Fiscal Cliff: Avoid? Drive Right Over?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

I understand your position but you have to differentiate between programs. Medicare and things of that nature are not causing the problems. But the military budget - which includes the wars - are a major contributor. Other programs can be kept without any fiscal issues. But the military, corporate welfare and taxing the rich more will cure the problem.[/quote]

The US federal government was never able to tax at a level higher than about 18-20% for a sustained period of time, no matter what the nominal tax rate was.

So, no, “taxing” the rich wont solve anything, they simply will not get more money out of it.

[/quote]
Totally untrue. The U.S. nominal tax rate was much higher than 20% and it was collected. What were the tax rates between the 1950’s thru the 70’s? Far higher than today and we had a much stronger economy. This flies direstly in the face of “cut taxes on the rich and you will spur job growth” crowd. It is one of the U.S. greatest propaganda stories.

Taxing the rich will help along with butchering the bloated military budget. Cutting corporate welfare and helping the housing market stablize.[/quote]

Setting aside the potential “benefits to the economy” for a moment, at what point, in your opinion, does simply confiscating money from the wealthy morally cross the line from a legitimate tax to state-sponsored theft?

[/quote]

Setting aside your economic philosophy at what point do you think the top 1% were confiscating the money of the middle class and poor during the economic collapse of 2008?[/quote]

Anyone guilty of theft, looting, or fraud should go to jail and have all their assets confiscated to repay their victims. If we are talking specifically about the 2008 collapse, my list of suspects is very, very long. But that certainly doesn’t make anyone who makes more than 250k a year guilty of theft, looting, or fraud, guilty by association or justify simply taxing them at 90% and taking their money. Stealing is stealing and I don’t condone it no matter who benefits.

So, since I answered your question, when does simply confiscating money from the wealthy morally cross the line from a legitimate tax to state-sponsored theft?

[/quote]

Let me ask you, when does simply confiscating money from the wealthy morally cross the line from a legitimate tax to state-sponsored theft?
[/quote]

I think that ship has sailed. The issue is complicated, but if we are going to have an income tax at all, the rate ought to be uniform with “deductions” designed solely to determine what “net” income actually is and not for other perceived policy reasons. I suppose I don’t have a huge problem with the rate starting at some minimum threshold of income tied to the poverty line. And if the rate needs to go up because we are in a national crisis, it needs to go up for everybody.

Everybody needs skin in the game because its too easy just to vote to take away someone else’s money. The idea that we can simply vote to confiscate money from a small segment of society based on “need” is morally wrong and a bad idea. I also think the government will always spend not only every dime it takes in, it will deficit spend as a matter of course. So the answer isn’t continuing to feed it more money.

Some things we probably agree on: (1) the military budget is too high; (2) the split between rich and poor and the shrinking middle class is a real problem; (3) corporate welfare is also a problem; and (4) big corporations can become so big and powerful that they take on some of the same bad attributes of an overwhelming big and powerful government, especially when they are closely tied in with the public sector and control policy.

I just don’t think using taxes to confiscate money is the answer to these problems or morally the right thing to do. [/quote]

I always hear people complaining about confiscating money from the rich but rarely hear about the confiscation of money from the middle class and poor - which goes to the rich! Just goes to show you how well the propaganda machine in the U.S. works. People who own the press are rarely criticized.

102

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

I understand your position but you have to differentiate between programs. Medicare and things of that nature are not causing the problems. But the military budget - which includes the wars - are a major contributor. Other programs can be kept without any fiscal issues. But the military, corporate welfare and taxing the rich more will cure the problem.[/quote]

The US federal government was never able to tax at a level higher than about 18-20% for a sustained period of time, no matter what the nominal tax rate was.

So, no, “taxing” the rich wont solve anything, they simply will not get more money out of it.

[/quote]
Totally untrue. The U.S. nominal tax rate was much higher than 20% and it was collected. What were the tax rates between the 1950’s thru the 70’s? Far higher than today and we had a much stronger economy. This flies direstly in the face of “cut taxes on the rich and you will spur job growth” crowd. It is one of the U.S. greatest propaganda stories.

