Under Bush US's 400 richest doubled their wealth

[RodISHI]

so you're telling me you exercised your choice to leave a job you didn't like when it was most expedient for you to do so.

that doesn't sound like being a slave to me. In fact it sounds like the very definition of freedom.

No, freedom would have been being able to quit 3 months earlier when I was forced to get on my hands and knees while 5 months pregnant to do old files for an office I didn't even work for while my boss was gone and HIS boss took advantage of it.

Can you even imagine what it's like being 5 months pregnant, sitting on the floor doing filing that's 5 years old because my bosses boss didn't make his secretary do her job and the jag was coming?

Imagine if I'd gone into premature labor? I was in true pain, and tears....I had no other choice and they knew it. That's slavery. They never treated me like that until they found out my husband was unemployed.

Nope, people don't have freedom to just drop their jobs as you seem to think, not when they have responsibilities.

From your attitude, I can picture you using your employees the same way.

You have a convoluted and distorted definition of what freedom means

Only from the perspective of someone who has not been discriminated against or abused by someone in a superior position.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Lucky you. When I worked for the fed government and they found out my husband was laid off, they started treating me like sh*t. I couldn't quit. I was 5 months pregnant, how would we make the house payments? Believe me, I wanted to and I was applying right and left for other jobs but the other government agencies kept saying "we hire from within" while the one I worked for I was told to my face "You're too good at your job, we can't replace you so we can't let you get a better job."

Fortunately my husband was rehired right before my son was born and I took off to have him and never went back. I swore that I would never work for the government again unless I had no other choice.

so you're telling me you exercised your choice to leave a job you didn't like when it was most expedient for you to do so.

that doesn't sound like being a slave to me. In fact it sounds like the very definition of freedom.

No, freedom would have been being able to quit 3 months earlier when I was forced to get on my hands and knees while 5 months pregnant to do old files for an office I didn't even work for while my boss was gone and HIS boss took advantage of it.

Can you even imagine what it's like being 5 months pregnant, sitting on the floor doing filing that's 5 years old because my bosses boss didn't make his secretary do her job and the jag was coming?

Imagine if I'd gone into premature labor? I was in true pain, and tears....I had no other choice and they knew it. That's slavery. They never treated me like that until they found out my husband was unemployed.

Nope, people don't have freedom to just drop their jobs as you seem to think, not when they have responsibilities.

From your attitude, I can picture you using your employees the same way.

And you could have left three months earlier but you chose not to. yes you would have had no money and been in a horrible position but you could have left.

And FYI I treat my employees very well. i understand that they can work for someone else if they choose and that I have to compete with other employers in my area.

And besides happy employees are more productive, more productive employees are good for my business, what is good for my business is good for my employees.

Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[Skull Pilot]

so you're telling me you exercised your choice to leave a job you didn't like when it was most expedient for you to do so.

that doesn't sound like being a slave to me. In fact it sounds like the very definition of freedom.

No, freedom would have been being able to quit 3 months earlier when I was forced to get on my hands and knees while 5 months pregnant to do old files for an office I didn't even work for while my boss was gone and HIS boss took advantage of it.

Can you even imagine what it's like being 5 months pregnant, sitting on the floor doing filing that's 5 years old because my bosses boss didn't make his secretary do her job and the jag was coming?

Imagine if I'd gone into premature labor? I was in true pain, and tears....I had no other choice and they knew it. That's slavery. They never treated me like that until they found out my husband was unemployed.

Nope, people don't have freedom to just drop their jobs as you seem to think, not when they have responsibilities.

From your attitude, I can picture you using your employees the same way.

You have a convoluted and distorted definition of what freedom means

really?

were any of those people complaining about horrible jobs , forced to work there under threat of violence, or actual violence and against their will?

no.

 

[Bern80]

Bern you are saying things I have not said you are nothing more than a cheap liar that spews the same bs over and over. I have no need to post any response to you.

Don't give me that you chicken shit. This is the stunt you tried to pull the last time. When confronted with the reality of your position and left with no other option you cop out. I gave you every opportunity to correct and misrepresentation i made of your position. I fail to see where I have done so.

Unlike the likes of you, bobo, Chris etc. it is actually important to me to know that when I make an argument against someone's, I am accurate in what their position is. Because if I make an argument on the basis of a faulty premise, I have no argument.

