Socialism for the wealthy?

[Caligirl]

I've heard recently that our current taxation, credits, bailouts, etc - all favor the wealthy. Take the Fannie-Freddie bailout. Taxpayers will pay for this, and shareholders have their investments secured by that taxation.

In other words, we have a system that is capitalistic for the poor, but socialistic for the wealthy. It's a creepy idea.

This idea has also been talked about as privatization of profits, and all the risk in investing ultimately being borne by the masses.

None of us want socialism (we're all true blue here), so tell me, is our system capitalistic for the poor, and socialistic for the wealthy?

Any good ideas?

You can also read about this under the key terms Moral Hazard.

Financial bail-outs of lending institutions by governments, central banks or other institutions can encourage risky lending in the future, if those that take the risks come to believe that they will not have to carry the full burden of losses. Lending institutions need to take risks by making loans, and usually the most risky loans have the potential for making the highest return. A moral hazard arises if lending institutions believe that they can make risky loans that will pay handsomely if the investment turns out well but they will not have to fully pay for losses if the investment turns out badly. Taxpayers, depositors, and other creditors have often had to shoulder at least part of the burden of risky financial decisions made by lending institutions.[1]

Moral hazard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Modbert]

I've heard recently that our current taxation, credits, bailouts, etc - all favor the wealthy. Take the Fannie-Freddie bailout. Taxpayers will pay for this, and shareholders have their investments secured by that taxation.

In other words, we have a system that is capitalistic for the poor, but socialistic for the wealthy. It's a creepy idea.

This idea has also been talked about as privatization of profits, and all the risk in investing ultimately being borne by the masses.

None of us want socialism (we're all true blue here), so tell me, is our system capitalistic for the poor, and socialistic for the wealthy?

Any good ideas?

You can also read about this under the key terms Moral Hazard.



Moral hazard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The rich are truly getting richer in this country. The top 1% are certainly controlling more and gaining more of the money.

This disturbing graph is a good such example.

Digg - The Wide Divide (Graph of CEO pay vs Average Worker)

As I mentioned in another thread, trickle-down economics that the Reagan, Bush 41, and Dubya Administration have used at certain times have certainly helped make the rich even richer.

Because lets face it, their economic-political argument that the increases in the wealth of the rich are good for the poor because some of such additional wealth will eventually trickle down to the middle class and to the poor.

However, if the rich are keeping that money, reinvesting it, having to pay less,etc then there is less to trickle down to the middle class and the poor.

If you think things are bad now? Wait three years if things stay the same.

I think George Carlin defined it best:

"Capitalism tries for a delicate balance: It attempts to work things out so that everyone gets just enough stuff to keep them from getting violent and trying to take other people’s stuff." - George Carlin

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy4Tg_uR_Bg]YouTube - Consumer capitalism[/ame]

 

[Caligirl]

But are they getting richer because the government protects their money?

We value wealth, so in a sense it makes sense to protect it., Does the government protect wealth, and does this mean the wealthy are protected from losing money moreso than the poor?

Fannie-Freddie is a current example.

 

[Red Dawn]

I've heard recently that our current taxation, credits, bailouts, etc - all favor the wealthy. Take the Fannie-Freddie bailout. Taxpayers will pay for this, and shareholders have their investments secured by that taxation.

In other words, we have a system that is capitalistic for the poor, but socialistic for the wealthy. It's a creepy idea.

This idea has also been talked about as privatization of profits, and all the risk in investing ultimately being borne by the masses.

None of us want socialism (we're all true blue here), so tell me, is our system capitalistic for the poor, and socialistic for the wealthy?

snip

Yes, we're drifting back to a plutocracy, which is what we had until the modern progressive era starting with Teddy Roosevelt.

The rich will always be protected. No matter who is president.

I'm a big admirer of hybrid capitalist systems, like they have in the scandinavian countries.

 

[Modbert]

But are they getting richer because the government protects their money?

We value wealth, so in a sense it makes sense to protect it., Does the government protect wealth, and does this mean the wealthy are protected from losing money moreso than the poor?

Fannie-Freddie is a current example.

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.

 

[Red Dawn]

But are they getting richer because the government protects their money?

We value wealth, so in a sense it makes sense to protect it., Does the government protect wealth, and does this mean the wealthy are protected from losing money moreso than the poor?

Fannie-Freddie is a current example.

This is self evident.

Isn't it amazing how quickly and efficiently the government can act, when capital and wealth are at stake? Fannie Mae is a great example. How about that invesment bank, Bear and Stearns? The government acted so quickly to take control of that situation, that they were actually working on a Sunday night to make it happen. And within hours, the situation was under control.

But, God forbid soliders need body armour, veterans need health benefits, or children need health insurance. That shit takes years do accomplish, and Cons have to be dragged kicking and screaming the whole way.

 

[Modbert]

This is self evident.

Isn't it amazing how quickly and efficiently the government can act, when capital and wealth are at stake? Fannie Mae is a great example. How about that invesment bank, Bear and Stearns? The government acted so quickly to take control of that situation, that they were actually working on a Sunday night to make it happen. And within hours, the situation was under control.

But, God forbid soliders need body armour, veterans need health benefits, or children need health insurance. That shit takes years do accomplish, and Cons have to be dragged kicking and screaming the whole way.

