New Reason to Raise Taxes on the Rich: ‘Patriotism’

[SUBMAN1]

And you guys mock me for saying the Democratic party is going Communism lately. If they are not, explain this for the laymen here?

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/09/18/new-reason-to-raise-taxes-on-the-rich-patriotism/

I'm waiting for your responses. We are going to have an in depth look at the underlying values of communism and what it stands for. Marx loves Biden, I tell you that! Robinhood at its finest here. In the past, they would have sugar coated this, but it seems the communist gloves are completely off these days and they think their are enough Socialists in this country to vote for them now!

The future USA? Communist Socialists Republic of the USA. Is that our future country name? Star Trek's 'Federation' is a dying dream I'd say with Biden a possible candidate.

-S

[JoeCorrado]

Time to do the right thing. Trickle down economics has failed and during the time that the failed experiment was conducted ON the middle class the wealthy have gotten wealthier while the poor got poorer, and more numerous and the middle class has been squeezed to the point of becoming an endangered species.

In other words- the rich did not trickle anything upon the middle class- instead they had their cup runneth over and then built a trench to assure that not a drop fell to the middle class.

If you don't feel like doing the right thing- the patriotic thing that the Republican party is always touting as it asks for more and more sacrifice by the have nots so that the haves can have it all- then how about you simply face the music and realize that it is time to reverse the flow- the transfer of wealth that was "trickle down economics" was the transfer of wealth from the bottom 95% of America into the coffers of the top 5% of America.

Don't do the patriotic thing, do the right thing and allow at least recognize and then ADMIT that the top 5% have benefited from a theft of huge proportions and they CONTINUE to do so. No sir, we couldn't step in and assist the homeowners as they were losing their homes- but now we will step in and rescue the banks who wrote the bad loans, foreclosed on the small people after they leached all they could from them, and now who now want US to bail them out by buying up all that worthless paper from them.

Oh, yeah... that's the patriotic thing to do, right?

Stop whining and do th right thing for America- you'll feel better for it and yes... you'll be a patriot too, just like the people who donate their time and effort everyday because that is all they have to give... the top 5% can take the easy way out and just pay their taxes without crying about it.

===

And pardon me, but isn't it the REPUBLICAN PARTY who is bailing out and buying up failed business' left and right? Let me see./... government owned bussiness... would that not be the communist way?

The DEMOCRATS are the ones always left to clean up the mess after the Republican Party leaves the country a wreck. Be glad that the party exists to balance the scales or there would have been a revolution long ago.

[SUBMAN1]

A communist statement completely.

How about this, if I feel its the right thing to do, I'll donate to a cause, preferably a church that will probably do the right thing with the money to help people in need.

How about this, you donate your entire check to me, and I will distribute it to whom I feel that needs it. Are you willing to do that? Really? You pay it! Lets see how you like it.

Rich people usually (98% of them) got rich by 'not' spending their entire paycheck on STUFF. imagine that. Paying a car payment into a mutual fund at $400 a month for 40 years nets you over $6 million. So since you save money instead of buying that shiny new car every 4 years, you should be taxed on it until you are dry? Is THAT WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN SAYING?

Think about it.

Only countries with truly free economies can have the majority of their population wealthy by the rest of the worlds standards. Look at socialism creep and what has been happening to the personal standard of living during that creep in the last 50 years. Do the math.

What is comes down to is either you are stupid at math, or want a government to hold your hand.


Biden is saying this - he is taxing envy. How else do you explain it? Pure Communism!

-S

PS. I am not done yet. I want to hear your arguments. Please give me time to respond though. I am very busy these days.

[Kraut]

Yes, you are quite right. Everybody who isn't rich foolishly squanders their money. They should stop wasting money so they could be rich.

[Blacklight]

Yes, you are quite right. Everybody who isn't rich foolishly squanders their money. They should stop wasting money so they could be rich. :rotfl:

Rush Limbauh was saying pretty much the same thing on the radio the other day. hehehe (what an idiot)

I FULLY and 100% agree with Obama's plan. I say go for it ! Let's tax the snot out of those rich bastards ! :D Heck.. a lot of them end up not paying taxes at all due to all the legal loopholes their high priced lawyers always find for them.

Especially now, the way the economy is going, the lower classes NEED tax breaks. The wages of the lower classes (and by lower, I mean middle and below) are not rising along with costs for essentials. It's getting harder and harder for real lower class people to even keep jobs due to fuel costs alone. My sister is one of those people who ends up having to spend almost 40% of her pay on fuel cost just commuting to and from work. Heck.. for some people, it's getting to be.. "rent or my job" where to put that money. We NEED tax breaks for the lower classes now. The rich aren't feeling this pinch anywhere NEAR what the middle and lower are feeling because of all the classes, their wages ARE going up along with prices of essentials. That class is the only class that wages are increasing in. Says something doesn't it ?

Oh.. and this comment says it all:

I see… so the wealthy will wear a lapel pin, or put an American flag sticker on their bumper to express their patriotism, but god forbid the America to whom they owe their wealth asks for any real sacrifice. Pathetic.

Comment by Nick from North Carolina - September 18, 2008 at 4:06 pm (http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/09/18/new-reason-to-raise-taxes-on-the-rich-patriotism/#comment-23020)

[UnderseaLcpl]

Taxing the rich, if such a thing could ever really be done, is not a solution.

For one thing, it fails to address the real problem, economic hardship caused in part by, and exacerbated by, government.
Secondly, when there is a recession, inevitably, the rich are the ones who get us out of it.

Those greedy fat-cats that we all love to hate are also major investors. When the economy inevitably faces a recession, they are the ones who start investing when the market bottoms out. They help companies get back on their feet. In turn, jobs are created, people earn money, they spend it on things, and the economy starts to go back uphill again. Why would you want to tax them more and make them less inclined to invest?

Why do we even care about how much of the wealth is held by the rich when the State holds more than all of them combined? The same State that supposedly defends us from the rich people who want to take advantage of us is basically run by those people.

The political elite are a lot more dangerous than the wealthy elite, especially when they are wealthy elite themselves.

The best way to provide relief for the middle and lower classes is to take an axe to government spending. Neither the Repubs or the Dems have a history of doing that.


The DEMOCRATS are the ones always left to clean up the mess after the Republican Party leaves the country a wreck.

Like they did after the market crash in '29? The entire country plunged into a ridiculous amount of debt and the beginning of an exponential trend towards bigger government? How did that help? How are their policies much different today?

Not that I support the Republicans either, I just think they mess things up more slowly. I think they tend to allow economically damaging collusion of business and government, and they aren't shy about blowing hundreds of billions of dollars on things that will fail spectacularly either.

[Skybird]

The political elite are a lot more dangerous than the wealthy elite, especially when they are wealthy elite themselves.

Plutocracy. I name it that time and again.

In all the West, societies are run on spendings that are beyond what they can afford, but probably nowheere else this trend is as exessive as in the US. Also, in no other Western countries, private persons cared so little for saving money and put it aside, which is said to tend against zero for the avergae consumer in the US and is one of the causes for the crash of the mortgage market. And inside Wetsern socieities, distribution patterns of the wealth that gets created by the nation'S economy, are questionable, as are the spendings of the state himself, too. All this is not unique for america, it is trends you see in all the West (and the industrialised Asian nations as well, and in South america). but man of these symptoms I see nowhere practices as exessively as in the US.

Therefore it seems not america is the problem allowing these things to happen, but the system itself. America is just the most obvious symptom.

For the immidiate future, I have some suggestion for a major cure:

1. decision makers and managers must be held legally liable for their performqance, and they must compensate with their private property if they do damage. It cannot be that they raise their income even when a company is declining, and get payed for another full year after they got fired by being talked out of the position, and risk nothing when failing and doing damage. Managers should lead by example setting, and they should be as responsible as the single worker is held respnisble. But when Joe Average messes up some minor thing, he opften is at risk to loose his job, but when a boss fails, he gets complimented out (if that), and even gets a golden handshake. That is obscene.

2. Hedge fonds and comparable constuctions must be forbiddden.

3. Financial investement fonds of any kind must be regulated in that way that it is being made impossible that they just may do so to financially cripple a healthy victim, then leave it behind and take the cream with them. This is major criminal behavior in my book, and qualifies as fraud, and it also qualifies for something one could call "treachery against the nation and the public good." It is practicing like the Mafia, and economists and bankers doing so must be considered gangsters.

