|
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Mar 21, 10:44*am, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote: those people ran AIG into the ground. what fairy tales do you read? do you know AIG has $150,000,000,000 in govt money in it? Are you more concerned with punishing individuals who work at AIG or are you more concerned with AIG becoming a healthy private enterprise again? i'm concerned with me and the financial health of the middle class. the rich, who've screwed the middle class like we're $2 whores, don't deserve ****. Apparently the president and *people in leadership positions in the senate and house have no concept of what to do about the economic problems the country is facing today and are using every minor excuse to divert the public's attention from their failures. the right wing 'free market' folks got us into this mess....they created the largest economy collapse since the great depression Who is your employer? Where do you buy your food? Where do you buy your clothes? Where do you buy your durable goods? The free markets have a self correcting mechanism. what fairy tales have you been reading? where's your proof? where's the mechanism? if this were true, we wouldn't have to bail out the bankers and wall street managers because they're too big to fail people like you are like the people on the titanic who drowned because they insisted it was unsinkable. Government's only solution to problems is more regulation and taxation. now you're saying to continue with those failed policies because of your faith in them? you're worse than a creationist! The failed policies are from over regulation by the government and trying to implement social policy rather than follow sound business principles. OVER regulation? what regulations FORCED the amount of credit default swap derivatives to balloon from $920 billion in 2000 to SIXTY TWO TRILLION dollars in 2007? go ahead...tell me what govt regulation caused this much greed. we DID de-regulate the market. and collateralized default swaps went from $920B in 2000 to SIXTY TWO TRILLION DOLLARS in 2007.... If we are playing the blame game, then you should be upset with Clinton. goalpost shifting. where's your proof that 'free' markets exist or that they're self correcting. in addition, it was the free market fundamentalists like phil gramm who forced congress to pass DE REGULATION....so you've failed to prove your case. is that the type of de regulation you had in mind? Why should we keep propping up AIG and other private enterprises with taxpayers money? Shouldn't we just let them go bankrupt? Or does the fact that the Dodd and Frank would lose too much in campaign contributions if that were to happen have any bearing on the decisions by the legislative branch of government?- which has what to do with the fact the free market failed. it was a laboratory exercise in YOUR view of capitalism and it's damn near wrecked the united states. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Mar 21, 3:24*pm, BAR wrote:
thunder wrote: On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 10:44:54 -0400, BAR wrote: Are you more concerned with punishing individuals who work at AIG or are you more concerned with AIG becoming a healthy private enterprise again? I think AIG is done. *I think it's on government life support until they can safely pull the plug. *It was "too big to fail", it failed. *Do you really want to see that monster on the loose again? *Break it up, and sell the parts. *Let them start over. We, the US tax payers could have saved 150 billion dollars if we had let AIG go into bankruptcy last fall. But, Geithner and Paulson stepped and and put forth the view that AIG was too big to save. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd had to earn the political contributions they received from AIG.. uh...no. the first AIG bailout happened under president bush and treasury secretary paulson. and john mccain was the 3rd greatest recipient of money from AIG. get your facts straight. the fact is, deregulation helped AIG get so big that, if it failed, it would have destroyed the financial system of the US. The free market folks, like me, wanted to clear a path for AIG and the to the nearest bankruptcy court. and since there is NO free market in the US, your grimm's fairy tale view of the economy is touching. your mother read you milton friedman at bedtime? |
OT Confiscatory taxation
wf3h wrote:
On Mar 21, 10:36 am, BAR wrote: Calif Bill wrote: "Mike" wrote in message .... On Mar 19, 8:16?pm, wrote: On Mar 19, 11:12?pm, wrote: On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:18:38 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:30:20 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: They already threw that sweet Bernie Maddof fellow in jail for life.. He wouldn't harm a fly. ?Now they're going after his wife. The best way to insure that Bernie rots in hell is to take all of his wife's assets. ? :-) No the best way to make the last years of his miserable life more miserable is to throw his wife in the cell with him. Imagine looking forward to a lifetime of bitching, moaning and "I told you so Bernie". ? He would be swinging from the bars on his belt in a week. I like John's quote.. Obama lied and the Economy died...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I would respectfully remind everyone that this financial mess started while Bush had the helm. While he and his friends had the helm..... for eight long years. And did little except trample our civil rights, and allow the Wall Street Mob to do whatever they wished. So here we are...Probably be better to concentrate our attention and efforts on saving the future. It started a lot further back than Bush, or Clinton, or Bush 1. While the USA is burning Obama is picking his NCAA brackets. While the USA is burning Obama is eating $100 per pound steak. While the USA is burning Obama has put incompetents in charge of the government.- idiot. Great come back. obama wasn't president when the dow dropped 50%. that was the ultra right wing that was busily destroying unions, writing energy policy to favor exxon and sending americans to die in war with no purpose. Unions have outlived their usefulness. There is a road construction project going on at the end of my street. We have union labor at the construction project. As I am driving 2 miles down this road seeing 30 guys watching 5 or 6 guys actually working I am thinking about who at my company is going to get laid off today. Unions get no sympathy from me. bush had 8 years to do something besides make the rich richer. he didn't. Why do you Democrats keep harping about the past and previous administrations? Let's concentrate on what the current administration is doing to destroy the country and how we can stop it. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:38:21 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote: Obama lied, the economy died. Amen. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
wf3h wrote:
On Mar 21, 3:24 pm, BAR wrote: thunder wrote: On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 10:44:54 -0400, BAR wrote: Are you more concerned with punishing individuals who work at AIG or are you more concerned with AIG becoming a healthy private enterprise again? I think AIG is done. I think it's on government life support until they can safely pull the plug. It was "too big to fail", it failed. Do you really want to see that monster on the loose again? Break it up, and sell the parts. Let them start over. We, the US tax payers could have saved 150 billion dollars if we had let AIG go into bankruptcy last fall. But, Geithner and Paulson stepped and and put forth the view that AIG was too big to save. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd had to earn the political contributions they received from AIG.. uh...no. the first AIG bailout happened under president bush and treasury secretary paulson. and john mccain was the 3rd greatest recipient of money from AIG. You haven't been paying attention have you. I have always said McCain is an idiot. I seriously doubt that McCain's mother voted for him for President. get your facts straight. the fact is, deregulation helped AIG get so big that, if it failed, it would have destroyed the financial system of the US. Blame Congress, they are the ones who wrote the legislation that enabled AIG to become as big as it did. When you let a company get into two many different areas of financial products you get these behemoth monsters. The free market folks, like me, wanted to clear a path for AIG and the to the nearest bankruptcy court. and since there is NO free market in the US, your grimm's fairy tale view of the economy is touching. your mother read you milton friedman at bedtime? You want the same bureaucrats in DC who buy $600 hammers and $1000 toilets to run the economy? |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Mar 21, 3:42*pm, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote: While the USA is burning Obama has put incompetents in charge of the government.