I think it's personally pathetic how our soldiers families have to go to pawn shops to get proper body armor.

How families have to kick and fight for years to just get the insurance they deserve.

How our veterans are treated like shit, and nothing is really done for them. (1/4 of the people who are homeless are veterans too. Only goes to show how well we really treat them.)

As I said before, it's all the Gov't doing by protecting Big Business first and putting Big Business before the average American. They been doing it for years, but now they're just cocky about it.

Don't even get me started on when it comes to PTSD and current troops/veterans though. Unless you want a long but logical rant.

 

[dilloduck]

I think it's personally pathetic how our soldiers families have to go to pawn shops to get proper body armor.

How families have to kick and fight for years to just get the insurance they deserve.

How our veterans are treated like shit, and nothing is really done for them. (1/4 of the people who are homeless are veterans too. Only goes to show how well we really treat them.)

As I said before, it's all the Gov't doing by protecting Big Business first and putting Big Business before the average American. They been doing it for years, but now they're just cocky about it.

Don't even get me started on when it comes to PTSD and current troops/veterans though. Unless you want a long but logical rant.

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

 

[Modbert]

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

I agree that the money of people who finance America should be protected to a extent because otherwise much would be at risk.

However, with some companies it's the people in charge fault for messing things up. Sometimes even purposely.

I.E: Enron

However, when you ignore the American middle class, the American working class, the lower class,etc but only focus on upper America is where I have a problem.

The way our Veterans and the Middle Class get treated in this country today is pathetic.

If anyone would like, I'm willing to post my letter that I had written to my state senator; Jack Reed on soldiers and PTSD.

I'm sure many of you know him as the man who accompanied Barack Obama and Chuck Hagel when they all visited Iraq and Afghanistan.

He is in my opinion, a great man.

 

[Care4all]

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

the stockholders????

 

[dilloduck]

the stockholders????

Those that provide them with something to invest in.

 

[glockmail]

I've heard recently that our current taxation, credits, bailouts, etc - all favor the wealthy. Take the Fannie-Freddie bailout. Taxpayers will pay for this, and shareholders have their investments secured by that taxation......

Fannie and Freddie should have been aborted. Their births were a government boondogle that should have never been allowed to come full term. Now that they're failed adults we have no choice but to support them. Once they get back on their feet they should get their asses kicked out of the house forever. If anyone sees them on the property they should be shot on sight.

 

[glockmail]

double post

 

[Diuretic]

It just goes to prove that the pure free market is a myth and rightly so. It might play nicely in someone's mind but reality is a little different. In an economy people matter. Economies have to be regulated, it's just that you get to vote for the amount of regulation you think an economy needs.

 

[Caligirl]

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

But the other side of it is that the middle class and below are the ones that pay for it. The wealthy having government handouts at the expense of the poor.

 

[Caligirl]

It just goes to prove that the pure free market is a myth and rightly so. It might play nicely in someone's mind but reality is a little different.

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.

 

[dilloduck]

But the other side of it is that the middle class and below are the ones that pay for it. The wealthy having government handouts at the expense of the poor.

I know--there are those who prefer to see the "have nots" as being victimized. I personally think they have it pretty good considering. I'm just a "glass is half full" kinda guy.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

The Treasury Secretary has done exactly what he needed to do to protect the US economy and also the economies of other nations that rely on the US to have a strong, functioning economy. In purely pragmatic terms he's done the right thing. The purists on the free market side will be upset because capitalism isn't supposed to be like that. Those who make mistakes should pay for them, the self-correcting mechanism kicks in. That's fine where a single investment goes bad or a company is simply badly managed and fails, but where there are mutliple failures and the impact - if not ameliorated - would plunge the US economy (and therefore the world) into a recession or even a depression, then the government is duty-bound to step in and to protect the US economy from catastrophe.

I'd just like to thank the US taxpayer for picking up the tab on this one. You've saved the rest of us again.

 

[Caligirl]

I know--there are those who prefer to see the "have nots" as being victimized. I personally think they have it pretty good considering. I'm just a "glass is half full" kinda guy.

I can get past thinking about the have nots as being victimized, but it's a slap in the face to have the haves benefit from it, and the have nots convinced that it is wrong for them to want some of that same protection that the haves have.

It is bizarre to think that we are set up as a socialist society for the wealthy.

 

[Modbert]

I can get past thinking about the have nots as being victimized, but it's a slap in the face to have the haves benefit from it, and the have nots convinced that it is wrong for them to want some of that same protection that the haves have.

It is bizarre to think that we are set up as a socialist society for the wealthy.

I don't find it bizarre that we've set up a socialist society for the wealthy as this has been going on for least a hundred years.

It's just much more noticable and has come to fruitation now.

It doesn't matter which form of government you have (except maybe Anarchy which is really no Gov't so it doesn't count) someone is going to profit.

In these days and ages, it's become harder and harder for small businesses to be created and still stable and even easier for places like Wal-Mart to take advantage and expand.

Want a good example?

In the state of Rhode Island, a couple years ago when you had to register your business every year, it only cost you $50 dollars. Now? It costs $500.

All I can say is when this country finally hits rock bottom, it's going to be a scary sight like no other.