Taxing the rich will help along with butchering the bloated military budget. Cutting corporate welfare and helping the housing market stablize.[/quote]

Setting aside the potential “benefits to the economy” for a moment, at what point, in your opinion, does simply confiscating money from the wealthy morally cross the line from a legitimate tax to state-sponsored theft?

[/quote]

Setting aside your economic philosophy at what point do you think the top 1% were confiscating the money of the middle class and poor during the economic collapse of 2008?[/quote]

Anyone guilty of theft, looting, or fraud should go to jail and have all their assets confiscated to repay their victims. If we are talking specifically about the 2008 collapse, my list of suspects is very, very long. But that certainly doesn’t make anyone who makes more than 250k a year guilty of theft, looting, or fraud, guilty by association or justify simply taxing them at 90% and taking their money. Stealing is stealing and I don’t condone it no matter who benefits.

So, since I answered your question, when does simply confiscating money from the wealthy morally cross the line from a legitimate tax to state-sponsored theft?

[/quote]

Let me ask you, when does simply confiscating money from the wealthy morally cross the line from a legitimate tax to state-sponsored theft?
[/quote]

I think that ship has sailed. The issue is complicated, but if we are going to have an income tax at all, the rate ought to be uniform with “deductions” designed solely to determine what “net” income actually is and not for other perceived policy reasons. I suppose I don’t have a huge problem with the rate starting at some minimum threshold of income tied to the poverty line. And if the rate needs to go up because we are in a national crisis, it needs to go up for everybody.

Everybody needs skin in the game because its too easy just to vote to take away someone else’s money. The idea that we can simply vote to confiscate money from a small segment of society based on “need” is morally wrong and a bad idea. I also think the government will always spend not only every dime it takes in, it will deficit spend as a matter of course. So the answer isn’t continuing to feed it more money.

Some things we probably agree on: (1) the military budget is too high; (2) the split between rich and poor and the shrinking middle class is a real problem; (3) corporate welfare is also a problem; and (4) big corporations can become so big and powerful that they take on some of the same bad attributes of an overwhelming big and powerful government, especially when they are closely tied in with the public sector and control policy.

I just don’t think using taxes to confiscate money is the answer to these problems or morally the right thing to do. [/quote]

Reguations and taxation are 2 ways to help remedy the problem.

Is it morally right for American corporations to ship the jobs over seas to slave labor countries?

Is it morally right for major banks to be bailed out from there own mistakes by the middle class and poor?

The question is mostly posed in reference to the wealthy being treated imorally versus the other way around.

103

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

I always hear people complaining about confiscating money from the rich but rarely hear about the confiscation of money from the middle class and poor - which goes to the rich! Just goes to show you how well the propaganda machine in the U.S. works. People who own the press are rarely criticized.[/quote]

I am in the middle class/poor bracket and I don’t give a fuck about the rich making more money. They’re not taking money from me, and I still have a big damn problem with the way the gov’t specifically wants to tax them more. Is it their fault I’m not a millionaire? No. Why the hell would I care what they make and want them to give me shit?

I’d infinitely fucking rather they have that money than the government–the gov’t is the single most in-efficient and wasteful financial entity in the country. I’d rather money be put to use even if it’s for a rich guy than Uncle Sam blowing money on waste and pork.

104

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Is it morally right for American corporations to ship the jobs over seas to slave labor countries? [/quote]

There’s no “moral” component at all to this question. It is sheer practicality. If that’s the only option for American businesses to keep growing and making money so eventually they can hire more people stateside, then fucking do it. Yes, it sucks, and yes, the fact that those countries have crappy labor laws is shitty. but not illegal, AND If the domestic climate is such that via taxation and regulation the business is completely hamstrung by remaining here, then what you are essentially advocating is that business court bankruptcy and recession on “moral” grounds of staying here when the economy sucks super balls. This is nonsensical because it means the businesses grow more slowly, don’t hire, and we continue to stagnate.

Of course I want them to stay over here and hire people IN our country! BUT that is an environment problem–posed by high taxes and redundant and costly regulation than hamstrings businesses, not necessarily simple wage cost. More businesses would keep jobs here–opportunity for “slave” wages overseas not withstanding–if we had an environment that didn’t suck for growth.

