Political Discussions
Can we press a Economic reset button
Posted by marlborocounty • 6/07/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: economic, hope, jobless
press the cost of living reset button
Where will the top 1% stand, at the end of 2009; where will the others stand. Ive spoke to families that were close to being in that top 1% now they are barely middle class. spoken to familes that were middle class, now they are living in apartments living on what used to be retirement savings, and check to check. spoken to familes that where barely middle class, and are now living in $39/ night motels. How is it that Americans continue to get poor while the cost of living rise. why is it so hard to press the reset button.
User Comments
-
This economic disaster was a long time in the making. It's not going to be fixed overnight or even in one or two years. -
i remember as a kid, '86 and '87, i ask my 3rd grade teacher why is it that adults keeping saying i am their future, when in the future they will be dead. she laugh, and said it means that the kids of today will be the leaders of tommorrow. And I remember saying, Mrs. Wright that is crazy because the kids of today do not play follow the leader, we play chase, hide and go seek, and two hand touch football. And with all that chasing going on, there will be no leader to follow.
-
Mrs. Wright (sister in law of Mary Wright Elderlyn, Children's Defense Fund), just smiled and said, that's deep.
-
The more we destroy the top 1% the more we become socialist and the harder our economy is hit.-
"The great object should be to combat the evil... By the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort" -- James Madison from 'Parties'National Gazette, January 23, 1792, -
You have been watching too much spin of the news. A vast majority of rich people and companies are not evil. They got to be that successful with their ingenuity and by chastising them, we are throwing our great thinkers to the wolves.
-
Agreed. -
A vast majority of rich people and companies are not evil. They got to be that successful with their ingenuity and by chastising them, we are throwing our great thinkers to the wolves.
Not hardly. Many of them are the same ones who caused our economy to collapse. These Wall St. execs who are pulling in over $10 million a year used ingenuity to gamble with our money. That's hardly worthy of honor. Taxing them more heavily will not in any way hurt our country. -
We have two opposing statements;
"A vast majority of rich people and companies are not evil."
"Not hardly. Many of them are the same ones who caused our economy to collapse."
First, define who the the rich are. Second, define what rich is. Then give examples of how these companies benefit their respective communities.
Then, after all of that, connect the dots on how they ruined the economy. -
Your talking about the few that I actually mentioned. Your making it sound as if all rich people do this. Just face it, your jealous, you hate them and you haven't come to terms with it. So now you want to destroy them don't you?
Also, so by taking more of their money, which they invest into their companies, will not hurt them? I doubt that. -
Also, so by taking more of their money, which they invest into their companies, will not hurt them?
Ah... therein lies the problem. If you tax them more heavily, that will provide incentive to reinvest in their own companies because that money is written off. Otherwise, they spend in on things like yachts, houses, planes, staff, and bribes to politicians so they can get even wealthier at the expense of our country. -
"Ah... therein lies the problem. If you tax them more heavily, that will provide incentive to reinvest in their own companies because that money is written off. Otherwise, they spend in on things like yachts, houses, planes, staff, and bribes to politicians so they can get even wealthier at the expense of our country."
What?? If you tax businesses more heavily that is an INCENTIVE??? In what alternative universe? If you tax ANYONE, private citizen or business or corporation more, they naturally start to HOLD ONTO THEIR MONEY.
You say that their purchasing of yachts, houses, staff, etc.. is a bad thing. Somebody has to make those yachts, build those houses, work in those staff positions. You tax them too heavily and they stop spending. They stop spending and the economy slows down. You accuse Fox news of having a bias, yet you swallow hook, line and sinker the liberal bias that says all rich people are bad. A few bad apples do exist. We have laws to deal with them, but to tax EVERYONE because of the few is beyond stupid. -
lol. This is better than reading the comics.
-
We saw this "ingenuity" when we examined the financial crisis
-
The notion in Madison's day was to tax ESTATES. You could still garner corporate perks up the yingyang, so it would only be completely effective in conjunction with a Stockholders Bill of Rights.
@antics
There's a liberal bias to our founding fathers...? The guy who was primary author of the constitution, and whose sillouette serves as logo for the Federalist Society... really? -
Do you deny the fact that if ANYONE is taxed more, then they hold on to their money? How is that liberal? It is human nature to hold things or possessions closer to the vest when one starts to lose more of those possessions.
-
the idea is that if more people having opportunities to do great things, more greatness will occur.
If opportunity lies with a few living in comfort (and perhaps resting on their laurels) then little greatness will occur
-
Well that is certainly one way to look at it. But to quote someone, who I can't remember at this moment - I've never worked for a poor man.
-
-
Still Sati, you are assuming that all rich people are corrupt!
-
Many are. Some aren't. But people who are worth billions can afford to pay more in taxes. They've used our system to get rich, and there's nothing wrong with that, but there's also nothing wrong with them putting a little back into the system so other's can also benefit. Even Warren Buffet said our tax system favors the wealthy. Sometimes you just have to do what's best for our country, even if it goes against your ideology.
