Thread: Jim DeMint's Proposal for Resolution of Financial Crisis

Saw Jim DeMint on Neal Cavuto's just a short time ago. He said is is not going for the deal as stands. They refuse to repeal the Sarbanes-Oxley bill. Many financial institutions say this is killing their business. Nancy Pelosi said about an hour ago that she will not go for cutting or eliminating the Capital Gains tax or lowering taxes.

If you want to know what some of the problem is listen to this from Dave Ramsey. This has shackled the market place and has frozen the credit market. It explains Mark to Market and how it is part of the problem. This is what killed Merrill Lynch.


Dave Ramsey Explains Sarbanes-Oxley Law

700 billion versus 40 billion idea???????????????? Extend insurance to the sub-prime loans and change Mark to Market NO OWNING MORTGAGES.


THIS IS A MUST LISTEN TO. IT WILL ENERGIZE YOU TO CALL.

Originally Posted by Gogo

Right we SOLUTIONS not rhetoric. Anyone who is blaming and not giving solutions and specifics, I don't listen to them. It was funny last night. Alan Colmes was his usual obnoxious self. When he tried to corner Newt said, here's part of the solution. 1, 2, 3. Alan just sat there and said OK good to see you we'll see you next time. LOL

It's scary. Watching the liberals on another forum wringing their hands, wondering when the government is going to save them, is almost sad.

As for the proposals, I like some of it. I definitely like it more than the Dem plan, and I sure wouldn't get all fired up and fight it.

But personally, I don't like suspending the capital gains taxes. I would much rather see a suspension of income taxes. Suspending the corporate capital gains tax only makes the CEO bonus bigger, it doesn't do anything to stimulate the economy. The capital gains tax on individuals is truly a tax break for the wealthy. I don't know about you, but I didn't buy or sell a single share of stock last year. If I did, I'd be able to afford paying a little tax.

I think that's their method of allowing themselves to sell their stocks before the crash and not having to pay taxes on it.

I already explained that I dislike eliminating the mark-to-market rule.
Mark to market didn't kill the credit market, it realistically reined it in, which is exactly what it was intended to do.

Bear in mind that you didn't hear them crying when the homes were valued at triple what they're valued at now. Do you think that they should still be valued at that high, even though that market is gone? Accounting is supposed to be a snapshot of a company's actual financial health - what the company would be worth if it was sold at the moment the snapshot was taken. Yes, it reflects current market conditions. Sometimes that works for the company, and sometimes it works against them. That's the point. If they marked them at cost, and then put out enough details to let investors determine the gamble....that would be ok. (That's how we used to do it for our internal reporting back in the day. )

SOX is a big pain in the butt, and the situation we're in right now proves that it doesn't work. Make it die.



[/b]

I already explained that I dislike eliminating the mark-to-market rule.
Mark to market didn't kill the credit market, it realistically reined it in, which is exactly what it was intended to do.

Bear in mind that you didn't hear them crying when the homes were valued at triple what they're valued at now. Do you think that they should still be valued at that high, even though that market is gone

The problem with that is you are talking about the VALUE of the HOME. Mark to Market is talking about the VALUE of the paper.

Merrill Lynch bought mortgages that were on sub-prime loans. When they tried to sell them based on the Mark to Market they couldn't sell them. They dropped to 22 cents on the dollar. Did the homes drop in value 80% NO. The homes still sitting on the property were still just fine. Did Merrill Lynch get what they deserved? Yes. Does that solve the problem? NO So this has frozen the credit market. This one accounting rule has driven companies into the dirt. If the paper was under loan guarantee for sub-prime loans TEMPORARILY it would give the mortgages companies security. NOT ALL SUB-PRIME MORTGAGES ARE DEFAULTING. Thus the companies could keep, or sell, or buy the paper.

We we gave them insurance extension to the sub-prime mortgages TEMPORARILY then they would be marketable. Foreclosures aren't causing this. This would solve 60% of the problem

I would, as a taxpayer, be more open to guaranteeing loans that may or may NOT default. I don't want extension of bad loans. I don't want to own properties. It is better for us to guarantee them than BUY THEM.