4. The economic goal of unlimited growth must be replaced with a less psychopathologic goal, that is dynamic stability (there are always microfluctuations), sustainability, and a working balance of "taking not more than one gives back, or naturally gets replaced". Assumed unlimited growth of property prices was what created the mortage crisis, and the same assumptions makes nations spend more than what they can afford, and being badly prepared, usually, for times of economic stagnation. Nowhere in the world you'll find something, anything, that always points upwards and moves upward only, that simply is a megalomaniac hallucination.

5. Goods and items that a country can produce in comparable quality itself, should not be traded around the world. Trade should focus on exchnage of products and items that the receiver does not have or cannot produce himself. Just common sense, I would say. - Trading military equipment, military technology and weapons of warfare must be banned and forbidden. Violation of this law must be deterred by implementing death sentence.

6. As little state regulation as possible, but as much as is needed to guard public good against economy's egoism. That makes a strict separation between politics and economcs vital and inevitable. the people is not there to serve the interest of the economy, but the economy is there to fulfill the needs of the people. Of course, we do not have that separation, indeed what we have is a weave or a sleaze that can't be disentangled anymore - consider that to be one major reason for the problems we have. Having a public mandate and being member of a board of directors do not work well together, it creates a conflict of interests. That includes the time before and after holding public offices. Which means that a family engaged in economics should be banned from working in politics. - The suicidal ammount of lobbyism we have today, also needs to be killed. Lobbyism may be fine for the ordeirng company, but when it is lobbying against public interest, it becomes a crime against public good.

7. We must understand that the public good and the natural environment puts limit's to individual freedoms. That includes the freedom to have the free maximum choice. Being able not to choose between 300 different car models, but just between 30, is okay and no crime against humanity or a crusade against freedom.

8. Technical improvements with one item category that a company invented, and that are for the public good and the ecological advantage as well, must become obligatory for rivalling companies within a given time frame. In Japan, the hightech business already has implemented that as a rule, and it serves them damn well and raises their general technological standard. After that, wanting to choose the inferior option comopares to do damage to the public good. Eliminating the freedom to choose for that damage is aceptable and a limitation of personal freedom that must not be made big fuss of. Personal freedom ends where one starts to damage the freedom or legitimate interests of others.

And here I start to stray off, so.... eject....

My general suggestion is that both the environmental and the market issues cannot be solved by just pressing a button here or fixing a loose thing there. We need to realise that we are in need of such an ammount of simultaneous, mutually depending fixings that we can talk of a more or less replacement of the system itself. A market model that bases on egoism, just gives you that: general egoism everywhere. Ain't that a logical consequence!?

And unregulated liberal market? Well, the current crisis w ehave - is the direct, logcail result of just that philosophy. It simply does not work as intended. It is as unreasonable as a philosphy of a state-run economy with five-year plans. the latter shows it'S deficits relatively fast. The first takes more time, but does as much damage as well. Both must be considered to be of equal destructiveness, but unfolding on different time scales.

I do not expect my suggestions to happen. And that's why I see grim future prospects ahead for the coming generations, even even for the current ones. The future in reality will see the fusion of companies and their taking over of power from politics, politics as a separate class and process simply dissappearing in them. We already are in the process of such a transformation, with the EU and the US leading the way, but you see that layout in principle in the Japanese economy and it'S interaction with the party system after WWII as well. Nationality will be replaced by corporation membership, so to speak. future corporations will be few, and will be of a size we still do not dare to think off - and right we are to fear them, since their power will be beyond any countercontrol, and without any democratic or other political legitimation. Science Fiction holds some drafts of such futures that very well may become a reality. And most of such drafts show no pleasant realities at all.

[SUBMAN1]

Skybird is once again voting for Communism I see. No surprise there.

-S

[VipertheSniper]

Skybird is once again voting for Communism I see. No surprise there.

-S

I don't particularly agree with all of his points, but calling his proposal communism is quite a stretch.

[fatty]

Skybird is once again voting for Communism I see. No surprise there.

-S

I don't particularly agree with all of his points, but calling his proposal communism is quite a stretch.

I want to start using the patented SUBMAN1 approach to handle everyday situations from now on.

"Sir, I pulled you over because you didn't come to a complete stop at that intersection."
"Sounds a little bit like COMMUNISM to me!"

"We forgot to pick up milk on the way home."
"A little late for that, isn't it... COMRADE?"

[Skybird]

Skybird is once again voting for Communism I see. No surprise there.

-S

I don't particularly agree with all of his points, but calling his proposal communism is quite a stretch.
For some Americans - for some - everything not being themselves, or being located outside "american borders" (a phrase almost meaningless in that kind of thinking) is communism, socialism, Democrats, liberals, girlies, gays, nazis, environmentalists, French, Russians, cowards, whiners and atheists - all rolled into one! There is only America and anti-american - now beware ! - Evil !

In that company, terms and labels do not mean anything anymore, and thus can be mixed at will - it still is the same being said everytime. Terms and labels just get sorted into two groups: true American, and - let'S tempt Saint Lucifer himself - Evil !

[Morts]

Skybird is once again voting for Communism I see. No surprise there.

-S

I don't particularly agree with all of his points, but calling his proposal communism is quite a stretch.
For some Americans - for some - everything not being themselves or being located outside "american borders" (a phrase almost meaningless in that kind of thinking) is communism, socialism, Democrats, liberals, girlies, gays, nazis, environmentalists, French, Russians, cowards, whiners and atheists - all rolled into one! There is only America and anti-american - now beware ! - Evil !

In that company, terms and labels do not mean anything anymore, and thus can be mixed at will - it stil is the same being said everytime. Terms and labels just get sorted into two groups: true American, and - let'S tempt Saint Lucifer himself - Evil !
id say that pretty much described Subman1
if you dont see eye to eye with him, you're a commie

[Zayphod]

Well, just to play "Devil's Advocate" here for a moment, looks very much like the Republicans have decided (read "White House") to take over private businesses that have gone (or were going to go) belly-up due to that lack of all those messy business regulations that the Republicans have been telling us were not really needed.

Did Obama get elected already, or are the Republicans in charge here? I was under the impression that Republicans always felt a 'hands-off' approach was good for business.

Am I missing a double standard here, or did the Republicans in the White House just head off in the "Nationalization of Private Industry" direction? Thought that's what the Democracts were always being blamed for.

EDIT: BTW, do we all get to go to the shareholder's meetings now?
After all, all of us taxpayers are now part owners, right?

Just asking, as a Devil's Advocate, mind you. :arrgh!: Arrrrrrr (Pirate Day)

BTW, SOMEONE is going to have to foot the bill for all these bailouts, aren't they? Or do we just print more dollars to cover it?

My opinion on who does what:
1. Democracts = Tax and Spend.
2. Republicans = Borrow and Spend.

Common element here is that they BOTH spend.

The main difference is that Democracts believe in raising taxes to COVER the expenditures. Of course, if they win the White House, they'll HAVE to raise taxes in order to cover the Trillion dollar debt being run up by the current "PEOPLE IN POWER". That's ok, of course, because the Republicans can blame raising taxes on the Democracts, while the Democracts will be blaming the HUGE debt on the Republicans.

Dems will raise taxes to try to clear out this debit, and in either 4 or 8 years, Rep's will win the WH back because of all those high taxes which THEY can cut by cutting spending, etc.

And another cycle ensues........

Why isn't Lou Dobbs running for President? He seems to be the only guy with a clue.

Of course, once I become Evil Overlord of the World, things'll work much more smoothly.

[August]

Well, just to play "Devil's Advocate" here for a moment, looks very much like the Republicans have decided (read "White House") to take over private businesses that have gone (or were going to go) belly-up due to that lack of all those messy business regulations that the Republicans have been telling us were not really needed.
Sorry to cut off the rest of your post but it is based on a flawed premise. The Administration does not decide any of this. They can propose things but it is Congress that provides bailouts (or not). Congress is controlled by the Democrats and has been for the last 2 years.

