My view on why our economy is pure shit.

[Big Fitz]

- Community Reinvestment Act: During Clinton administation, the CRA forced the Banks to write bad loans and the banks did just that. The Mortgage bubble was built and burst. Created a housing and credit crisis.

That goes back to Carter actually. Clinton went hog wild and expanded it IIRC. Remember threats from the Reno justice dept threatening prison for banks who 'Redlined' in the 90's? Or how about the ads on TV with clean looking minorities getting their first home and kids running around in the back yard? T'was a scam... and it popped.

- China Barrier and WTO: During the Clinton Administration, he tore down the barriers that protected us alittle bit from China.

"Most favored trade status". Yes indeed. On the upside, we got tons of cheap goods that made our life better in many ways. Bad news it funded our enemies and made Glasnost work essentially. Now we've created a monster in the far East. The question is, when the global economy tanks, how bad will they be hit as compared to us?

- Stiffling Regulations: We have some of the most burdensome and expense regulations on business in the world. Business go overseas to avoid them.

And this won't change till we get a business friendly president AND congress again. If we're lucky, that'll be next year. No, I'm not hopeful yet.

- Union Power and Corruption: Unions are given so much power, since Dimocrats need them to get elected.

It's stunning that card check hasn't passed yet. We have hope after what went on in WI that at least Public Sector Unions power is possibly waning.

- Taxation: Our takes on corps and small businesses are sick!

Gotta defeat all these ideas of 'fair' income and profit for that to get better. This current administration has strung up the golden goose and is demanding more eggs.

- China: Our refusal to fight the trade war is killing us.

Trade war? What 'trade war'? I don't see any 'trade war' going on here? Just some friendly government run chinese businesses and scam artists helping us out by acting like our very own loan shark and street corner vendor peddling 'high quality' fashion (I mean knock offs) at below liquidator prices.

None of these problems will correct till AFTER the removal of this admin and senate (as well as a nice chunk of the House too) happens, replacing them with those who have the philosophical opposite desires.

 

[samjones]

Glass/Stegal should be reimposed. This is a no brainer. The problem is they want to have government control income and redistribute wealth from it's rightful owners to whomever THEY see fit to have it. Nooooo.... that won't be rife with corruption. mm mmmm... they're pure as the wind driven snow.

How do you figure Glass-Stegall would redistribute any wealth from anybody to anybody? Is this hyperbole, or do you honestly think that legislation would in some way do that? I don't get it.

What it would do is stop your bank from speculating with your savings account.

 

[Big Fitz]

Glass/Stegal should be reimposed. This is a no brainer. The problem is they want to have government control income and redistribute wealth from it's rightful owners to whomever THEY see fit to have it. Nooooo.... that won't be rife with corruption. mm mmmm... they're pure as the wind driven snow.

How do you figure Glass-Stegall would redistribute any wealth from anybody to anybody? Is this hyperbole, or do you honestly think that legislation would in some way do that? I don't get it.

What it would do is stop your bank from speculating with your savings account.

Two separate issues. Glass/Stegall is good. I am talking about other legislation this collection of cretins proposes to redistribute wealth that is not theirs, mostly through the tax code.

As for banks "Speculating" with my savings account? They already do that and have since banks came into being. It's how they GROW wealth. You invest with them for interest, they then reinvest part/most of your money but are required to pay you back as they make investments with other people and thereby earn money for everyone. The person that gets a loan pays interest. You get interest from loaning your money to the bank and keeping it some place safe.

I think you need to understand the fundamentals of banking. Stuff you SHOULD have learned in Junior High.

 

[samjones]

give me a time in history that unfettered markets created what you claim they will create?

19th century United States. Now, give me a time in history in which government picking winners and losers in a corporatist economy lead to prosperity?

You think unfettered markets created the railroads? Really, do you think that? You think unfettered markets were a component of reconstruction? Or the annexation of the Southwesten US? Really, do you believe that? Do you honestly believe that government did not have a hand in business in the 19th Century?

 

[samjones]

I am talking about other legislation this collection of cretins proposes to redistribute wealth that is not theirs, mostly through the tax code.

You think the rich should be taxed at a lower rate than the middle-class?

You think the government should make it easier to get rich off investment income than to make a living working?