I have attributed one thing and one thing only to you. Something you have never denied and in fact admitted to. that you believe every employer in the country should pay a living wage. Consider this your opportunity to correct me if that is not an accurate representation of your position and I will gladly accept it.

What i am arguing is that one's position of the way things should be have consequences in the real the world. If it just happened tomorrow that every employer paid every worker at least a living wage regardless of the job, then the burden of taking care of oneself will have shifted. Where as today it was your responsibility to educate yourself, to pick up the skill sets necessary to provide yourself enough to live on, tomorrow that responsibility would be gone. Government would have mandated that is your employers responsible. You will have become less responsible for yourself tomorrow then you are today. It's as simple as that. You may not like that reality, but it is reality. That is the basis for the question you have yet to answer. Why is it someone elses responsibility, more so than your own, to provide for your needs?

Again if my premise is somehow faulty or there is some flaw in my logic I am more than willing to consider that. But honestly the arguments you've presented so far don't pass even the most basic muster. You're 'we are a society' argument is incredibly weak. It is not in societies best interest that everyone learn effort is pointless because your needs will be met regardless of the effort you put forth. Isnt' whats really best for society is for people to hold themsleves accountable and to a higher standard of themsleves? To strive to become better so that struggling to find some measly living wage job is rendered irrelevant?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'll repeat to you what I said before. It is a society. In a society it takes everyone looking out for one another. Not just a few pricks who attempt to suck up all the wealth and use everyone else as slave labor to be used and abused. Or those who go along with that everyone else should be slave mentality to keep their cushy positions.

I've worked some pretty shitty jobs and a lot of jobs i didn't want to work, but I never considered myself a slave.

you know why?

Because I could have quit any one of those jobs at any time.

Good for you.

I have quit a few jobs in my day also. That is exactly why when I went into business for myself and needed to hire people to work for me I paid them more than minimum wage.

Would you ask someone to do a job that you would not do?

Better yet, would you ask another to do a job for skimpy wages that you personally would not work for yourself?

yes i would ask someone to do a job i would not do.

If i was not qualified to do that job or if one of my employees could do it better than I, I would be stupid to do that job.

And yes I would ask a person to do a job for minimum wage or "skimpy" as you say. Because in the time it would take me to do that job, my efforts could bring in much much more than I paid to do a menial job. Again, i would be stupid to give up that kind of profit to do that menial job.

you used to run a business and you don't understand that?

 

[RodISHI]

I've worked some pretty shitty jobs and a lot of jobs i didn't want to work, but I never considered myself a slave.

you know why?

Because I could have quit any one of those jobs at any time.

Good for you.

I have quit a few jobs in my day also. That is exactly why when I went into business for myself and needed to hire people to work for me I paid them more than minimum wage.

Would you ask someone to do a job that you would not do?

Better yet, would you ask another to do a job for skimpy wages that you personally would not work for yourself?

yes i would ask someone to do a job i would not do.

If i was not qualified to do that job or if one of my employees could do it better than I, I would be stupid to do that job.

And yes I would ask a person to do a job for minimum wage or "skimpy" as you say. Because in the time it would take me to do that job, my efforts could bring in much much more than I paid to do a menial job. Again, i would be stupid to give up that kind of profit to do that menial job.

you used to run a business and you don't understand that?

I still would not ask anyone to do a job that I would not have personally been willing to do myself. It is called ethics.

Yes no doubt when time is considered a factor or when or if I did not know personally how to do a job I hire another to do that job for me. Attorneys, accountants, bookeepers, etc...

I still would not try to skimp someone else out of a decent living. For any reason.

Even when we were training people they made more than minimum wage. Alas there are/were government programs that assist an employer to help defray cost to train employees if the employer takes the time to file for these things.

My business was very successful even to the point when I quit contracting the state I contracted in asked me to come back. I declined.

You have said previously you pay your people well above minimum wage. Eight times that amount if I recall. How does that make you qualified to determine everyone else should work for only the current minimum wage?

Heck people at Walmart can't even afford to buy the groceries where they work. I have a problem with that. Yet we had this discussion before and it has not a darn thing to do with a few of the richest in American doubling their wealth does it? Unless of course you ar one of them sucking the lifeblood out the country at everyone elses expense.

 

[Bern80]

Good for you.

I have quit a few jobs in my day also. That is exactly why when I went into business for myself and needed to hire people to work for me I paid them more than minimum wage.

Would you ask someone to do a job that you would not do?

