Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    9:48 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: The Great Recession Was But A Battle In The Class War - And the 1% Won It Back to Topics
SemiSteve

Champion Author
Tampa

Posts:19,291
Points:439,105
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2012 10:34:03 PM

The class war isn't really a war. It's not like the victors are trying to eliminate enemies. It's actually self-defeating if they do. That's where most of their wealth comes from. The 99%. The super-rich are not driven by hatred of the rest or a desire to wipe them out. It's not that kind of war.

It's about greed.

All they want to do is make more money.

And they don't care where it comes from.

The problem is in order to do that they have to get it from someone else. That's why the middle class and the poor are constantly losing out. Their slide in wealth is inversely proportional to the increase in wealth of the 1%.

The great recession was a financial coup d'etat. All the ones who rigged it up knew it couldn't last forever. So they got what they could while they had the chance. And they made sure they were protected for when the bottom fell out. Some made out big time in that manufactured 'crisis'.

The long class war is mostly subtle and hard to see. It has been ongoing for over 30 years. The great recession was just a not-so-subtle big fast battle. Kind of brazen greed, really.

Too bad they got away with it.

That might make them think they could do it again.

Look out. Romney wants to undo all the Wall Street reforms which were put into place to prevent another crash.

I wonder what the next bubble is going to be?
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,813
Points:1,874,090
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 11, 2013 12:15:57 AM

SS: "So the idea that there has been some big spending spree is nothing but another Conservative Myth."


I guess the additional 4 trillion dollars on the debt these past four years is a "Conservative Myth". Good luck with that....


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 1/11/2013 12:16:24 AM EST]
Profile Pic
PegasusAT
Champion Author Corpus Christi

Posts:29,423
Points:3,351,105
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 11, 2013 12:07:32 AM

>>Semi, I hold SOME of the 1% responsible for MANY of the problems we have...<<

There you go again..when all else fails you play the class warfare card because it's the only one that you have left. So what about all those people who bought cars and houses that they couldn't possibly afford. Of course it's the 1% fault.

>>--Every bit helps...<<

You didn't answer the question. The federal government on average brings in $5 billion in revenue. It spends close to $11 billion a day. We have a spending problem. It's like putting down 10 cents on a $1,000 credit card bill and than you charge $1,000 more to to said bill.

>>One of them is people trying to over-simplify the complex national issues of the most advanced nation on Earth...<<

So what is your over-simplified response to problems that the country has...tax them. You also want a violence tax. Since were on that topic let's come up with a toilet flush tax, stupid tax, keyboard stroke tax. Our nations debt is not a complex national issue. You have politicians in Washington, D.C. who keep kicking the can down the road.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,291
Points:439,105
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 10, 2013 6:53:15 PM

"Spending is the problem. "

--It has been shown that aside from dealing with the recession Obama has spent less than any other President. It has been shown that ALL of the additional spending has gone to two things: Unfunded wars and recession mitigation.

And revenue is down because of the recession.

A double whammy.

So the idea that there has been some big spending spree is nothing but another Conservative Myth.

And to top it off, the antics of the power-junkies of the 1% are what CAUSED the recession and also gave them vast profits. Proving that the Great Recession Was But A Battle In The Class War - And the 1% Won It.

Repeating myths will not change that. But it will cause those who repeat them to fool themselves into thinking they are true.

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 1/10/2013 6:53:52 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rwsb30
All-Star Author Dayton

Posts:623
Points:122,185
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 10, 2013 6:34:16 PM

SCREWED AGAIN !
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,764
Points:4,583,055
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 10, 2013 6:24:56 PM

SemiSteve, "
"So taking [taxing] those who make $400,000 (single) and $450,000 even more will bring some money but how will that put a sizable dent in our debt."

--Every bit helps."

It doesn't help when spending continues to increase.

Government spending as a percent of GDP under Obama has increased from 19% to 24%.

Spending is the problem.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,291
Points:439,105
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 10, 2013 4:51:47 PM

"you seem to blame the 1% for all the problems in the country"

--An incorrect assessment coupled with an exaggeration. I hold SOME of the 1% responsible for MANY of the problems we have.

"So taking [taxing] those who make $400,000 (single) and $450,000 even more will bring some money but how will that put a sizable dent in our debt."