The tax code doesn't tax wealth. It taxes income. Porgressivity is supposed to ensure that Mitt and I both get taxed the same for that first $10,000 and he only gets taxed at a higher rate if he makes alot more and only on the "alot more" that he makes.

This isn't happening. He pays a lower tax rate than I do and I and my wife are both working out asses off trying to pay a mortgage and put 3 kids through college. I do not understand how that can be deemed "fair". I consider it incredibly greedy, to the point of being unpatriotic.

 

[Liberty]

give me a time in history that unfettered markets created what you claim they will create?

19th century United States. Now, give me a time in history in which government picking winners and losers in a corporatist economy lead to prosperity?

You think unfettered markets created the railroads? Really, do you think that? You think unfettered markets were a component of reconstruction? Or the annexation of the Southwesten US? Really, do you believe that? Do you honestly believe that government did not have a hand in business in the 19th Century?

1. Yep.
2. Yep.
3. No, but the States picked up the slack.
4. Yes.
5. very small hand, and it was mostly state charters for private rail companies that created the railroads. Also, article 1 section 8 says the federal government can have a hand in developing roads...rails are just another kind of road.

Any other brain busters?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Glass/Stegal should be reimposed. This is a no brainer. The problem is they want to have government control income and redistribute wealth from it's rightful owners to whomever THEY see fit to have it. Nooooo.... that won't be rife with corruption. mm mmmm... they're pure as the wind driven snow.

How do you figure Glass-Stegall would redistribute any wealth from anybody to anybody? Is this hyperbole, or do you honestly think that legislation would in some way do that? I don't get it.

What it would do is stop your bank from speculating with your savings account.

You mean by making mortgage loans with it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am talking about other legislation this collection of cretins proposes to redistribute wealth that is not theirs, mostly through the tax code.

You think the rich should be taxed at a lower rate than the middle-class?

You think the government should make it easier to get rich off investment income than to make a living working?

The tax code doesn't tax wealth. It taxes income. Porgressivity is supposed to ensure that Mitt and I both get taxed the same for that first $10,000 and he only gets taxed at a higher rate if he makes alot more and only on the "alot more" that he makes.

This isn't happening. He pays a lower tax rate than I do and I and my wife are both working out asses off trying to pay a mortgage and put 3 kids through college. I do not understand how that can be deemed "fair". I consider it incredibly greedy, to the point of being unpatriotic.

You think the rich should be taxed at a lower rate than the middle-class?

They aren't.

You don't believe that old Buffett story about his secretary paying 30%, do you?

 

[Big Fitz]

give me a time in history that unfettered markets created what you claim they will create?

19th century United States. Now, give me a time in history in which government picking winners and losers in a corporatist economy lead to prosperity?

You think unfettered markets created the railroads? Really, do you think that? You think unfettered markets were a component of reconstruction? Or the annexation of the Southwesten US? Really, do you believe that? Do you honestly believe that government did not have a hand in business in the 19th Century?

Oh goodie! Railroad ignorance!

The only time before the building of the transcontinental railroad the government got involved was in trackage rights and right of way issues. Abraham Lincoln was a railroad lawyer who was active in arguing cases between riverboat companies and railroads so both could operate. Railroads could build bridges and riverboats could pass through. That was the extent of the government's involvement for the most part.

Before the Union Pacific and Central Pacific (both privately owned companies formed to build the transcontinental railroad) would have been able to survive over time with private investors, but would have progressed at a MUCH slower rate as profits had to have been proven. We needed the connection to California and it's gold mines (1849 gold rush ring any bells? Nevada Silver Rush?) to help pay for the Civil War AND create a shorter connection between the coasts that did not rely on going around the horn OR over the Isthmus at Panama, which was the only way to connect at that time. That is why government got involved in programs that incentivised the project.

What essentially happened was the same thing that happens today: Businessmen, currying the favor and gifts of politicians to give them greater profit. Today it's Big Ag, Big Green, Big Oil, Big Car, Big big big. All looking for handouts that Mussolini appropriately titled Corporatism. The government made the project MORE profitable to build the Transcontinental Railroad by offering right of way and land rights on alternating square miles, as well as a subsidy for every mile built west of the Mississippi. This made the whole process extremely profitable and thereby worth doing.