[AVGWarhawk]

Well, just to play "Devil's Advocate" here for a moment, looks very much like the Republicans have decided (read "White House") to take over private businesses that have gone (or were going to go) belly-up due to that lack of all those messy business regulations that the Republicans have been telling us were not really needed.
Sorry to cut off the rest of your post but it is based on a flawed premise. The Administration does not decide any of this. They can propose things but it is Congress that provides bailouts (or not). Congress is controlled by the Democrats and has been for the last 2 years.
This is true. Heck Pelosi was not taking any heat as the Democratically controlled Congress let this amount to a hill of trouble. Furthermore, her own daughter would not answer yes or no when question if Palin winning the VP slot would help women.

Anyway, the 95% of the middle class tax cuts sounds great on the surface. Tax those that make over $250,000.00 per year. This figures to about 80 trillion dollars. Obamas plans need about 150 trillion. Were does he propose to make up the difference?

[Zayphod]

Well, just to play "Devil's Advocate" here for a moment, looks very much like the Republicans have decided (read "White House") to take over private businesses that have gone (or were going to go) belly-up due to that lack of all those messy business regulations that the Republicans have been telling us were not really needed.
Sorry to cut off the rest of your post but it is based on a flawed premise. The Administration does not decide any of this. They can propose things but it is Congress that provides bailouts (or not). Congress is controlled by the Democrats and has been for the last 2 years.

Who was in charge of Congress when the earlier bailouts were proposed?
Who proposed them?
Who approved them?

We must be in different worlds:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/19/news/economy/paulson/index.htm?postversion=2008091910


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on Friday outlined a series of far-reaching steps - likely to cost hundreds of billions of dollars - aimed at stemming a widening financial crisis that is roiling the financial markets and undermining confidence in the banking system.

"We must act now to protect our nation's economic health from serious risk," Bush said at a White House press conference. "There will be ample opportunity to discuss the origins of this problems. Now is the time to solve it."

"This is no time for partisanship," Bush added. "We need to move urgently needed legislation as quickly as possible without adding controversial provisions that could delay action."


Now, I could be wrong here, but unless Bush changed parties recently, that's the Republicans running this show.

Hate to say it, but this will leave the government with a HUGE debit.
Worth it? Some say yes, the alternative would have been worse.
Probably.

But the better solution would have been for better regulation to PREVENT this in the first place.

"An ounce of prevention...." as it were.

[Zayphod]

Anyway, the 95% of the middle class tax cuts sounds great on the surface. Tax those that make over $250,000.00 per year. This figures to about 80 trillion dollars. Obamas plans need about 150 trillion. Were does he propose to make up the difference?

He he, I understand he has shares in a bridge in Alaska that he'd like to sell, probably to someone in Brooklyn. :rotfl:

[August]

We must be in different worlds:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/19/news/economy/paulson/index.htm?postversion=2008091910


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on Friday outlined a series of far-reaching steps - likely to cost hundreds of billions of dollars - aimed at stemming a widening financial crisis that is roiling the financial markets and undermining confidence in the banking system.

"We must act now to protect our nation's economic health from serious risk," Bush said at a White House press conference. "There will be ample opportunity to discuss the origins of this problems. Now is the time to solve it."

"This is no time for partisanship," Bush added. "We need to move urgently needed legislation as quickly as possible without adding controversial provisions that could delay action."

Now, I could be wrong here, but unless Bush changed parties recently, that's the Republicans running this show.
Read it again Z. They're just talking about a proposal to Congress. Congress is free to tell them to get stuffed if they want to.

[August]

Who was in charge of Congress when the earlier bailouts were proposed?
Who proposed them?
Who approved them?

Oops missed this first part

It depends on which ones you're talking about. The Chrysler bailout in 1979 for example was during a Democrat presidency and a Democrat controlled congress. The Dems controlled congress all through the Reagan and Bush Sr years and lost control iirc during Clintons second term. The Republicans controlled Congress from then until half way through Bush's 2nd term (2006).

[Zayphod]

Who was in charge of Congress when the earlier bailouts were proposed?
Who proposed them?
Who approved them?

Oops missed this first part

It depends on which ones you're talking about. The Chrysler bailout in 1979 for example was during a Democrat presidency and a Democrat controlled congress. The Dems controlled congress all through the Reagan and Bush Sr years and lost control iirc during Clintons second term. The Republicans controlled Congress from then until half way through Bush's 2nd term (2006).

Understood.
Who was suggesting the Savings and Loan bailouts then?

[AVGWarhawk]

In the end, it does not matter who created the mess, we as tax payers get to pick up the tab for poor business practices and the materialistic society we live in.

[Platapus]

Congress is controlled by the Democrats and has been for the last 2 years.

Almost correct.

Only one part has been controlled by the Democrats.

The Democrats have a 53% majority in the House of Representatives.

The Senate is tied at 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats, and two independents.

For the purposes of determining the majority party for the purpose of assigning majority and minority positions, the rules of the Senate allow an independent to side with one side or another if they agree to caucus with the party. In this case it is Senator Lieberman.

However, this procedure of allowing an independent to caucus is not the same as a party having a majority in the Senate.

For all practical legislative purposes the Senate is tied 49-49-2

If the two independents would not agree to caucus with one of the parties, the rules of the Senate would then consider the Vice President (as the President of the Senate) and count the President of the Senate for the purposes of determining the majority party for selecting Senatorial offices. In this case, since Vice President Cheney is a Republican, the Senate would be considered to have a Republican majority.

However it is most important to know the difference between a majority party and a party with a majority. In the Senate the difference is important. This current Senate is one of the uncommon ones where one party is the majority party but does not have a majority.

This could only happen in the US. :damn: :damn: :damn:

There are many things that can be blamed on the Democratic Senators but being in the Majority for the past two years aint one of them.

[Skybird]

Today the biggest aid package for the markets had been announced by the US government, several "hundreds of billions" of tax-dollars will be pumped into the system over the coming weeks and months.

I wonder where this money is coming from. If it all just gets newly printed, you can expect a huge jump in inflation. If it is being taken from other parts of the budget, it is missing somewhere else. And if the money is raised by lending, it means that america accept even more debts and a deficitary budget. This money needs to be payed back then - I wonder how they do it without making cuts to other parts of the budget, the military budget - or raising taxes.

[Zayphod]

Today the biggest aid package for the markets had been announced by the US government, several "hundreds of billions" of tax-dollars will be pumped into the system over the coming weeks and months.

I wonder where this money is coming from. If it all just gets newly printed, you can expect a huge jump in inflation. If it is being taken from other parts of the budget, it is missing somewhere else. And if the money is raised by lending, it means that america accept even more debts and a deficitary budget. This money needs to be payed back then - I wonder how they do it without making cuts to other parts of the budget, the military budget - or raising taxes.

That was part of my point. SOMEONE has to raise taxes to pay for this huge bill.

They were just showing on NBC Nightly News the other day the Fed having to print more dollars just to cover this huge deficit. Just print more.

As a taxpayer myself, it would have been nice if someone had at least asked "Hey, you guys wanna foot this bill?"

There are many things that can be blamed on the Democratic Senators but being in the Majority for the past two years aint one of them.

That, along with the fact that both houses have been essentially rubber-stamping 'YES' on to everything that the Republican-held White House has requested means that I hold (1) Republicans to blame for not providing the correct amount of control rods in the reactor, making it go into a melt-down situation and (2) Democracts to blame for going along with it.

[Platapus]

T
I wonder where this money is coming from. If it all just gets newly printed, you can expect a huge jump in inflation. If it is being taken from other parts of the budget, it is missing somewhere else. And if the money is raised by lending, it means that america accept even more debts and a deficitary budget. This money needs to be payed back then - I wonder how they do it without making cuts to other parts of the budget, the military budget - or raising taxes.


Republicans don' worry about such trifling details. Spend now, let your kids pay off the debt.

[Zayphod]

T
I wonder where this money is coming from. If it all just gets newly printed, you can expect a huge jump in inflation. If it is being taken from other parts of the budget, it is missing somewhere else. And if the money is raised by lending, it means that america accept even more debts and a deficitary budget. This money needs to be payed back then - I wonder how they do it without making cuts to other parts of the budget, the military budget - or raising taxes.


Republicans don' worry about such trifling details. Spend now, let your kids pay off the debt.