--Every bit helps.

"We have a spending problem."

--According to the experts we have at the very least a spending problem AND a lack-of-revenue problem. Actually we have a lot of problems. One of them is people trying to over-simplify the complex national issues of the most advanced nation on Earth.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,764
Points:4,583,055
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 10, 2013 9:08:56 AM

runningmp, don't confuse SemiSteve with facts.
Profile Pic
PegasusAT
Champion Author Corpus Christi

Posts:29,423
Points:3,351,105
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2013 10:58:43 PM

>>Semi, Stop trying to put words into MY mouth when YOU are the originator of lies. You are WRONG...<<

How could I be the originator of lies? Your the one who made the statement about the infrastructure money and I asked you where you got that information. Was it credible and non-biased.

>>I will not respond directly to your inappropriate comment about me...<<

It was hardly inappropriate. Your the one who started this topic and you seem to blame the 1% for all the problems in the country when we know that's not true. So if you will not respond directly...than why did you respond with a paragraph?

>> So you have decided to personally attack me. Kind of absurd, actually. Most (except those power-junkie 1%rs who got super-rich during the crash)..<<

Nope...try again. Your the one who is personally attacking the 1%? Why is that, are you jealous of what they have?

>> So how does '-16' become '-15' or '-14' or '-13' WITHOUT adding something? And how do you think that addition is going to happen without putting more dollars in?..<<

So taking those who make $400,000 (single) and $450,000 even more will bring some money but how will that put a sizable dent in our debt. Our debt by CBO's projection by the end of President Obama's 2nd term will be over $20 trillion. The federal government brings in on average around $5 billion in revenue a day....it spends close to $11 billion a day. We have a spending problem.

>> I would suggest you avoid talking about other posters or making personal attacks...<<

Didn't make a personal attack. So if I disagree with your point of view I'm not suppose to comment about that.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,764
Points:4,583,055
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2013 10:00:23 AM

Not diverting to a tangent at all SemiSteve, just pointing out your fallacious argument.

But to you, I guess stating facts are diverting from your class warfare arguments, huh?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,291
Points:439,105
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 8, 2013 9:40:32 PM

Nice side-stepping. Good tactic when backed into a corner.

Ah be dah ah be dah ah be dah.

Oh no! He didn't ask me impossible questions. Please allow me to divert to a tangent.

Nice try.

NOT mutually exclusive.

And I see you didn't -touch- the other post.

The 1% have been waging a class war against the 99% for over 40 years. The big '08 crash was just another battle in it. And here's the rub: It ain't over. Expect more grief to come 'trickling down.' You-know-what runs downhill. And it will continue to do it until WE rise up.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,764
Points:4,583,055
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 8, 2013 9:15:17 AM

SemiSteve, "nst: "So which is it, over-simplification or not really "simple" derivatives and credit default swaps?"

--Who says it has to be either or? Those who think the answer to all our ills is SIMPLY 'less government' are over-simplifying the situation.

Those who got super-rich in the '08 crash did so with complex investment instruments meant to confuse investors and trick ratings agencies - and it worked."

Even Warren Buffet says that these derivatives and default swaps are not "simple".

As for "confusing investors", the rule is, if you don't understand the investment, don't invest in it. Stick to what you know. People are responsible for their own gains and losses when investing. When I lose money on an investment, or one I recommend, I take responsibility. When I do really well, I get the credit for the decision.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,291
Points:439,105
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2013 3:32:04 PM

nst: "So which is it, over-simplification or not really "simple" derivatives and credit default swaps?"

--Who says it has to be either or? Those who think the answer to all our ills is SIMPLY 'less government' are over-simplifying the situation.

Those who got super-rich in the '08 crash did so with complex investment instruments meant to confuse investors and trick ratings agencies - and it worked.

And now you claim that these two effects must be mutually exclusive???

Absurd.

***

"I guess if you call one out of every 6.5 Americans on food stamps a success you might be right, or maybe it is the falling of the median wage across the country after he was elected, and yes, even more so during "the Obama recovery"."

--Just how do you count 6.5 Americans? What? Do you count six people and then only count the next one from the feet up to the waist?