Better yet, would you ask another to do a job for skimpy wages that you personally would not work for yourself?

yes i would ask someone to do a job i would not do.

If i was not qualified to do that job or if one of my employees could do it better than I, I would be stupid to do that job.

And yes I would ask a person to do a job for minimum wage or "skimpy" as you say. Because in the time it would take me to do that job, my efforts could bring in much much more than I paid to do a menial job. Again, i would be stupid to give up that kind of profit to do that menial job.

you used to run a business and you don't understand that?

I still would not ask anyone to do a job that I would not have personally been willing to do myself. It is called ethics.

Yes no doubt when time is considered a factor or when or if I did not know personally how to do a job I hire another to do that job for me. Attorneys, accountants, bookeepers, etc...

I still would not try to skimp someone else out of a decent living. For any reason.

Even when we were training people they made more than minimum wage. Alas there are/were government programs that assist an employer to help defray cost to train employees if the employer takes the time to file for these things.

My business was very successful even to the point when I quit contracting the state I contracted in asked me to come back. I declined.

You have said previously you pay your people well above minimum wage. Eight times that amount if I recall. How does that make you qualified to determine everyone else should work for only the current minimum wage?

Heck people at Walmart can't even afford to buy the groceries where they work. I have a problem with that. Yet we had this discussion before and it has not a darn thing to do with a few of the richest in American doubling their wealth does it? Unless of course you ar one of them sucking the lifeblood out the country at everyone elses expense.

the basic answer to that is because YOU (the employer) don't really determine what people should work for. The market for various skill sets determines that. And personally I have a problem with people like you who believe in a world that says you need not better yourself beyond burger flipper skills to provide for yourself.

People who think like you do (or don't actually think in this case) are absolutely mind boggling. But another way to think about this. Is that the market and thus society as already decided that the way things are now is fair. People's behavior is determined by a cost/benefit level of decision making. If the current minimum wage was truly so unfair to everyone that they decided to do something about it, wage would go up. But the fact is enough people have agreed to work for the Wal-Marts and McDonalds of the world for the wages they have set that it has not warranted raising the pay.

This is a key concept. While you like to think business has their employees over a barrell, that simply isn't the case. When you get hired for a job, the terms of are laid out for you. You have the choice of either agreeing to work under those terms or not. The difference between our opinions apparently comes to the point when the person decided Wal-Mart isn't paying enough to meet one's needs and/or wants. You believe the solution is to force Wal-Mart to pay you what you want them to. I believe Wal-Mart has not moral obligation whatsoever to meet such a demand. If you don't like their terms, find an prosepective employer with more agreeable terms. IF you don't have the skills that warrant the pay you are looking for , the owness is on you to acquire them. it is not the duty or obligation of society to bend to what you think you need.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I still would not ask anyone to do a job that I would not have personally been willing to do myself. It is called ethics.

that is not ethics. but it is a poor management decision.

Yes no doubt when time is considered a factor or when or if I did not know personally how to do a job I hire another to do that job for me. Attorneys, accountants, bookeepers, etc...

I still would not try to skimp someone else out of a decent living. For any reason.

So the kid you hire to sweep your porch or wash your windows should be paid enough to "make a decent living"?

Even when we were training people they made more than minimum wage. Alas there are/were government programs that assist an employer to help defray cost to train employees if the employer takes the time to file for these things.

My business was very successful even to the point when I quit contracting the state I contracted in asked me to come back. I declined.

You have said previously you pay your people well above minimum wage. Eight times that amount if I recall. How does that make you qualified to determine everyone else should work for only the current minimum wage?

I do because the market dictates that I must. And 2 out of my 10 employees are paid over $55 an hour but the support staff is not paid that much. they are paid slightly over the national average for their positions. Which is above minimum wage.

And I am not determining, nor am I suggesting that everyone work for only minimum wage. I am saying that there are some jobs out there that are not worth more than minimum wage. Jobs that are not important to the market or those menial tasks like raking leaves or sweeping floors are simply not worth more. And it makes more sense for me to pay someone $8 an hour to do those jobs than for me to waste that time doing those jobs where I could be bringing in significantly more money if i didn't do them.

Heck people at Walmart can't even afford to buy the groceries where they work. I have a problem with that. Yet we had this discussion before and it has not a darn thing to do with a few of the richest in American doubling their wealth does it? Unless of course you ar one of them sucking the lifeblood out the country at everyone elses expense.