[quote]Is it morally right for major banks to be bailed out from there own mistakes by the middle class and poor?

The question is mostly posed in reference to the wealthy being treated imorally versus the other way around.[/quote]

no, it’s not morally right for the banks to be bailed out by middle class people—but that’s exactly what the Government advocated and did, with MIDDLE CLASS people’s money, not rich guys, when it bailed everybody out in 08. So your argument is inconsistent. You either are against the bailout on grounds that middle class and poorer people paid for it and that was immoral and market forces should have been allowed to work to kill off the bad companies and incorporate them into worthwhile companies, OR you have to say that regulation by virtue of the government taking middle class money–which you are agains-- is good to keep the economy going.

105

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

I understand your position but you have to differentiate between programs. Medicare and things of that nature are not causing the problems. But the military budget - which includes the wars - are a major contributor. Other programs can be kept without any fiscal issues. But the military, corporate welfare and taxing the rich more will cure the problem.[/quote]

The US federal government was never able to tax at a level higher than about 18-20% for a sustained period of time, no matter what the nominal tax rate was.

So, no, “taxing” the rich wont solve anything, they simply will not get more money out of it.

[/quote]
Totally untrue. The U.S. nominal tax rate was much higher than 20% and it was collected. What were the tax rates between the 1950’s thru the 70’s? Far higher than today and we had a much stronger economy. This flies direstly in the face of “cut taxes on the rich and you will spur job growth” crowd. It is one of the U.S. greatest propaganda stories.

Taxing the rich will help along with butchering the bloated military budget. Cutting corporate welfare and helping the housing market stablize.[/quote]

Setting aside the potential “benefits to the economy” for a moment, at what point, in your opinion, does simply confiscating money from the wealthy morally cross the line from a legitimate tax to state-sponsored theft?

[/quote]

Setting aside your economic philosophy at what point do you think the top 1% were confiscating the money of the middle class and poor during the economic collapse of 2008?[/quote]

Anyone guilty of theft, looting, or fraud should go to jail and have all their assets confiscated to repay their victims. If we are talking specifically about the 2008 collapse, my list of suspects is very, very long. But that certainly doesn’t make anyone who makes more than 250k a year guilty of theft, looting, or fraud, guilty by association or justify simply taxing them at 90% and taking their money. Stealing is stealing and I don’t condone it no matter who benefits.

So, since I answered your question, when does simply confiscating money from the wealthy morally cross the line from a legitimate tax to state-sponsored theft?

[/quote]

Let me ask you, when does simply confiscating money from the wealthy morally cross the line from a legitimate tax to state-sponsored theft?
[/quote]

I think that ship has sailed. The issue is complicated, but if we are going to have an income tax at all, the rate ought to be uniform with “deductions” designed solely to determine what “net” income actually is and not for other perceived policy reasons. I suppose I don’t have a huge problem with the rate starting at some minimum threshold of income tied to the poverty line. And if the rate needs to go up because we are in a national crisis, it needs to go up for everybody.

Everybody needs skin in the game because its too easy just to vote to take away someone else’s money. The idea that we can simply vote to confiscate money from a small segment of society based on “need” is morally wrong and a bad idea. I also think the government will always spend not only every dime it takes in, it will deficit spend as a matter of course. So the answer isn’t continuing to feed it more money.

Some things we probably agree on: (1) the military budget is too high; (2) the split between rich and poor and the shrinking middle class is a real problem; (3) corporate welfare is also a problem; and (4) big corporations can become so big and powerful that they take on some of the same bad attributes of an overwhelming big and powerful government, especially when they are closely tied in with the public sector and control policy.

I just don’t think using taxes to confiscate money is the answer to these problems or morally the right thing to do. [/quote]

Reguations and taxation are 2 ways to help remedy the problem.

Is it morally right for American corporations to ship the jobs over seas to slave labor countries?

Is it morally right for major banks to be bailed out from there own mistakes by the middle class and poor?

