Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Lots of different ways from tax cuts, to bailouts, quantitative easing and direct subsidies. No one party is to blame, representatives from both parties have been complicit in looking at the economy from a perspective that helping corporations and industries instead of people is the way to go.Who subsidized corporations and the wealthy? How?
Lots of different ways from tax cuts, to bailouts, quantitative easing and direct subsidies. No one party is to blame, representatives from both parties have been complicit in looking at the economy from a perspective that helping corporations and industries instead of people is the way to go.
What does that matter? Our tax rate shouldn't be dependent on situations in the rest of the world but adjusted to needs of our people.Lots of different ways from tax cuts,
Until Trump, our corporate tax rate was one of the highest in the world.
And? In the midst of a great recession when people where losing their jobs and homes the government decided to prioritize helping people were going to be OK regardless. So what if they had lost their businesses? They would of still been millionaires and billionaires. We could of prioritized helping poor and working Americans and it would of been paid back to the government in a stronger and larger middle class. What we got instead was an exasperation of wealth disparity.to bailouts,
TARP was repaid, at a profit to the US Treasury.
But largely benefited them.quantitative easing
That wasn't exclusive to corporations.
and direct subsidies.
Which ones? Any specifics?
What does that matter? Our tax rate shouldn't be dependent on situations in the rest of the world but adjusted to needs of our people.
And? In the midst of a great recession when people where losing their jobs and homes the government decided to prioritize helping people were going to be OK regardless. So what if they had lost their businesses? They would of still been millionaires and billionaires. We could of prioritized helping poor and working Americans and it would of been paid back to the government in a stronger and larger middle class. What we got instead was an exasperation of wealth disparity.
But largely benefited them.
That is one thing I miss about Reagan. Unlike either of the Bushes, or Trump either for that matter, I knew Reagan was in this for us, and not the wealthy. He was not about class warfare. He lied about deficits, but imo, we'd not be in this mess if he was still around. He was a small govt guy, unlike any potus since, really, but he was pragmatic and knew middle class Americans wanted soc sec and medicare.Who subsidized corporations and the wealthy? How?
In political science, the term banana republic describes a politically unstable country with an economy dependent upon the exportation of a limited-resource product, such as bananas or minerals.
No it's not. They were paying one tax rate and it got cut to a lower rate in the midst of rising inequality, stagnant wages and a shrinking middle class as families struggle to afford homes, Healthcare, education and now food.What does that matter? Our tax rate shouldn't be dependent on situations in the rest of the world but adjusted to needs of our people.
Difficult to defend the idea that one of the highest rates in the world was a subsidy.
Bailing out people who were losing their homes would of allowed them to keep their homes, the money of average Americans in those banks were largely insured, it's assets could of been sold off and the gamblers could of faced the wrath of market forces as they're supposed to.And? In the midst of a great recession when people where losing their jobs and homes the government decided to prioritize helping people were going to be OK regardless.
Would massive bank failures have resulted in fewer lost jobs or fewer lost homes?
Hence, helping out average Americans until another entrepreneur steps in to fill the void.So what if they had lost their businesses? They would of still been millionaires and billionaires.
And those employees would have lost their jobs. So what?
Why not?We could of prioritized helping poor and working Americans and it would of been paid back to the government in a stronger and larger middle class.
With handouts?
You guys always get cute when you don't have a come back.But largely benefited them.
You didn't benefit? That's sad.
No it's not. They were paying one tax rate and it got cut to a lower rate in the midst of rising inequality, stagnant wages and a shrinking middle class as families struggle to afford homes, Healthcare, education and now food.
Bailing out people who were losing their homes would of allowed them to keep their homes, the money of average Americans in those banks were largely insured, it's assets could of been sold off and the gamblers could of faced the wrath of market forces as they're supposed to.
Hence, helping out average Americans until another entrepreneur steps in to fill the void.
Why not?
You guys always get cute when you don't have a come back.
Hence, helping out average Americans until another entrepreneur steps in to fill the void.
Perhaps we export war.Banana republic basically is defined in true dictionaries and even over at wiki as
— wiki.
Therefore, I share that fact, as a public service, since the OP is absolute nonsense.
You’re welcome.
Or perhaps that’s just a stupid, mindless and baseless piece of fluff rhetoric.Perhaps we export war.
Yes, the middle class is somewhat smaller. At the same time, those below the poverty level, have remained constant. What has happened is that middle-income workers have moved into the upper-income group of workers.
The damage being done by Biden/Harris administration to our economy could take decades for us to recover. It is another disaster getting worse by the day.
The US Is Officially A Banana Republic:
The Top 1% Now Own More Wealth Than The Entire Middle Class
Summary:
The US Is Officially A Banana Republic: The Top 1% Now Own More Wealth Than The Entire Middle Class
In some ways, we sympathize with Neel Kashkari's fake "concern" about the unprecedented we...austrian.economicblogs.org
In some ways, we sympathize with Neel Kashkari's fake "concern" about the unprecedented wealth inequality that has emerged in the US in recent years and which has resulted in a slow, methodical and relentless destruction of the US middle class ... or rather make that precedented because there was another time when the top 0.1% had amassed as much wealth and it was just before the Great Depression. After all, who hasn't seen charts such as these showing the tremendous divergence in income earned by America's Top 1% at the expense of the middle and lower classes: Or that the top 10% now own 70% of all the US wealth, the same as the middle and lower classes combined...... up 10% from the 60% of wealth they controlled at the start of the century.
