Socialism for the wealthy?

[Caligirl]

But it should be fair. If we give handouts to the wealthy, we should give them to the middle class. If don't give handouts to the middle class we shouldn't give them to the wealthy. It makes no sense that you could sustain this sort of lopsided re-distribution of the wealth for any real length of time.

No wonder we're working more hours for less pay? What am I missing here?

 

[Modbert]

But it should be fair. If we give handouts to the wealthy, we should give them to the middle class. If don't give handouts to the middle class we shouldn't give them to the wealthy. It makes no sense that you could sustain this sort of lopsided re-distribution of the wealth for any real length of time.

No wonder we're working more hours for less pay? What am I missing here?

Oh I agree it should be fair. No doubt in my mind that it should be fair.

We should handouts to the middle class and lower class more then the Wealthy since the Wealthy don't need them.

You think people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet will notice if they don't save $250,000 because they didn't get a tax break? Something along the lines of that.

And it doesn't make sense that we can sustain this sort of lopsided re-distribution of wealth for any real length of time. That's why what is going on now is occuring. Slowly since the early 1900's the amount of money a CEO and the average worker makes has widened in difference.

I believe I already posted a link in this thread to said graph.

It's not only that but if you poke a sleeping bear then eventually that bear will attack. That's what this Administration and every Republican Administration since least going back to the Reagan years with the trickle down theory is doing to the average american people.

As I stated earlier:

Say we start off with you making 10, and everything is priced at 5.

Now lets say we raise the price of everything at 5 to 15, but you continue to make 10.

Eventually in the long run, you can't do it because your not making enough money. That's one of the main problems the middle class is currently dealing with.

A good example of this would be say Teachers.

Eventually, just like the George Carlin quote I also posted in here earlier; people will angry enough to rise up and say enough is enough.

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.” - Ed Howdershelt

 

[Caligirl]

I saw a local teacher at a dept store over the weekend, he had to take a second job as a checker. Pisses me off. I'm sure he's none too happy about it either.

 

[mightypeon]

Germany has seen some equivalent "Bail out stupid banks" (and they were really, really really stupid, buying sub primes when the news were already available etc.) things. Also, the banks in question were former state banks too, with nothing bad happening to them apart from some leading stuff beeing transfered to another position.

I actually believe that personall responsibility of each Banker should ameliorate the problems, right now, they, in many cases, play with money and hope for the best.

 

[glockmail]

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.

It doesn't prove that at all. What it proves is that whenever socialism is tried it either fails, like it did here, or creates an enormous drag on the economy.

 

[Caligirl]

Socialism wrt Fannie/Freddie is what is being tried now, to bail out the banks and shareholders.

The argument is that if they fail millions of hardworking americans will lose their homes.

On the other hand, millions of hardworking americans will now pay higher taxes to make sure the shareholders are covered.

At least that's how I understand it.

 

[glockmail]

I saw a local teacher at a dept store over the weekend, he had to take a second job as a checker. Pisses me off. I'm sure he's none too happy about it either.

If he doesn't want to work a second job then he should adjust his lifestyle down. People live beyond their means, and that's their own choice. Shit, my dad worked a day job, went to night school and drove a cab on the weekends to support his family when he had to.

 

[Caligirl]

Sure, but the fact that he had to take a second job is another indication (like the foreclosure signs around town) that ecomonic problems are increasing.

 

[glockmail]

Socialism wrt Fannie/Freddie is what is being tried now, to bail out the banks and shareholders.

The argument is that if they fail millions of hardworking americans will lose their homes.

On the other hand, millions of hardworking americans will now pay higher taxes to make sure the shareholders are covered.

At least that's how I understand it.

You didn't read my earlier post on this. Freddie and Fannie were socialist "children" from the get-go. The mistake was made back then not to "abort" the congressional bills that created them. Now we're stuck with irresponsible "adult children".

 

[Caligirl]

Yeah, I'd agree with you there.

I would say that the whole american meme that everyone should own a house is a bit of weird idea to start with.

 

[glockmail]

Sure, but the fact that he had to take a second job is another indication (like the foreclosure signs around town) that ecomonic problems are increasing.

In his case he had a wife and 5 kids to house, feed and clothe, and wanted to get an engineering degree so he could get a better job.

