Sustainability

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If you have never voluntarily paid more taxes than you were forced to, you are not in favor of higher taxes.
If you claim to want higher taxes and have not done this, you are a hypocritical piece of trash. Much like Buffet.[/quote]

Nonsense. Certain ideas have a critical mass. An extra $1k from me in taxes is meaningless. An extra $1k from 10 million of us on the other hand… well that can be useful.[/quote]

You are assuming that this new money will be spent wisely.

Keep in mind these are the same liars, thieves, and whores who fucked the budget to begin with.

You want to know what happens when tax increases are passed TO HELP THE CHILDREN, or some other cleverly-worded bullshit, you want to know what happens with that revenue ? THEY INCREASE spending.

This played out perfectly here in Cali, and the stupid mouth-breathers here fell for it. Governor claims to have made “Draconian” cuts, the people buy it, but no one looked at next year’s budget. It’s MORE than the previous year, and MORE than the money raised by the tax increase.

If this shit happened in the private sector with investors, you would be in fucking jail for fraud, Bernie Madoff style.

162

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

If this shit happened in the private sector with investors, you would be in fucking jail for fraud, Bernie Madoff style.[/quote]

Well it depends on what you did with the money really.

Jail is only in your future if you break the law. Pissing away investor money on bad investments and over extending yourself on debt, isn’t against the law. If fact, when government cronies like Wall Street an GM do it, they get tax payer bail outs so…

163

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

If this shit happened in the private sector with investors, you would be in fucking jail for fraud, Bernie Madoff style.[/quote]

Well it depends on what you did with the money really.

Jail is only in your future if you break the law. Pissing away investor money on bad investments and over extending yourself on debt, isn’t against the law. If fact, when government cronies like Wall Street an GM do it, they get tax payer bail outs so…

[/quote]

It also depends on whether the fraud is systemic. Systemic fraud apparently gets a bailout and not jail time. AIG and the big investment houses sold insurance products that they were substantially certain at the time they sold them that they couldn’t cover in the event there was a covered loss. That’s criminal fraud and the only reason there’s not a pile of execs in jail (IMO) is no prosecutor took the case to the jury.

164

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

If this shit happened in the private sector with investors, you would be in fucking jail for fraud, Bernie Madoff style.[/quote]

Well it depends on what you did with the money really.

Jail is only in your future if you break the law. Pissing away investor money on bad investments and over extending yourself on debt, isn’t against the law. If fact, when government cronies like Wall Street an GM do it, they get tax payer bail outs so…

[/quote]

It also depends on whether the fraud is systemic. Systemic fraud apparently gets a bailout and not jail time. AIG and the big investment houses sold insurance products that they were substantially certain at the time they sold them that they couldn’t cover in the event there was a covered loss. That’s criminal fraud and the only reason there’s not a pile of execs in jail (IMO) is no prosecutor took the case to the jury.
[/quote]

If I was forced, by gun point, to point the finger at any one offender in the FC, it would be AIG, and then the way the Government responded to AIG.

One could write a small book (or a large one) about the FC and who was to blame, and it would barely cover the topic. But in the end, the chip that really couldn’t fall, was AIG. I am no fan of Paulson, nor do I think he had to twist many arms at AIG to get them to pay out 100 cents on the dollar, but yeah… AIG should have been sliced up and auctioned off after the markets settled circa 2010. They knew they were “to big to fail” and played accordingly.

But in the end capitalism tried to punish them, and the government provented the market from working. If you want to argue the case of easing the crash fine, but no way should AIG be lead to believe this type of behavior will be bailed out again. And I don’t see much that is communicating that to them.

165

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

If this shit happened in the private sector with investors, you would be in fucking jail for fraud, Bernie Madoff style.[/quote]

Well it depends on what you did with the money really.

Jail is only in your future if you break the law. Pissing away investor money on bad investments and over extending yourself on debt, isn’t against the law. If fact, when government cronies like Wall Street an GM do it, they get tax payer bail outs so…

[/quote]

It also depends on whether the fraud is systemic. Systemic fraud apparently gets a bailout and not jail time. AIG and the big investment houses sold insurance products that they were substantially certain at the time they sold them that they couldn’t cover in the event there was a covered loss. That’s criminal fraud and the only reason there’s not a pile of execs in jail (IMO) is no prosecutor took the case to the jury.
[/quote]

If I was forced, by gun point, to point the finger at any one offender in the FC, it would be AIG, and then the way the Government responded to AIG.

One could write a small book (or a large one) about the FC and who was to blame, and it would barely cover the topic. But in the end, the chip that really couldn’t fall, was AIG. I am no fan of Paulson, nor do I think he had to twist many arms at AIG to get them to pay out 100 cents on the dollar, but yeah… AIG should have been sliced up and auctioned off after the markets settled circa 2010. They knew they were “to big to fail” and played accordingly.

But in the end capitalism tried to punish them, and the government provented the market from working. If you want to argue the case of easing the crash fine, but no way should AIG be lead to believe this type of behavior will be bailed out again. And I don’t see much that is communicating that to them.[/quote]

I’d agree that the cause of the financial crisis was multi-faceted and complex, but my dispute is with the narrative that no crimes were committed. If I had: (1) a list of the top 20 AIG execs; (2) a grand jury subpoena for their e-mail accounts; (3) 20 or so good paralegals and a forensic accountant; (4) authority to grant 5 of the execs prosecutorial immunity in exchange for their testimony, then I am willing to bet the farm I’d get 15 indictments and probably the same amount of convictions. In fact, I’d bet most of the execs would take a plea before trial started.

166

Beans,

The best example is California High Speed Rail. It was sold as a $34 Billion train, going from LA to San Fran in 2 hrs 40 min, not a minute longer, and be completed by the year 2020. No public money was to pay for this, it was to be paid solely by private investment. These were the terms of the bond that Cali passed for the train.

When we REALLY took a look at the numbers, it will now cost over $100 Billion, be finished by 2039, the ride will take 3 hrs 50 min, and not all of it will even be High Speed. The interest on the debt is $700 Million per year, for 30 years, and that is only the interest, no principle in that.

We sued to stop them, still pending in court, but if you did this, you would be straight up chased out of the building naked.

167

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
but my dispute is with the narrative that no crimes were committed. [/quote]

Oh, I didn’t intend to infer that was the case in my post. My bad, as I can see how you got there.

I was speaking in general terms re: investors and money management, and then used the FC examples of cronyism run a-muck. I was not clear at all.

I very much agree with you that criminal charges could/should be brought, but no way in hell is Washington going to jail some of their biggest donors.

168

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

. . . but no way in hell is Washington going to jail some of their biggest donors. [/quote]

You hit the nail on the head right there.

169

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

So $175K a year and a pension for life, doesn’t equal rich? For part time work not less, interesting.

[/quote]

Maybe in your book, not in mine. Middle class according to both sides’ tax plans. Upper middle class, sure.
[/quote]

That’s 3x median Household income according to the last census. I think upper middle class people are by definition, rich. They just aren’t the most rich. [/quote]

Ok that’s cool man, if your end game is $175k/year to make yourself feel rich that’s fine, but you don’t get to pick and choose your own definition of rich based on your own current salary and ambitions.
[/quote]

Isn’t that what you did? The entire reason I responded to you was because you said members of Congress aren’t rich. So you get to define rich?