelligent thinking in the bills passed in teh last thirty years that the majority of Americans have a difficult time trusting the collective members currently sitting Washington.</p>
<p>Why not place $2,000 in every American citizen’s Social Security account (roughly $700 billion) and then loan the money to the financial institutions in trouble.  Think about it.</p>
<p>Good luck, God bless,</p>
<p>Steve Peek</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