-
-
They are already pay corporate taxes and pay 30 percent of their salary. No it is not what is best for our country. Explain how we had good economic times with lower taxes? People can also put more of their money in the economy.
-
Taxes have little effect on the economy. Back in the early 90s, Clinton raised taxes and what followed was a huge economic boom, which was mainly due to the creation of the Web and other technological advancements.
-
-
these are just my thoughts. there always is,always has been, and always will be away not to pay taxes. and sadly, its the people in the bottom 20% that are stuck paying the bill. for example, I worked for a popular health insurance company for four years, before starting my own business. in the four years I've worked there, the irs has taken over $40k from me in taxes. you would think i made good money right, well you are wrong, I barely made $30k/ year. And i still owe from 2005. now you tell me if this is fair.
it has not been any better for my wife, she works for a popular bank, she makes a litte over $35k, but the IRS takes over $15k from her.
then i hear about people who are mega rich, that get money back from the government after taxes. what is wrong with this picture.-
That's right. The wealthy are able to find loopholes and tax shelters to avoid paying taxes. And you have millionaires like John McCain who collect military disability benefits. How could he be considered disabled when he's working full time as a senator? He also collects Social Security benefits.
Right-wingers will argue that he's entitled to those benefits. That may in fact be true, but he doesn't need it and it's not in the exactly putting the country ahead of personal greed. "Country first" is just a gimmick to Republicans. -
So, all Republicans are bad?
-
-
That's right the wealthy do find loopholes. Just like the leftist Federal Reserve which manipulates money at will and while right now banks and others enjoy this windfall the common American man eats this inflationary tax. Which he is not eating yet, but will be soon as we start growning again. BUT the corperations and wealthy embark upon these benefits already. Oh that's right. It's okay for leftist central-esque banking to do such a thing because these organizations were their idea. No no. That's not really a double standard at all.
If one really wants the economy to balance out a capitalist should follow real insight that came from the Austrians. Then we wouldn't have these issues.-
Agreed.
-
-
no, not all are bad. this a question of motives and intentions. there maybe policitians that have good intentions and motives and honestly think they are doing what is best for human society. they do this because, its the way we are built. Humans are built to want to fix what is broken, to be a hero, to be the leader such as Abe, JFK, Clinton, Obama. Even Reagan at times thought he was a hero, the war on drugs, and the whole bring down the wall thing. Bush part 1, thought he did the right thing The Gulf War, Bush 2 thought he did the right thing by doing all that he did.
No matter what their intentions are, were, or will be, this present world will never allow any two size to be happy. The rich will get richer, even during times of turmoil, the poor will become poorer no matter how well or badly the stock market is doing.
If your family was poor when you came into this world, and you do not have some type of meaness or harsh attitude about yourself, chances are you will remain poor. does not mean that will be your attitude all the.
If you are born into a family that has money, chances are, you just may continue to be rich. You may have or had savings, stocks, and probably a silent partner over a great business. however, these are the people that hard working humans fraun on, because, for the most part they never worked a day in their lives. but have more money than they know what to do with.
to answer the question are all republicans bad. no. do they have bad intentions or motives, i don't know. are they all harsh? they are polticans, all polticans must be harsh. -
-
So thaaat's how Obama is going to create jobs.
-
that was easy!
-
The left actually thinks that is how it is going to happen because they have not given any other explanation.
-
-
When something goes wrong the left believes the government has to fix it yet these regulations choke what should happen naturally. When the results of course end up less than desireable they have the notion to go and fix it again only complicating the the same path previously chosen. This according to some economists is what ultimately leads to totalitarianism. This is an extreme view. This could lead to socialism or even more appropriately in that sense communism. But then again when these things havent worked in the past the leftists in favor of it never question it. Without private property and private capital producers and consumers cannot accurately predict prices. Without prices you don't have a market. And yet for some reason governments like these are rational because somehow the all knowing government doesn't need economic signals that create effective communication between producers and consumers. Of course the government knows the consumer better than the producer does (even though they are not the producer) and can create these communications all on their own much more effectively and efficiently.
-
In my view, there has to be a certain degree of regulation to protect the property that stockholders have in their stocks. There is always going to be risk involved, but deliberate negligence and deceit should be prevented when practicable, and punished when committed. The current administration gets an "incomplete" grade on this in my opinion.
-
First of all, deregulation caused the current mess (see the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, and other deregulation during the 1980s that resulted in the S&L crisis). The government must "fix" that if we're going to get on the road to recovery.
As far as the rest of it, that's just fear mongering. -
there is a difference between coordinating and mobilizing the WHOLE economy and interfering in one automaker. It still could prove to be a flop, and is not a great move in my mind, but it falls short of the what is yelled about.
-
Holy crap I know I have addressed this in the past. Deregulation was not the problem. It was improper regulation combined with not paying any attention to what was brought to their attention numerous times.