Yup, see my earlier point:
My opinion on who does what:
1. Democracts = Tax and Spend.
2. Republicans = Borrow and Spend.

[Skybird]

T
I wonder where this money is coming from. If it all just gets newly printed, you can expect a huge jump in inflation. If it is being taken from other parts of the budget, it is missing somewhere else. And if the money is raised by lending, it means that america accept even more debts and a deficitary budget. This money needs to be payed back then - I wonder how they do it without making cuts to other parts of the budget, the military budget - or raising taxes.


Republicans don' worry about such trifling details. Spend now, let your kids pay off the debt.
Sometimes I get the impression that some people are wondering why they should ever pay back at all.

The decision today gives short relief for the imminent future. But it holds great risks and unpredictables for the medium and longterm future. It is not the great miracle solution that makes the issue a thing of the past.

I would predict that the effect lasts a while - and then has been eaten up, and new major falls threaten the market - and more state aide will be demanded. However, I estimate the Fed already has consummed the better part of its reserves and potential influence. After this crisis has digested both Wall street and the Fed, both will no longer remain to be the onces they had been before.

[Blacklight]

Those greedy fat-cats that we all love to hate are also major investors.
But unfortunately, those investors are investing mostly overseas now because doing business is so much cheaper over there. And they're keeping their money and re-investing it overseas so they aren't trickleing it down like the Republican Trickle Down theory says it should work. So while they're making the cash, they arent growing anything in the US so the lower classes are losing jobs and getting paid less. In my state, jobs are almost impossible to find now unless you have a masters degree and even positions that require those are pretty full and new businesses just don't like starting up here (and those that are here are trying to move overseas and are laying people off on a constant basis).

[August]

There are many things that can be blamed on the Democratic Senators but being in the Majority for the past two years aint one of them.

You're forgetting the all important Speaker and Committee chairman gigs that go to the majority party, or in this case the party which the two independents have chosen to caucus with. They dictate which bills will even make it out of committee and control debate on the ones that do.

[Skybird]

Those greedy fat-cats that we all love to hate are also major investors.
But unfortunately, those investors are investing mostly overseas now because doing business is so much cheaper over there. And they're keeping their money and re-investing it overseas so they aren't trickleing it down like the Republican Trickle Down theory says it should work. So while they're making the cash, they arent growing anything in the US so the lower classes are losing jobs and getting paid less. In my state, jobs are almost impossible to find now unless you have a masters degree and even positions that require those are pretty full and new businesses just don't like starting up here (and those that are here are trying to move overseas and are laying people off on a constant basis).
Saw an interview with former Deutsche Bank director Endres an hour ago. He said that the american economy nowadays makes 60& of the gross national income with finance transactions exclsuively, and only 40% by producing goods. that is queer in itself, not only in america, but in pri8nciple. A barell oil, he added, was being turned at least eleven times before it reaches it's final customer. eleven levels earns money by trading it, woithiut procuzctively producing anyrthing, or assisting in anything non-material but valuable, like transportation.

That is madness in my opinion.

The "several hundred billion" dollars the government's aide package includes, meanwhile have been traslated. It could become as much as one trillion dollars - tax-dollars, that is.

Now compare: how much is the estimation for the dmaage done by hurricane Ike? I have 5 or 12 billion dollars on mind, but I might remember wrong. - that means that eventually the state will spend 20 times as much tax-dollars on buying foul credits (that'S what you get: foul credits!) on saving the banking system than Ike has caused in damages.

Anyone still saying that the market needs not a certain level of regulation? Compared to bankers, hurricanes seem to be amateurs.

A problem are the high numbers themselves. human mind is totall,y incapable to form a mental image, a mental representation of how much a billion or a trillion is. since bankers do not have any feeling or sensing of it, the also feel not the needed level or responsibility and sensibility. If you are living in a world made of billions and trillions, sinking a hundred milliosn here or a billion there necessarily means nothing to you and leaves you unimpressed. You lose ground under your feet, and you lose your sense of reality. It is the same in politics. I mean it serious when saying that such bankers and politicians must be removed from office and be put into psychiatric therapy. They are mentally ill, and I mean it exactly like that.

This could as well be one of Philip K. Dick's alternate reality worlds we live in where we get governed by aliens or simulacra dressed as humans and raising the image of a reality that is not real, but just an illusion to keep us happy.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Those greedy fat-cats that we all love to hate are also major investors.
But unfortunately, those investors are investing mostly overseas now because doing business is so much cheaper over there. And they're keeping their money and re-investing it overseas so they aren't trickleing it down like the Republican Trickle Down theory says it should work. So while they're making the cash, they arent growing anything in the US so the lower classes are losing jobs and getting paid less.

I get the feeling that you did not understand the argument I made. The reason the rich are investing overseas is because of state prevalence in the U.S. economy.

As you said, they do so because it is cheaper. And in many cases, that is not a bad thing. A lot of U.S. factory labor was exported in the past half-century, but the standard of living consistently risen. We transitioned into a service economy. Service jobs took the place of factory jobs. Corporations with significant multinational interests took the place of smaller businesses.

But, as we did all this, government grew as well. People trusted government to "fix" unequal outcomes created by the market. As a result, public debt grew and government became more involved with corporations. In some cases, that resulted in huge government bailouts of corporations that should have died. Do I need to cite examples? In other cases, it resulted in business suffering because of the costs associated with excessive regulation.

It is very expensive to start a business in America today. (not always, but I'm getting to that). The number of permits and licenses that must be obtained is staggering. All of those cost money. In the case of the EPA a business must file an environmental impact statement that can take years to get approved and cost thousands of dollars. In the meantime, the prospective business owner is sitting on the sidelines, losing money in the form of property tax for his building area and in potential profits. I'm sure you have heard the adage that "time is money". It is true, and the state makes it even more true, often with deleterious effects on competition and economic freedom.

Obviously, only people with a considerable amount of wealth can start a business. The rest of us would go bankrupt just waiting for government approval. That harms competition. But, many people choose another option. They get loans. Many of these loans are considered "high-risk". Large banks are willing to invest in these companies because they expect the government to bail them out if a large number of these loans are defaulted.
Should that happen, more public debt is incurred, taxes and inflation affect the common people more and the cycle continues. Result; recession. In the worst cases; depression. And even worse than that, the wealthy are in control. I'm sure that all champions of liberal economic policy would agree that that is a bad thing.

If government intervention in business was to be reduced to the absolute minimum
required to encourage competition and fair trade practices the economy would prosper. Who cares if crappy factory jobs or tech support jobs or whatever are exported? As long as the companies that create these jobs are based in the U.S., we benefit. Almost all the revenue that said jobs create is funneled back into the corporations that control them. We must ensure that these corporations are based in the U.S. White-collar jobs take the place of blue-collar jobs. Industrial jobs are replaced by service jobs. The general standard of living improves.

Generally speaking, this is what the U.S. has been doing for almost 200 years, despite a constant trend towards socialism. Even with some of the socialist domestic policies and interventionist foreign policies the U.S. has pursued in this century, we remain a major world power. This is only because of the U.S. Constitution and its' limitations over state control. (and these are gradually being overcome by the left and the neo-con right)

Need proof? China, Russia, India. All big nations, all rich in resources, and all poor.
The only thing that differentiates them from the U.S. is the level of economic freedom. It is no surprise that China's "Special Economic Zones" generate more income then the rest of the country. It is also no surprise that the Soviet Union failed. Economic freedom is the key.


I don't have a solution for the whole world. Competition over resources and political power will always leave many in poverty. But I do have a solution for the U.S., and it includes actually adhering to the priniciples the nation was founded upon.

Freedom in trade, thought, and practice must ever be the watchwords that we balance against the state.










In my state, jobs are almost impossible to find now unless you have a masters degree and even positions that require those are pretty full and new businesses just don't like starting up here (and those that are here are trying to move overseas and are laying people off on a constant basis).

Even with the state of the economy today I doubt that. I think you mean to say that jobs which meet your standards are almost impossible to find.

Recession sucks. Keep the state from contributing to it.;)

[Platapus]

1. Democracts = Tax and Spend.
2. Republicans = Borrow and Spend.

Hence the term "Credit Card Conservative"

[SUBMAN1]

Skybird is once again voting for Communism I see. No surprise there.

