Professional Soldiers ® - View Single Post

pheepster · 10-01-2008, 10:53

This all reminds me of where I was a year ago. I was working/living in Japan for a company that operated a “bicycle method” of business, which--as I now understand it--is a bit ponzie-schemish. There were some signals that the company wasn’t financially solid; when I started asking I was reassured everything was fine, not to mention I was considered negative for having questioned the company’s solvency. Within a month no one received their salary and, shortly after that, the company closed it’s doors. It was a bit scary how fast it all happened. Roughly 7,000 people instantly out of work, all being owed nearly two month’s salary, some also losing their company housing. It opened my eyes to how hardworking people can find themselves in need of some assistance. There’s a large part of me that is against the “socialization” of this debt, but at the same time I wouldn’t want a large-scale version of the above happening here in the USA.

All that aside, I’ve been trying to follow this as much as possible; however, I’m beginning from a severe deficiency of financial/economic knowledge. One basic question that I have yet to figure out (please excuse me if it’s already here and I didn’t see it) is a matter of where this proposed $700, 000, 000 will be coming from… literally. Meaning, will this come from increased taxes over a certain length of time, would we be “borrowing” it from somewhere to immediately have it, or is it more of a “promised” amount that wouldn’t actually exist in hard currency?

That, and where is Bush in all this? I’m hearing too much on the news about McCain’s and/or Obama’s positions (our prospective leaders) and not too much about what’s coming from the current administration. I realize Bush has spoken, but where is his influence? Was Pelosi’s speech really that inflammatory? I’ll admit, I’m not aware of whose role is exactly what. Is the weight of attention placed on McCain and Obama because they are Senators and their roles as senators require their involvement, or is it more because of their presidential candidacy?

My apologies for throwing this all in here at once.

10-01-2008, 10:53	#95
pheepster SF Candidate Join Date: May 2007 Location: USA Posts: 24	anecdote and some basic questions... sorry. This all reminds me of where I was a year ago. I was working/living in Japan for a company that operated a “bicycle method” of business, which--as I now understand it--is a bit ponzie-schemish. There were some signals that the company wasn’t financially solid; when I started asking I was reassured everything was fine, not to mention I was considered negative for having questioned the company’s solvency. Within a month no one received their salary and, shortly after that, the company closed it’s doors. It was a bit scary how fast it all happened. Roughly 7,000 people instantly out of work, all being owed nearly two month’s salary, some also losing their company housing. It opened my eyes to how hardworking people can find themselves in need of some assistance. There’s a large part of me that is against the “socialization” of this debt, but at the same time I wouldn’t want a large-scale version of the above happening here in the USA. All that aside, I’ve been trying to follow this as much as possible; however, I’m beginning from a severe deficiency of financial/economic knowledge. One basic question that I have yet to figure out (please excuse me if it’s already here and I didn’t see it) is a matter of where this proposed $700, 000, 000 will be coming from… literally. Meaning, will this come from increased taxes over a certain length of time, would we be “borrowing” it from somewhere to immediately have it, or is it more of a “promised” amount that wouldn’t actually exist in hard currency? That, and where is Bush in all this? I’m hearing too much on the news about McCain’s and/or Obama’s positions (our prospective leaders) and not too much about what’s coming from the current administration. I realize Bush has spoken, but where is his influence? Was Pelosi’s speech really that inflammatory? I’ll admit, I’m not aware of whose role is exactly what. Is the weight of attention placed on McCain and Obama because they are Senators and their roles as senators require their involvement, or is it more because of their presidential candidacy? My apologies for throwing this all in here at once.
pheepster is offline