There is so much ignorance and misinformation out there as you watch the news and as you listen to politicians. There is a huge controversy concerning this Economic Bailout by Congress.
Let's get one thing straight here. This is not a bailout of Wall Street.
This is a bailout of the U.S. Economy. The Treasury Department will be utilizing the allotted money to buy mortgages and the securities tied to them. They are not bailing out Wall Street firms.
Yes, along with the American People as a whole, Wall Street firms will stand to benefit from this plan. In fact, they may be the largest beneficiaries of this plan, or at least the largest immediate beneficiaries.
This money is going to be used to take bad assets off the balance sheets of struggling financial firms. Don't categorize them as 'Wall Street.' That is misleading. We are talking about your banks. The banks you bank at, the firms you invest with, and the stocks and bonds you tie your financial future on through personal portfolios, pensions, and 401k plans.
This is not a Wall Street Bailout but an Every Street Bailout. This is the best idea people could come up with to save a crumbling global financial market. Even Warren Buffett agrees with this. He's the greatest investor of our generation. I would trust him with my money, wouldn't you?
People are angry, and they should be. It has been decades of mismanagement by Democratic Administrations, Republican Administrations, Wall Street executives, Institutional Investors, and yes, even regular citizens. We are all to blame.
1) Government turned a blind eye as illicit or risky actions were being taken. Regulation was lightened, and new laws permitted and even required riskier loans (ex. Community Reinvestment Act)
2) Wall Street's greed took advantage of lenient government oversight and regulation to participate in risky lending, creation of risky and unregulated products (Credit Default Swaps and Mortgage Backed Securities), as well as practice predatory lending especially among lower-income individuals. In order to increase profits and reduce risk they created the risky products that we are talking about, but what happened instead is the castle of cards came tumbling down faster than it took to build it all up.
3) Institutional Investors, those who run the big mutual funds, pension funds, and hedge funds hold great power. These big investors are trying to increase their returns to their mutual account holders (aka: all of us who invest via 401k and pension plans as well as mutual funds). They demand more and more from the companies, better and better quarterly profits. Wall Street caved into their demands and found alternative ways to shore up their balance sheets and announce better and better returns. One of the ways was these risky products with high profitability.
4) Even as regular ordinary citizens we are to blame. For some of us it is our investment accounts. We want them to go up, 10% or 20% a year. We demand it of our brokers and of the companies whose stock we own. Also, it is the American Dream to own your own home. Instead of the prudent and traditional way of hard work and savings to accomplish this, Americans in the millions wanted to buy their home quicker, taking risks with Adjustable Rate Mortgages and no down payments. America has an infatuation with debt. It was no longer okay to rent for a few years so save up for a down payment. Now any American regardless of employment status (yes even the unemployed), salary, or credit history could buy into the Dream. The belief that real estate prices would go up and up and up, so that they could sell their homes in a couple of years for a profit became prevalent. People did not think that buying a home with no job or income was a dumb move. Instead of being prudent, cautious, and intelligent, American got greedy. Just as greedy as Wall Street.
So, we are all to blame for this mess. It is easy to target Politicians or Wall Street executives, but it was the new culture of America that is to blame, and it is this culture that we must mend.
Let us look at this Bailout as a positive action and a corrective action. It will hopefully result in a return of Government oversight to protect our country (that is their main responsibility after all). It will hopefully give a fresh start to these financial institutions, allowing the lending process to begin again so all people and all businesses can resume their everyday lives.
Remember, without this plan financial institutions would continue to fail. Eventually the FDIC may not be enough. Credit markets will continue to dry up, reducing the opportunities for us to get loans for homes, cars, credit cards, etc. It will make it difficult for small business to borrow capital to meet payroll or growth. It will create panic in the financial markets, and it may well result in another Great Depression. We all know that it started on "Wall Street' but affected 'Main Street."
May we learn from history and understand that this bailout must be done, and we must all pray that it will do the trick. Otherwise....
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Financial Bailout
So, there seems to be a lot of backlash concerning this proposed $700 Billion bailout the government is planning. They say 'let the companies fail' or 'why should we pay for it.' People are saying it is more big government and unnecessary intervention.
People are justified in their anger towards the financial institutions. After all, have we not learned from 1929 and 1989? Have we not learned anything in the last 80 years? It may be that we have learned, but there is one thing that remains constant; greed. It was greed once again that brought Wall Street to its knees.