~Snip~
It's not just stocks that have benefited the super rich: housing has too. While a generation ago, the middle class held more than 44% of real estate assets in the country, it is now down to 38%. The pandemic generated a boom in housing values that has benefited most those who owned real estate in the first place. It also led to soaring rents this year, which hurt those who can’t afford a house. The self-feeding loop was yet another source of wealth transfer for the wealthier.
So the next time someone abuses the popular phrase "they hate us for our [fill in the blank]", perhaps it's time to counter that "they" may not "hate" us at all, but rather are making fun of what has quietly and slowly but surely become the world's biggest banana republic?
And it has not Russia, nor China, nor any other foreign enemy to blame except one: the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States.
Full story here
Comment:
Historically, bad shit ensues when this is sustained. Given a fed-up heavily armed populace, well....
The 18th century French banker and philosopher named Richard Cantillon noticed a phenomenon that when new money was issued by the king/government, it always flowed first to those closest to the source - the rich, powerful and connected.
He wrote called ‘An Essay on Economic Theory,” and his basic theory was that who benefits when the state prints a bunch of money is based on the institutional setup of that state. In the 18th century, this meant that the closer you were to the king and government power, the more you benefitted. The rich received “new money” first, often on beneficial terms. The further away you were, ie) average workers, the more you were harmed, due to inflation and debasement.
Money, in other words, is not neutral. This general observation, that money printing has distributional consequences that operate through the price system, is known as the “Cantillon Effect.”
The solution is simple. Break up Amazon and apply the law to politicians that have become multi-millionaires by insider trading.
Pretty amazing watching the devotees of "Greed Is Good" suddenly doing a full one-eighty and going ersatz populist.
Those darn rich guys!
Perhaps, and perhaps your sophmoronic attempt to "one up" the thread was .... bullshitOr perhaps that’s just a stupid, mindless and baseless piece of fluff rhetoric.
Perhaps we export war.
Nah. You’re just being retarded.Perhaps, and perhaps your sophmoronic attempt to "one up" the thread was .... bullshit
Nah. You’re just being retarded.
“Banana republic” has an actual meaning. Libtards tend to disregard the meaning of words.
But your input was dumber than even that. Absolute bullshit, in fact.
Time to move to cuba fellas...CAUTION: do not bring your paycheck with you or cuba too will become a banana republic
The Top 1% Now Own More Wealth Than The Entire Middle Class
Summary:The US Is Officially A Banana Republic: The Top 1% Now Own More Wealth Than The Entire Middle Class
In some ways, we sympathize with Neel Kashkari's fake "concern" about the unprecedented we...
In some ways, we sympathize with Neel Kashkari's fake "concern" about the unprecedented wealth inequality that has emerged in the US in recent years and which has resulted in a slow, methodical and relentless destruction of the US middle class ... or rather make that precedented because there was another time when the top 0.1% had amassed as much wealth and it was just before the Great Depression. After all, who hasn't seen charts such as these showing the tremendous divergence in income earned by America's Top 1% at the expense of the middle and lower classes: Or that the top 10% now own 70% of all the US wealth, the same as the middle and lower classes combined...... up 10% from the 60% of wealth they controlled at the start of the century.
~Snip~
It's not just stocks that have benefited the super rich: housing has too. While a generation ago, the middle class held more than 44% of real estate assets in the country, it is now down to 38%. The pandemic generated a boom in housing values that has benefited most those who owned real estate in the first place. It also led to soaring rents this year, which hurt those who can’t afford a house. The self-feeding loop was yet another source of wealth transfer for the wealthier.
So the next time someone abuses the popular phrase "they hate us for our [fill in the blank]", perhaps it's time to counter that "they" may not "hate" us at all, but rather are making fun of what has quietly and slowly but surely become the world's biggest banana republic?
And it has not Russia, nor China, nor any other foreign enemy to blame except one: the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States.
Full story here
Comment:
Historically, bad shit ensues when this is sustained. Given a fed-up heavily armed populace, well....
The 18th century French banker and philosopher named Richard Cantillon noticed a phenomenon that when new money was issued by the king/government, it always flowed first to those closest to the source - the rich, powerful and connected.
He wrote called ‘An Essay on Economic Theory,” and his basic theory was that who benefits when the state prints a bunch of money is based on the institutional setup of that state. In the 18th century, this meant that the closer you were to the king and government power, the more you benefitted. The rich received “new money” first, often on beneficial terms. The further away you were, ie) average workers, the more you were harmed, due to inflation and debasement.
Money, in other words, is not neutral. This general observation, that money printing has distributional consequences that operate through the price system, is known as the “Cantillon Effect.”
The solution is simple. Break up Amazon and apply the law to politicians that have become multi-millionaires by insider trading.
What were the tax rates for the 1% back then?I was a teenager in the 1950s,
That was when we really had a middle class.
And the country was so much happier.
thehill.com