You have no point. You are simply playing semantics. Smoke and mirrors with words. All the while stubbornly trying to ignore the fact that the stimulus worked and would have had a greater effect if the size had been greater. Many still owe their current jobs to it. Such as the highway construction job known as the 'Port Connector' currently going on in Tampa. Also you are ignoring that without Obama's efforts we would be in deeper do-do with more unemployed and an economy in worse shape than it is. And equally ignored is the fact that Republicans have stood in the way of a more robust recovery, and have just been dinged for it in the 2012 election.

All, I presume, to support your myth that the Republican platform is somehow best for the USA. What it is best for is the extension of greed by the 1% who largely financed Republican campaigns. Thank you, America, for wising up in Nov '12.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,764
Points:4,583,055
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2013 2:32:28 PM

SemiSteve, " So you want to blame the guy who has been trying his best to turn things around and has even seen some success. Because he's the guy to blame. I understand."

Success? Well I guess if you call one out of every 6.5 Americans on food stamps a success you might be right, or maybe it is the falling of the median wage across the country after he was elected, and yes, even more so during "the Obama recovery". Maybe it was the stimulus failure that was so successful that the fed has to in effect print $45 billion every month to keep the economy going? Was it the closing of Gitmo that was his success? Oh, wait a minute, Gitmo is still open. Was it the repealing of The Patriot Act? Wait, Obama fought for it in the Supreme Court to keep it!
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,764
Points:4,583,055
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2013 2:26:08 PM

runningmp, seems like you struck a nerve there.

SemiSteve, at one point you say " Ouch. We got burned by over-simplification. Big time. And a few bandits made out like crazy."

And in your next post you say " I accused some of them of actually contributing to the crash (with derivatives and credit default swaps - Wall Street betting schemes which were then augmented by encouraging more risky loans);"

So which is it, over-simplification or not really "simple" derivatives and credit default swaps?

[Edited by: nstrdnvstr at 1/7/2013 2:26:32 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,291
Points:439,105
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2013 12:47:43 PM

runningmp: "So when all else fails...SemiSteve blames those people in the 1% for his lack of financial success. Have to play the class warfare card when you can."

--YOU LIE!!! I never said that. It is not true. You made it up. You have no support for that. You can't back that up because it is false. You don't know anything about me. You should not even be talking about me. This topic is not about me. You are out of line to say things about me, especially things you made up. Stop trying to put words into MY mouth when YOU are the originator of lies. You are WRONG. Try sticking to the topic.

I told it like it is. Hardball. You didn't like it so you are attacking me. Plain and simple. Trying to make it personal. Guess what? It won't work. I am calling you out for what you did. For all to see. You took a cheap shot. I didn't say anything about me and you tried to make it about me. This topic is not about me and you are trying to change the subject because you don't like it, trying to cast dispersions upon me. Not gonna work.

I've got ways of dealing with cheap shots. I will not respond directly to your inappropriate comment about me. Instead, I copied your post ABOUT ME to my files. I like to keep records of things. That way if the site rule violations continue and I have to use the report button I will have plenty of ammo. All instances of personal attacks will be included. I would advise you to rethink how you respond to posts you don't like in the future. I would suggest you avoid talking about other posters or making personal attacks.

As I said, you couldn't possibly blame the ones who got fabulously rich from the crash. So you have decided to personally attack me. Kind of absurd, actually. Most (except those power-junkie 1%rs who got super-rich during the crash) are hurting or not doing as well as they would have. I stood right up and said so. Some came out ahead (which is true) and I accused some of them of actually contributing to the crash (with derivatives and credit default swaps - Wall Street betting schemes which were then augmented by encouraging more risky loans); coupled with the corporate big-wigs who killed jobs for profit, and you didn't like it, couldn't bring yourself to suspect the ones who are at the end of the money-trail. So tell us. Why do you think the ones who have so much money are incapable of doing wrong? Does all that money somehow buy them morals in your view?

***

"Over 77% of filers will pay more..."

And the other thing I find strange is how the right has been warning us for years that when push comes to shove everyone is going to have to pay to reduce the debt. And now here we are at exactly that point and our leaders are saying "Sheesh. Looks like we're going to have to ask everyone to do exactly what the Republicans have been fearing: pay more taxes.", and you don't want to ACCEPT that? So how does '-16' become '-15' or '-14' or '-13' WITHOUT adding something? And how do you think that addition is going to happen without putting more dollars in?