I know a girl that works as Walmart and earns over $10 an hour i don't find that to be unreasonable for what she does.

And why do you assume that one doubled his wealth at the expense of everyone else? He could have doubled his wealth by bringing some product or service to the public that made their lives better. Or he could have merely invested wisely and not had any direct involvement with any company.

That you believe that anyone who has more money than you think they should have is somehow exploiting people is your prejudice and bias, it is not necessarily true.

The basic tenet of the market is that people who freely trade goods and services, and labor is included in that, all benefit from that.

If you work at a job and you don't feel that the money you are being paid for your labor is worth at least a dollar more than what your labor is worth then you are free to sell your labor to another employer or you are free to develop a skill that the market will pay more for.

It is and always has been your choice to accept or leave a job.

 

[editec]

If the system of paying people for making our society work is so well thought out, why is this nation going broke?

Because all Americans are lazy people, except for you smug servants to the master class?

Well here's a head's up for you guys...the nation you all claim to love so much is bankrupt.

The masters that you all believe are geniuses worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year have screwed the pooch.

The most productive people in American, the professional class and the upper middle class are paying far too much of the tax bill because your masters aren't paying their fair share.

The middle class is dying, and the lower classes are getting deperate.

Your sanguine indifference to the wholesale injustice of the system is noted, and dismissed by most of us for what it is..nothing but loyalty to a social system which has taken us from the wealthiest nation in the world, to the world's largest debtor nation in less than half my lifetime.

Why don't you servants pack your masters bags and run along so you can go **** up another nation?

We've got this one to repair, now, and obviously your dubious talents aren't going to be missed.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If the system of paying people for making our society work is so well thought out, why is this nation going broke?

Because all Americans are lazy people, except for you smug servants to the master class?

Well here's a head's up for you guys...the nation you all claim to love so much is bankrupt.

The masters that you all believe are geniuses worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year have screwed the pooch.

The most productive people in American, the professional class and the upper middle class are paying far too much of the tax bill because your masters aren't paying their fair share.

The middle class is dying, and the lower classes are getting deperate.

Your sanguine indifference to the wholesale injustice of the system is noted, and dismissed by most of us for what it is..nothing but loyalty to a social system which has taken us from the wealthiest nation in the world, to the world's largest debtor nation in less than half my lifetime.

Why don't you servants pack your masters bags and run along so you can go **** up another nation?

We've got this one to repair, now, and obviously your dubious talents aren't going to be missed.

And one can argue that the reason the country is bankrupt is NOT the fault of the people who work every day to improve their lot but rather the heavy handed mismanagement of the ever growing ,ever more expensive government.

 

[KittenKoder]

I love it ... it's always the governments fault ...

 

[Skull Pilot]

I love it ... it's always the governments fault ...

I love it .... it's always the employer's fault

 

[KittenKoder]

No ... it's everyones fault, for differing reasons. Why do people insist on not taking the blame when blame is due? Are you so arrogant that you don't want a solution but instead just want an excuse to blame someone else?

 

[Skull Pilot]

No ... it's everyones fault, for differing reasons. Why do people insist on not taking the blame when blame is due? Are you so arrogant that you don't want a solution but instead just want an excuse to blame someone else?

the "solution" as you call it is not for the government to waste more money.

And I am not blaming anyone for anything but many people here think that because a few people made money over the last decade that that is why they are having a hard time.

 

[KittenKoder]

"And one can argue that the reason the country is bankrupt is NOT the fault of the people who work every day to improve their lot but rather the heavy handed mismanagement of the ever growing ,ever more expensive government." IS blaming someone, particularly the government.

Those who made real money ... no they are not responsible for the economy being screwed they are however to blame for some other problems. However, those who made money from the bailouts (ie handouts) do share the blame. Anyone who lives on credit it to blame, it's spending money that doesn't exist that brought it all down, creating a vacuum in the economy, a vacuum that finally broke it all.

 

[Skull Pilot]

"And one can argue that the reason the country is bankrupt is NOT the fault of the people who work every day to improve their lot but rather the heavy handed mismanagement of the ever growing ,ever more expensive government." IS blaming someone, particularly the government.

Those who made real money ... no they are not responsible for the economy being screwed they are however to blame for some other problems. However, those who made money from the bailouts (ie handouts) do share the blame. Anyone who lives on credit it to blame, it's spending money that doesn't exist that brought it all down, creating a vacuum in the economy, a vacuum that finally broke it all.

then why do you support the bail out?