I think I like most - most of what I understand.

Now, I'm not sure about capital gains tax.

Doesn't selling a house and making a profit consitute capital gains? It's been a long time since I had to know about that.

Originally Posted by nntrixie

I think I like most - most of what I understand.

Now, I'm not sure about capital gains tax.

Doesn't selling a house and making a profit consitute capital gains? It's been a long time since I had to know about that.

Only at a certain level of profit. On residential primary home, if I remember correctly, its anything over $650,000 for a couple.

But capital gains is on many things, stock, etc. Many retirees income is from stock in retirement plans. I don't understand it all either. A lot of the problems are the taxes that companies have to pay here on their products so its easier to produce overseas and bring them in. Foreign countries don't have to pay the same taxes our business people have to.

I'm watching American Solutions on DirecTV at 10:00 a.m. PDT and 1:00 p.m. EDT. It's coming on in about an hour from this posting. Check other topics I put a thread about it.

Capital gains is still as clear as mud.

I do understand some about selling a home, but I'm wondering why income from investment, should somehow be taxed at a lower rate than money one earns from their job.

As far as lower taxes on corporations, that makes sense.

If they are letting me make the rules, however, they would get no breaks unless they operate inside the US, working only US citizens (with miniscule exceptions). By operate inside the US, I don't mean places that simply import foreign goods - or a US company in name only, with plants offshore.

IF we give tax breaks, the tax breaks should benefit the country and the people - not just the corporations.

Get the government out of the loan business - period. All the way out - no more guarantee for homes, business or education. That is what caused the problem in the first place. That would mean, the government was not involved at all.

Yes, explore for oil, drill for oil, but also begin working on alternative energy. We could get started now, and we could be on our way to being independent of foreign oil.

Also, we could be the world leader in the manufacture of alternative energy sources for individuals, solar systems, wind systems, as well as methane production, or something like the lasering of garbage to create electricity.

There are many ways to create energy, oil is just one of them. Our future security demands that we not put all our eggs in one basket and if we concentrate on oil over everything else, that's what we'll be doing.
We will forever be fighting wars.

Unless the US owned it's oil, it's oil companies, and all the oil pumped here, would be used in the US, it isn't going to help us that much. We re still going to be tied to foreign oil companies and subject to their whims.

Alternative energy could give us some freedom from foreign oil, and the manufacture of sources for individuals and cities would give many of us independence from energy companies.

Yes, explore for oil, drill for oil, but also begin working on alternative energy. We could get started now, and we could be on our way to being independent of foreign oil.

I just saw a new movie called "We Have The Power" produced by Newt and Callisata Gingrich it touches on every type of energy. It has experts and very interesting.

gogo

I do wish we could realize that there is something besides oil to be used.

If we had started on this back in the 70's when we got a glimpse of what the oil companies could do, we would be in fine shape now. Instead, we continue to pretend that oil was the only energy source on the planet.

There's a article on the net about a man in England who makes all the methane he needs for his tractor and truck from chicken and pig manure. He designed the thing himself and it doesn't seem to be much larger than a water heater.

Imagine what large commercial animal factories could produce and save our rivers and lakes from all that run off.

A city in FLA, lasers it's garbage and provides electricity for quite a few homes and uses the byproduct for street paving. That would help solve our landfill problem also.

No one thing will fill the needs, it will take different things. That's really a good thing, it isn't good to be dependent on just one source.

Where did you see the movie?

I saw the movie while participating in an American Solutions 2008 conference via DirecTV or live streaming. The conference was six hours long. They had information workshops on Education, Health, Economy, and Energy. They just finished the movie at 6:30 p.m. last night so Newt and Callista hadn't even seen it yet. It was longer than I thought but very thorough. I'll check the website to see if there is a link to the movie. May not be available since it was just released 2 hours ago.