Where the Bailout Went Wrong

[mookiemookie]

Oh but gosh, I was told that wealth redistribution upwards can't happen!

This is the greatest theft in history. See it for what it is or not, it changes nothing. Your government has sold you out to their corporate masters and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

[tater]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Oh but gosh, I was told that wealth redistribution upwards can't happen!

This is the greatest theft in history. See it for what it is or not, it changes nothing. Your government has sold you out to their corporate masters and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

Where did the bailout money come from? They borrowed it. Who will pay for the borrowed money? The people who pay disproportionate taxes. I am indeed curious how wealth never owned by the poor can make the rich, rich. The sum total wealth of the bottom tiers isn't enough to make a huge difference. It's not like they used to have it and gave it away.

Not in favor of the bailout, BTW, I'd have let companies fail.

[Ducimus]

I am indeed curious how wealth never owned by the poor can make the rich, rich

I think it's implied. The impression I have is America is supposed to be the land of opportunity, make it or break it is up to you, you had the opportunity either way. However, the impression now is that the rich became super rich by removing those opportunities in the way of automation, outsourcing jobs to foreign shores, domestic outsourcing (hiring illegals), etc etc what have you. Sure they made themselves super rich, but seemingly at everyone else's expense in terms of opportunity.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I think it's implied. The impression I have is America is supposed to be the land of opportunity, make it or break it is up to you, you had the opportunity either way. However, the impression now is that the rich became super rich by removing those opportunities in the way of automation, outsourcing jobs to foreign shores, domestic outsourcing (hiring illegals), etc etc what have you. Sure they made themselves super rich, but seemingly at everyone else's expense in terms of opportunity.

The rich become richer by removing opportunity? Oh, you mean that a loss of opportunity is somehow an accident of the rich becoming rich?

One, that's not redistribution. That means taking something one person has, and giving it to others.

I also don't buy it, anyway.

100 years ago, some robber-baron has a big company, and you invent something in the same field that is the next big thing. Is your opportunity greater or less than someone with a new idea right now? Presumably you think less. There are laws on the books now that are far more restrictive on the big outfit than were around 100 years ago. I think things are not harder now than then.

I think even the basic metric of just relative wealth is only good during limited contemporaneous time intervals, too. Saying that the relative balance of rich and poor is different fails entirely to look at what people actually have. We've all talked about this in other threads. What the average, say, lower middle class family has in 2011 might be less in $ terms relative to the top of the heap, but they have far MORE than a family in the same bracket in 1911. Weight dollars with square footage, mobility, communications, entertainment, etc. Until someone figures out how to value that stuff, I don't think I buy the rich vs poor ratio stuff.

People now complain of high real estate prices making urban areas hard to live in. 100 years ago the lower end people had a simpler solution. They never owned a home in their entire life. We seen the stats in recent, previous years about all time high home ownership... turns out that was a bad idea. My dream might be to own a P-51, but it's a dream, not something that will ever happen. Back in the day the "American Dream" was just that—a dream—for most people.

Anyway, I don't think opportunity has evaporated (ask people what they thought in 1930-something).

[Ducimus]

Personally, i don't see what the debate is. In my mind, its all as clear as day and as real as the traffic light down the street. Now, i'm not disowning personal responsiblity or accountability, far from it. I am where I am, because i got comfortable and lazy. However, i also recognize we live in a plutocracy, and in what some call a "great recession". There are far fewer opportunites now then there were 10 to 20 years ago.

The cost of living keeps going up, pay stays the same, and a crapton of people are unemployed. Yet this rich elite are making record profits, with pay bonuses in the millions. That too, is plain as day, and as real as the traffic sign down the street. There's no abstract thought to that. Poor get poorer, rich get richer. That's just how it is, and it is what it is, because we have the best government money can buy. I just find it therapeutic to whine about it on a messageboard because i can't elsewhere, and because there is absolutely NOTHING i can do about the situation. So that to me, is all there is to it.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Personally, i don't see what the debate is. In my mind, its all as clear as day and as real as the traffic light down the street. Now, i'm not disowning personal responsiblity or accountability, far from it. I am where I am, because i got comfortable and lazy. However, i also recognize we live in a plutocracy, and in what some call a "great recession". There are far fewer opportunites now then there were 10 to 20 years ago.