Are we just going to let these companies fail? Is that was is best? I think the response of the ignorant politicians and citizens is quite ridiculous so far, and believe it or not I think Paulson, Bush, and those trying to solve this problem have it right.
What would happen if we just let the companies fail? Let Wamu and Morgan Stanley disappear. Severely hamper Citigroup and JP Morgan. Destroy the small struggling banks all across the county. Keep fear in the financial markets. Annihilate the faith people have in the financial institutions and financial markets all across the world. If you are worried about a recession, try dealing with a depression. That is what you will get.
What will happen if we just let the companies fail? The FDIC won't have enough funds to cover all the insured deposits. Thousand of people will lose everything they have saved for. Even if they get their money back it may not be for months. What about their mortgage payments? They won't have money to pay the bills, feed their families, drive to work, etc. It isn't just the rich and middle class that will suffer. The poor will lose what jobs they have. Prices will go up and incomes will go down. The government might not have the means to support millions more on welfare. Everyone will suffer, and the poor and middle class often suffer the most.
What will happen if we just let these companies fail? The stock markets around the world will crash. The good companies and the bad will all be tossed aside. Companies will suffer and companies will die. Companies will lay as many people off as they can, or just plain close their doors. People's pensions will be lost, health coverage gone, 401k's destroyed. Social Security will surely fail and all of our retirement plans will be shattered.
Is this what people want when they say 'let these companies fail?' I surely hope they don't. I hope it is just that they don't get it. I hope it is just they are plain ignorant. I hope our leaders are not part of this crowd.
This bailout will cost us all, but far less than the alternative. We must choose bad over worse. Will this mean our taxes will go up? Probably. Is that better than losing everything? Most definitely. We have learned something in the last 80 years. That is, we cannot let our financial markets collapse. Yes, sometimes the majority of people, who's lives are not directly impacted by Wall Street, call for the destruction of greedy companies and crooked executives. Punishment is warranted, but we must look past the vengeance and look to the consequences. We must look to the consequences that their actions will cause if we stand by and do nothing.
Let's think about this. Maybe Paulson and Bush are making the best decision and most important choice government has made in our lifetimes.
People are justified in their anger towards the financial institutions. After all, have we not learned from 1929 and 1989? Have we not learned anything in the last 80 years? It may be that we have learned, but there is one thing that remains constant; greed. It was greed once again that brought Wall Street to its knees.
Are we just going to let these companies fail? Is that was is best? I think the response of the ignorant politicians and citizens is quite ridiculous so far, and believe it or not I think Paulson, Bush, and those trying to solve this problem have it right.
What would happen if we just let the companies fail? Let Wamu and Morgan Stanley disappear. Severely hamper Citigroup and JP Morgan. Destroy the small struggling banks all across the county. Keep fear in the financial markets. Annihilate the faith people have in the financial institutions and financial markets all across the world. If you are worried about a recession, try dealing with a depression. That is what you will get.
What will happen if we just let the companies fail? The FDIC won't have enough funds to cover all the insured deposits. Thousand of people will lose everything they have saved for. Even if they get their money back it may not be for months. What about their mortgage payments? They won't have money to pay the bills, feed their families, drive to work, etc. It isn't just the rich and middle class that will suffer. The poor will lose what jobs they have. Prices will go up and incomes will go down. The government might not have the means to support millions more on welfare. Everyone will suffer, and the poor and middle class often suffer the most.
What will happen if we just let these companies fail? The stock markets around the world will crash. The good companies and the bad will all be tossed aside. Companies will suffer and companies will die. Companies will lay as many people off as they can, or just plain close their doors. People's pensions will be lost, health coverage gone, 401k's destroyed. Social Security will surely fail and all of our retirement plans will be shattered.
Is this what people want when they say 'let these companies fail?' I surely hope they don't. I hope it is just that they don't get it. I hope it is just they are plain ignorant. I hope our leaders are not part of this crowd.
This bailout will cost us all, but far less than the alternative. We must choose bad over worse. Will this mean our taxes will go up? Probably. Is that better than losing everything? Most definitely. We have learned something in the last 80 years. That is, we cannot let our financial markets collapse. Yes, sometimes the majority of people, who's lives are not directly impacted by Wall Street, call for the destruction of greedy companies and crooked executives. Punishment is warranted, but we must look past the vengeance and look to the consequences. We must look to the consequences that their actions will cause if we stand by and do nothing.
Let's think about this. Maybe Paulson and Bush are making the best decision and most important choice government has made in our lifetimes.
