bills_fan Posted February 27, 2009 Author Posted February 27, 2009 It is galling, that's true. No-one likes to be told what to do. What it boils down to though is at what point do things stop impacting just the people on the bottom - and there will ALWAYS be people on the bottom - and impact all of us? There are certain minimum things which have to be in place for a certain level of security (both economic and otherwise). Letting the banks all fail? I'd love it - but it would hurt many many people. In theory we should let it happen, but can we allow it as a practical matter? Same with the auto manufacturers. Maybe at another time, when the economy was not riddled with weakness as it is now, we could let this happen, but not today. I hate debt. I hate deficit. And I am really don't like the fact that I, a fiscally responsible person who takes nothing from anyone, is paying to prop up institutions and individuals who don't really deserve it. But I firmly believe that if we just "let it all go", we'll all go too. Why would you "love it" if the banks failed?
The Big Cat Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Why would you "love it" if the banks failed? IF?
bills_fan Posted February 27, 2009 Author Posted February 27, 2009 IF? Fair point, at least with respect to the 4 money centers, certain regionals and three former Wall Street investment banks.
The Big Cat Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Fair point, at least with respect to the 4 money centers, certain regionals and three former Wall Street investment banks. Banks fail every week, nay, DAY. What makes the big ones immune to restructuring is beyond me. I'm sympathetic to just about everything Obama has done so far. But I think he's WAY to soft on the banks. Too many crossed wires, I fear.
StupidNation Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 lol. I like how you assume that what Obama is doing is not based on research. I promise he doesn't like taxes any more than you do. He's just looked at history and seen that during our best periods of of economic prosperity have involved some higher taxes (see the 50's and 60's) and some of our worst times have involved lower taxes (see Calvin Coolidge and GWB). I'm sure it's much more complicated than that.. and much more research has gone into it than I have put in. Obama does not go off of principal or personal philosophy, he goes off of historical event, facts, figures, numbers, research, etc. He consults people who are experts in their field. Actually the time in which this country got rich was between 1860-1915. We are still living off of that wealth really. We had manufacturing boom in the country, strong middle class growing, actual wealth rather than credit creation. The "research" they are doing is garbage and faulty. It's intending to tax the lower and middle-class through inflation wiping out wealth left and right and centralizing more power. What's sad is you trust these people with their "research" but tell me when the last time they were right on anything. We are poorer than ever before, and educated with actual knowledge rather than error. People don't own houses, their income, their cars, and most live on revolving debt. Stop paying your mortgage that people owe 80% of their equity and see what happens. We own next to nothing except equity spreads on mortgages. We lost our income to the income tax which can be increased and we have no say; we lost our freedoms and wealth and people still trust the government to get us out of the mess they created. Government cannot create jobs, just take them away. Government feeds on productivity of others, not vice versa.
BuffaloBill Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 I ain't a millionaire. And under that plan, I'm !@#$ed. I hear you .... my wife is looking to go back to work next year (returning to school this year). I applaud her for becoming an income earning citizen again but the tax implications for us just suck. I will continue to save and invest as I always have but the tax policy in this country makes no sense. It encourages consumption, earning less and not saving / investing for the long term. I earn income get taxed on it, invest may taxed earnings and if i am fortunate enough to get a return I am taxed again. Smart policy isn't it? I also have a problem with the fact that morgage dudections cause the overinvestment in a house ... a poor investment (as compared to alternatives) for the majority of Americans. People forget that leveraging your self to the hills on a house is what got many in trouble to begin with. I am consistently amazed at the stupidity of many people when they claim their house is a great "investment." Most never look at the real expenses associated with owning it, forget about the interest they pay and fail to understand how leverage can work for them in other ways. Depending on where you live $200K+ in income does not always put you on track to long term wealth.
Chef Jim Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 I hear you .... my wife is looking to go back to work next year (returning to school this year). I applaud her for becoming an income earning citizen again but the tax implications for us just suck. I will continue to save and invest as I always have but the tax policy in this country makes no sense. It encourages consumption, earning less and not saving / investing for the long term. I earn income get taxed on it, invest may taxed earnings and if i am fortunate enough to get a return I am taxed again. Smart policy isn't it? I also have a problem with the fact that morgage dudections cause the overinvestment in a house ... a poor investment (as compared to alternatives) for the majority of Americans. People forget that leveraging your self to the hills on a house is what got many in trouble to begin with. I am consistently amazed at the stupidity of many people when they claim their house is a great "investment." Most never look at the real expenses associated with owning it, forget about the interest they pay and fail to understand how leverage can work for them in other ways. Depending on where you live $200K+ in income does not always put you on track to long term wealth. Just an FYI you are not taxed again, you are only taxed on your gains. Your basis (what you invested) is not taxed. The government may be tax happy but I will give them credit they very rarely tax us twice.
GG Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 Actually the time in which this country got rich was between 1860-1915. We are still living off of that wealth really. We had manufacturing boom in the country, strong middle class growing, actual wealth rather than credit creation.
DC Tom Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 Forget it, he's rolling. Though it's an amusing exercise to try and figure out just how, precisely, "wealth" was generated from 1860-1870.
StupidNation Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 Forget it, he's rolling. Though it's an amusing exercise to try and figure out just how, precisely, "wealth" was generated from 1860-1870. We were producing things and increasing our base even through a war. I know it might be hard to image production as growth, but let it sink it. Your legend grows, in your own mind.