The question is mostly posed in reference to the wealthy being treated imorally versus the other way around.[/quote]

I asked a pretty straight-forward question that you punted back to me twice and, politely, I gave you my answer to my specific question. You still haven’t answered it and again punted with more evasive questions. If you think its morally right to just confiscate money from the wealthy at any rate people vote up to 100% then why don’t you just say so? If not, what’s your answer to at what point it just becomes immoral confiscation and theft? If you don’t want to have a conversation, that’s fine, but I’m done addressing your points until you address mine.

106

Has anyone read Lombard Street by Walter Bagehot?

Lombard Street (1873) explains the world of finance and banking and focuses particularly on issues in the management of financial crises. Bagehot?s observations on finance remain relevant and cited by central bankers, most recently in the wake of the global financial crisis that began in 2007. Of particular importance is “Bagehot’s Dictum”, oft cited by central bankers, it roughly states that in times of financial crisis banks should lend freely but only to solid firms and only against good collateral and at interest rates that are high enough to dissuade those borrowers that are not genuinely in need.[6]

107

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

I understand your position but you have to differentiate between programs. Medicare and things of that nature are not causing the problems. But the military budget - which includes the wars - are a major contributor. Other programs can be kept without any fiscal issues. But the military, corporate welfare and taxing the rich more will cure the problem.[/quote]

The US federal government was never able to tax at a level higher than about 18-20% for a sustained period of time, no matter what the nominal tax rate was.

So, no, “taxing” the rich wont solve anything, they simply will not get more money out of it.

[/quote]
Totally untrue. The U.S. nominal tax rate was much higher than 20% and it was collected. What were the tax rates between the 1950’s thru the 70’s? Far higher than today and we had a much stronger economy. This flies direstly in the face of “cut taxes on the rich and you will spur job growth” crowd. It is one of the U.S. greatest propaganda stories.

Taxing the rich will help along with butchering the bloated military budget. Cutting corporate welfare and helping the housing market stablize.[/quote]

Setting aside the potential “benefits to the economy” for a moment, at what point, in your opinion, does simply confiscating money from the wealthy morally cross the line from a legitimate tax to state-sponsored theft?

[/quote]

Setting aside your economic philosophy at what point do you think the top 1% were confiscating the money of the middle class and poor during the economic collapse of 2008?[/quote]

Anyone guilty of theft, looting, or fraud should go to jail and have all their assets confiscated to repay their victims. If we are talking specifically about the 2008 collapse, my list of suspects is very, very long. But that certainly doesn’t make anyone who makes more than 250k a year guilty of theft, looting, or fraud, guilty by association or justify simply taxing them at 90% and taking their money. Stealing is stealing and I don’t condone it no matter who benefits.

So, since I answered your question, when does simply confiscating money from the wealthy morally cross the line from a legitimate tax to state-sponsored theft?

[/quote]

Let me ask you, when does simply confiscating money from the wealthy morally cross the line from a legitimate tax to state-sponsored theft?
[/quote]

I think that ship has sailed. The issue is complicated, but if we are going to have an income tax at all, the rate ought to be uniform with “deductions” designed solely to determine what “net” income actually is and not for other perceived policy reasons. I suppose I don’t have a huge problem with the rate starting at some minimum threshold of income tied to the poverty line. And if the rate needs to go up because we are in a national crisis, it needs to go up for everybody.

Everybody needs skin in the game because its too easy just to vote to take away someone else’s money. The idea that we can simply vote to confiscate money from a small segment of society based on “need” is morally wrong and a bad idea. I also think the government will always spend not only every dime it takes in, it will deficit spend as a matter of course. So the answer isn’t continuing to feed it more money.

Some things we probably agree on: (1) the military budget is too high; (2) the split between rich and poor and the shrinking middle class is a real problem; (3) corporate welfare is also a problem; and (4) big corporations can become so big and powerful that they take on some of the same bad attributes of an overwhelming big and powerful government, especially when they are closely tied in with the public sector and control policy.

I just don’t think using taxes to confiscate money is the answer to these problems or morally the right thing to do. [/quote]

Reguations and taxation are 2 ways to help remedy the problem.

Is it morally right for American corporations to ship the jobs over seas to slave labor countries?

Is it morally right for major banks to be bailed out from there own mistakes by the middle class and poor?