The catch was that the government had to have PROOF of constructed track. Good idea of course, except for the fact that the capital to do this work by hand, as it had to be done was incredibly expensive and payments from the government were often very very late. Not only that, private investors by the hundreds sank their money into the railroads to keep it going till it was built and the government checks came in. Workers were often screwed by this, not being paid for months of work, then paid their back wages en masse. The Union Pacific workers actually had to take hostages because of the BS the UP pulled in not paying them.

On the other hand you had Credit Mobilier scandal which Senator Ames Oakes turned out to be raiding the public purse along with the executives at UP in their own private construction scheme making it more and more expensive. Corporatism at it's finest.

Ultimately, the Transcontinental railroad was a desperately needed job, done too fast and cost far too much for what we got when speed was of the essence and quality work was not. Within 20 years of it's completion in 1865, you had 4 transcontinental railroads. The remaining 3 created almost completely with private capital. Santa Fe, Southern Pacific and Northern Pacific got hardly any in comparison.

To say that this would not have gotten done without government is a fallacy. It would have, just not in 1865, and it would have cost less, AND been more profitable quicker without the government. J.J. Hill proved that one for sure.

This government can do no wrong fiction's really gotta stop.

 

[Big Fitz]

I am talking about other legislation this collection of cretins proposes to redistribute wealth that is not theirs, mostly through the tax code.

You think the rich should be taxed at a lower rate than the middle-class?

You think the government should make it easier to get rich off investment income than to make a living working?

The tax code doesn't tax wealth. It taxes income. Porgressivity is supposed to ensure that Mitt and I both get taxed the same for that first $10,000 and he only gets taxed at a higher rate if he makes alot more and only on the "alot more" that he makes.

This isn't happening. He pays a lower tax rate than I do and I and my wife are both working out asses off trying to pay a mortgage and put 3 kids through college. I do not understand how that can be deemed "fair". I consider it incredibly greedy, to the point of being unpatriotic.

No, I am for a flat tax percentage. One bracket with no exemptions or loopholes for anyone. Include capital gains in income and be done with it all.

You willing to back that plan?

Just because you're too incompetent to make more than 10k does not mean someone else should be penalized for being smarter and more productive than you. Your envy never made another person better off.

 

[Big Fitz]

I am talking about other legislation this collection of cretins proposes to redistribute wealth that is not theirs, mostly through the tax code.

You think the rich should be taxed at a lower rate than the middle-class?

You think the government should make it easier to get rich off investment income than to make a living working?

The tax code doesn't tax wealth. It taxes income. Porgressivity is supposed to ensure that Mitt and I both get taxed the same for that first $10,000 and he only gets taxed at a higher rate if he makes alot more and only on the "alot more" that he makes.

This isn't happening. He pays a lower tax rate than I do and I and my wife are both working out asses off trying to pay a mortgage and put 3 kids through college. I do not understand how that can be deemed "fair". I consider it incredibly greedy, to the point of being unpatriotic.

You think the rich should be taxed at a lower rate than the middle-class?

They aren't.

You don't believe that old Buffett story about his secretary paying 30%, do you?

apparently he does.

 

[editec]

So, I have realized that since the Occupy movement, quite a few people do not understand capitalism.

YES! And that failure is obvious on both sides of the debate if one looks at this board's posts.

If you do not know the difference, please google it. If you think corporatism is capitalism, you will seek government intervention in a way that surpasses corporatism, and that is socialism. These OWSers have it backwards, as do many of Americans.

OWS's mistake was in failing to NAME NAMES. Instead they painted all capitalist and WALL STREET as equally responsible.

Capitalism is not the problem, it is the solution.

No capitalism is not the solution to bad government.

Capitalism is a fine system of economics, but it NOT a fine system for governance.

Capitalism has not existed for a century.

Yes it has.

Maybe it isn't the capitalism as you would have it, but the system we have is still some kind of capitalism.

How about we give it another shot? Get government out of the subsidy game,

You mean like building weapons of war we don't really need? Capital idea!

get government out of anything involving business.

Oh my god, are you one of those? Cap[italism cannot exist without government, lad. Read a book.

Government's only job is to regulate currency and they can't even get that right (see article 1 section 8).

Hmmm...read a lot of books about government, Lad. That social science specializing in that area is called POLITICAL SCIENCE, by the way.

Corporatism is not capitalism...

Correct

and socialism is not the answer.