Friday, September 19, 2008
A tax increase on the rich? Are you crazy Obama?
Obama said in his nomination acceptance speech that McCain did not get it, that McCain was out of touch and that was a reason not to vote for McCain. Wait a second here Barry! I think you missed something here. Despite your eloquence, intellect, and charisma it is you who does not get it. Obama made a big deal a few months ago about the great financial advisers he has and will utilize as President. Yeah, you have a great army of financial genius', not the least of whom is my favorite investor Warren Buffett.
Let's review a simple explanation of Obama's tax policy.
Increase taxes on the 'rich' who spend a majority of the money in this country, invest the majority of the money, and pay the majority of the taxes already.
Here is my take on things. If Obama says the rich are those who make $250,000 or more, you have to ask yourself, Is Obama really from Chicago? If he is from Chicago he must have been in a coma.
He is from Chicago, which means it may not be McCain that is out of touch, but he must be out of touch. He is so young that I think he has spent his whole political career campaigning and his whole pre-political life organizing things that he must have missed what's happening around him. I don't think it is rocket science that cost of living is a major factor when you talk about tax policy.
Last I checked someone who makes $250,000 in Chicago makes less money then someone in, say, Omaha. Does he really think someone who makes that in NYC should get the same tax treatment as someone in Indianapolis? Or is he going to throw in a cost of living calculator on the tax forms and make doing your taxes an even bigger pain? Is he stupid despite graduating from Harvard? What is he thinking? Only a moron will propose something like that, and only a moron will pick a crazy running mate who's call to the rich is 'pay more taxes or you are not a patriot.'
Clearly he is out of touch. If he is elected I feel sorry for anyone who lives in Chicago or NYC or the whole State of California. They will suffer much more than others. When you factor in cost of living and try to categorize rich, isn't it much more logical to think maybe $1 million may be a better gauge of 'rich?' I would consider someone who is rich to be someone who does not have to work to maintain their lifestyle indefinitely. Buffett does not mind if he is taxed more, so let's tax his money. Not the average NYC dual income family making $250,000 and barely scraping by.
Obama, get in touch with the real world and maybe rethink you tax policy.
Let's review a simple explanation of Obama's tax policy.
Increase taxes on the 'rich' who spend a majority of the money in this country, invest the majority of the money, and pay the majority of the taxes already.
Here is my take on things. If Obama says the rich are those who make $250,000 or more, you have to ask yourself, Is Obama really from Chicago? If he is from Chicago he must have been in a coma.
He is from Chicago, which means it may not be McCain that is out of touch, but he must be out of touch. He is so young that I think he has spent his whole political career campaigning and his whole pre-political life organizing things that he must have missed what's happening around him. I don't think it is rocket science that cost of living is a major factor when you talk about tax policy.
Last I checked someone who makes $250,000 in Chicago makes less money then someone in, say, Omaha. Does he really think someone who makes that in NYC should get the same tax treatment as someone in Indianapolis? Or is he going to throw in a cost of living calculator on the tax forms and make doing your taxes an even bigger pain? Is he stupid despite graduating from Harvard? What is he thinking? Only a moron will propose something like that, and only a moron will pick a crazy running mate who's call to the rich is 'pay more taxes or you are not a patriot.'
Clearly he is out of touch. If he is elected I feel sorry for anyone who lives in Chicago or NYC or the whole State of California. They will suffer much more than others. When you factor in cost of living and try to categorize rich, isn't it much more logical to think maybe $1 million may be a better gauge of 'rich?' I would consider someone who is rich to be someone who does not have to work to maintain their lifestyle indefinitely. Buffett does not mind if he is taxed more, so let's tax his money. Not the average NYC dual income family making $250,000 and barely scraping by.
Obama, get in touch with the real world and maybe rethink you tax policy.
So what about Palin?
At first I was sceptical of Sarah Palin. However, the last few weeks have been eye opening. The liberal and radical nature of Obama is coming more to the public domain. The Biden choice is being proven a big mistake. More and more people are realizing Obama just does not get it. Raise taxes? Stupid. More spending? Irresponsible. Spending time with radicals and terrorists? Detrimental. All Obama is, is a great orator. There is nothing in his background or in his political platform or in his supporters that there is to admire, let alone make him acceptable or qualified to be President of the United States of America.
I have not been a fan of McCain either. I think he will be better for the country and compared to Obama, the biggest factor that sets McCain apart is that he will pick good people to support him; like Sarah Palin.