Here is a clip from one of my previous blogs which I already know that I commented on:
"Back in 1986 Congress passed law that barred interests deductions buying for individuals and families on anything other than home mortgage interest. This is code USC 26 Section 265. Now, this would be fine if they stopped with 265(a). However, they continued with 265(b) which is where they created the exception. This over time has been the beginning of bad mortgage buying habits as it became the tax preferred method for borrowing money. There is more to it than that as many options with first-time home buyer loans have encouraged the buying of loans that one could afford over time and getting loans for bigger homes that one could afford comfortably."
Note that code was not in place before thus it IS regulation placed; not removed. This is one of the numerous examples that encouraged malinvestment. I'll go get more if necessary.
And Agit8r you are right in having some degree regulation. Though I personally feel this is minimal.
I'll give an example in regards to environmental regulation (which I know you leftists would like to manipulate as you already always do on this topic):
Certain regulation in regards to the environment is unjust and unnecessary. It violates private property rights and in regards to the economy as capital it stagnates growth. HOWEVER (and do not forget that I put that word there) that this does not give the property owners right to miuse it infringing upon others rights. Just as an example in addition to, a gun owner has the right to bear arms but does not have the right to go around and murder people. The same principle goes for property and land. Yet it DOES NOT give the government the right to infringe upon everyone's rights in order to prevent them from infringing upon others rights. Minimal regulation is needed and the proper constitutional way to handle these issues is to punish crimes comitted; NOT beat the public into submission.
But for most who don't get it you don't need a crap load of regulation because the Constitution itself already says it all when taken into the context set by the founding fathers.
All of this interventionism is entirely unethical. You want equality. Give me my 25+ billion... Oh that's right it's only equal when certain people say that its necessary. It's unethical and lacks consistency and thus retains not credit unto itself. -
the LEGAL deregulation was really secondary to the general theme of the Bush administration: "We's gonna pay ya ta hold the office and pertend t'regulate, but we's not gonna have ya enforce the laws"
-
"In my view, there has to be a certain degree of regulation to protect the property that stockholders have in their stocks."
Agit8r, stockholders are getting screwed because Rattner (under Obama's direction) gave the car companies to the UAW for all intents and purposes. They (UAW) had a $10 billion stake in Chysler and the private investors had a $40 billion stake, yet the investors get a measly 10% and the UAW gets 40%? I would be scared to death to invest in ANY private company while Obama is in office. -
Yes. I gave him an "Incomplete"
I'll reserve a finall grade for later on
-
@Agit8r - Fair enough, but I might also include a "Does not work well with others (opposite party).
-
that could go in my "100 day employee evaluation" thread... granted that we are beyond 100 days now
-
-
Business owners are always reviewing THE NUMBERS. The Numbers will tell them if things are going well or poorly. If things are well, then everyone is happy. But if things take a downward spin, then choices will have to be made. The bottom line of it all is the top 1% will cut cost by any means to save a buck. therefore they move their companies to 3rd world countries. countries where they can hire five people for the same amount it takes to hire one person in the States. The problem this country is having is not because of the housing situation but it is because of the cost of living. the cost of living is out of control because of the amount we have to pay for oil. if the oil crisis is resolved therefore reducing the cost of living, this just may encourage companies to move back to the US.
this is where intentions and motives comes into view. during the Clinton years, the oil prices where very low. the US was not in any major conflict with the countries producing oil.
however, companies still decided to move their companies to 3rd world countries.
Look at Wal-Mart for example. For as long as I could remember, Wal-Mart adverstised all of their products were American made. And they were never open on Sunday's. But when Sam Walton died, everything changed. Seems as if all of Wal-Mart's products are from China and or India. My point is, greed has caused this problem. -
"In my view, there has to be a certain degree of regulation to protect the property that stockholders have in their stocks."Agit8r
true, however one can also argue the punishment for insider trading. If you were in Martha's shoes and received an inside tip that you will lose money in a stock. Would you not take your money out of there? If government could set new regulations where up to 98% of your money is protected,then punishments for insider trading should not exist. -
And on an additional note to my previous note above...
The government involved and infringing of others socially and globally is not correct. Neither is it correct to do it economically because it is hypocracy. You can't be half-arsed people of freedom and be credible.
That and if supply side economics is wrong when Reagan and Bush did it then JFK was wrong when he did it first! Also Bernanke is doing THE SAME THING with our dollar bill right now!
I will never understand how supply side economics is an economic bust for the right but a boom for the left or the other way around. It's inconsistent and both sides arguing one and disapproving the other has apparently chosen to accept their freedom in at least to be ignorant and unethical...
...pardon my frustration. -
don't pop a blood vessel. opinions are just that, opinions. it does not mean you are wrong and does not mean you are right. (or should I have said Left or Right). in other words, do not let this crap mess with your physical health. I can tell by your comment, your blood pressure went up, take two asprin and come back tomorrow.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