You think you can pay off a credit card bill by cutting spending alone? Sooner or later you have to PAY. You want a balanced budget THAT's how you do it. You spent on credit for unfunded wars and NOW the bill is due; so shut up and pay up already. And don't start any new wars. We're not done paying for the last two.
Profile Pic
PegasusAT
Champion Author Corpus Christi

Posts:29,423
Points:3,351,105
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 1:19:52 PM

So when all else fails...SemiSteve blames those people in the 1% for his lack of financial success. Have to play the class warfare card when you can.

>> It was kind of a dirty trick. He blamed the previous administration and told everyone that the government was the problem and he was going to fix it...<<

Sounds like your idol President Obama. Blames everyone else but himself.

>>When you try to over-simplify you lose substance and viability...<<

Hardly...you still haven't backed up your statement that I asked you to do from a credible, non-biased source. You lose your argument!!

>> If the regulations that the Reagan worshipers slashed were still in place we would not have had the crash of '08...<<

Please back that statement up from a credible, non-biased source.

On another note, what does the fiscal cliff deal do for America:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
More than three in four Americans will pay higher taxes for 2013, thanks to the fiscal cliff deal passed in Congress on New Year's Day.

Over 77% of filers will pay more, according to the Tax Policy Center. The average increase is expected to be $1,257, but that figure belies the wide disparity in impact.

Those making less than $10,000 a year will pay $68 more in federal taxes, on average, while those making between $50,000 and $75,000 will see an $822 jump. Wealthy filers with incomes of $1 million or more will see a $170,341 spike, on average.

Fiscal Cliff Deal Raises Taxes
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,291
Points:439,105
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 12:17:47 PM

I understand. You have to blame someone. And you couldn't possibly blame the ones who got fabulously rich from the crash. Those 1%rs who engineered the whole thing. That would mean that maybe your misplaced faith in unregulated and unrestrained capitalism is unwarranted. So you want to blame the guy who has been trying his best to turn things around and has even seen some success. Because he's the guy to blame. I understand.

This is part of the damage that Reagan did with his great disservice that he did to our economy. He made it OK for the mainstream to hate the government. It was kind of a dirty trick. He blamed the previous administration and told everyone that the government was the problem and he was going to fix it. It was an easy sell. At least the first part. People wanted a general scapegoat for their problems and nobody particularly likes the government so it wasn't a big leap to say that government was the problem. But that was while Reagan was campaigning. The idea was that he was supposed to fix it. There's the big gotcha. He never did. And people have been hating the government ever since. Despite the changes Reagan made people still hate the government. Ouuu, the terrible government. Yeah that's it. It couldn't possibly be we the people who elected scoundrels; or allowed corporate power junkies to have their way with government. No. That requires too much thought. It's too complicated. We need a simple scapegoat. The entire government. That's easy. Yeah. Hate the government.

Well that's ridiculous. Real life is more complicated than that. The government, the people, the corporations... All entities share some blame and they all share some merit for success stories. There has to be regulation. Government has to do it. Corporations offer products and employment but they can not be trusted to self-regulate and should not be controlling how their own regulation is set up. The financial crash of '08 makes that too apparent.

When you try to over-simplify you lose substance and viability.

That's the problem with such a simple statement as "less government." Less than what? Less than we had last year? Or next year? When is the size right? Or should we always want less than we have at any given moment? "Less government" is like trying to use a lever but you have no place for the fulcrum. It doesn't work because you are missing something. Less than WHAT???

"Less government" has gotten us the crash of '08. If the regulations that the Reagan worshipers slashed were still in place we would not have had the crash of '08. Ouch. We got burned by over-simplification. Big time. And a few bandits made out like crazy. It's just like I've been saying.

The Great Recession Was But A Battle In The Class War - And the 1% Won It.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,813
Points:1,874,090
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 7:58:04 PM

nstr: "Wow! So falling median income is a success in your book? The "recovery" lack of income growth is a failure, SemiSteve."