Palin has taken the country by storm. From a mostly unknown Governor from a state that has more Caribou than people, to potentially the most powerful woman in the world. As I previously said, I was a bit skeptical of Sarah Palin. I thought the pick of her over the likes of economic powerhouse Mitt Romney, was a mistake. However, I have amended my thinking. It was a great pick. A maverick move that shook the political arena, putting the ball back in McCain's court, and shooting fear into the Obama camp and his liberal supporters.
What do I like about Palin? She does not seem the politician type. She seems like a Mom. Someone I can trust to do what she says she will do. Listening to her is almost calming. You can believe what she says. She seems honest and sincere. They say she is a maverick, but I would not necessarily categorize her has that. She is one of the masses. Someone who sees the ridiculousness of our current politicians and is not afraid to go against the establishment and bring politics back to where it was when our nation was founded. I salute her and salute McCain for picking her. She gives me a little bit of hope for this election cycle.
I have not been a fan of McCain either. I think he will be better for the country and compared to Obama, the biggest factor that sets McCain apart is that he will pick good people to support him; like Sarah Palin.
Palin has taken the country by storm. From a mostly unknown Governor from a state that has more Caribou than people, to potentially the most powerful woman in the world. As I previously said, I was a bit skeptical of Sarah Palin. I thought the pick of her over the likes of economic powerhouse Mitt Romney, was a mistake. However, I have amended my thinking. It was a great pick. A maverick move that shook the political arena, putting the ball back in McCain's court, and shooting fear into the Obama camp and his liberal supporters.
What do I like about Palin? She does not seem the politician type. She seems like a Mom. Someone I can trust to do what she says she will do. Listening to her is almost calming. You can believe what she says. She seems honest and sincere. They say she is a maverick, but I would not necessarily categorize her has that. She is one of the masses. Someone who sees the ridiculousness of our current politicians and is not afraid to go against the establishment and bring politics back to where it was when our nation was founded. I salute her and salute McCain for picking her. She gives me a little bit of hope for this election cycle.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
So, why the name? As I was contemplating politics with both the Democratic Convention and the Republican Conventions having taken place in the last week or so, I was trying to establish my thoughts on the candidates and the issues. I will have more to say about my views, but here it is in a nutshell.
Strong economy through reduced spending, lower individual taxes, and lower corporate taxes. Strong defense. Small government with less spending, responsible and limited welfare, and strong emphasis on education programs. Socially conservative. Leans Republican, but not strict to the Party line.
You get the point. I am leaning towards McCain/Palin only because I agree with more of their policies than Obama/Biden's policies, especially on economics, taxes, and spending.
The name "The Robin Hood Dilemma" came to me as I was contemplating Obama's tax strategy, and his 'community organizer' background. To me welfare is a broken system. It has created a goup of lazy people who expect the government to take care of them, without any personal responsibility. They want everything for free just because they are poor. But, they are not 'poor.' They are lazy. There are plenty of real poor people. I have met a number of them through my Church service and Community service. There are people who struggle every day to support themselves and their families. There are millions of them all across this great nation. They do not look for a hand out or a free meal. They work for what they eat. They work hard, harder than many CEOs or Celebrities. They make minimum wage but work harder than anyone for it. They work hard while there are millions of others just as capable, who sit on their butts watching free cable, eating free food, and living in a free house. There is something wrong with this. Yes, this is slightly oversimplified, but the point is nevertheless valid. Why does the welfare system not fight for those who work hard yet find they have barely enough to survive on, let alone save for retirement or a child's college education. Welfare should be there for them, not for those who refuse to work. Obama is a welfare supporter, and I cannot support him in that. I cannot support a government focused on handing out freebies to lazy bums. Welfare must change. Obama wants to continue this welfare culture so prevalent in our inner-cities by taking from the rich through increased taxes and giving to the poor. It is essentially a redistribution of wealth. A 'rob from the rich, give to the poor' mentality. Here in lies the dilemma.
We all know the story of Robin Hood. The heroic Prince of Thieves takes from the rich and evil King and gives back to the poor, all the while winning the heart of the Maiden Miriam. It is a timeless story that makes for an entertaining Disney or Kevin Costner movie, but what if we look at it from an economic view. Maybe we should not let our children watch such a movie. The movie is more relevant in this political environment than we might have expected.
From a political/economical view, this feel good story masks the true morale of the story. To me, if the King of England were not so evil in this story it would be a horrible story. This so-called Prince would be nothing more than a common thief.
