Socialism for the wealthy?

[Zoomie1980]

Of course the Gov't protects their money.

Gov't puts Big Business before the average american. That's the way it has always been (or really since the early 1900's).

The Gov't protects wealth from getting out to the lower 1% in my opinion.

The Gov't will bail out someone like Fannie but not the average americans who are losing their homes.

And why do you ask? Because they consider it the average american's own fault for losing their homes.

There's not much you can do when the prices for EVERYTHING skyrockets but your still making the same wages.

If you start at 10 for example and the prices start at 5.

The prices get jacked up to 15, however your still making 10.

You can't do it, you can't make enough money to survive or support your family. That's what happening to the middle and lower class.

Of course no facts to back any of that up. Under Bush wage kept pace and usually exceeded inflation for 7 of his 8 years. Same under Clinton. Recessions coupled with energy price spikes always cause inflation to spike ahead of wages. The last time was the late 1970's. They almost always revert to normalcy after the spike passes, regardless of who is President.

Presidents don';t have any control at all over the economy anyway. They appoint the chairman of the Federal reserve and both democrats and republicans tend to appoint the same guys to that position. And that's the only individual that has any real impact on the economy. For the most part, the economy does it's own thing IN SPITE of government actions.

 

[Caligirl]

Presidents don';t have any control at all over the economy anyway. They appoint the chairman of the Federal reserve and both democrats and republicans tend to appoint the same guys to that position. And that's the only individual that has any real impact on the economy. For the most part, the economy does it's own thing IN SPITE of government actions.

I know that the economy and the debt are vastly different things, but it is fair to say that presidents do have different principles guiding their budgeting, and that massive debt is generally not a Good Thing.

To a first approximation, debt goes up under republican presidencies and down under democratic ones.:

 

[Zoomie1980]

I know that the economy and the debt are vastly different things, but it is fair to say that presidents do have different principles guiding their budgeting, and that massive debt is generally not a Good Thing.

To a first approximation:

Presidents present budgets every year. And in every year they are dead on arrival to congress. What comes out of congress usually bears no resemblance to what the President presents. Even in years where Congress and the President are of the same party the budget that comes out of Congress for Presidential signature is vastly different.

Again, for the upteenth time, I have no idea why the economy is a Presidential election issue because the President has no say in the economy at all. They can propose, but they cannot legislate. All fiscal policy comes from the Fed and from Congress, not the President.

 

[Caligirl]

How is the strong correlation between party and debt explained, in that case?

 

[Toro]

What I can't get a handle on is whether or not the reality is that the middle class will be taxed to pay for the wealthy's investments in cases like this, in the name of protecting wealth.

Most of Freddie's and Fannie's debt is owned by foreign governments and large institutions. Since most of America's financing comes from the wealthy and the upper middle class, essentially it is America's wealthy and upper middle class who is bailing out China, Russia and PIMCO. But all taxpayers are on the hook for this.

I think what happened was that the foreign governments told the US to back the debt otherwise they would stop buying it. In fact, they did just that. The most recent flow of funds data showed that foreigners were selling the debt. If the foreigners had started selling in a big way, interest rates would have spiked pushing the economy deeper.

But its socialism, no doubt about it. The vast majority's mortgages are now either owned or guaranteed by the government. The government is essentially lending you money to buy your house.

 

[Toro]

How is the strong correlation between party and debt explained, in that case?

The Republican Party has become the party of debt, full-stop. They have cut taxes without cutting spending. This is reckless and merely increases taxes on your children. The GOP have become the tax-your-children-and-spend party.

 

[editec]

Presidents present budgets every year. And in every year they are dead on arrival to congress. What comes out of congress usually bears no resemblance to what the President presents. Even in years where Congress and the President are of the same party the budget that comes out of Congress for Presidential signature is vastly different.

Again, for the upteenth time, I have no idea why the economy is a Presidential election issue because the President has no say in the economy at all.

You never heard of the VETO power of the POTUS?

They can propose, but they cannot legislate. All fiscal policy comes from the Fed and from Congress, not the President.

Apparently not.

 

[sealybobo]

Perhaps it's wise to protect the money of the people who finance America.

The next question should be, "how did the rich convince the middle class to go along with a tax scheme that doesn't work for the average American?

The death tax is a great example. No one wants to pay the enheritance tax. But doing away with it would benefit the rich far more than it would the middle class. And I bet doing away with it shifts more of the total tax burden more onto us, the middle class. But since no one wants to pay it when their parents die, most people would like to do away with it. They don't consider the pro's and con's of doing away with that.

 

[Modbert]

The next question should be, "how did the rich convince the middle class to go along with a tax scheme that doesn't work for the average American?

The death tax is a great example. No one wants to pay the enheritance tax. But doing away with it would benefit the rich far more than it would the middle class. And I bet doing away with it shifts more of the total tax burden more onto us, the middle class. But since no one wants to pay it when their parents die, most people would like to do away with it. They don't consider the pro's and con's of doing away with that.

The Middle Class is either uninformed because the media keeps it from the middle class or because they're just not educated.

You'll notice as the years go by that America's education system is getting worse while other countries increase.

The people in charge don't you want to be smart, that way you question things and how your getting screwed over. If your stupid, then you'll just be a little worker bee who will take it from the people above daily.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMqJvhmD5Yg]YouTube - George Carlin: education and the owners of America[/ame]

It's 7:57 but it's some of the 7:57 you'll ever watch.