But nstrdnvstr, the number of people receiving food stamps is skyrocketing, the number of people receiving unemployment is as high as it's ever been, the number of people on disability is skyrocketing, disdain for work and success are increasing. Those are all signs of progress by the left, as it means more dependency on government. Therefore I can see why semisteve disagrees with your perception that things aren't getting any better. From his point of view things are going exactly according to plan.


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 1/3/2013 7:59:10 PM EST]
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,764
Points:4,583,055
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 6:46:06 PM

SemiSteve, ""Obama's "recovery" has been a failure. Median income has fallen more during the "recovery" than it did during the recession."

--And who made this measure the standard for grading a recovery? It was the recession that caused median income to fall, not the recovery or those who have worked to facilitate it."Obama's "recovery" has been a failure. Median income has fallen more during the "recovery" than it did during the recession."

Wow! So falling median income is a success in your book? The "recovery" lack of income growth is a failure, SemiSteve.

Lower median income is bad, higher income is good.

But if you don't think so, let's trade paychecks. You seem to be sure that lower income is good. So put your money where your mouth is, sir.

"
--Incomes will increase when the economy improves. More people working means fewer job applicants. Employers will have to pay more to get the best candidates. This will raise incomes across the board."

True, the problem is that the economy is not "improving", less people are working, the worker participation rate is at a low.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,291
Points:439,105
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 6:15:32 PM


"Obama's "recovery" has been a failure. Median income has fallen more during the "recovery" than it did during the recession."

--And who made this measure the standard for grading a recovery? It was the recession that caused median income to fall, not the recovery or those who have worked to facilitate it.

How will we get more revenue with declining incomes? "

--Incomes will increase when the economy improves. More people working means fewer job applicants. Employers will have to pay more to get the best candidates. This will raise incomes across the board.

"Since the economy is down worldwide, I'd tell you that nobody won, and everyone is a loser. "

--You are flat wrong on this. There are those who have gained big time during the recession. And there are those who have gained so much in the lead-up to the recession that they came out ahead in the long run anyway. Many in the top tiers have hedged their bets by doing things to make money they knew would lead to an economic crisis. They extracted large sums of money from the economy and tucked it away to survive the maelstrom. Now they are set for life with so much that they are protected from inflation and taxes for life. There were huge winners in the 2008 economic crisis.
Profile Pic
PegasusAT
Champion Author Corpus Christi

Posts:29,423
Points:3,351,105
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 1, 2013 11:28:40 PM

street, you might want to check your claim that it's not driving (adding) the debt.

Durbin, Nov. 25: Social Security does not add one penny to our debt — not a penny. It’s a separate funded operation, and we can do things that I believe we should now, smaller things, played out over the long term that gives it solvency.

It’s true that Social Security is “a separate funded operation,” primarily through payroll taxes and income taxes on benefits. But tax revenues no longer cover the cost of Social Security benefits. As a result, Social Security is adding to the debt.

Durbin (Again) Denies Social Security’s Red Ink

[Edited by: runningmp at 1/1/2013 11:32:47 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,292
Points:3,830,710
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Jan 1, 2013 6:11:03 PM

Found on Facebook:

Liberal polices ended the Great Depression and ushered in three decades of prosperity for the middle class and opportunity for the lower class; conservative policies have dominated the U.S., Canada and Europe for three decades and culminated in the Great Recession.
You've had yout tax breaks fo 10 years - where are the jobs?
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,636
Points:2,859,905
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2012 10:07:28 PM

AC-302 is right, everyone is a loser in this Obama economy.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,361
Points:150,375
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2012 9:04:13 PM

SS is not driving the debit as a matter of fact the bums in washington have raided the fund to balance the budget in the past. They owe it 2.7 trillion. Just tie all federal retirements especially congreSSes retirement to it, guaranteed it will never be under funded.

Profile Pic
PegasusAT
Champion Author Corpus Christi

Posts:29,423
Points:3,351,105
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2012 8:53:39 PM

>>Middle, Don't scapegoat Social Security...<<

Not scapegoating Social Security. Since it's now a driver of the debt your not able to say it isn't driving the debt. Don't even bring up the Prescription Drug Plan...been against that one since it was signed. It has been touted as the worst act passed by Congress.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,085
Points:3,445,270
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2012 11:33:45 AM

Topic: The Great Recession Was But A Battle In The Class War - And the 1% Won It

--Since the economy is down worldwide, I'd tell you that nobody won, and everyone is a loser.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,894
Points:322,345
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 29, 2012 5:16:23 PM

"You know we are currently losing money with Social Security."