I never supported the use of tax payer money to prop up failing private institutions. i do not favor the government interference in the affairs of private business.

And saying it is a valid argument that government policy is part of the problem in not blaming the government it is merely stating a fact.

 

[editec]

If one believes that the system isn't broken, as for instance many here apparently do, then it is reasonable that they object to the bail out.

However, if you believe that the banks have screwed the pooch, and apparently enough people in a positions of power in both parties think exactly that, then failing to do something to get the economy going is criminal.

Sadly, I think that what we are doing is hoping to reconsitute this economic system again, but failing to ask ourselves how it failed to begin with. Hence, even if they somehow manage to get things going again, their efforts will inevitably be for naught.

The real estate meltdown is a sympton of the flaws in our system, not the cause of its failing.

 

[Care4all]

Yes Mustang is a good thing! hahahahaha!

It's the second thing that came to mind after reading your user id...

The first nickname thought was American Pie...before Mustang...

Then i got the silly song in my head and was humming:

bye, bye miss american pie, drove my chevy to the levy but the levy was dry, and good ole boys were drinking whiskey and rye, singing this'll be the day that I die...this'll be the day that I die...

And i realized that it was a "Miss" American Pie, and i presumed you were male so that didn't cut it, then immediately Mustang came to mind on American horse.... hahahahahaha! funny how things work..... lol!

True, and I for one accept a reasonable progressive INCOME Tax strucure. The FICA tax is not designed for the purpose of being an income tax, but an insurance policy dedicated to the individual payer.

This is true and it's how the politicians use the money paid in; by borrowing against it with US treasury bonds. Those represent the so-called "lock-box" we hear about, and seem to be a reasonable vehicle for the purpose. Those bonds are earning interest to keep their value current with inflation. Their use allows for spending, as we borrow from ourselves, without printing money but they do drive up interest rates because of demand for dollars.

No it is not designed that way, but maybe it should be? Right now, we are taking money out of the SS tax payer's pocket, to pay the Income tax bill instead of the progressive income tax payer's pocket. This really is regressive, for the income tax and not progressive if you think about it....?

And yes the money taken from the SS tax payer to pay the income tax payer's bills is earning interest, but very MINIMAL interest and if this surplus SS money were left in the SS tax payer's pocket they could earn more on it by themselves in a CD than what treasury is getting for it.....?

Outside of the fact that it keeps us from borrowing more money from China etc, at a HIGHER interest rate, to pay the bills that income taxes should be paying for...which really is pretty huge of a deal....

yet the SS surplus tax payers continually get told that SS taxes don't count... by them, continually quoting that the top 5%-10% of income earners pay 90% of the TAXES....and that is just BS ya know....they do NOT pay 90% of the 'taxes'.... they pay 90% of the income taxes collected, which is 1/3 of the the taxes collected by our federal government from us.

income taxes are only 1/3 of the money collected in taxes to pay the federal budget each year. SS taxes are almost 1/3 of the taxes collected as well. And the other 1/3 in taxes collected comes from excise taxes, gasoline taxes, liquor taxes, cigarette taxes, licensing fees, regulatory fees, corporate taxes etc....

And all of that still leaves us with borrowing several hundred billion from foreigners....

Now, now... not just for the last 8-years. This has long been true, and is not a partisan issue and it is a spurrious effort to do so.

Oh golly gee...I didn't mean it that way at all!
(this is what i get for NOT going in to detail)

Yes, I realize that this has been going on since 1983, the Reagan era....Greenspan suggested to Reagan, over collecting SS taxes starting then...so that when the boomers go to retire three decades down the road, they would have enough surplus monies collected to help pay the boomer retirees a few of more decades....

it was a PATCH of sorts that extended the solvency of Social Security....so the boomers, not only paid for their parents social security, they would pay in part for their own social security by OVER PAYING the SS taxes due to pay out to the present retirees....

But from the different articles that i found on it and read on it, this started out slowly, it was a gradual hike in SS taxes so that people and businesses having to match it, would not feel the great tax hike shock from it....since it was going to DOUBLE....yes, a 100% tax increase on those paying SS.

Well, this lead me to the CBO/GAO and reviewing their statistics on it, one thing leading to another...

And to make this long story short, the last 8 years....has collected the highest amounts in surplus...we are at the PEAK of the surplus collecting, actually, if memory serves 2008 was suppose to be the peak year, and from here on out we will be collecting less in surplusses until 2012-2015 I believe, and then the surplusses disappear....

