Quote:
Originally Posted by mookiemookie
Indeed. I've given up. Apparently the macroeconomic costs that everyone is paying in this recession caused by the financial industry don't count in tater's world.
|
We were talking about
bail outs. That's government money (taken form people that actually pay taxes—or borrowed (to be paid back later by... people who actually pay taxes)) given to wall street, et al.
The bail outs were supposed to mitigate macroeconomic effects on others, that was the point of democratic support for them (and so-called "stimulus").
I'm for letting wall street crash and burn, as I said, not bail outs. Regardless, the price of bail outs is paid for by net taxpayers, and in proportion to the amount they actually pay. The number of OWS protesters that paid as much in bail-outs over the last few years than they've paid for Apple products, or even lattes is likely small to nonexistent.
Show me again how people that don't pay enough taxes to cover their familys' per capita share are making a meaningful contribution to things like bail outs. You cannot, because they don't. Real conservatives hate the bail outs because they think the market should work, and bad choices should result in wall street idiots jumping out of windows. Liberals hate bail outs because they know that it is a wealth transfer of money from the rich back to the rich (since they are well aware who pays for everything), when they'd prefer it being transferred to a larger voting block.
The US already puts a a couple trillion a year into wealth transfer from the top down (entitlements, which are ~2/3 of all federal spending). TARP, etc is chump change by comparison (and again, I'm against wealth transfer, period, to rich or poor—least I'm consistent).