And what of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the unfunded Medicare Part D program? Don't scapegoat Social Security.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,764
Points:4,583,055
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Dec 29, 2012 4:56:06 PM

SemiSteve, "--The money will come from revenue when the economy is booming again."

The government has been injecting a trillion dollars a year (either borrowing or printing it) for the past 4 years. That hasn't been helping very much, has it?

Obama's "recovery" has been a failure. Median income has fallen more during the "recovery" than it did during the recession.

How will we get more revenue with declining incomes?
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,764
Points:4,583,055
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Dec 29, 2012 4:52:15 PM

SemiSteve, "There is no 'out of control spending'."

Obama just signed an executive order giving the Vice President and Congress a raise!

Care to rethink that comment?
Profile Pic
PegasusAT
Champion Author Corpus Christi

Posts:29,423
Points:3,351,105
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 29, 2012 12:50:53 AM

>>Semi, You know those Bush tax cuts were cleverly designed to give away a lot of money the fed govt needed DURING Bush's term of office but then the biggest revenue loss was planned to hit AFTER he left office...<<

A credible, non-biased source for that statement! You know we are currently losing money with Social Security. Remember the holiday we have had with that. With less money going in....the system is forecast to run out of funds sooner. Now it is a driver of our debt.
Profile Pic
PegasusAT
Champion Author Corpus Christi

Posts:29,423
Points:3,351,105
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 29, 2012 12:47:56 AM

>>Semi, The money will come from revenue when the economy is booming again...<<

Our country is $16 trillion in the hole. Our economy isn't forecast to be booming. We are just limping along. So what's your answer to what many consider TARP 2.0 (Freddie & Fannie)? The current loss to the taxpayers is $180 billion.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,291
Points:439,105
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 5:59:26 PM

There is no 'out of control spending'.

What there is is established programs that could not easily be cut without severe impacts. Impacts which would worsen the situation as we have seen in Greece where they tried to ignore this fact. Things have been made worse over there by austerity.

What happened was the recession was so severe that it caused the fed govt to lay out more than it brings in. And it also caused the fed govt to bring in less. The increased deficit is the result.

And I must remind you that we liberals were fuming about the spending and the debt while Bush was in office and Republicans had plenty of time to deal with it then. But instead they claimed we could start wars willy nilly and have tax cuts too. I suppose they also must think one can eat cake and lose weight.

Sorry. It ain't gonna happen. And it didn't happen. And that is why we were in bad shape when the recession hit, making the outcome worse.

You know those Bush tax cuts were cleverly designed to give away a lot of money the fed govt needed DURING Bush's term of office but then the biggest revenue loss was planned to hit AFTER he left office.

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 12/28/2012 6:01:31 PM EST]
Profile Pic
noseatbelt
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:8,133
Points:212,590
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 5:46:36 PM

yes sir steve, we need to add trillions more to the debt. NOT.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,813
Points:1,874,090
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 5:43:45 PM

SS: "The money will come from revenue when the economy is booming again."


Hmmm.... Raising taxes, out of control spending and debt, adding regulations, Obamacare, carbon controls, tens of millions of baby boomers retiring right into an economic crisis... I don't think the economy is going to be "booming" anytime soon. In fact, I'm so sure of it that I've bet my own money on that outcome by selling almost every stock I owned.


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 12/28/2012 5:47:35 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,291
Points:439,105
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 5:24:14 PM

"Your going to pay for this with what money? "

--The money will come from revenue when the economy is booming again.
Profile Pic
PegasusAT
Champion Author Corpus Christi

Posts:29,423
Points:3,351,105
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 12:22:43 AM

>>Semi, Actually YES. We have gotten a good effect from the stimulus. The problem is it was not large enough. We need a second larger stimulus...<<

Your going to pay for this with what money? We are already in the hole $16 trillion.
Profile Pic
PegasusAT
Champion Author Corpus Christi

Posts:29,423
Points:3,351,105
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 12:16:54 AM

>>streetrider, Can you tell me how the taxpayers lost 30billion on the sale of what.
do you have proof?..<<

The answer to your question is the bailout of GM. That's common knowledge. For the taxpayers to break even on the bailout of GM their shares would have to sell over $52.