DC Tom Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 We were producing things and increasing our base even through a war. I know it might be hard to image production as growth, but let it sink it. Your legend grows, in your own mind. Feel free to try to support that nonsense with numbers that you haven't pulled out of your ass.
The Big Cat Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 Okay, in all my under 40...er...30...er 25 naivete, the idea of tax increases for the wealthy running simultaneously with tax CUTS for the unwealthy means far more people will pay less taxes, while a very small portion of the population pays more. In so happening--for the unwealthy--there's a chance for things to go from bad to good, whilst for the wealthy (from where I sit, and I appreciate an objective, non predjudiced response to this) things have the potential to go from good to less good. Would somebody please explain, and please provide examples, how a tax increase for folks who have enough money to live, eat, etc., means wealthy folks will go from riches to rags (as some of you make it seem).
Chef Jim Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 Would somebody please explain, and please provide examples, how a tax increase for folks who have enough money to live, eat, etc., means wealthy folks will go from riches to rags (as some of you make it seem). I think it's been explained to death and if you don't understand it now, you never will.
StupidNation Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 Feel free to try to support that nonsense with numbers that you haven't pulled out of your ass. Coming from a guy who supports none of his statements except with his ass I find that humorous.
The Big Cat Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 I think it's been explained to death and if you don't understand it now, you never will. No, it's been explained to death why tax increases for the wealthy will equal bad things for the unwealthy. Which is relative, I suppose, though I doubt the first thing to pop into the heads of the wealthy when they got their tax CUTS was, "wow, so many people other than me will benefit from this!" I want to know how it will have a NEGATIVE impact on the wealthy to the extent that they are no longer afford to live their lives*, just as the tax CUTS may have the POSITIVE impact on the unwealthy to the extent that they CAN now afford to live their lives. *Live lives to me means put a roof over head and food on table, things potentially enabled by cuts.
Chef Jim Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 No, it's been explained to death why tax increases for the wealthy will equal bad things for the unwealthy. Which is relative, I suppose, though I doubt the first thing to pop into the heads of the wealthy when they got their tax CUTS was, "wow, so many people other than me will benefit from this!" I want to know how it will have a NEGATIVE impact on the wealthy to the extent that they are no longer afford to live their lives*, just as the tax CUTS may have the POSITIVE impact on the unwealthy to the extent that they CAN now afford to live their lives. *Live lives to me means put a roof over head and food on table, things potentially enabled by cuts. I need $25K a month to enjoy the life I've worked hard to create for myself. I , thanks to Mr. Obama will no longer have that $25k to live off of. Now the "poor" can afford to live a better life thanks to me, but thanks to Mr. Obama my lifestyle has been altered down. Get it. Just because $25k a month seems like a shiitload of money to you, it may not be to people with expensive lives.* *The above story was a dramitization and is not indicative of the posters true income.
The Big Cat Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 I need $25K a month to enjoy the life I've worked hard to create for myself. I , thanks to Mr. Obama will no longer have that $25k to live off of. Now the "poor" can afford to live a better life thanks to me, but thanks to Mr. Obama my lifestyle has been altered down. Get it. Just because $25k a month seems like a shiitload of money to you, it may not be to people with expensive lives.* *The above story was a dramitization and is not indicative of the posters true income. Are the tax increases so severe that they WOULD dissallow the lifestyle someone's built? Or is it the case that perhaps the wealthy living the lifestyle they wish to sustain were always walking a razor's edge of being over the means to begin with? And what does the 25K/month lifestyle entail? Basic neccesities only? Or are panties really in a knot having to cut luxuries while other folks CAN afford neccesities?
DC Tom Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 Coming from a guy who supports none of his statements except with his ass I find that humorous. Then prove me wrong. Where was the economic growth during the Civil War and Reconstruction? You want to conjecture that I don't know what I'm talking about, fine. Put your money where your mouth is, bonehead. Oh wait, that's right, you can't, because you're full of sh--.
Chef Jim Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 Are the tax increases so severe that they WOULD dissallow the lifestyle someone's built? Or is it the case that perhaps the wealthy living the lifestyle they wish to sustain were always walking a razor's edge of being over the means to begin with? And what does the 25K/month lifestyle entail? Basic neccesities only? Or are panties really in a knot having to cut luxuries while other folks CAN afford neccesities? It's a lifestyle that I've worked hard for and Obama wants to give it to someone else. I don't like that end of story. But then again I have the brains and drive to go out and make $30k a month to make up for the taxes that Obama is taking. But that's not the issue of these taxes that I have a problem with. It's that it's not going to hurt the rich people as much as it's going to hurt the economy. Do you really think that for every $1 that is taken out of my pocket is actually going to make it someone elses pocket? Are you really niave to think that there is no waste in Washinton. Every $1 that hits my pocket is spent, saved or invested all of wich are good for the economy. In the infamous words of Judge Schmales "the world needs ditch diggers too Danny."
StupidNation Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 Then prove me wrong. Where was the economic growth during the Civil War and Reconstruction? You want to conjecture that I don't know what I'm talking about, fine. Put your money where your mouth is, bonehead. Oh wait, that's right, you can't, because you're full of sh--. Fine, look at the graph 1/3rd of the page down given by the Dept of Commerce. It shows the rise of duties on imports. You are smart enough to understand our policies on tariffs so you will know how that translated into production and consumption. http://www.freetrade.org/new/buch1.html When you are finished you will realize, once again, you're an ass who can't think straight.
Recommended Posts