The cost of living keeps going up, pay stays the same, and a crapton of people are unemployed. Yet this rich elite are making record profits, with pay bonuses in the millions. That too, is plain as day, and as real as the traffic sign down the street. There's no abstract thought to that. Poor get poorer, rich get richer. That's just how it is, and it is what it is, because we have the best government money can buy. I just find it therapeutic to whine about it on a messageboard because i can't elsewhere. That to me, is all there is to it.

You got it, brother. There are those that realize what's happened, but they know that we have no real power. We can write to our congresscritter and tell them how unfair it is, but they know our protests will be filtered through some unpaid intern and met with a form letter. They face no real repercussions. They keep fellating that corporate pipe and let us believe that we have some sort of say in government.

And they have their true believers who defend the right to screw us over at all turns, saying that they're not really at fault, and that the old American dream of "you can make it if you try" is still alive and well. What are you gonna do, man?

[Ducimus]

What are you gonna do, man?

What i always do. Survive.... as dramatic as that sounds. I Make my ends meet, keep my head above water, live one day at a time, enjoy what i have, take pleasure in the simple things in life, and try not to worry about things i can do nothing about.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

And they have their true believers who defend the right to screw us over at all turns, saying that they're not really at fault, and that the old American dream of "you can make it if you try" is still alive and well. What are you gonna do, man?

I know I'm going to be mocked horribly for this but.... join the Tea Party! Granted, their material results haven't been all that great yet, but their political results over a relatively short span of time can't be argued with, and you'll never take out the government-industrial complex without removing the government part first. Easiest way to do that is to demand government fiscal responsibility, which is exactly what the tea partiers are all about.

What the tea-party movement represents, maligned as it is by the left, is a shift in Republican politics and eventually (I hope) party platform. The Repubs are infamous for spending just as much (and in some cases, more) than the Dems. I think the success of the tea-party movement may be indicative of Americans actually sending a message to Washington more or less successfully, which is better than nothing at all.

More importantly, in a two-party system, if one party definitively adopts a stance, the other party is all but required to adopt the opposite stance to garner the largest possible number of votes. In the event of another tea-party success, that could put the legislature in the hands of the tea-party Republicans and independents.

My main worry about them is that they will lose momentum and stop complaining, or conclude that the effort is hopeless or too much work. If they do that before 2012, we just continue with the same system, so we're screwed. If they do it after 2012, or even 2016, we may well end up with another single-party legislative dynasty, which would eventually be even worse.

Aside from that, there's always the option of supporting a third party with a fiscal-responsibility agenda, like the Libertarians. I'm not saying you need to throw away a vote in a presidential election or a presidential primary. Just get the word out in a local election. Or just cast a vote in one. Nobody votes in those things anyway, so your vote carries more weight, but what really matters is that every Libertarian elected at a local level carries the weight of thousands of district votes (y'know, unless your district has less than thousands of people). Apply pressure from the ground up, rather than the top down.

Or don't. Whatever you do, don't just give up. Every vote of no-confidence in the current government is ammunition to bring about the reform of government, even if all you do is convince one person on one forum. Y'know, as long as you don't convince them to vote for more government to fix the current government.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by tater

Where did the bailout money come from? They borrowed it. Who will pay for the borrowed money? The people who pay disproportionate taxes. I am indeed curious how wealth never owned by the poor can make the rich, rich. The sum total wealth of the bottom tiers isn't enough to make a huge difference. It's not like they used to have it and gave it away.

Not in favor of the bailout, BTW, I'd have let companies fail.

except they don't, because they have many deductions, and accounts to hide much of their earnings. there are some very clever accountants out there. If GE can pay NO taxes then im sure some clever accountants are working for their million and billionaire clients as well.

Plus theres the fact that they makes sickening amounts of money..and after taxes the amount taken by uncle sam matter much less than the amount taken from the average joe.