>>Delphi workers lost 90% of their pensions? really and that was because we bailed out the other sectors instead of manufacturing?..<<

Citing a pending lawsuit, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is refusing to answer questions put to him by Congressmen Mike Turner and Dan Burton concerning the Treasury Department’s role in decisions that led to a loss of pension value for thousands of former Delphi employees in Ohio and other states.
Profile Pic
PegasusAT
Champion Author Corpus Christi

Posts:29,423
Points:3,351,105
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 12:08:22 AM

>>Semi, And you are not paying off debt by reducing income (revenue) either...<<

Let's see on average the U.S. federal government brings in around $1.5 trillion a yr in revenue but they spend over $3 trillion. Yes, the problem is spending. >>Revenue is reduced if the economy is not improved...<<

I thought that President Obama the guy you think so highly said we were out of the recession. Remember how Obama and Biden were touting the Summer of Recovery? So which one is it? If this economy was supposedly recovered...why are we just limping along?

>>Austerity depresses the economy and reduces fed income, making the debt worse...<<

The problem was created by both parties. Your have a President who had a debt commission and how many of these recommendations has he implemented. The debt committee was doomed to fail. Austerity means a government is trying to get it's financial house in order...look at Greece. Study why they are implementing the measures they have. If we don't deal with Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid now it will get even more painful. Currently Social Security is a driver of the debt.

>>More spending cuts cause more unemployment making things worse...<<

Here's a novel approach let the federal government get out of the way and let the private sector do their job. With the uncertainty in Washington, D.C. the last couple of years the private sector will be hesitant.

>>We must improve the economy. It is all linked to that....<<

I thought we already went through the Summer of Recovery.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,764
Points:4,583,055
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Dec 27, 2012 12:28:20 PM

SemiSteve, "We are all paying for their greed by being forced to make do in an economy severely depressed by their greed. There is reduced opportunity because of their selfishness."

LOL, no, the "greed" is from the bottom that think they are entitled to have what other people earn, and not pay "their fair share" of income taxes, thus causing the job creators to put their money aside and not hire more people because of the upcoming huge hike in taxes that will have to be paid. "Opportunity" is being reduced because people don't want to work, or invest if so much of any money they earn will be confiscated, only to be given to those that think the government should be supporting them.

That is "greed", SemiSteve, expecting or demanding that the government take more money from those well off to support those that won't pay for their own necessities.

[Edited by: nstrdnvstr at 12/27/2012 12:30:29 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,291
Points:439,105
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 27, 2012 12:25:40 PM

"The answer is to not spend more money. Your [You're] not paying off debt that way. Do you pay off your credit card debt by adding even more to it? "

--And you are not paying off debt by reducing income (revenue) either. Revenue is reduced if the economy is not improved. Austerity depresses the economy and reduces fed income, making the debt worse. More spending cuts cause more unemployment making things worse. We must improve the economy. It is all linked to that.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,764
Points:4,583,055
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Dec 27, 2012 12:23:39 PM

SemiSteve, "--Actually YES. We have gotten a good effect from the stimulus. The problem is it was not large enough. We need a second larger stimulus."

Really? We have MORE people on food stamps, MORE people on disability, Less able people working, a lower median wage across America...

THAT is "working"????

Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,291
Points:439,105
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 27, 2012 12:22:49 PM

"Talk about people voting against their own interests. "

--Well that's the miracle of Republican PR. It gets people to do exactly that.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,291
Points:439,105
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 27, 2012 12:21:33 PM


SemiSteve, "The fact of the matter is that during the last 30 years the 1% have been entirely successful at purchasing government influence to make themselves super-rich while causing the 99% to pay for their greed."

nstrdnvstr: "Well, since the bottom 47% pay no federal income taxes, your claim must be false. In fact, many of those 47% are in a negative income tax bracket!

So how are these non-taxpayers paying "for their greed"? "

--There may be 47% who pay no tax but it is not simply the bottom. That 47% includes some millionaires, you know.