- idiot. Great come back. modestly prevents me from claiming credit; the source material was rich in opportunity. * obama wasn't president when the dow dropped 50%. that was the ultra right wing that was busily destroying unions, writing energy policy to favor exxon and sending americans to die in *war with no purpose. Unions have outlived their usefulness. au contraire. the lack of unions has destroyed the US middle class. it's a reason why income inequality in the US is among the greatest in the world and wall street runs amuck with little oversight. There is a road construction project going on at the end of my street. We have union labor at the construction project. As I am driving 2 miles down this road seeing 30 guys watching 5 or 6 guys actually working I am thinking about who at my company is going to get laid off today. Unions get no sympathy from me. and wall street destroyed the US economy. unions had no hand in that. it's the big wall street manager, the unregulated capitalist that's outlived his usefulness. bush had 8 years to do something besides make the rich richer. he didn't. Why do you Democrats keep harping about the past and previous administrations? Let's concentrate on what the current administration is doing to destroy the country and how we can stop it.- Hide quoted text - jesus h. christ on crutches....obama has been president for 60 days. are you rednecks so illiterate you think eight years of fascism mismanagement on the part of bush/cheney/exxon can be undone in 60 days? are you truly that irrational? |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Mar 21, 3:51*pm, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote: On Mar 21, 3:24 pm, BAR wrote: thunder wrote: On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 10:44:54 -0400, BAR wrote: Are you more concerned with punishing individuals who work at AIG or are you more concerned with AIG becoming a healthy private enterprise again? I think AIG is done. *I think it's on government life support until they can safely pull the plug. *It was "too big to fail", it failed. *Do you really want to see that monster on the loose again? *Break it up, and sell the parts. *Let them start over. We, the US tax payers could have saved 150 billion dollars if we had let uh...no. the first AIG bailout happened under president bush and treasury secretary paulson. and john mccain was the 3rd greatest recipient of money from AIG. You haven't been paying attention have you. I have always said McCain is an idiot. I seriously doubt that McCain's mother voted for him for President. well, then, complaining about people who actually are trying to help the middle class instead of destroying it as republicans have done for 8 years isn't getting you anywhere is it? get your facts straight. the fact is, deregulation helped AIG get so big that, if it failed, it would have destroyed the financial system of the US. Blame Congress, they are the ones who wrote the legislation that enabled AIG to become as big as it did. When you let a company get into two many different areas of financial products you get these behemoth monsters. and the reason congress did this is that reagan and milton friedman manufactured the myth of the 'free' market, unregulated, unhampered by unions, would strengthen the US economy. it had exactly the opposite effect. the middle class is being destroyed. the rich got amazingly richer. The free market folks, like me, wanted to clear a path for AIG and the to the nearest bankruptcy court. and since there is NO free market in the US, your grimm's fairy tale view of the economy is touching. your mother read you milton friedman at bedtime? You want the same bureaucrats in DC who buy $600 hammers and $1000 toilets to run the economy?- they have been running it for the last 8 years. what planet did you just come from? |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Mar 21, 3:48*pm, John H wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:38:21 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote: Obama lied, the economy died. Amen. let's see.... bush was president for about 2800 days. obama's been president for 60. even you should be able to do the math. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
wf3h wrote:
On Mar 21, 3:42 pm, BAR wrote: wf3h wrote: While the USA is burning Obama has put incompetents in charge of the government.- idiot. Great come back. modestly prevents me from claiming credit; the source material was rich in opportunity. obama wasn't president when the dow dropped 50%. that was the ultra right wing that was busily destroying unions, writing energy policy to favor exxon and sending americans to die in war with no purpose. Unions have outlived their usefulness. au contraire. the lack of unions has destroyed the US middle class. it's a reason why income inequality in the US is among the greatest in the world and wall street runs amuck with little oversight. There is a road construction project going on at the end of my street. We have union labor at the construction project. As I am driving 2 miles down this road seeing 30 guys watching 5 or 6 guys actually working I am thinking about who at my company is going to get laid off today. Unions get no sympathy from me. and wall street destroyed the US economy. unions had no hand in that. it's the big wall street manager, the unregulated capitalist that's outlived his usefulness. bush had 8 years to do something besides make the rich richer. he didn't. Why do you Democrats keep harping about the past and previous administrations? Let's concentrate on what the current administration is doing to destroy the country and how we can stop it.- Hide quoted text - jesus h. christ on crutches....obama has been president for 60 days. are you rednecks so illiterate you think eight years of fascism mismanagement on the part of bush/cheney/exxon can be undone in 60 days? are you truly that irrational? Yeah, they are. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
wf3h wrote:
On Mar 21, 3:42 pm, BAR wrote: wf3h wrote: While the USA is burning Obama has put incompetents in charge of the government.- idiot. Great come back. modestly prevents me from claiming credit; the source material was rich in opportunity. obama wasn't president when the dow dropped 50%. that was the ultra right wing that was busily destroying unions, writing energy policy to favor exxon and sending americans to die in war with no purpose. Unions have outlived their usefulness. au contraire. the lack of unions has destroyed the US middle class. Can you provide a definition for the middle class? The Census Bureau doesn't define the middle class so there is no way to argue for or against the destruction of the middle class. it's a reason why income inequality in the US is among the greatest in the world and wall street runs amuck with little oversight. What is income inequality? My definition of income inequality is those that get off there asses and work and those who are lazy *******s who don't want to work. There is a road construction project going on at the end of my street. We have union labor at the construction project. As I am driving 2 miles down this road seeing 30 guys watching 5 or 6 guys actually working I am thinking about who at my company is going to get laid off today. Unions get no sympathy from me. and wall street destroyed the US economy. unions had no hand in that. Paying a union guy 95% of his salary to sit around and do nothing is destroying the US economy. The unions negotiating to prevent productivity improvements in US factories didn't help the economy either. it's the big wall street manager, the unregulated capitalist that's outlived his usefulness. If there is no big capitalist there there is no need for the union guy. Unions can't exist without corporations. But, corporations can exist without unions. bush had 8 years to do something besides make the rich richer. he didn't. Why do you Democrats keep harping about the past and previous administrations? Let's concentrate on what the current administration is doing to destroy the country and how we can stop it.- Hide quoted text - jesus h. christ on crutches....obama has been president for 60 days. are you rednecks so illiterate you think eight years of fascism mismanagement on the part of bush/cheney/exxon can be undone in 60 days? are you truly that irrational? When you take command of the ship you are responsible for the entire ship. Funny thing is that Obama isn't undoing many of the things that the previous administration did. Spying on US citizens, as the left used to rant about, is still occurring and you are not hearing the left complaining. There are many other examples but I'm sure you have all of your excuses lined up to deny these facts. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