The question is mostly posed in reference to the wealthy being treated imorally versus the other way around.[/quote]

I asked a pretty straight-forward question that you punted back to me twice and, politely, I gave you my answer to my specific question. You still haven’t answered it and again punted with more evasive questions. If you think its morally right to just confiscate money from the wealthy at any rate people vote up to 100% then why don’t you just say so? If not, what’s your answer to at what point it just becomes immoral confiscation and theft? If you don’t want to have a conversation, that’s fine, but I’m done addressing your points until you address mine.
[/quote]
A nominal tax rate of 70% worked fine in the fifties and employment was at a much higher level along with a high standard of living for a majority of the U.S. population. In addition regulations on the finance sector were much stronger. All the things that the right says kills the economy helps. Their arguments are merely a sophomoric intellectulization for greed and unchecked power by the unelected private sector.

108

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Is it morally right for American corporations to ship the jobs over seas to slave labor countries? [/quote]

There’s no “moral” component at all to this question. It is sheer practicality. If that’s the only option for American businesses to keep growing and making money so eventually they can hire more people stateside, then fucking do it. Yes, it sucks, and yes, the fact that those countries have crappy labor laws is shitty. but not illegal, AND If the domestic climate is such that via taxation and regulation the business is completely hamstrung by remaining here, then what you are essentially advocating is that business court bankruptcy and recession on “moral” grounds of staying here when the economy sucks super balls. This is nonsensical because it means the businesses grow more slowly, don’t hire, and we continue to stagnate.

Of course I want them to stay over here and hire people IN our country! BUT that is an environment problem–posed by high taxes and redundant and costly regulation than hamstrings businesses, not necessarily simple wage cost. More businesses would keep jobs here–opportunity for “slave” wages overseas not withstanding–if we had an environment that didn’t suck for growth.

[quote]Is it morally right for major banks to be bailed out from there own mistakes by the middle class and poor?

The question is mostly posed in reference to the wealthy being treated imorally versus the other way around.[/quote]

no, it’s not morally right for the banks to be bailed out by middle class people—but that’s exactly what the Government advocated and did, with MIDDLE CLASS people’s money, not rich guys, when it bailed everybody out in 08. So your argument is inconsistent. You either are against the bailout on grounds that middle class and poorer people paid for it and that was immoral and market forces should have been allowed to work to kill off the bad companies and incorporate them into worthwhile companies, OR you have to say that regulation by virtue of the government taking middle class money–which you are agains-- is good to keep the economy going.[/quote]
It was the government who is owned by the private banking sector(ultra rich guys) who advocated the bail out. All the leftovers from the Bush Admin. All those crimminals who expound the virtues of the so called free market but who do not want to take part in it. They want monopolies and socialism for the ultra-rich and dog eat dog for everyone else. You can sit there and blame the government because they are an easier target for tbe right. It keeps the heat off the private sector which is what is designed to do.

Also the overtaxed and over regulated corporations is a myth. They do not have to move across the seas to survive. They do so out of greed and destroy the midle class in the process. The finace sector is a perfect exmple. Look at the result of all the deregulation. It happens all the time!

109

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

It was the government who is owned by the private banking sector(ultra rich guys) who advocated the bail out. All the leftovers from the Bush Admin. All those crimminals who expound the virtues of the so called free market but who do not want to take part in it. They want monopolies and socialism for the ultra-rich and dog eat dog for everyone else. You can sit there and blame the government because they are an easier target for tbe right. It keeps the heat off the private sector which is what is designed to do.[/quote]

Yeah, Bush. Sure. Except for the giant glaring fact that Mr. “I am not Bush and he was irresponsible” Obama advocated the EXACT SAME TYPE OF THING while he was campaigning. So no, you don’t get to blame Bush for that unless you are going to say that Obama wanted the same thing regarding bailout solution as he vocally and publicly supported the bailout on the campaign trail. So unless you want to call Obama one of the “criminals who advocated the bail out” you don’t get to point the finger at Bush. The blood was on both parties hands before the crash, and still is.

Make up your mind.

Second, your falsely targeting me as a partisan hack by implicitly using the general label “the Right” in your reply to me. I was not, am not, and have never been affiliated with the Republican party. I have no party label. Don’t strawman me.