So, where is the dilemma? Maybe it is just in my mind, but as a Christian there is a motivation to do as Jesus did and have charity for the poor. There is a part of me that is giving, wanting to give of my time and resources to help those less fortunate. Shouldn't we all have that desire? For the most part I think we as Americans are a generous and giving people, as is evident with huge amounts of charitable contributions in this country for every telethon, every fundraiser, and every disaster relief effort. We feel a need to help the poor and afflicted. The down trodden and suffering. It is human nature. It is American nature. This is where the Democrats, or at least many of them, come from. Their desire for a big government with big spending projects is generally to assist these people who feel they cannot help themselves. There is something sincere and charitable about this political view. The Democrats may be considered more charitable than the Republicans, at least politically speaking.
This political mentality, however, can be dangerous. As I have worked with inner-city families in Rochester, NY I learned quickly that our generous welfare system is broken, and needs serious fixing. Not only is there too much inefficiency in the bureaucracy but it has taught and bred generations of families who are not self-sufficient. We learned this through disasters like Katrina. If the government does not save them they cannot save themselves. Sure the government has certain responsibilities and sure the government dropped the ball and needed to do a better job, however, we as individuals have responsibilities of our own. The government was not created by our Founding Fathers to do everything for us. They did not envision 'Big Brother' taking control. Our welfare system has created millions of people who cannot save themselves. As compassionate as we are there is danger in being too compassionate that we do harm. As the old adage goes, "you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime." We need this instilled in our welfare system.
Without changes to our welfare system, our education system, and large parts of our societal thinking we cannot truly change. If Obama wants change he's got to understand this. There is a dilemma of Robin Hood proportions. If we risk 'robbing' from the rich by taxing them more we will only go on strengthening the dependence people have on the government. The thinking that government will cover all your medical costs, your retirement costs, your education costs is just silly. If Obama wins and he gets his tax changes approved he will cause a huge redistribution of wealth, only to find out a few years later than it is still the case that the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer.
Some of this thinking of mine has been influenced by Robert Kiyosaki, and his book "Rich Dad, Poor Dad." It is a great book, and a must read for anyone. He argues that a redistribution of wealth does not work because the rich understand money while the poor do not. If you increase the taxes on the wealthy, the wealthy will find a legal way to not pay those taxes (or pay less of it). If you give the money back to the poor they will squander it as they continue the mentality of make more money, then spend more money. Mr. Obama, as good as your intentions may be there is a better way. We need to keep taxes low for everyone, and reign in spending. We need to reduce the welfare arm of the government and spend it on education reform. Pay teachers more to attract the best people to be our teachers. Give more money to the schools to create better learning environments. We need to strengthen families, and teach the ethic of hard work. We need to bring financial literacy to the forefront so people can learn how to better support themselves today and in the future.
I could go on, but you get the point. There is a dilemma facing us today. The name came to me as I thought of how the story of Robin Hood related to Obama's tax strategy. This, I think is a dilemma many face. We want to be giving and charitable, but to what extent? The democrats have a point in wanting to spend money to help the poor and middle class, but is there way the right way, the best way? What if our giving is doing harm? Is it right to take more from the rich and give it to the poor? Does the government do a better job in giving then the private sector or faith-based groups?
This blog is just for me to rant and rave about economics, finances, politics, and anything else that comes to mind. I just wanted to give a explanation for this catchy name.
Strong economy through reduced spending, lower individual taxes, and lower corporate taxes. Strong defense. Small government with less spending, responsible and limited welfare, and strong emphasis on education programs. Socially conservative. Leans Republican, but not strict to the Party line.
You get the point. I am leaning towards McCain/Palin only because I agree with more of their policies than Obama/Biden's policies, especially on economics, taxes, and spending.
The name "The Robin Hood Dilemma" came to me as I was contemplating Obama's tax strategy, and his 'community organizer' background. To me welfare is a broken system. It has created a goup of lazy people who expect the government to take care of them, without any personal responsibility. They want everything for free just because they are poor. But, they are not 'poor.' They are lazy. There are plenty of real poor people. I have met a number of them through my Church service and Community service. There are people who struggle every day to support themselves and their families. There are millions of them all across this great nation. They do not look for a hand out or a free meal. They work for what they eat. They work hard, harder than many CEOs or Celebrities. They make minimum wage but work harder than anyone for it. They work hard while there are millions of others just as capable, who sit on their butts watching free cable, eating free food, and living in a free house. There is something wrong with this. Yes, this is slightly oversimplified, but the point is nevertheless valid. Why does the welfare system not fight for those who work hard yet find they have barely enough to survive on, let alone save for retirement or a child's college education. Welfare should be there for them, not for those who refuse to work. Obama is a welfare supporter, and I cannot support him in that. I cannot support a government focused on handing out freebies to lazy bums. Welfare must change. Obama wants to continue this welfare culture so prevalent in our inner-cities by taking from the rich through increased taxes and giving to the poor. It is essentially a redistribution of wealth. A 'rob from the rich, give to the poor' mentality. Here in lies the dilemma.