wf3h wrote:
On Mar 21, 3:48 pm, John H wrote: On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:38:21 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote: Obama lied, the economy died. Amen. let's see.... bush was president for about 2800 days. obama's been president for 60. even you should be able to do the math. $1.2 Trillion in spending above and beyond the normal budgets in less than 60 days. Obama has set a record for all future Democrat presidents to strive to beat. Obama has set the extra appropriations spending bar very high. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Mar 21, 5:10*pm, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote: au contraire. the lack of unions has destroyed the US middle class. Can you provide a definition for the middle class? The Census Bureau doesn't define the middle class so there is no way to argue for or against the destruction of the middle class. the census bureau is not in charge of economics. the middle class generally is those making between 30,000 to 100,000. it's a reason why income inequality in the US is among the greatest in the world and wall street runs amuck with little oversight. What is income inequality? My definition of income inequality is those that get off there asses and work and those who are lazy *******s who don't want to work. IOW you don't follow economics. you don't know the richest 1% have had their incomes increase by over 200% in the last 10 years or so while the middle class stagnated. no wonder you love to **** the middle class. you dont even believe we should be able to earn a living wage. There is a road construction project going on at the end of my street. We have union labor at the construction project. As I am driving 2 miles down this road seeing 30 guys watching 5 or 6 guys actually working I am thinking about who at my company is going to get laid off today. Unions get no sympathy from me.. and wall street destroyed the US economy. unions had no hand in that. Paying a union guy 95% of his salary to sit around and do nothing is destroying the US economy. The unions negotiating to prevent productivity improvements in US factories didn't help the economy either. and paying 5 guys at AIG a billion dollars to drive the stock market to 50% of its value has a siightly bigger effect on my income than the guys working on your road do again...you just can't think logically. it's the big wall street manager, the unregulated capitalist that's outlived his usefulness. If there is no big capitalist there there is no need for the union guy. Unions can't exist without corporations. But, corporations can exist without unions. yeah and kings can exist without a middle class, too. seems you think feudalism was a great idea. bush had 8 years to do something besides make the rich richer. he didn't. Why do you Democrats keep harping about the past and previous administrations? Let's concentrate on what the current administration is doing to destroy the country and how we can stop it.- Hide quoted text - jesus h. christ on crutches....obama has been president for 60 days. are you rednecks so illiterate you think eight years of fascism mismanagement on the part of bush/cheney/exxon can be undone in 60 days? are you truly that irrational? When you take command of the ship you are responsible for the entire ship.. and if you didn't build the ship you have to pilot it as best you can. obama inherited a sinking ship. Funny thing is that Obama isn't undoing many of the things that the previous administration did. Spying on US citizens, as the left used to rant about, is still occurring and you are not hearing the left complaining. There are many other examples but I'm sure you have all of your excuses lined up to deny these facts.- you seem to think 60=2800 no wonder your view of economics is screwed up. you can't count. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Mar 21, 5:34*pm, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote: On Mar 21, 3:48 pm, John H wrote: On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:38:21 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote: Obama lied, the economy died. Amen. let's see.... bush was president for about 2800 days. obama's been president for 60. even you should be able to do the math. $1.2 Trillion in spending above and beyond the normal budgets in less than 60 days. Obama has set a record for all future Democrat presidents to strive to beat. Obama has set the extra appropriations spending bar very high.- that's for the next year. you don't know about the budget process do you? republicans reagan, bush and bush have nearly bankrupted this country. clinton was the only president in recent history to balance the budget. bush starved the middle class to feed his friends at exxon. now we're paying the price |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:59:04 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote: On Mar 21, 5:10*pm, BAR wrote: wf3h wrote: au contraire. the lack of unions has destroyed the US middle class. Can you provide a definition for the middle class? The Census Bureau doesn't define the middle class so there is no way to argue for or against the destruction of the middle class. the census bureau is not in charge of economics. the middle class generally is those making between 30,000 to 100,000. it's a reason why income inequality in the US is among the greatest in the world and wall street runs amuck with little oversight. What is income inequality? My definition of income inequality is those that get off there asses and work and those who are lazy *******s who don't want to work. IOW you don't follow economics. you don't know the richest 1% have had their incomes increase by over 200% in the last 10 years or so while the middle class stagnated. no wonder you love to **** the middle class. you dont even believe we should be able to earn a living wage. There is a road construction project going on at the end of my street. We have union labor at the construction project. As I am driving 2 miles down this road seeing 30 guys watching 5 or 6 guys actually working I am thinking about who at my company is going to get laid off today. Unions get no sympathy from me. and wall street destroyed the US economy. unions had no hand in that. Paying a union guy 95% of his salary to sit around and do nothing is destroying the US economy. The unions negotiating to prevent productivity improvements in US factories didn't help the economy either. and paying 5 guys at AIG a billion dollars to drive the stock market to 50% of its value has a siightly bigger effect on my income than the guys working on your road do again...you just can't think logically. it's the big wall street manager, the unregulated capitalist that's outlived his usefulness. If there is no big capitalist there there is no need for the union guy. Unions can't exist without corporations. But, corporations can exist without unions. yeah and kings can exist without a middle class, too. seems you think feudalism was a great idea. bush had 8 years to do something besides make the rich richer. he didn't. Why do you Democrats keep harping about the past and previous administrations? Let's concentrate on what the current administration is doing to destroy the country and how we can stop it.- Hide quoted text - jesus h. christ on crutches....obama has been president for 60 days. are you rednecks so illiterate you think eight years of fascism mismanagement on the part of bush/cheney/exxon can be undone in 60 days? are you truly that irrational? When you take command of the ship you are responsible for the entire ship. and if you didn't build the ship you have to pilot it as best you can. obama inherited a sinking ship. No. Obama's 'inheritance' was pretty well established in October of last year. Now go back and see what the market has done since then. Also, look at what it's done any day following an Obama speech. Take the blinders off. You're almost as bad as HK. Obama lied, the economy died. -- John H "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson |
OT Confiscatory taxation
thunder wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:21:18 -0800, Calif Bill wrote: It started a lot further back than Bush, or Clinton, or Bush 1. Bush Basher that I am, I can't blame this on Bush. I believe the government gets too much blame, *and* too much credit, for the economy. The government might have developed the framework that allowed this to happen, but they didn't cause it to happen. No one put a gun to the head of Wall Street's Masters of the Universe and forced them to make incredibly risky decisions. No one told Lehman Brothers they had to leverage themselves 33 to 1. Greed and stupidity did that. This is a free market, after all. Except the Clinton administration in forcing banks to make loans to unqualified individuals because it was everyone's right to own a home. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Mar 21, 6:03*pm, John H wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:59:04 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote: On Mar 21, 5:10*pm, BAR wrote: wf3h wrote: au contraire. the lack of unions has destroyed the US middle class. Can you provide a definition for the middle class? The Census Bureau doesn't define the middle class so there is no way to argue for or against the destruction of the middle class. the census bureau is not in charge of economics. the middle class generally is those making between 30,000 to 100,000. it's a reason why income inequality in the US is among the greatest in the world and wall street runs amuck with little oversight. What is income inequality? My definition of income inequality is those that get off there asses and work and those who are lazy *******s who don't want to work. IOW you don't follow economics. you don't know the richest 1% have had their incomes increase by over 200% in the last 10 years or so while the middle class stagnated. no wonder you love to **** the middle class. you dont even believe we should be able to earn a living wage. There is a road construction project going on at the end of my street. We have union labor at the construction project. As I am driving 2 miles down this road seeing 30 guys watching 5 or 6 guys actually working I am thinking about who at my company is going to get laid off today. Unions get no sympathy from me. and wall street destroyed the US economy. unions had no hand in that. Paying a union guy 95% of his salary to sit around and do nothing is destroying the US economy. The unions negotiating to prevent productivity improvements in US factories didn't help the economy either. and paying 5 guys at AIG a billion dollars to drive the stock market to 50% of its value has a siightly bigger effect on my income than the guys working on your road do again...you just can't think logically. it's the big wall street manager, the unregulated capitalist that's outlived his usefulness. If there is no big capitalist there there is no need for the union guy.. Unions can't exist without corporations. But, corporations can exist without unions. yeah and kings can exist without a middle class, too. *seems you think feudalism was a great idea. bush had 8 years to do something besides make the rich richer. he didn't. Why do you Democrats keep harping about the past and previous administrations? Let's concentrate on what the current administration is doing to destroy the country and how we can stop it.- Hide quoted text - jesus h. christ on crutches....obama has been president for 60 days. are you rednecks so illiterate you think eight years of fascism mismanagement on the part of bush/cheney/exxon can be undone in 60 days? are you truly that irrational? When you take command of the ship you are responsible for the entire ship. and if you didn't build the ship you have to pilot it as best you can. obama inherited a sinking ship. No. Obama's 'inheritance' was pretty well established in October of last year. Now go back and see what the market has done since then. Also, look at what it's done any day following an Obama speech. Take the blinders off. You're almost as bad as HK. Obama lied, the economy died. -- you know, your economic illiteracy makes me weep for our country i'm a physical scientist. i collect and analyze data for a living. no scientist...none....would look at data as you propose. none. not a single one you do not select data to fit your preconceptions. you completely ignore the headlong slide caused by bush's economic policies over 8 years and instead focus on a 2% history. it's astonishing...remarkable...how deliberately stupid you can be....you're the stupidity equivalent of a nor'easter. no wonder the GOP got destroyed. you voted for it. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Mar 21, 6:30*pm, Keith Nuttle wrote:
thunder wrote: On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:21:18 -0800, Calif Bill wrote: It started a lot further back than Bush, or Clinton, or Bush 1. Bush Basher that I am, I can't blame this on Bush. *I believe the government gets too much blame, *and* too much credit, for the economy. * The government might have developed the framework that allowed this to happen, but they didn't cause it to happen. *No one put a gun to the head of Wall Street's Masters of the Universe and forced them to make incredibly risky decisions. *No one told Lehman Brothers they had to leverage themselves 33 to 1. *Greed and stupidity did that. *This is a free market, after all. Except the Clinton administration in forcing banks to make loans to unqualified individuals because it was everyone's right to own a home. which had nothing to do with the current situation. countrywide financial was the largest provider of mortgage loans in the US and was not subject to the type of law (the community reinvestment act) that you think had a role. the real problem was credit default swaps. in 2000 the total amount of credit default swaps was $920 billion. in 2007, the amount of CDS was $62 TRILLION....or more than the entire output of all economies on the planet. how did wall street propose to pay $62 trillion in exposure? that's greed. it's stupidity. california bill is right: the govt gave wall street a loaded pistol via deregulation of derivatives. wall street greed pulled the trigger. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
wf3h wrote:
On Mar 21, 6:03 pm, John H wrote: On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:59:04 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote: On Mar 21, 5:10 pm, BAR wrote: wf3h wrote: au contraire. the lack of unions has destroyed the US middle class. Can you provide a definition for the middle class? The Census Bureau doesn't define the middle class so there is no way to argue for or against the destruction of the middle class. the census bureau is not in charge of economics. the middle class generally is those making between 30,000 to 100,000. it's a reason why income inequality in the US is among the greatest in the world and wall street runs amuck with little oversight. What is income inequality? My definition of income inequality is those that get off there asses and work and those who are lazy *******s who don't want to work. IOW you don't follow economics. you don't know the richest 1% have had their incomes increase by over 200% in the last 10 years or so while the middle class stagnated. no wonder you love to **** the middle class. you dont even believe we should be able to earn a living wage. There is a road construction project going on at the end of my street. We have union labor at the construction project. As I am driving 2 miles down this road seeing 30 guys watching 5 or 6 guys actually working I am thinking about who at my company is going to get laid off today. Unions get no sympathy from me. and wall street destroyed the US economy. unions had no hand in that. Paying a union guy 95% of his salary to sit around and do nothing is destroying the US economy. The unions negotiating to prevent productivity improvements in US factories didn't help the economy either. and paying 5 guys at AIG a billion dollars to drive the stock market to 50% of its value has a siightly bigger effect on my income than the guys working on your road do again...you just can't think logically. it's the big wall street manager, the unregulated capitalist that's outlived his usefulness. If there is no big capitalist there there is no need for the union guy. Unions can't exist without corporations. But, corporations can exist without unions. yeah and kings can exist without a middle class, too. seems you think feudalism was a great idea. bush had 8 years to do something besides make the rich richer. he didn't. Why do you Democrats keep harping about the past and previous administrations? Let's concentrate on what the current administration is doing to destroy the country and how we can stop it.