Thirdly, you plainly have no idea what socialism is if you are seriously claiming that the Ultra-Rich want socialism for the Ultra-rich.

[quote]
Also the overtaxed and over regulated corporations is a myth. They do not have to move across the seas to survive. They do so out of greed and destroy the midle class in the process. The finace sector is a perfect exmple. Look at the result of all the deregulation. It happens all the time![/quote]

Yeah…you’re going to have to work harder than that. Put together a better, more cohesive argument if you want to be taken seriously. Unlike most some of the more vocal conservative voices here, I DO listen to intelligent arguments from the other side. But I demand that they be made seriously and carefully. Specific reasons, specific arguments. Thanks.

110

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

I always hear people complaining about confiscating money from the rich but rarely hear about the confiscation of money from the middle class and poor - which goes to the rich! Just goes to show you how well the propaganda machine in the U.S. works. People who own the press are rarely criticized.[/quote]

I am in the middle class/poor bracket and I don’t give a fuck about the rich making more money. They’re not taking money from me, and I still have a big damn problem with the way the gov’t specifically wants to tax them more. Is it their fault I’m not a millionaire? No. Why the hell would I care what they make and want them to give me shit?

I’d infinitely fucking rather they have that money than the government–the gov’t is the single most in-efficient and wasteful financial entity in the country. I’d rather money be put to use even if it’s for a rich guy than Uncle Sam blowing money on waste and pork.[/quote]

We have to disagree. I’d rather we have the money spent on a national health care system and paid for education then waste away in the Cayman island somewhere.

In addition, why does healthcare costs in the private sector skyrocket while the government components in the public sector rise at a much slower rate? I mean it’s government and they are so inefficient. Another fucking lie!

111

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

It was the government who is owned by the private banking sector(ultra rich guys) who advocated the bail out. All the leftovers from the Bush Admin. All those crimminals who expound the virtues of the so called free market but who do not want to take part in it. They want monopolies and socialism for the ultra-rich and dog eat dog for everyone else. You can sit there and blame the government because they are an easier target for tbe right. It keeps the heat off the private sector which is what is designed to do.[/quote]

Yeah, Bush. Sure. Except for the giant glaring fact that Mr. “I am not Bush and he was irresponsible” Obama advocated the EXACT SAME TYPE OF THING while he was campaigning. So no, you don’t get to blame Bush for that unless you are going to say that Obama wanted the same thing regarding bailout solution as he vocally and publicly supported the bailout on the campaign trail. So unless you want to call Obama one of the “criminals who advocated the bail out” you don’t get to point the finger at Bush. The blood was on both parties hands before the crash, and still is.

Make up your mind.

Second, your falsely targeting me as a partisan hack by implicitly using the general label “the Right” in your reply to me. I was not, am not, and have never been affiliated with the Republican party. I have no party label. Don’t strawman me.

Thirdly, you plainly have no idea what socialism is if you are seriously claiming that the Ultra-Rich want socialism for the Ultra-rich.

[quote]
Also the overtaxed and over regulated corporations is a myth. They do not have to move across the seas to survive. They do so out of greed and destroy the midle class in the process. The finace sector is a perfect exmple. Look at the result of all the deregulation. It happens all the time![/quote]

Yeah…you’re going to have to work harder than that. Put together a better, more cohesive argument if you want to be taken seriously. Unlike most some of the more vocal conservative voices here, I DO listen to intelligent arguments from the other side. But I demand that they be made seriously and carefully. Specific reasons, specific arguments. Thanks.[/quote]

Oh my friend you falsley charge me of being a partisan hack by claiming I’m letting Obama of the hook. The fact of the matter is that the Obama Admin has more hold overs from the previous admin than any other admin in history. I laugh at people who call Obama a socialist when he approved the bailout and is to the right of Nixon in regards to healthcare. Oh how well the propaganda system works!

Call it reverse socialism if that makes you feel better but there is no denying that the ultra-rich does want redistribution of wealth from the middle class and poor to go to them. That is how deranged these beasts are. It is never enough.

There is a direct correlation between the deregulation of the finance sector and the ensuing bubble and eventual collapse of the housing market. I know you don’t want to believe it because it forces you to question your belief system but the truth knows no ideology!