Correct again, although I am sensing that you don't really know what socialism is.

Get the government out.

Our of what? Everything according to your ignorant POV? BAD idea, kid.

Restore capitalism.

Capitalist seem to be doing very nicely right now. IN fact they're about the only people who are.

Perhaps you need to do some reading?

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Glad I could be there for you.

Have a nice day.

 

[samjones]

I am talking about other legislation this collection of cretins proposes to redistribute wealth that is not theirs, mostly through the tax code.

You think the rich should be taxed at a lower rate than the middle-class?

You think the government should make it easier to get rich off investment income than to make a living working?

The tax code doesn't tax wealth. It taxes income. Porgressivity is supposed to ensure that Mitt and I both get taxed the same for that first $10,000 and he only gets taxed at a higher rate if he makes alot more and only on the "alot more" that he makes.

This isn't happening. He pays a lower tax rate than I do and I and my wife are both working out asses off trying to pay a mortgage and put 3 kids through college. I do not understand how that can be deemed "fair". I consider it incredibly greedy, to the point of being unpatriotic.

You think the rich should be taxed at a lower rate than the middle-class?

They aren't.

You don't believe that old Buffett story about his secretary paying 30%, do you?

Did Mitt Romney just say that he thinks his effective tax rate is about 15%? I could swear I heard that somewhere.... maybe, like, from his mouth.

 

[samjones]

No, I am for a flat tax percentage. One bracket with no exemptions or loopholes for anyone.

There you go.... you will never, ever, ever get that, so you are now entitled to whine all you want about how you aren't getting things your way.

Life is easier when you make impossible demands. You don't have to deal with the pesky details of compromise.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You think the rich should be taxed at a lower rate than the middle-class?

You think the government should make it easier to get rich off investment income than to make a living working?

The tax code doesn't tax wealth. It taxes income. Porgressivity is supposed to ensure that Mitt and I both get taxed the same for that first $10,000 and he only gets taxed at a higher rate if he makes alot more and only on the "alot more" that he makes.

This isn't happening. He pays a lower tax rate than I do and I and my wife are both working out asses off trying to pay a mortgage and put 3 kids through college. I do not understand how that can be deemed "fair". I consider it incredibly greedy, to the point of being unpatriotic.

You think the rich should be taxed at a lower rate than the middle-class?

They aren't.

You don't believe that old Buffett story about his secretary paying 30%, do you?

Did Mitt Romney just say that he thinks his effective tax rate is about 15%? I could swear I heard that somewhere.... maybe, like, from his mouth.

Do you pay more than 15% on your capital gains and dividends?

 

[samjones]

You think the rich should be taxed at a lower rate than the middle-class?

They aren't.

You don't believe that old Buffett story about his secretary paying 30%, do you?

Did Mitt Romney just say that he thinks his effective tax rate is about 15%? I could swear I heard that somewhere.... maybe, like, from his mouth.

Do you pay more than 15% on your capital gains and dividends?

I don't really have the option to structure most of my income that way.... I have to work for a living.

I don't get why taxes are optional for the super rich. Isn't fair to speculate that a series of tax policies aimed at ensuring that people are taxed according to their ability to pay could be written to build progressivity into dividends and capital gains? I get that this shouldn't simply be brackets, like with income, but couldn't there be a way to make it harder for the rich to simply pay less because their accountant tells them that's in their best interest?

I know that this wouldn't solve all of our debt problems, but wouldn't it be a single step in the right direction?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did Mitt Romney just say that he thinks his effective tax rate is about 15%? I could swear I heard that somewhere.... maybe, like, from his mouth.

Do you pay more than 15% on your capital gains and dividends?

I don't really have the option to structure most of my income that way.... I have to work for a living.

I don't get why taxes are optional for the super rich. Isn't fair to speculate that a series of tax policies aimed at ensuring that people are taxed according to their ability to pay could be written to build progressivity into dividends and capital gains? I get that this shouldn't simply be brackets, like with income, but couldn't there be a way to make it harder for the rich to simply pay less because their accountant tells them that's in their best interest?

I know that this wouldn't solve all of our debt problems, but wouldn't it be a single step in the right direction?

It's awful that the rich pay the same rate on capital gains and dividends as you, right?