So, it is not that i was making this a partisan "thing", it is just that the surplus collecting "peak" occurred during the past decade, not anyone's fault on that...just a fact, that lead me to my other statement.

That is so if we consider inflation to be a tax, and if so I agree with that, but the affects are different between the two: As an earner of modest income I'm sure that I benifit from the low cost of my consumer goods. I can buy a drill* made in china for the same dollars a lesser drill cost me 30 years ago. This is the case for a whole "basket" of items I need for my quality of life and ability to earn an income to supplement my SS check which does little more than pay mine and my spous's health and life insurance costs. The SS lockbox as Treasury bond conversion/budget enabler, as I said becomes an inflation/taxation issue.

yes, inflation/tax issue.

And yes, prices have gone down on that drill, but i am old enough to remember when that drill made in America sold at sears had a near lifetime warrantee...it may have cost you more, but it lasted and we did not have to replace it every 5 years from it falling apart.

The other thing to consider is the overseas labor costs being so cheap, put pressure on the American Worker, to the point of them, many, many of them, losing their jobs in manufacturing and getting paid much less at their new job....along with the dollar being worth less....

I don't think the average joe comes out as ahead of the game as you implied on this...

I'm wearying a little bit here Care, so I will stipulate that all is that is true, but all of these things need to be looked at incrementally, and adjusted to try to apply costs and benifits to their true benificiaries. The best two examples that first come to mind ar the Federal/State gas tax paid at the pump, and the FICA. The perfect answer would supposedly be a "flat tax." That type tax could solve some problems if there were some efficient system of not taxing basic costs of living, like housing, medical care, energy, transportation, etc. The best thing that could come out of an effort like that would be that we could get a chance to throw out so much of the past, and modernize for the present.

IMHO You have a clear vision of the overall problem, as I hope do I. What's it going to take to get the politics out of the most important of issues? The goal should be to come up with a system that distorts the economy as little as possible. Thanks for the reasonable discussion.

I think a flat tax, with some way to make essentials exempt or maybe a flat exemption for the first 8k per person to cover essentials is a better way of saying it, is not a bad idea....with NO LOOPHOLES, like capital gains and dividend taxes at less of a rate, for those earnings! I would like to see SS taxes incorporated in to it as well....I think?

Thank you as well, for the reasonable discussion!

Care

 

[KittenKoder]

"And one can argue that the reason the country is bankrupt is NOT the fault of the people who work every day to improve their lot but rather the heavy handed mismanagement of the ever growing ,ever more expensive government." IS blaming someone, particularly the government.

Those who made real money ... no they are not responsible for the economy being screwed they are however to blame for some other problems. However, those who made money from the bailouts (ie handouts) do share the blame. Anyone who lives on credit it to blame, it's spending money that doesn't exist that brought it all down, creating a vacuum in the economy, a vacuum that finally broke it all.

then why do you support the bail out?

I never supported the use of tax payer money to prop up failing private institutions. i do not favor the government interference in the affairs of private business.

And saying it is a valid argument that government policy is part of the problem in not blaming the government it is merely stating a fact.

Aaah ... the problem with so many on here, you assumed I did. Just as many assume I supported or even voted for Obama just because I say "we don't know what will happen while he is president yet ... because it's too soon to tell" and "Bush is not to blame for the problems but he handled them all very poorly." Remember, assuming makes and "ass out of U and Me"

 

[Skull Pilot]

If one believes that the system isn't broken, as for instance many here apparently do, then it is reasonable that they object to the bail out.

Not true. One can believe the system is broken and that companies who violated the rules of sound business should have gone out of business. Companies that were sound stay in business. that's how what's broken gets fixed.

However, if you believe that the banks have screwed the pooch, and apparently enough people in a positions of power in both parties think exactly that, then failing to do something to get the economy going is criminal.

If people broke the law then try them for breaking the law. Do not use tax payer money to keep them in business.

Sadly, I think that what we are doing is hoping to reconsitute this economic system again, but failing to ask ourselves how it failed to begin with. Hence, even if they somehow manage to get things going again, their efforts will inevitably be for naught.

The real estate meltdown is a sympton of the flaws in our system, not the cause of its failing.

what is sad is that the way you want to reconstitute the economy is to give the government more power over the people.

And some of the flaws in that system are of the government's making no?