112

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

It was the government who is owned by the private banking sector(ultra rich guys) who advocated the bail out. All the leftovers from the Bush Admin. All those crimminals who expound the virtues of the so called free market but who do not want to take part in it. They want monopolies and socialism for the ultra-rich and dog eat dog for everyone else. You can sit there and blame the government because they are an easier target for tbe right. It keeps the heat off the private sector which is what is designed to do.[/quote]

Yeah, Bush. Sure. Except for the giant glaring fact that Mr. “I am not Bush and he was irresponsible” Obama advocated the EXACT SAME TYPE OF THING while he was campaigning. So no, you don’t get to blame Bush for that unless you are going to say that Obama wanted the same thing regarding bailout solution as he vocally and publicly supported the bailout on the campaign trail. So unless you want to call Obama one of the “criminals who advocated the bail out” you don’t get to point the finger at Bush. The blood was on both parties hands before the crash, and still is.

Make up your mind.

Second, your falsely targeting me as a partisan hack by implicitly using the general label “the Right” in your reply to me. I was not, am not, and have never been affiliated with the Republican party. I have no party label. Don’t strawman me.

Thirdly, you plainly have no idea what socialism is if you are seriously claiming that the Ultra-Rich want socialism for the Ultra-rich.

Who deregulated the finance sector ? Shall we ask Monica ? Wait, her mouth was full.

Clinton had help from 2 fake bubbles, which burst when Bush was prezzy. But Bush did not get the pass Obama did.

Clinton let Wall Street inflate home prices to obscene amount, then banks gave out loans to people who barely had a heartbeat, Dems told poor people that they deserved a home even if they could not afford it, and Bush took ALL the blame.

People who blame Obama are deemed racist, yet I recall plenty of media paralleling Bush with a chimp.

113

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

In addition, why does healthcare costs in the private sector skyrocket while the government components in the public sector rise at a much slower rate?[/quote]

It doesn’t.

‘Jeff Anderson just published the results of a very interesting study he conducted for the Pacific Research Institute on public- vs. private-sector health spending. The study showed that Medicare spending grows much more quickly than private-sector health care spending…’

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/183700/public-vs-private-sector-health-spending/tevi-troy#

114

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Feast on this:

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/taxes/
[/quote]

So… You’ve linked (so far, this is as far as I’ve gotten) a list of marginal rates, which are pointless to compare past the 1986 line, and a think piece from Krugman?

Like I said, talking out of your big booty…

115

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Pie chart of Fed budget: Military is the highest. We spend more than the next highest 13 countries combined.

[/quote]

LOL, come on man, do the math. We could cut defense to zero and still run a deficit. I’m not anti cuts to the military, but those of you that think taxing the “rich” and cutting DOD will solve all the problems are living in a dream world.

116

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
however, I think we can agree the the focus should be on making the whole pie bigger rather than simply fighting over the percentage of the size of scraps from a shrinking or disappearing pie.
[/quote]

Great posts from you in this thread.

117

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

A nominal tax rate of 70% worked fine in the fifties and employment was at a much higher level along with a high standard of living for a majority of the U.S. population.[/quote]

What were the effective tax rates?
How has the global economy changes since the 50’s?
What are the population differences between the 50’s and today?
How has the tax code changed since the 50’s?
PLease show the standard of living isn’t much, much higher now than in 1950.

You need to back up your claims…

You only think this because you fail to take into account the changes in the world around these “things”…

Your arguements are prue sophomoric conjecture based on rhetoric and fairy tales that you’ve failed to back up, in search of unchecked power by the unelected private sector.

118

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

Clinton let Wall Street inflate home prices to obscene amount, then banks gave out loans to people who barely had a heartbeat, Dems told poor people that they deserved a home even if they could not afford it, and Bush took ALL the blame.

[/quote]

Roots of the melt down in 2008 can be traced back to FDR for Christ’s sake. People that blame this issue on “de-regulation” have their heads in the sand. A whole lot of private citizens that signed for mortgages they couldn’t afford have blood on their hands as well. The housing bubble and subsequent melt down would need a small text book to expalin the “perfect storm” that it was.