-S
I don't particularly agree with all of his points, but calling his proposal communism is quite a stretch. For some Americans - for some - everything not being themselves or being located outside "american borders" (a phrase almost meaningless in that kind of thinking) is communism, socialism, Democrats, liberals, girlies, gays, nazis, environmentalists, French, Russians, cowards, whiners and atheists - all rolled into one! There is only America and anti-american - now beware ! - Evil !

In that company, terms and labels do not mean anything anymore, and thus can be mixed at will - it stil is the same being said everytime. Terms and labels just get sorted into two groups: true American, and - let'S tempt Saint Lucifer himself - Evil ! id say that pretty much described Subman1
if you dont see eye to eye with him, you're a commieHardly. The matter is that the line has been blurred so much, you guys can't even see it anymore.

The facts are that in reality, it has never really changed. To tax the rich to pay the middle class and the poor is about as Communism as one could get. Got read up on Karl Marx. This is the basis of his idea. How can you deny that?

The only truly free markets are the only markets that generate almost limitless possibilities. This has been proven time and time again.

With these ideas being put forth, you remove the 'incentive' to create as the first thing you remove. Why should anyone work their ass off to get ahead if the Gov just takes it away? The end result is the crashing of the market that has sustained you for so long. You are starting to see part of it now.

-S

[Kraut]

Skybird is once again voting for Communism I see. No surprise there.

-S
I don't particularly agree with all of his points, but calling his proposal communism is quite a stretch. For some Americans - for some - everything not being themselves or being located outside "american borders" (a phrase almost meaningless in that kind of thinking) is communism, socialism, Democrats, liberals, girlies, gays, nazis, environmentalists, French, Russians, cowards, whiners and atheists - all rolled into one! There is only America and anti-american - now beware ! - Evil !

In that company, terms and labels do not mean anything anymore, and thus can be mixed at will - it stil is the same being said everytime. Terms and labels just get sorted into two groups: true American, and - let'S tempt Saint Lucifer himself - Evil ! id say that pretty much described Subman1
if you dont see eye to eye with him, you're a commieHardly. The matter is that the line has been blurred so much, you guys can't even see it anymore.

The facts are that in reality, it has never really changed. To tax the rich to pay the middle class and the poor is about as Communism as one could get. Got read up on Karl Marx. This is the basis of his idea. How can you deny that?

The only truly free markets are the only markets that generate almost limitless possibilities. This has been proven time and time again.

With these ideas being put forth, you remove the 'incentive' to create as the first thing you remove. Why should anyone work their ass off to get ahead if the Gov just takes it away? The end result is the crashing of the market that has sustained you for so long. You are starting to see part of it now.

-S
Bingo! TAXES=COMMUNISM!! I think the rich should have zero taxes, because only rich people work their ass off. The middle class is just a bunch of lazy dimwits, and they haven't contributed in any way to the wealth the rich have, so they rich should keep ALL their money.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Bingo! TAXES=COMMUNISM!! I think the rich should have zero taxes, because only rich people work their ass off. The middle class is just a bunch of lazy dimwits, and they haven't contributed in any way to the wealth the rich have, so they rich should keep ALL their money.

In a way, taxes actually are communist. Enforced redistribution of wealth.

Naturally, they are necessary, all of us could agree on that. So it could be said that we are all communists, to a degree. Some more than others:D

[clive bradbury]

'The facts are that in reality, it has never really changed. To tax the rich to pay the middle class and the poor is about as Communism as one could get. Got read up on Karl Marx. This is the basis of his idea. How can you deny that?'

Because it's not true. The basis of marxist theory is that industrial growth relied upon the proletariat as the body who produced manufactured goods through their labour. From that, a revolution was inevitable, after which the proles would take the reins of power as well as production. Afterwards, the state would control all industry and capital, with the people working for the good of the state rather than for personal gain. Marx felt that taxing the rich was not required as the revolution he predicted was inevitable. All rubbish, of course, but only as rubbish as your knowledge of Marx. Do you read all your history from the back of cereal packets?

I love your 'the rich get rich by not buying stuff', by the way. Takes ignorance to a whole new level. Trying buying different packs of cereal...please give us the evidence for your theory, I could do with some light entertainment this morning.

[Skybird]

:rotfl: Adam Smith with his four rules of raising taxes, the Romans, the Feudal kings during Medieval - they were all communists! Building public roads and highways, providing a network of waterpipes and public hospitals, schools, police - all communism!

It's a hard world, isn't it. :smug:

I have read Marx, long time ago, and most of "Das Kapital". Not that I have kept it all in memory after that time, by far not, but the basic things are still there. And so simplistic as the usual suspects try to make it appear - it is NOT. Marx is a split figure. He was a brilliant observer and anaylsed many charactertistics of social and economical situations in society correctly. But he was also an escapist in the conclusions he drew from that. In private life, he did not manage to ever keep his money together and live by his own means, he had debts most of the time, and lived from others. when he was in financial trouble, it was up to the others to fix the situation in his place. And this attitude of his how to walk through life, you find reflected in his theory of what should be done with society and economy. It's a bit like believing in fairies who show up and fix those financial things in your life that you are not able or willing to fix yourself by adapting to the situation adequately. The lefts always being the first to call for higher taxes for the rich, compare to this. It is one of the many example in history how character's deficits or deformation of just one individual - turns into a religion or an ideology influencing millions and for centuries.

[GlobalExplorer]

'I love your 'the rich get rich by not buying stuff', by the way. Takes ignorance to a whole new level. Trying buying different packs of cereal...please give us the evidence for your theory, I could do with some light entertainment this morning.

While I am not going to defend Submans stupidity, may I just interject that this idea is not completely unfounded. When I did my year in the socical services I worked with elderly people, and it's really like that: the miserly have money (which they never use), the and the generous one's are poor.

[August]

:rotfl: Adam Smith with his four rules of raising taxes, the Romans, the Feudal kings during Medieval - they were all communists! Building public roads and highways, providing a network of waterpipes and public hospitals, schools, police - all communism!
Except the Roman taxes also paid for huge arenas where they could feed folks to lions and watch men battle each other to the death. Not a society i'd hold up as an example to follow and Feudal kings weren't any better.

[Platapus]

:rotfl: Adam Smith with his four rules of raising taxes, the Romans, the Feudal kings during Medieval - they were all communists! Building public roads and highways, providing a network of waterpipes and public hospitals, schools, police - all communism!
Except the Roman taxes also paid for huge arenas where they could feed folks to lions and watch men battle each other to the death. Not a society i'd hold up as an example to follow and Feudal kings weren't any better.

I don't know about that. I am sure we can all think of some people we would like see fed to lions. :up:

[August]

I don't know about that. I am sure we can all think of some people we would like see fed to lions. :up:

Well of course, but would we want to see our tax dollars spent on it?

[SUBMAN1]

Because it's not true. The basis of marxist theory is that industrial growth relied upon the proletariat as the body who produced manufactured goods through their labour. From that, a revolution was inevitable, after which the proles would take the reins of power as well as production. Afterwards, the state would control all industry and capital, with the people working for the good of the state rather than for personal gain. Marx felt that taxing the rich was not required as the revolution he predicted was inevitable. All rubbish, of course, but only as rubbish as your knowledge of Marx. Do you read all your history from the back of cereal packets?

I love your 'the rich get rich by not buying stuff', by the way. Takes ignorance to a whole new level. Trying buying different packs of cereal...please give us the evidence for your theory, I could do with some light entertainment this morning.
I'm sorry that you are mathematically challenged.

And do you realize how stupid your above statement is in that you just described redistribution of wealth to a 'T'? You're a funny guy! And then you say i don't get it? Frankly, my friend, you are the one that doesn't get it! Understanding your cereal boxes yet? Hahahaha! :p :D

-S

PS. Just for fun:

$400 (average car payment) per month put into a mutual fund every month for 40 years will net you approximately $6,000,000.00 if that mutual fund does about average. Get one that performs well, and you will be rolling in it. So the average guy cannot do this? Hope you like that shiny new car! You just paid $6,000,000.00 for it.