We are all paying for their greed by being forced to make do in an economy severely depressed by their greed. There is reduced opportunity because of their selfishness. The big corporations controlled by the 1% have sought to eliminate every domestic job they can. They have sought to reorganize their companies so that their tax obligations are minimal, in many cases zero. That shifts the burden onto others. And because there are so many out of work (as a result of their off-shoring of jobs) the fed govt is strapped with higher unemployment benefits outlay. That is added on to the debt. We will all pay for that. Especially the young. Because so many jobs have been eliminated the market is depressed. People are willing to work for lower and lower wages. That generates less revenue. Hurts us more. Hurts the job seekers more. Lower paying jobs hurt the economy - that hurts us all again. The greed of the 1% is what is holding us back. Many claim the 1% would leave is we tax them more. If only that were true we could solve two problems with one move. I wish they would leave. We would be far better off without them. They hurt us bad.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,291
Points:439,105
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 27, 2012 12:12:49 PM



SemiSteve, "Looks like we should engage in MORE government infrastructure spending if we want to fire up the economy."

nstrdnvstr: "Because that worked so well over the LAST 4 years???"

--Actually YES. We have gotten a good effect from the stimulus. The problem is it was not large enough. We need a second larger stimulus.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,361
Points:150,375
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 26, 2012 11:14:33 PM

runningmp
Can you tell me how the taxpayers lost 30billion on the sale of what.
do you have proof?

Delphi workers lost 90% of their pensions? really and that was because we bailed out the other sectors instead of manufacturing? PBGC pays more than 10% of the original pension. not that that is any consolation to those folks.

So who is asking for more form persons well off? DId I ask for more? I did not?

But i got to tell you if there isn't an economy everyone that has income will pay more or are you one of those folks that think you can shrink government to the point that we all pay less?
Profile Pic
PegasusAT
Champion Author Corpus Christi

Posts:29,423
Points:3,351,105
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 26, 2012 9:43:21 PM

>>streetrider, RunninGMp..<<

Having a hard day....at least I can get your screen name right.

>>if you want to cry about lost Government money, then cry for all the money given to AIG, Chity group, BOFa etc...<<

I guess if you would delve a little farther you would know I was against those.

>>GM simply gave back the money from tarp that was not used. It is true the government owns stock which soon they will be able to sell...<<

Yet you missed the fundamental point. The taxpayers still loss on the sale. To a tune of over $30 billion.

>>But as we all know saving GM saved union jobs and American manufacturing as a whole, even frod was afraid their suppliers would fold if GM & Chrysler...<<

Yep, all about saving those union jobs. While the UAW kept their pensions in the restructuring. Why not ask the Delphi workers who in some instances lost 90% of their retirement. Even the Car Czar Steve Rattner said they should have asked for more concessions from the UAW.

>>What most seem to forget, good paying jobs means less taxes needs to be collected per individual if more are participating...<<

So why are you asking more from the persons who are well off. They pay more than anybody.
Profile Pic
PegasusAT
Champion Author Corpus Christi

Posts:29,423
Points:3,351,105
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 26, 2012 9:37:11 PM

Let's see another article from Leduc. Here's an abstract of it "Transportation spending often plays a prominent role in government efforts to stimulate the economy during downturns. Yet, despite the frequent use of transportation spending as a form of fiscal stimulus, there is little known about its short- or medium-run effectiveness."

The answer is to not spend more money. Your not paying off debt that way. Do you pay off your credit card debt by adding even more to it?
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,361
Points:150,375
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 26, 2012 8:57:44 PM

No I dont, just figured people would not voted against their own interest and that 47% might have gave him the edge. Now you say the 40% voted for him against their own interest/

Talk about people voting against their own interests.
Profile Pic
ber5
All-Star Author Chicago

Posts:664
Points:132,445
Joined:Sep 2012
Message Posted: Dec 26, 2012 8:51:30 PM

Streetrider, seniors voted predominantly for Romney... DO you have verifiable information to contradict that?
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,361
Points:150,375
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 26, 2012 8:31:51 PM

Its a shame Romney alienated the 47% who pay no taxes, 40% are seniors with low income that usually vote Republican.
Post a reply Back to Topics