Capital gains taxes are optional, because you can decide when or if to sell.
When or if to invest.
Obviously, the rich do not pay less.
No, it wouldn't be a step in the right direction.

 

[samjones]

It's awful that the rich pay the same rate on capital gains and dividends as you, right?

Capital gains taxes are optional, because you can decide when or if to sell.
When or if to invest.
Obviously, the rich do not pay less.
No, it wouldn't be a step in the right direction.

Mitt Romney has a lower effective tax rate than me. I don't think it's awful that we all pay the same on dividends and CGT and I don't think it's awful that CGT is low, but I do think it's awful that this amounts to welfare for the wealthy.

In my mind, if you start claiming capital gains on multiple sales per year that exceed a certain threshhold, say 100K aggregate, and you do it year after year, you become a professional investor and this becomes "income" and should be taxed as such.

Qualified dividends should be taxed at a higher rater per plan with TIPRA expires in 2013.

I get why the rich don't want to pay their fair share in taxes, but I don't get why we let them get away with it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's awful that the rich pay the same rate on capital gains and dividends as you, right?

Capital gains taxes are optional, because you can decide when or if to sell.
When or if to invest.
Obviously, the rich do not pay less.
No, it wouldn't be a step in the right direction.

Mitt Romney has a lower effective tax rate than me. I don't think it's awful that we all pay the same on dividends and CGT and I don't think it's awful that CGT is low, but I do think it's awful that this amounts to welfare for the wealthy.

In my mind, if you start claiming capital gains on multiple sales per year that exceed a certain threshhold, say 100K aggregate, and you do it year after year, you become a professional investor and this becomes "income" and should be taxed as such.

Qualified dividends should be taxed at a higher rater per plan with TIPRA expires in 2013.

I get why the rich don't want to pay their fair share in taxes, but I don't get why we let them get away with it.

Mitt Romney has a lower effective tax rate than me.

You said the rich pay lower rates than the middle class. You both pay 15% on capital gains and dividends. Why is that making you sad?

but I do think it's awful that this amounts to welfare for the wealthy.

How? What was your effective rate?
He probably paid more taxes than you. How is that welfare?

Qualified dividends should be taxed at a higher rater

When you include the 35% corporate rate, I'm sure that's much, much higher than the rate you pay.

 

[Old_Liberal]

removing government from business altogether and returning it to the proper role of upholding the law and properly defining private property rights is definitely the way to go. This would also have to involve a responsible monetary policy.

If the government could no longer aid businesses by supplying subsidies or competition crippling (and highly ineffective) regulatory measures, these businesses would no longer be able to lobby government for special interest.

Put the government OUT of business entirely.

I agree with Liberty all the way on this.

Unfettered capitalism created the era of the kings and queens.

No rules is what you want and they will do anything for profit.

You want this country handed over to the wealthy, WHY?

In case you missed it, this country has already been handed over to the wealthy, who got it back with the rise of conservatives beginning in 1980.

Capitalism left alone, to its own devices, is ruled by human nature. Human nature is very powerful in the lives of the many when it is allowed to run rampant in the lives of the few.

Greed, which is indeed human nature affects capitalism. It welds itself to capitalism and steers it to benefit only themselves, in the form of profit. Unfettered capitalism does not create large middle classes, gov't intervention and management of capitalism can only yield middle classes.

To see what capitalism does naturally, just consider the removal of an engine that helped to create history's largest middle class. In order to max out profits, our manufacturers needed the cheapest labor they could find, and they needed access back into the world's largest consumer market, one in fact, that they helped to create here, by employing americans. With the anti regulation, business friendly Republicans, they found a willing ally, and free trade was concocted by special interests and republicans, behind close doors, in secret.

Free trade and our special trade relations with a Communist State, Red China, was the new tool to max out profits of the few, as they devastated our middle class and took away the ladder up for our poor.

Capitalism can created a large middle class when managed to do so, or it can max out the profits of the few. It cannot do both, simultaneously, and this is basic 5th grade arithmetic.

You cannot pay enough in wages to create a middle class while maxing out profits with dirt cheap labor costs. You either are used by the nation to build the middle, or you allow the engines to only enrich themselves, and to hell with the nation. The Republicans chose which way to go, which was a departure from our old economic model that sought to bring prosperity to all americans who would work, in in the process saw the rise of the worlds largest middle class.