[Kraut]

OMG Obama wants to increase the taxes on the rich to pay for the huge deficit! COMMUNISM!!!!!!!!!! COMMUNISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lets go with McCain's plan of destroying medicare in order to eliminate the deficit. Because as Subman just explained it, clearly those middle class bums should have worked harder and spent their money better in order to retire, and cover their medical expenses.

[SUBMAN1]

OMG Obama wants to increase the taxes on the rich to pay for the huge deficit! COMMUNISM!!!!!!!!!! COMMUNISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lets go with McCain's plan of destroying medicare in order to eliminate the deficit. Because as Subman just explained it, clearly those middle class bums should have worked harder and spent their money better in order to retire, and cover their medical expenses.He isn't destroying Medicare. Far from it. Medicare needs to be fixed though before it goes bankrupt, so I am happy if someone is paying attention to it at all even, otherwise it won't exist at all when I am older. It can't continue the way it is and costs need to be cut to make it survive.

On another note - I'm sorry but I don't support bailing out stupidity. That just encourages more of it. Typical that you missed that point because you can't see past here and now. Look to the future and where things are going for once. Might do you some good.

Then again, are you a Euro or an American?

-S

[Platapus]

On another note - I'm sorry but I don't support bailing out stupidity. That just encourages more of it.
-S


I am glad you were not the Captain of the Carpathia with that attitude toward the passengers of the Titanic. "Let the passengers die. If we rescue them this will only encourage Harland and Wolff to build ships with design flaws". That's a pretty harsh attitude.

The Government is not bailing out these companies for the benefit of the CEOs (which I strongly feel should be held financially accountable). The Government is bailing out these companies so innocent citizens and other related businesses won't have their lives ruined.

Please keep in mind that the people being hurt are innocent.

Why punish the employees and stockholders and the rest of the public who will be affected by a poor business choice? Would you rather have to support these thousands of people on welfare while they rebuild what some CEO lost?

Yes the CEOs were stupid/greedy but in American Business models it is the innocent citizen who bears the brunt of the adverse effects. That's who the government is protecting.

The government really can't stand around and see thousands of people have their lives ruined and justify it by saying "we could help you but that would be letting some CEO you never heard of get off. Sorry your kids are hungry. Your sacrifice for capitalism is greatly appreciated."

The tricky part is deciding what company is "worthy" of being bailed out. Clearly the Government can't and should not bail out every failed company. Nor can the other extreme be justified where the government stands by and allows thousands of innocent people's lives be destroyed.

I don't have the answer, but I do feel that either extreme is not right.

[UnderseaLcpl]

OMG Obama wants to increase the taxes on the rich to pay for the huge deficit! COMMUNISM!!!!!!!!!! COMMUNISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lets go with McCain's plan of destroying medicare in order to eliminate the deficit. Because as Subman just explained it, clearly those middle class bums should have worked harder and spent their money better in order to retire, and cover their medical expenses.

Fail.

You can't tax the rich without reforming the tax code. They just pay lawyers to get them out of their tax obligations. You can't reform the tax code unless you reduce government. Complex laws allow lawyers to exploit the legal system, to the detriment of the rest of us. Is it any wonder that most of congress and most of the presidents who have ever served are lawyers. Why would you give these people any kind of power?

Obama is not a person who will reduce government or government spending.(Neither is McCain) Any form of "Universal Health Care" would cost hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money. That is money that the government wastes every year in the form of unecessary programs of dubious value that could be used by taxpayers for private healthcare. Even worse, government spending contributes to public debt, which contributes to inflation(by expanding the money supply)
Which makes the problem even worse and devalues the dollar.

Beware those who think they know what is best for you unless that person is yourself. When you fail, only you pay. But when government fails everybody pays.

Every Statist government system on the face of the planet has been beset by the question of "Who should be in charge?"

After all, if the wrong person is in charge, everybody suffers. Why would anyone ever submit to a system that allows that?

Limited government and personal freedom are what made this country great.
Let's go back to those basic principles.

[SUBMAN1]

On another note - I'm sorry but I don't support bailing out stupidity. That just encourages more of it.
-S

I am glad you were not the Captain of the Carpathia with that attitude toward the passengers of the Titanic. "Let the passengers die. If we rescue them this will only encourage Harland and Wolff to build ships with design flaws". That's a pretty harsh attitude.

The Government is not bailing out these companies for the benefit of the CEOs (which I strongly feel should be held financially accountable). The Government is bailing out these companies so innocent citizens and other related businesses won't have their lives ruined.

Please keep in mind that the people being hurt are innocent.

Why punish the employees and stockholders and the rest of the public who will be affected by a poor business choice? Would you rather have to support these thousands of people on welfare while they rebuild what some CEO lost?

Yes the CEOs were stupid/greedy but in American Business models it is the innocent citizen who bears the brunt of the adverse effects. That's who the government is protecting.

The government really can't stand around and see thousands of people have their lives ruined and justify it by saying "we could help you but that would be letting some CEO you never heard of get off. Sorry your kids are hungry. Your sacrifice for capitalism is greatly appreciated."

The tricky part is deciding what company is "worthy" of being bailed out. Clearly the Government can't and should not bail out every failed company. Nor can the other extreme be justified where the government stands by and allows thousands of innocent people's lives be destroyed.

I don't have the answer, but I do feel that either extreme is not right.Bad example man, or maybe my statement above is too general. I should say, "Bail people out of their 'own' stupidity". If people are in a situation due to no fault of their own, that is one thing, but when they made the bed themselves, then in my opinion you have to lie in that bed now.

-S

[Frame57]

The government does not bail out anyone. Every penny they spend is ours, it is not like the government just showed up with a huge wallet one day. Wasn't over taxation a part of what led us to the American revolution? Sure raising taxes is "patriotic" in that sense...

[Sailor Steve]

Wasn't over taxation a part of what led us to the American revolution?
Not exactly, but probably close enough. They recognized that taxation was necessary to pay for the recent 'French and Indian War', but objected to the idea that Parliament was taxing them without consulting them. The general consensus was that if the British Government had put it to the individual Colonial Assemblies that they should make taxes to pay for the war, they would have agreed. The only thing the colonies asked for in return at first was a seat in the Parliament for each colony; hence "No taxation without representation".

I agree with your premise though. I have often voiced the opinion that the first requirement for anyone in a position to make taxes should be that they show they believe in the concept that all taxes are a necessary evil, nothing more. Anyone who likes the government shouldn't be a part of it.

I personally stand for a repeal of the 16th Amendment altogether.

[tater]

OMG Obama wants to increase the taxes on the rich to pay for the huge deficit! COMMUNISM!!!!!!!!!! COMMUNISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The "rich" already pay the lion's share of taxes collected. Obama plans on giving "tax cuts" to people who already have a tax liability of $0 (that's about 40% of US "taxpayers," BTW). You cannot "cut taxes" on people who already pay no taxes at all, or people who pay negative taxes (EITC).

If you wish to cut taxes, you should start with the overtaxed. A fair share of the tax burden is the budget divided by the population. I say the people who pay the highest amount per family member above that $7,000 a head "fair share" get the cuts first (family of 4 that means ~$28,000). No one paying less than $7000 per person should get a cut period.

IMO, anyone paying less than that "fair share" should not be allowed to vote, either (I'd make a lifetime exception for anyone who was honorably discharged from the military, they earned a vote regardless of future lifetime income).


Lets go with McCain's plan of destroying medicare in order to eliminate the deficit. Because as Subman just explained it, clearly those middle class bums should have worked harder and spent their money better in order to retire, and cover their medical expenses.

Actually, that's exactly right. Retirement is not a Constitutional Right, it's a recent invention. You do realize that when the US was experiencing a population boom, "retirement" was primarily a tool to insure better employment figures, right? Sort of like when France dropped the work week to 35 hours. Instantly their employment figures looked better because the businesses still needed X hours of work done, but they had to hire extra people to do the work. Likewise, retirement at some arbitrary age instantly removes X people per year from the workforce that must be replaced by younger workers.

[Fish]

Republicans don' worry about such trifling details. Spend now, let your kids pay off the debt.

I think it must be 'their' kids. :yep:

[SUBMAN1]

Republicans don' worry about such trifling details. Spend now, let your kids pay off the debt.
I think it must be 'their' kids. :yep:No. They are banking on the 40 year rule and that is the real problem. It is so big and so out of control, yet the gov says no problem because of the 40 year rule.