- Hide quoted text - jesus h. christ on crutches....obama has been president for 60 days. are you rednecks so illiterate you think eight years of fascism mismanagement on the part of bush/cheney/exxon can be undone in 60 days? are you truly that irrational? When you take command of the ship you are responsible for the entire ship. and if you didn't build the ship you have to pilot it as best you can. obama inherited a sinking ship. No. Obama's 'inheritance' was pretty well established in October of last year. Now go back and see what the market has done since then. Also, look at what it's done any day following an Obama speech. Take the blinders off. You're almost as bad as HK. Obama lied, the economy died. -- you know, your economic illiteracy makes me weep for our country i'm a physical scientist. i collect and analyze data for a living. no scientist...none....would look at data as you propose. none. not a single one you do not select data to fit your preconceptions. you completely ignore the headlong slide caused by bush's economic policies over 8 years and instead focus on a 2% history. it's astonishing...remarkable...how deliberately stupid you can be....you're the stupidity equivalent of a nor'easter. no wonder the GOP got destroyed. you voted for it. Not to worry: sarah palin is the GOP's saviour-ess, and dumb****s like Herring and BAR and others here will vote for her. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:30:42 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
Except the Clinton administration in forcing banks to make loans to unqualified individuals because it was everyone's right to own a home. I don't buy it. This was a market problem, not a political problem. Fully 1/2 of sub-prime loans were from mortgage companies *not* covered by the CRA. They didn't make those loans because of Clinton. They made those loans because of greed and stupidity. The groupthink that's at the root of all bubbles. The market will keep going up and up, and we'll all get rich. This wasn't about home ownership. It was about using houses as banks. Sucking out any equity, to pay of credit card bills. Flipping houses expecting a 10-15% return in a year. It was a bubble, and like all bubbles, it burst. It wasn't Clinton's fault. It wasn't Bush's fault. It was *our* fault. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Mar 21, 7:02*pm, HK wrote:
wf3h wrote: On Mar 21, 6:03 pm, John H wrote: On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:59:04 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote: On Mar 21, 5:10 pm, BAR wrote: wf3h wrote: au contraire. the lack of unions has destroyed the US middle class. Can you provide a definition for the middle class? The Census Bureau doesn't define the middle class so there is no way to argue for or against the destruction of the middle class. the census bureau is not in charge of economics. the middle class generally is those making between 30,000 to 100,000. it's a reason why income inequality in the US is among the greatest in the world and wall street runs amuck with little oversight. What is income inequality? My definition of income inequality is those that get off there asses and work and those who are lazy *******s who don't want to work. IOW you don't follow economics. you don't know the richest 1% have had their incomes increase by over 200% in the last 10 years or so while the middle class stagnated. no wonder you love to **** the middle class. you dont even believe we should be able to earn a living wage. There is a road construction project going on at the end of my street. We have union labor at the construction project. As I am driving 2 miles down this road seeing 30 guys watching 5 or 6 guys actually working I am thinking about who at my company is going to get laid off today. Unions get no sympathy from me. and wall street destroyed the US economy. unions had no hand in that. Paying a union guy 95% of his salary to sit around and do nothing is destroying the US economy. The unions negotiating to prevent productivity improvements in US factories didn't help the economy either. and paying 5 guys at AIG a billion dollars to drive the stock market to 50% of its value has a siightly bigger effect on my income than the guys working on your road do again...you just can't think logically. it's the big wall street manager, the unregulated capitalist that's outlived his usefulness. If there is no big capitalist there there is no need for the union guy. Unions can't exist without corporations. But, corporations can exist without unions. yeah and kings can exist without a middle class, too. *seems you think feudalism was a great idea. bush had 8 years to do something besides make the rich richer. he didn't. Why do you Democrats keep harping about the past and previous administrations? Let's concentrate on what the current administration is doing to destroy the country and how we can stop it.- Hide quoted text - jesus h. christ on crutches....obama has been president for 60 days.. are you rednecks so illiterate you think eight years of fascism mismanagement on the part of bush/cheney/exxon can be undone in 60 days? are you truly that irrational? When you take command of the ship you are responsible for the entire ship. and if you didn't build the ship you have to pilot it as best you can.. obama inherited a sinking ship. No. Obama's 'inheritance' was pretty well established in October of last year. Now go back and see what the market has done since then. Also, look at what it's done any day following an Obama speech. Take the blinders off. You're almost as bad as HK. Obama lied, the economy died. -- you know, your economic illiteracy makes me weep for our country i'm *a physical scientist. i collect and analyze data for a living. no scientist...none....would look at data as you propose. none. not a single one you do not select data to fit your preconceptions. you completely ignore the headlong slide caused by bush's economic policies over 8 years and instead focus on a 2% history. it's astonishing...remarkable...how deliberately stupid you can be....you're the stupidity equivalent of a nor'easter. no wonder the GOP got destroyed. you voted for it. Not to worry: sarah palin is the GOP's saviour-ess, and dumb****s like Herring and BAR and others here will vote for her.- i can hardly wait to see the bedtime stories she reads them. they seem to be addicted to cheney's...wonder if she can compete so to speak |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:10:52 -0500, thunder
wrote: On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:30:42 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: Except the Clinton administration in forcing banks to make loans to unqualified individuals because it was everyone's right to own a home. I don't buy it. This was a market problem, not a political problem. Fully 1/2 of sub-prime loans were from mortgage companies *not* covered by the CRA. They didn't make those loans because of Clinton. They made those loans because of greed and stupidity. The groupthink that's at the root of all bubbles. The market will keep going up and up, and we'll all get rich. This wasn't about home ownership. It was about using houses as banks. Sucking out any equity, to pay of credit card bills. Flipping houses expecting a 10-15% return in a year. It was a bubble, and like all bubbles, it burst. It wasn't Clinton's fault. It wasn't Bush's fault. It was *our* fault. Bull****. I had nothing to do with it. --Vic |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:31:56 -0600, Vic Smith wrote:
It was *our* fault. Bull****. I had nothing to do with it. --Vic In your case, I apologize. ;-) I just find it humorous that we are all looking for that *one* person to blame. It's a little larger than that. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Mar 21, 9:28*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message they have been running it for the last 8 years. what planet did you just come from? They been running it longer than 8 years. *Was under Clinton's watch where the worst thing happened, and it was Clinton's Sec of treasury that promoted it. *Repeal of Glass-Steagall act. *Same Mr. Rubin who put Citigroup in such peril.- it was a republican congress, after they impeached him, and he was weakened, that passed the 'plunder the middle class' bill. it was phil gramm, whose wife was a high executive for enron (which reated the middle class like the visigoths treated rome) that introduced the fairy tale allowing credit default swaps to exist unregulated. this was after the GOP for 30 years passed tax reduction after tax reduction for the ultra wealthy and passed the bill to the middle class. as the nobel prize winning economist paul krugman pointed it, it's as if for every year of the last 30, every middle class family sent a check for $10,000 to the richest 0.1% of americans. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Mar 21, 9:40*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Keith Nuttle" wrote in message Except the Clinton administration in forcing banks to make loans to unqualified individuals because it was everyone's right to own a home. Clinton and Congress just elaborated on previous policies. *Worst was Clinton and Rubin and removing Glass-Steagall act of 1933. this was after clinton had been impeached and was severely weakened. phil gramm, whose wife was a high executive at enron, wanted to continue treating the middle class like a piggy bank. so he introduced the bill allowing credit default swaps to exist unregulated. of course, his wife made a killing in enron by deregulating energy companies allowing her and her husband to swindle hundreds of thousands of employees and stockholders of enron. typical GOP economic policies. *Allowed these banks to become insurance companies, brokerage houses, etc. *Set us up for a real economic disaster as there was no checks and balances between the different factions. *Bank sells bad loans through their brokerage arm. *The loans are insured by their inhouse insurance company. *As long as the conglomerate made immense profits on the loan, who cares if none of what they sold had any value? *Unfortunately all that profit from the excess cost to insure a bad loan, and the selling of the bad loan all went back in the same pot. *Now the loans tank, and the insurance company has no money to pay the loss, as they have invested it with the same company brokerage house, and paid a huge premium to the brokerage arm making all look like they made lots of money. *But the underlying securities that the insurance company bought were overvalued by the brokerage arm. *No checks and balances and nothing to write out the loss check against.- in 2000 right before bush took office, the total amount of credit default swaps was $920 billion when he left office, the amount was $62 trillion. this happened under a republican president and a republican congress. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Mar 21, 9:52*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message bush was president for about 2800 days. obama's been president for 60. even you should be able to do the math. republicans reagan, bush and bush have nearly bankrupted this country. clinton was the only president in recent history to balance the budget. bush starved the middle class to feed his friends at exxon. now we're paying the price Clinton did not balance the budget!!! *He looked like it, but even worse he allowed spending to grow a lot more under his watch than it should of. gee whiz...how much is 'than it should have'? because bush ballooned the budget out of control with his war in iraq, his tax cuts for the super rich, etc. *He was the fortunate recipient of tons of revenue from the Dot.com boom that's called the 'economy'. it happens. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Mar 21, 3:51 pm, BAR wrote: wf3h wrote: On Mar 21, 3:24 pm, BAR wrote: thunder wrote: On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 10:44:54 -0400, BAR wrote: Are you more concerned with punishing individuals who work at AIG or are you more concerned with AIG becoming a healthy private enterprise again? I think AIG is done. I think it's on government life support until they can safely pull the plug. It was "too big to fail", it failed. Do you really want to see that monster on the loose again? Break it up, and sell the parts. Let them start over. We, the US tax payers could have saved 150 billion dollars if we had let uh...no. the first AIG bailout happened under president bush and treasury secretary paulson. and john mccain was the 3rd greatest recipient of money from AIG. You haven't been paying attention have you. I have always said McCain is an idiot. I seriously doubt that McCain's mother voted for him for President. well, then, complaining about people who actually are trying to help the middle class instead of destroying it as republicans have done for 8 years isn't getting you anywhere is it? get your facts straight. the fact is, deregulation helped AIG get so big that, if it failed, it would have destroyed the financial system of the US. Blame Congress, they are the ones who wrote the legislation that enabled AIG to become as big as it did. When you let a company get into two many different areas of financial products you get these behemoth monsters. and the reason congress did this is that reagan and milton friedman manufactured the myth of the 'free' market, unregulated, unhampered by unions, would strengthen the US economy. it had exactly the opposite effect. the middle class is being destroyed. the rich got amazingly richer. The free market folks, like me, wanted to clear a path for AIG and the to the nearest bankruptcy court. and since there is NO free market in the US, your grimm's fairy tale view of the economy is touching. your mother read you milton friedman at bedtime? You want the same bureaucrats in DC who buy $600 hammers and $1000 toilets to run the economy?- they have been running it for the last 8 years. what planet did you just come from? They been running it longer than 8 years. Was under Clinton's watch where the worst thing happened, and it was Clinton's Sec of treasury that promoted it. Repeal of Glass-Steagall act. Same Mr. Rubin who put Citigroup in such peril. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
"Keith Nuttle" wrote in message ... thunder wrote: On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:21:18 -0800, Calif Bill wrote: It started a lot further back than Bush, or Clinton, or Bush 1. Bush Basher that I am, I can't blame this on Bush. I believe the government gets too much blame, *and* too much credit, for the economy. The government might have developed the framework that allowed this to happen, but they didn't cause it to happen. No one put a gun to the head of Wall Street's Masters of the Universe and forced them to make incredibly risky decisions. No one told Lehman Brothers they had to leverage themselves 33 to 1. Greed and stupidity did that. This is a free market, after all. Except the Clinton administration in forcing banks to make loans to unqualified individuals because it was everyone's right to own a home. Clinton and Congress just elaborated on previous policies. Worst was Clinton and Rubin and removing Glass-Steagall act of 1933. Allowed these banks to become insurance companies, brokerage houses, etc. Set us up for a real economic disaster as there was no checks and balances between the different factions. Bank sells bad loans through their brokerage arm. The loans are insured by their inhouse insurance company. As long as the conglomerate made immense profits on the loan, who cares if none of what they sold had any value? Unfortunately all that profit from the excess cost to insure a bad loan, and the selling of the bad loan all went back in the same pot. Now the loans tank, and the insurance company has no money to pay the loss, as they have invested it with the same company brokerage house, and paid a huge premium to the brokerage arm making all look like they made lots of money. But the underlying securities that the insurance company bought were overvalued by the brokerage arm. No checks and balances and nothing to write out the loss check against. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Mar 21, 6:30 pm, Keith Nuttle wrote: thunder wrote: On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:21:18 -0800, Calif Bill wrote: It started a lot further back than Bush, or Clinton, or Bush 1. Bush Basher that I am, I can't blame this on Bush. I believe the government gets too much blame, *and* too much credit, for the economy. The government might have developed the framework that allowed this to happen, but they didn't cause it to happen. No one put a gun to the head of Wall Street's Masters of the Universe and forced them to make incredibly risky decisions. No one told Lehman Brothers they had to leverage themselves 33 to 1. Greed and stupidity did that. This is a free market, after all. Except the Clinton administration in forcing banks to make loans to unqualified individuals because it was everyone's right to own a home. which had nothing to do with the current situation. countrywide financial was the largest provider of mortgage loans in the US and was not subject to the type of law (the community reinvestment act) that you think had a role. the real problem was credit default swaps. in 2000 the total amount of credit default swaps was $920 billion. in 2007, the amount of CDS was $62 TRILLION....or more than the entire output of all economies on the planet. how did wall street propose to pay $62 trillion in exposure? that's greed. it's stupidity. california bill is right: the govt gave wall street a loaded pistol via deregulation of derivatives. wall street greed pulled the trigger. And the Congress people who gave the gun to wall street cashed in huge bribes, opps campaign contributions. And it was not under Bush's when the majority of bullets for the gun were manufactured. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
"thunder" wrote in message t... On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:31:56 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: It was *our* fault. Bull****. I had nothing to do with it. --Vic In your case, I apologize. ;-) I just find it humorous that we are all looking for that *one* person to blame. It's a little larger than that. It was us, and Vic, for allowing the same stooges to write laws year after year. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Mar 21, 5:34 pm, BAR wrote: wf3h wrote: On Mar 21, 3:48 pm, John H wrote: On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:38:21 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote: Obama lied, the economy died. Amen. let's see.... bush was president for about 2800 days. obama's been president for 60. even you should be able to do the math. $1.2 Trillion in spending above and beyond the normal budgets in less than 60 days. Obama has set a record for all future Democrat presidents to strive to beat. Obama has set the extra appropriations spending bar very high.- that's for the next year. you don't know about the budget process do you? republicans reagan, bush and bush have nearly bankrupted this country. clinton was the only president in recent history to balance the budget. bush starved the middle class to feed his friends at exxon. now we're paying the price Clinton did not balance the budget!!! He looked like it, but even worse he allowed spending to grow a lot more under his watch than it should of. He was the fortunate recipient of tons of revenue from the Dot.com boom and then bust. He also was hindered in excess spending for a couple years by Newt and the Contract with America. Reason that California is bankrupt. They grew spending and made it permanent during the same dot.com boom. Grew government 10% a year over the last 8 years. One of the absolute worse things in Federal government is totally the fault of Democrats and happened under Carter. That is "BASE LINE BUDGETING"! Who runs a business with a built in spending inflation of about 13%. The rate of inflation during the Carter disaster. Is why Congress says they cut spending 5% but the program still ends up with 8% more money. One of the first two things Obama should do is lobby to remove Base Line Budgeting. Is a Legislative branch feature and not an Executive branch feature. And the 2nd thing is to go to court and get tossed out the court ruling that the Executive branch HAS TO SPEND all money allocated by the Legislative branch. This says that the Executive branch has no check on spending. Before Carter, the Executive branch just did not fund these "earmarks" that Congress passed. Kept the money unspent. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Mar 21, 9:52 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message bush was president for about 2800 days. obama's been president for 60. even you should be able to do the math. republicans reagan, bush and bush have nearly bankrupted this country. clinton was the only president in recent history to balance the budget. bush starved the middle class to feed his friends at exxon. now we're paying the price Clinton did not balance the budget!!! He looked like it, but even worse he allowed spending to grow a lot more under his watch than it should of. gee whiz...how much is 'than it should have'? because bush ballooned the budget out of control with his war in iraq, his tax cuts for the super rich, etc. He was the fortunate recipient of tons of revenue from the Dot.com boom that's called the 'economy'. it happens. Nope, it was a financial disaster. Similar to what we have now, not as big. And caused by the same Fed screw ups on interest rates. Iraq cost less in 7 years than Obama and this Congress have spent in the last 60 days. What are your feelings one what that is going to do for the "Economy"? |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Mar 22, 12:49*am, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Mar 21, 9:52 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message bush was president for about 2800 days. obama's been president for 60. even you should be able to do the math. republicans reagan, bush and bush have nearly bankrupted this country. clinton was the only president in recent history to balance the budget. bush starved the middle class to feed his friends at exxon. now we're paying the price Clinton did not balance the budget!!! He looked like it, but even worse he allowed spending to grow a lot more under his watch than it should of. gee whiz...how much is 'than it should have'? because bush ballooned the budget out of control with his war in iraq, his tax cuts for the super rich, etc. * He was the fortunate recipient of tons of revenue from the Dot.com boom that's called the 'economy'. it happens. Nope, it was a financial disaster. *Similar to what we have now, not as big. And caused by the same Fed screw ups on interest rates. *Iraq cost less in 7 years than Obama and this Congress have spent in the last 60 days. iraq costs are estimated anywhere from 1-3 trillion dollars. and you're saying that's irrelevant? i dont think so. and they did not 'spend' this in the last 60 days. this will be spent over the next year or so. that's called a 'budget'. *What are your feelings one what that is going to do for the "Economy"?- keynesian economics works. milton friedman's monetary policy worked to a certain degree but the fed is out of options at this point since its interest rate is now about zero. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