Lets not also mention that the banks were actually responsibile and insured their subordinated debt instruments. AGI on the other hand wasn’t, they wrote all the policies for all the banks. Whether or not the banks knew they were all insured by the same company is another conversation, but in the end the banks knew the risk, and hedged for it.

If not for AIG, the melt down would have been much less of an issue and TARP wouldn’t have happened.

Oh and, the “poor and middle class” didn’t bail out shit. We borrowed that money, and based on the current system and tax policy wishes of the “poor and middle” the rich will pay for all of this.

119

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

It was the government who is owned by the private banking sector(ultra rich guys) who advocated the bail out. All the leftovers from the Bush Admin. All those crimminals who expound the virtues of the so called free market but who do not want to take part in it. They want monopolies and socialism for the ultra-rich and dog eat dog for everyone else. You can sit there and blame the government because they are an easier target for tbe right. It keeps the heat off the private sector which is what is designed to do.[/quote]

Yeah, Bush. Sure. Except for the giant glaring fact that Mr. “I am not Bush and he was irresponsible” Obama advocated the EXACT SAME TYPE OF THING while he was campaigning. So no, you don’t get to blame Bush for that unless you are going to say that Obama wanted the same thing regarding bailout solution as he vocally and publicly supported the bailout on the campaign trail. So unless you want to call Obama one of the “criminals who advocated the bail out” you don’t get to point the finger at Bush. The blood was on both parties hands before the crash, and still is.

Make up your mind.

Second, your falsely targeting me as a partisan hack by implicitly using the general label “the Right” in your reply to me. I was not, am not, and have never been affiliated with the Republican party. I have no party label. Don’t strawman me.

Thirdly, you plainly have no idea what socialism is if you are seriously claiming that the Ultra-Rich want socialism for the Ultra-rich.

Who deregulated the finance sector ? Shall we ask Monica ? Wait, her mouth was full.

Clinton had help from 2 fake bubbles, which burst when Bush was prezzy. But Bush did not get the pass Obama did.

Clinton let Wall Street inflate home prices to obscene amount, then banks gave out loans to people who barely had a heartbeat, Dems told poor people that they deserved a home even if they could not afford it, and Bush took ALL the blame.

People who blame Obama are deemed racist, yet I recall plenty of media paralleling Bush with a chimp.[/quote]
Your angles are sad. Obviously looking to place blame on the opposite party of your liking instead of searching for the truth. It is the policy, stupid not the party affiliate that matters. Bottom line is the deregulation caused the problem in the finance sector no matter who started it. That is the point!

120

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

Clinton let Wall Street inflate home prices to obscene amount, then banks gave out loans to people who barely had a heartbeat, Dems told poor people that they deserved a home even if they could not afford it, and Bush took ALL the blame.

[/quote]

Roots of the melt down in 2008 can be traced back to FDR for Christ’s sake. People that blame this issue on “de-regulation” have their heads in the sand. A whole lot of private citizens that signed for mortgages they couldn’t afford have blood on their hands as well. The housing bubble and subsequent melt down would need a small text book to expalin the “perfect storm” that it was.

Lets not also mention that the banks were actually responsibile and insured their subordinated debt instruments. AGI on the other hand wasn’t, they wrote all the policies for all the banks. Whether or not the banks knew they were all insured by the same company is another conversation, but in the end the banks knew the risk, and hedged for it.

If not for AIG, the melt down would have been much less of an issue and TARP wouldn’t have happened.

Oh and, the “poor and middle class” didn’t bail out shit. We borrowed that money, and based on the current system and tax policy wishes of the “poor and middle” the rich will pay for all of this. [/quote]

Did you drop acid before you wrote this drivel? Now we can place it back to FDR? What a joke. You are so blind by corporate propaganda you don’t even live in reality. The banking sector after the regulations were placed on it by FDR was very strong. It’s not until the de-regulaions occur that the problems begin.

Blaming the public for the bad loans is another sad joke and just goes to show how very little you know. Lenders are trained to look at potential clients and determine if they will get paid back. They didn’t do this. They acted as predators. Even the FBI recognized this.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=9281