That rule is - back in the 40's, congress set for the dollar to achieve 5 cents on the dollar in future worth. The idea is, any debt you owe today, the US Gov is planning to pay off at 5 cents on the dollar.

This is why its a bad idea to save money in a pillow - it will be worth half as much, or should I say, buy about half of what it used to, every 10 years.

The debt snowball though needs to stop soon.

-S

[August]

No matter how much the government increases their taxes the rich will still fix it so they don't have to pay hardly anything. That's what lawyers and accountants are for, and the current byzantine tax codes provide fertile ground for them.

A better, fairer plan imo are not graduated percentages, but rather a simple flat tax on gross earnings with no deductions at all. You earn a lot of money you pay a lot, you earn a little, and you pay a little but everyone pays the same percentage. From what I read to equal the current level of federal tax income this would be around 7%.

Now as a member of the much abused middle class I'd certainly prefer that over a minor reduction to the over 30% I currently pay if somehow the Dems actually kept their campaign promises, and living in Democrat controlled New England I know from hard experience how rare that is.

[Tchocky]

At the end of this particular week, I can't see a rosy tax regime for the next US President. The subprime mess and the crisis that we're currently have left a nasty present for either McCain or Obama. That's going to affect their tax plans in many ways. I still prefer Obama's plan, as it leaves more money for lower-income people who are more likely to return it to the economic cycle, as opposed to high-income investors, this being the least likely year for anyone to plunge into money markets.


Or possibly Barr. Who'll just cancel taxes. Cross that bridge when we get to it. But there won't be any bridges. So nevermind.

[Skybird]

Some days ago, the US senate and congress both have voted in favour of a defense budget of 612 billion dollars for 2009.

That almost equals the aid package's value that was given a more substantial number today, naming 700 billion dollars.

Not bad for a nation having state debts of almost 10 trillion dollars.

With

-Russia increasing it's defence budget next year by 25% to roughly 50 billion,

- and China's defence budget being roughly ~ 56 billion,

- and with the american budget for 2009 equalling the accumulated defense spendings for 2008 of the next 19 countries in the list of the globe's biggest miliary spenders (in order of spendings: France, Britain, China, Russia, Japan, Germany, Italy, Saudi-Arabia, South korea, India, turkey, Brazil, Australia, Canada, Spain, Netherlands, Poland, Taiwan, Israel) ;

I see quite some room for thought.

The state debts are more than 16 times as much as the 2009 defense budget.

[SUBMAN1]

Well, if Germany got on the ball and provided a decent defense force instead of relying on the US to do it for them, then maybe we wouldn't have to spend so much.

Just a thought.

You Germans complain either way. Unbelievable.

-S

[UnderseaLcpl]

Some days ago, the US senate and congress both have voted in favour of a defense budget of 612 billion dollars for 2009.

That almost equals the aid package's value that was given a more substantial number today, naming 700 billion dollars.

Not bad for a nation having state debts of almost 10 trillion dollars.

With

-Russia increasing it's budget next year by 25% to roughly 50 billion,

- and China's budget being roughly ~ 56 billion,

- and with the american budget for 2009 equalling the accumulated defense spendings for 2008 of the next 19 countries in the list of the globe's biggest miliary spenders (in order of spendings: France, Britain, China, Russia, Japan, Germany, Italy, Saudi-Arabia, South korea, India, turkey, Brazil, Australia, Canada, Spain, Netherlands, Poland, Taiwan, Israel) ;

I see quite some room for thought.

I don't see much room for thought at all. Something needs to be done right now, before the "Government Bubble" bursts and we ruin our own economy and significantly damage the economy of the rest of the world.

But, I don't suppose anything of the kind will be done as long as we trust the state to guide the nation. :roll:

On the bright side, I think I'll move to Switzerland when everything goes to hell. We'll be neighbors, sky!:D

Then you can teach me all about chess on the weekends. Won't that be fun? :D

[Skybird]

Some days ago, the US senate and congress both have voted in favour of a defense budget of 612 billion dollars for 2009.

That almost equals the aid package's value that was given a more substantial number today, naming 700 billion dollars.

Not bad for a nation having state debts of almost 10 trillion dollars.

With

-Russia increasing it's budget next year by 25% to roughly 50 billion,

- and China's budget being roughly ~ 56 billion,

- and with the american budget for 2009 equalling the accumulated defense spendings for 2008 of the next 19 countries in the list of the globe's biggest miliary spenders (in order of spendings: France, Britain, China, Russia, Japan, Germany, Italy, Saudi-Arabia, South korea, India, turkey, Brazil, Australia, Canada, Spain, Netherlands, Poland, Taiwan, Israel) ;

I see quite some room for thought.

I don't see much room for thought at all. Something needs to be done right now, before the "Government Bubble" bursts and we ruin our own economy and significantly damage the economy of the rest of the world.

But, I don't suppose anything of the kind will be done as long as we trust the state to guide the nation. :roll:

On the bright side, I think I'll move to Switzerland when everything goes to hell. We'll be neighbors, sky!:D

Then you can teach me all about chess on the weekends. Won't that be fun? :D
It also means you are in range for getting slaps and kicks when doing some stupid move, so you may want to reconsider moving to Switzerland. ;)

[SUBMAN1]

It also means you are in range for getting slaps and kicks when doing some stupid move, so you may want to reconsider moving to Switzerland. ;)What happens when you do a stupid move? :hmm:

-S

[August]

It also means you are in range for getting slaps and kicks when doing some stupid move, so you may want to reconsider moving to Switzerland. ;)

10 bucks says the Lance Corporal would wipe the floor with you. :roll:

[SUBMAN1]

It also means you are in range for getting slaps and kicks when doing some stupid move, so you may want to reconsider moving to Switzerland. ;)
10 bucks says the Lance Corporal would wipe the floor with you. :roll:I'll up it to $20! My money is on him! :up:

-S

[UnderseaLcpl]

[It also means you are in range for getting slaps and kicks when doing some stupid move, so you may want to reconsider moving to Switzerland. ;)


Why? Switzerland is neutral.:D Ze Germans cannot hurt us!:rotfl:

[Frame57]

The idea of Income tax was born with the Socialist Labor Party (no surprize there!), which was organized and ran by a Marxist. The whole concept was born od communistsic ideaology.

[mrbeast]

The idea of Income tax was born with the Socialist Labor Party (no surprize there!), which was organized and ran by a Marxist. The whole concept was born od communistsic ideaology.

Or not depending on which cerial packet you get your history from.

The back of my packet says that income tax was first levied by PM William Pitt, the younger in Britain, in 1798 to pay for the Napoleonic war.

Long before Karl Marx was even a twinkle in big daddy Marx's eye.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax

[Skybird]

The idea of Income tax was born with the Socialist Labor Party (no surprize there!), which was organized and ran by a Marxist. The whole concept was born od communistsic ideaology.

Or not depending on which cerial packet you get your history from.

The back of my packet says that income tax was first levied by PM William Pitt, the younger in Britain, in 1798 to pay for the Napoleonic war.

Long before Karl Marx was even a twinkle in big daddy Marx's eye.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax

tz-tz, another attempt to label anything one does not like as socialism and communism. It's a verbal overkill-super-wonder-weapon, it seems. the ultimate win-the-lottery-without-even-buying-a-ticket- argument. Even blanks win the jackpot, or what? Just say "Communism!" without stuttering, and smile - and you already have won!

Don't remember the names and year exactly, but can confirm yes, it was Britain against Napoleon, sometime late 18th century. Potentially, France was the wealthiest nation of Europe of that time, but it made bad use of it's rich agriculture, and the French leaders - including Napoleon - did not put much emphasis on financial politics regarding the banking system, and still they became wealthy enough to finance Napoleon's european ambitions, and the reforming and re-equipping of Napoleon'S armies. Britain, on the other hand, was isolated, fought hard not to get cut off from trade and the incomes from that, and had to "invent" new ways to reorganize it's state incomes to survive the long struggle with the French - if they would have stuck to their old system and would not have reformed their private banking system, they would not have endured the resistance against finacially superior France, even more so since in population and agriculture Britain was smaller than France. Their reforms went far beyond just implementing an income tax. It more compares to an almost new financial economy system.

