6

Fixing Financial Woes

Posted by mcm0704 on May 21, 2010 |

I read this news item today: Prodded by national anger at Wall Street, the Senate on Thursday passed the most far-reaching restraints on big banks since the Great Depression. In its broad sweep, the massive bill would touch Wall Street CEOs and first-time homebuyers, high-flying traders and small town lenders.

This is a good first step toward easing the tensions so many people are feeling due to the financial crisis that just doesn’t seem to be going away as quickly as hoped. It’s sort of like that oil spill in the gulf. Things have been done to try to stem the flood of oil pouring into the water, but all efforts have had little effect.

Passing more legislation to control businesses and establishing more government agencies to enforce the new legislation is like BP’s goofy idea to shoot golf balls into the broken pipe in hopes of stopping it up.

When are the people who have the power in Washington going to wake up and realize that it would benefit the economy if they CUT THE COST OF GOVERNMENT?

Excuse the shout, but I just had to get that out there.

Imagine the savings if there was a 10% pay cut for government employees who make over $100,000 a year.

And what about cutting the massive retirement packages that congressmen and senators receive?

Instead of trimming the fat at the top, the government looks at cutting social security, Medicare, and other services that so many Americans rely on for basic necessities. Kind of an upside-down approach I’m thinking.

If government operated the way the businesses in my small town operate, there would be a significant reduction in the national debt. Revenue in these small businesses goes into keeping the business running: Buying merchandise, paying for the basics of overhead, serving the customers. If there is anything left over, the owner may get a salary and perhaps put something into savings for retirement.

So, what about it. Do you think this would work for government?

Tags: , ,

6 Comments

  • Ann Best says:

    I agree with you on everything you’ve said!! Yes, let the government guys take a cut. They could survive. The rest of us do.

  • Yes, yes, and yes!

    I am in India, but the story here is no different. If they cut the security of politicians and their families (who can afford to pay for it in the first place), every child would be fed, clothed and educated.

    Will they? No way!

  • Maribeth says:

    Think of the savings if they changed just a few things. No freebies for congress and senate (drivers, haircuts, lunches, etc.)
    No full retirement benefits after only one term in office. No pay raises for five years.
    Oh and since they have a government retirement plan they should get no extra benefits they haven’t paid for. If they are collecting an Armed Forces Retirement how bout they forgo all other retirements.

  • Sad to hear that it is the same in India, Rayna. I guess people in high office think they need to live like royalty. The gov of Texas is renting a house for $10,000 a month because the governor’s mansion in Austin is being restored. He couldn’t find a nice two bedroom for about a thousand a month?

  • Hi Maryann. I’m in Australia, and I think our top politicians aren’t paid enough, but we have too many levels of government: local, state, and national.

    I think if the money that was spent on overseas conflict was spent at home, here too, then health, education and social infrastructure would benefit. I might be speaking out of turn because I’m not a US citizen.

    Governments threw money at financial institutes to prop up a failed system. That money should have been given to home owners to then pay down debt. Surely the result would have been the same? But this way the people benefit, and I thought that was the role of govenments, to benefit the people. As a rule I don’t do politics, but I visited and wanted to say hi.

  • Simon, so glad you stopped by and left a comment. I think your points are well taken. I remember when the first stimulus and bailout money was given to banks and businesses here in the States, I blogged that the money should have gone directly to the homeowners who were on the verge of foreclosure. It would still make it to the bank, but along the way it would help the people. Like you said, such a simple concept that those in government don’t seem to get.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2006-2017 Maryann Writes All rights reserved.
This site is using the Desk Mess Mirrored Child Child-Theme, v1.0, on top of
the Parent-Theme Desk Mess Mirrored, v2.5, from BuyNowShop.com