We all know the story of Robin Hood. The heroic Prince of Thieves takes from the rich and evil King and gives back to the poor, all the while winning the heart of the Maiden Miriam. It is a timeless story that makes for an entertaining Disney or Kevin Costner movie, but what if we look at it from an economic view. Maybe we should not let our children watch such a movie. The movie is more relevant in this political environment than we might have expected.
From a political/economical view, this feel good story masks the true morale of the story. To me, if the King of England were not so evil in this story it would be a horrible story. This so-called Prince would be nothing more than a common thief.
So, where is the dilemma? Maybe it is just in my mind, but as a Christian there is a motivation to do as Jesus did and have charity for the poor. There is a part of me that is giving, wanting to give of my time and resources to help those less fortunate. Shouldn't we all have that desire? For the most part I think we as Americans are a generous and giving people, as is evident with huge amounts of charitable contributions in this country for every telethon, every fundraiser, and every disaster relief effort. We feel a need to help the poor and afflicted. The down trodden and suffering. It is human nature. It is American nature. This is where the Democrats, or at least many of them, come from. Their desire for a big government with big spending projects is generally to assist these people who feel they cannot help themselves. There is something sincere and charitable about this political view. The Democrats may be considered more charitable than the Republicans, at least politically speaking.
This political mentality, however, can be dangerous. As I have worked with inner-city families in Rochester, NY I learned quickly that our generous welfare system is broken, and needs serious fixing. Not only is there too much inefficiency in the bureaucracy but it has taught and bred generations of families who are not self-sufficient. We learned this through disasters like Katrina. If the government does not save them they cannot save themselves. Sure the government has certain responsibilities and sure the government dropped the ball and needed to do a better job, however, we as individuals have responsibilities of our own. The government was not created by our Founding Fathers to do everything for us. They did not envision 'Big Brother' taking control. Our welfare system has created millions of people who cannot save themselves. As compassionate as we are there is danger in being too compassionate that we do harm. As the old adage goes, "you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime." We need this instilled in our welfare system.
Without changes to our welfare system, our education system, and large parts of our societal thinking we cannot truly change. If Obama wants change he's got to understand this. There is a dilemma of Robin Hood proportions. If we risk 'robbing' from the rich by taxing them more we will only go on strengthening the dependence people have on the government. The thinking that government will cover all your medical costs, your retirement costs, your education costs is just silly. If Obama wins and he gets his tax changes approved he will cause a huge redistribution of wealth, only to find out a few years later than it is still the case that the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer.
Some of this thinking of mine has been influenced by Robert Kiyosaki, and his book "Rich Dad, Poor Dad." It is a great book, and a must read for anyone. He argues that a redistribution of wealth does not work because the rich understand money while the poor do not. If you increase the taxes on the wealthy, the wealthy will find a legal way to not pay those taxes (or pay less of it). If you give the money back to the poor they will squander it as they continue the mentality of make more money, then spend more money. Mr. Obama, as good as your intentions may be there is a better way. We need to keep taxes low for everyone, and reign in spending. We need to reduce the welfare arm of the government and spend it on education reform. Pay teachers more to attract the best people to be our teachers. Give more money to the schools to create better learning environments. We need to strengthen families, and teach the ethic of hard work. We need to bring financial literacy to the forefront so people can learn how to better support themselves today and in the future.
I could go on, but you get the point. There is a dilemma facing us today. The name came to me as I thought of how the story of Robin Hood related to Obama's tax strategy. This, I think is a dilemma many face. We want to be giving and charitable, but to what extent? The democrats have a point in wanting to spend money to help the poor and middle class, but is there way the right way, the best way? What if our giving is doing harm? Is it right to take more from the rich and give it to the poor? Does the government do a better job in giving then the private sector or faith-based groups?
This blog is just for me to rant and rave about economics, finances, politics, and anything else that comes to mind. I just wanted to give a explanation for this catchy name.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