The struggle against Napoelon was not only won on the battlefield at Waterloo. It was prepared by the somewhat reforming of the English bank system and a new system of raising state finances in Britain, and the mechnaism by which the state lend money from private banks. without Britain doing that, Prussia, Austria and/or Russia would probably have been unable to finally defeat Napoleon and throw France back to it's own borders - it would have continued to dominate Europe. From a British perspective, it was not "Wellington at Waterloo holding out until the Prussians came" being the deciding factor, but the British financial reforms. Without them, Wellington never would have been able to lead a British army to the fields at Waterloo. Britain would have become bancrupt much earlier.

A very rough and short summary only, I know. But in principle, that'S it. For more details I would need to re-read my history book.

One could even go back much further, into the medieval. The churche'S "decimae personales", that ruoled that 10 percent of all earnings by traders and farmers had to be given to the church, could be seen as the first form of income taxes. In Prussia, the first "tax per head" also was raised in the 18th century, I think even before the English came with their income tax. China had the first form of income tax two thousand years ago (Mao was not born, then ;) ).

[mrbeast]

Nice summary Skybird.:up:

As a nation Britain was really punching above its weight against Napoleon's huge and wealthy continental empire and needed large sums of cash quickly. I believe quite a number of innovative ways were developed by the British government to fund its military spending during the Napoleonic Wars, including levying a tax on wig-powder, eventually making the wearing of wigs too expensive and stopping the fashion for them; which I guess can only be a good thing, unless your a wig maker that is!:D

[nikimcbee]

Good grief, I go out of town and i almost missed all of the fun.:oops: A communism thread! ..or was is a Napoleonic thread? I've lost track now.:roll:

I'm frankly sick of both parties! they are both for big gov't and waste my money on stupid @$#$%.:x

We need to term limit all of these "career chumps" outta office.

What is the role of national gov't?

...State gov't?

...local gov't?

We need to elect responsible people. Americans need to be personally responsible!


And the thing that makes me most pissed off, are these politicians that raise my taxes then weasle out of paying theirs:x :x :x .

I say pick a flat tax with no deductions, and do a budget accordingly.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Good grief, I go out of town and i almost missed all of the fun.:oops: A communism thread! ..or was is a Napoleonic thread? I've lost track now.:roll:

I'm frankly sick of both parties! they are both for big gov't and waste my money on stupid @$#$%.:x

We need to term limit all of these "career chumps" outta office.

What is the role of national gov't?

...State gov't?

...local gov't?

We need to elect responsible people. Americans need to be personally responsible!


And the thing that makes me most pissed off, are these politicians that raise my taxes then weasle out of paying theirs:x :x :x .

I say pick a flat tax with no deductions, and do a budget accordingly.


No surprise, I agree. Unfortunately, the only candidate with those kind of views was defeated in the primaries, by a large margin. Evidently, he or his views were so disliked that he wasn't even allowed to attend several of the "debates", and when he did get as much time to talk as most of the others.

Obama talks about change and I laugh. What change? More state overspending and leftist expansion of government? That's been going on for over 70 years, and not one administration has ever reconciled spending, inflation, trade defecit, massive war debts, or any other major problems for any but the shortest preriod of time. And when McCain talks I laugh as well because his platforms sound like Obama's, he just wastes money in slightly different ways.

Odd that everyone finds the goverment inefficient and wasteful, but look to it to solve their problems. I like it most when they talk about partisan politics being the reason for it. God forbid the congress ever stop fighting because they could do a lot more damage that way.

[nikimcbee]

Ha, I love partisanship. They are too busy trying to screw the other party, they can't screw me.

[Frame57]

The idea of Income tax was born with the Socialist Labor Party (no surprize there!), which was organized and ran by a Marxist. The whole concept was born od communistsic ideaology.

Or not depending on which cerial packet you get your history from.

The back of my packet says that income tax was first levied by PM William Pitt, the younger in Britain, in 1798 to pay for the Napoleonic war.

Long before Karl Marx was even a twinkle in big daddy Marx's eye.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax[/quote) I believe thread is refering to American politics. Any history book will do... The reason why socialism and communism want to tax people on everything from income to property is because they do want people to own anything. Individualism is not condusive to their Ideaology.

[Platapus]

We need to term limit all of these "career chumps" outta office.




We already have term limitations for congress. They are called elections. The problem is that the citizens, in using their right to vote, choose not to limit the terms.

It is the choice of the voters that keeps these scumbags in office forever.

[mrbeast]

The idea of Income tax was born with the Socialist Labor Party (no surprize there!), which was organized and ran by a Marxist. The whole concept was born od communistsic ideaology.

Or not depending on which cerial packet you get your history from.

The back of my packet says that income tax was first levied by PM William Pitt, the younger in Britain, in 1798 to pay for the Napoleonic war.

Long before Karl Marx was even a twinkle in big daddy Marx's eye.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax[/quote) I believe thread is refering to American politics. Any history book will do... The reason why socialism and communism want to tax people on everything from income to property is because they do want people to own anything. Individualism is not condusive to their Ideaology.

The income tax levied by Prime Minister Pitt was the firat income tax to be levied in the modern era (there are some ancient and medieval examples of similar taxes) anywhere, so thats why I brough it up. The US started levying income tax in the 1860's IIRC, again I doubt if any socialists were involved there either.

So your wrong the invention of income tax and indeed most taxes predate socialist political philosophy. In fact they are not the invention of communists but good old comservatives generally, William Pitt was a Tory.

Frankly, I can't be bothered countering your crude, sweeping generalisations about what communism or socialism is, at the moment (which BTW are also incorrect ;) ). That will have to wait for another time.

Usually, I find that those who are quick to label things as communist know very little about it.

[August]

I hate commies almost as much as i hate nazis...

[Happy Times]

I hate commies almost as much as i hate nazis...

To me there is no difference, unfortunately other one is still legal.

[Frame57]

The idea of Income tax was born with the Socialist Labor Party (no surprize there!), which was organized and ran by a Marxist. The whole concept was born od communistsic ideaology.

Or not depending on which cerial packet you get your history from.

The back of my packet says that income tax was first levied by PM William Pitt, the younger in Britain, in 1798 to pay for the Napoleonic war.

Long before Karl Marx was even a twinkle in big daddy Marx's eye.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax[/quote) I believe thread is refering to American politics. Any history book will do... The reason why socialism and communism want to tax people on everything from income to property is because they do want people to own anything. Individualism is not condusive to their Ideaology.

The income tax levied by Prime Minister Pitt was the firat income tax to be levied in the modern era (there are some ancient and medieval examples of similar taxes) anywhere, so thats why I brough it up. The US started levying income tax in the 1860's IIRC, again I doubt if any socialists were involved there either.

So your wrong the invention of income tax and indeed most taxes predate socialist political philosophy. In fact they are not the invention of communists but good old comservatives generally, William Pitt was a Tory.

Frankly, I can't be bothered countering your crude, sweeping generalisations about what communism or socialism is, at the moment (which BTW are also incorrect ;) ). That will have to wait for another time.

Usually, I find that those who are quick to label things as communist know very little about it.Again! This is refering to what led up to the revenue act HERE IN AMERICA, was not discussing Britain... :down:

[mrbeast]

Again! This is refering to what led up to the revenue act HERE IN AMERICA, was not discussing Britain... :down:

I was not discussing the UK exclusively but simply where the idea and concept of income tax was first implimented in the modern era. In response to your statement that income tax was:

....born with the Socialist Labor Party (no surprize there!), which was organized and ran by a Marxist. The whole concept was born od communistsic ideaology

If you read my posts carefully you will find that I also mentioned when the first US income tax was levyied 'The US started levying income tax in the 1860's IIRC'. It was a general point about income tax, not specifically about anywhere.

As to the US Revenue Act, there are several which one are you refering to that was the product of the 'Socialist Labor Party'?

[Frame57]

Taxes in the 1860's were tariffs to pay for the war. In the late 1800's the SLP under Daniel De leon began to incite the democrats to tax all Americans. This influence is what led to the revenue act of 1913. The idea that taxes or tarriffs to pay for wars is ancient, but the premise to keep them indefinitely is a brand of socialism and government systems that want to have ultimate control over the people. Classic socialism....