Eisboch wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message ... as the nobel prize winning economist paul krugman pointed it, it's as if for every year of the last 30, every middle class family sent a check for $10,000 to the richest 0.1% of americans. -------------------------------------- Bull****. "It's as if" is not "as it is". The rich got richer because the world got richer. Wealth was created, not redistributed from the middle class. I agree that wealthy people are typically in a better position to gain more wealth through wealth creation, but they are not "taking it" from middle class. Where you people get this goofy idea, I don't know. Kinda flies in the face of what you've accepted as your conventional wisdom, eh? The "middle class" is far worse off financially...where has its wealth gone? Into the pockets of the wealthy. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
"wf3h" wrote in message ... clinton was the only president in recent history to balance the budget. Favorite myth perpetuated by some Democrats, but unfortunately not true. Spending under Clinton increased by almost 30%, but tax revenues increased by 85%. The "deficit" spending increased in each year of his 8 years in office. The increased tax revenues where not planned for or expected and served to decrease the deficit of his own budget, particularly in 2000, but did not balance the budget. The "surplus" was really a reduction of a negative number (that still remained negative) of the yearly budgets. This is really creative economics at it's best. It's like saying, "I expected to lose 1000 dollars at the race track, but I only lost 500, so I have a 500 dollar surplus". The increased tax revenues? They came primarily from the other liberal arch-enemy .... business. Eisboch |
OT Confiscatory taxation
"Vic Smith" wrote in message ... On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:10:52 -0500, thunder wrote: This wasn't about home ownership. It was about using houses as banks. Sucking out any equity, to pay of credit card bills. Flipping houses expecting a 10-15% return in a year. It was a bubble, and like all bubbles, it burst. It wasn't Clinton's fault. It wasn't Bush's fault. It was *our* fault. Bull****. I had nothing to do with it. --Vic This all started with tax reform legislation passed by Congress in 1986. Reagan was president and the Democrats had control of congress. Up until then individuals could deduct things like interest paid on car loans and credit cards. The tax reform bill eventually (first year it reduced it to 65%) did away with these deductions, so people started getting 2nd mortgages or "home equity lines of credit" to purchase big ticket items because the interest paid was still deductable. It's ironic that the tax reform bill of 1986, passed despite Reagan's opposition to it, is now under "revision" by the Obama administration. They are proposing the equivalent of tax credits if you buy a new car in an effort to stimulate the economy. Eisboch |
OT Confiscatory taxation
"wf3h" wrote in message ... as the nobel prize winning economist paul krugman pointed it, it's as if for every year of the last 30, every middle class family sent a check for $10,000 to the richest 0.1% of americans. -------------------------------------- Bull****. "It's as if" is not "as it is". The rich got richer because the world got richer. Wealth was created, not redistributed from the middle class. I agree that wealthy people are typically in a better position to gain more wealth through wealth creation, but they are not "taking it" from middle class. Where you people get this goofy idea, I don't know. BTW, Some of the "facts" that are throw around are also simply not true. In reality, the upper 20 percent (wealth wise) control one third of the wealth, not the ridiculous numbers perpertuated by some, like "the upper 1% controls 80% of the nation's wealth". Eisboch |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Mar 22, 6:53*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message ... as the nobel prize winning economist paul krugman pointed it, it's as if for every year of the last 30, every middle class family sent a check for $10,000 to the richest 0.1% of americans. -------------------------------------- Bull****. "It's as if" *is not *"as it is". The rich got richer because the world got richer. * funny the middle class got left out. productivity improved. more wealth was created. and the wealthiest took it all for themselves. Wealth was created, not redistributed from the middle class. *I agree that wealthy people are typically in a better position to gain more wealth through wealth creation, but they are not "taking it" from middle class. Where you people get this goofy idea, I don't know. you mean other than looking at the evidence? gee. i don't know. the rich got richer. the middle class did not. how strange of me to think the rich got richer and the middle class did not... BTW, *Some of the "facts" *that are throw around are also simply not true. In reality, the upper 20 percent (wealth wise) control one third of the wealth, not the ridiculous numbers perpertuated by some, like "the upper 1% controls 80% of the nation's wealth". the INCREASE in the amount of wealth held by the richest 1% over the past 20 years in the US was incredible. hogs at the trough. now they want the middle class to make up the difference they just lost in the bonfire they made of the economy. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Mar 22, 6:21*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message ... clinton was the only president in recent history to balance the budget. Favorite myth perpetuated by some Democrats, but unfortunately not true. Spending under Clinton increased by almost 30%, but tax revenues increased by 85%. The "deficit" *spending increased in each year of his 8 years in office.. The increased tax revenues where not planned for or expected and served to decrease the deficit of his own budget, particularly in 2000, but did not balance the budget. * The "surplus" was really a reduction of a negative number (that still remained negative) of the yearly budgets. * This is really creative economics at it's best. * It's like saying, "I expected to lose 1000 dollars at the race track, but I only lost 500, so I have a 500 dollar surplus". ROFLMAO and even playing by THOSE crooked rules the GOP managed to sack and pillage the US economy. god how incompetent they are. The increased tax revenues? * They came primarily from the other liberal arch-enemy .... business. and business just got it back. in spades. paid for by the middle class. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
wf3h wrote:
On Mar 22, 6:21 am, "Eisboch" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message ... clinton was the only president in recent history to balance the budget. Favorite myth perpetuated by some Democrats, but unfortunately not true. Spending under Clinton increased by almost 30%, but tax revenues increased by 85%. The "deficit" spending increased in each year of his 8 years in office. The increased tax revenues where not planned for or expected and served to decrease the deficit of his own budget, particularly in 2000, but did not balance the budget. The "surplus" was really a reduction of a negative number (that still remained negative) of the yearly budgets. This is really creative economics at it's best. It's like saying, "I expected to lose 1000 dollars at the race track, but I only lost 500, so I have a 500 dollar surplus". ROFLMAO and even playing by THOSE crooked rules the GOP managed to sack and pillage the US economy. god how incompetent they are. The increased tax revenues? They came primarily from the other liberal arch-enemy .... business. and business just got it back. in spades. paid for by the middle class. Once again, I believe the large players in the financial services industries -stocks, bonds, banks, insurance companies, et cetera- need to be very closely regulated by public agencies AND they all need to be rated regularly by organizations like A.M. Best. The recent debacles in financial services prove there is no reason to trust their financial reports or the reports of their outside auditors. We also need to bust up the big national banks. Too much of our economy is tied up in the hands of too few. We really cannot afford to have banks "too big to be allowed to fail." These huge financial services companies provide no needed public service attributable to their size, compared to the risk to us they impose. And credit swap derivatives? Crikey. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Mar 22, 8:11*am, HK wrote:
And credit swap derivatives? Crikey.- and we thought creationism was ignorance...CDS make creationism look live the harvard law review |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com