I agree that the economy is on a down-turn, but the fact is that if people didn't live beyond their means, they cold easily weather minor downturns. I've had employees making $30K/year complaining to me that they can't afford their HBO and Cinemax. Heck I never had cable TV until a few years ago.

The reason for all the foreclosures is that people bought houses that were too big for their paychecks. It's really that simple.

 

[glockmail]

Yeah, I'd agree with you there.

I would say that the whole american meme that everyone should own a house is a bit of weird idea to start with.

It is the ideal and I wish everyone could. The fact is, when people are vested in their communities, neighborhoods are safer, crime is lower and all the advantages of that. But some can never, simply because they choose not to work smart enough to get there, and spend whatever they make on luxuries.

 

[Caligirl]

I was every bit as vested in my community when I was in an apartment. Apartment living can make you more connected to your neighbors. I lived above a Walgreens during school, right on the main street in town. There was always stuff going on on the street, musicians, shopping, whatever. It was idyllic in many ways, and you don't get it at all in suburbia. Here you can drive your car into the garage and shut the garage door without even seeing your neighbors. It's different. One size does not fit all. I wouldn't move back into an apartment, but that's at least in part because DH does not want to.

It could be that home ownership is related to less crime, but that could also be that home ownership is related to less poverty.

 

[glockmail]

I was every bit as vested in my community when I was in an apartment. Apartment living can make you more connected to your neighbors. I lived above a Walgreens during school, right on the main street in town. There was always stuff going on on the street, musicians, shopping, whatever. It was idyllic in many ways, and you don't get it at all in suburbia. Here you can drive your car into the garage and shut the garage door without even seeing your neighbors. It's different. One size does not fit all. I wouldn't move back into an apartment, but that's at least in part because DH does not want to.

It could be that home ownership is related to less crime, but that could also be that home ownership is related to less poverty.

I didn't say anything about urban v suburban communities, but ownership. If people own their homes or apartments, they are more likely to be concerned with community economic values, and deterrence of crime and its prerequisites are all part of that package.

 

[sealybobo]

I didn't say anything about urban v suburban communities, but ownership. If people own their homes or apartments, they are more likely to be concerned with community economic values, and deterrence of crime and its prerequisites are all part of that package.

Bush's America is not an ownership society. It was supposed to be, but his policies caused a crash in the markets and a recession and high unemployment and inflation and rates went up and because of predatory lending and deregulations, more people did not buy homes, most people lost homes. Loser of a president. But he did well. The rich did well. At our expense. So stop pretending you are rich and get in line.

 

[glockmail]

Bush's America is not an ownership society. It was supposed to be, but his policies caused a crash in the markets and a recession and high unemployment and inflation and rates went up and because of predatory lending and deregulations, more people did not buy homes, most people lost homes. Loser of a president. But he did well. The rich did well. At our expense. So stop pretending you are rich and get in line.

I wasn't aware that Bush controlled Congress. Damn- here I was thinking that Pelosi and Reid did.

 

[editec]

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.

I might agree with you IF the government had taken over those companies entirely, if the sotck holders had lost everything, and if they'd taken out the officers and board of the company and shot them.

No I am not kidding about shooting the bastards.

I'm a truly tired of living in a society where we hold burger flippers to a higher standard of job performance than we do people making hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

This classist double standard we have come to accept as just the way it is, has got to stop.

 

[Caligirl]

I'm a truly tired of living in a society where we hold burger flippers to a higher standard of job performance than we do people making hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

The burger flippers are being held to the right standard, btw, people should be ethical and hard working and their risk should come at an actual cost when it doesn't pay off.

At the risk of derailing the thread, I would suggest that we hold all of our politicians to this standard as well.

 

[LeftOfTheMiddle]

I wasn't aware that Bush controlled Congress. Damn- here I was thinking that Pelosi and Reid did.

Don't fool yourself. Bush and his cronies control EVERYTHING! If you disagree with him, you get labeled as un-American. Furthermore, don't try to lay the failed policies of the Bush administration at the doorstep of the Democratic Congress. Pelosi and Reid have only been Speaker and Senate Majority Leader, respectively, since Jan '07. Bush and his Republican Congress had done the damage by then.

 

[glockmail]

Don't fool yourself. Bush and his cronies control EVERYTHING! If you disagree with him, you get labeled as un-American. ......

Wow I'll let this speak for itself!