Ahhh - deregulation, you gotta love it!

Dusty,
Nobody argues that wealth is equitably distributed in this country, because it just isn't.  However, we have vast differences of opinion on the means for making it more equitable.  If you simply take money from the rich and give it to the poor, you end up with disaffected people on both ends of the spectrum.  First, the rich are being taxed simply because they are rich, so they see government as the enemy and seek ways to keep and protect their wealth.  Second, the poor are resentful of handouts while at the same time so addicted to them that they become complacent and nonproductive. 

Conservatives like me would rather see a rising tide that floats all ships.  Stop the punitive taxing and scapegoating of rich people and they will stop hoarding their wealth.  Instead of devising strategies for avoiding confiscation of their money, they will put it to work in economic development.  This provides others with livable wages and the opportunity to develop their own wealth.

I am feeling all 1792.

phreddy wrote:

Dusty,
Nobody argues that wealth is equitably distributed in this country, because it just isn't.  However, we have vast differences of opinion on the means for making it more equitable.  If you simply take money from the rich and give it to the poor, you end up with disaffected people on both ends of the spectrum.  First, the rich are being taxed simply because they are rich, so they see government as the enemy and seek ways to keep and protect their wealth.  Second, the poor are resentful of handouts while at the same time so addicted to them that they become complacent and nonproductive. 

Conservatives like me would rather see a rising tide that floats all ships.  Stop the punitive taxing and scapegoating of rich people and they will stop hoarding their wealth.  Instead of devising strategies for avoiding confiscation of their money, they will put it to work in economic development.  This provides others with livable wages and the opportunity to develop their own wealth.

Conservative ideals are what drove industry to third world countries instead of here in America. Even corporations which pay little or no taxes have moved operations offshore to save dollars. It is not about what is right , it is only about greed.

The rich will not, of their own choosing, pay a living wage to anyone they can get for less. The money from the rich will not flow down to the lower and middle class as you believe it will. The rich are all about hoarding their wealth and not sharing with those who most need it. Of course there are exceptions, but the vast majority are not exceptions, they are the rule. There is no answer which will satisfy the rich AND the poor in this country. Your idea that people become complacent when their food money has been cut to less than $100 per month is laughable. We have raped the education system in this country to the point that we no longer rank in the top twenty in the world. We have used those dollars to benefit corporations and to kill our enemies instead of educating our children so they CAN have a better future.

I make a decent wage, and I am all for each of us paying our fair share. Those who make millions should pay far more than those who make far less. When all people can live in some sort of comfort range, then you won't have to live in fear as you do and your need to defend all guns as necessary for your defense will end. For this to work, everything must change in balance. What we have seen for decades now is imbalance, and it shows in nearly everything we do as a people today.

We tried the trickle down idea. I failed miserably. It is time to try something else, don't you think? Of course it is a utopian ideal. But compared to what we have today, nearly anything but the status quo would be an improvement of monumental proportion.

doesyourpussyhurt wrote:

Conservative ideals are what drove industry to third world countries instead of here in America. Even corporations which pay little or no taxes have moved operations offshore to save dollars. It is not about what is right , it is only about greed.

Those are NOT conservative ideals.  They at most could be called neo-conservative, but I think profiteering scumwaffle with no values at all would be more appropriate.  A truly conservative run company would do everything to keep it "Made In the USA" as that is what their base wants.

The rich will not, of their own choosing, pay a living wage to anyone they can get for less.

Um, MOST who employ others pay as little as they can.  If you define "rich" as anyone who can and does employ others, I guess you could be right here.  Costs of employment get passed to the end consumer, so unless YOU are willing to pay more for the goods and services you consume, then YOU (and I) are at the heart of the supply/demand cycle.

There is no answer which will satisfy the rich AND the poor in this country.

This is the crux of the "problem" right here.  Only in times of general prosperity do you hear little complaining about the gap between wealth and poverty.  We also have a skewed view of the definition of "poverty".  Yes, there are those who are destitute and in dire need of food and basic shelter.  But the vast majority of "poor" in the USA have running water, electricity, basic food, and frequently cell phones, internet and cable TV.

We have raped the education system in this country to the point that we no longer rank in the top twenty in the world.

This is huge.  Had a conversation with a recent HS graduate the other day.  He was an honor student who graduated a year early.  He still had no idea how to balance a checkbook or plan a budget, and had absolutely no understanding of how credit works.  Until we ALL understand the basics of fiscal responsibility this nation will continue to degrade into the mass of mindless consumers/wage slaves that is the biggest threat to civilization that I can imagine.

I make a decent wage, and I am all for each of us paying our fair share.

This is one of the common sticking points I have.  Who gets to define "fair share"?  Don't bother answering, because anything you come up with will pretty much exemplify fascism.

...your need to defend all guns as necessary for your defense will end.

Nope.  History has already proven you wrong for thousands of years.  Until there is some evolutionary change, humans will ALWAYS have a need to defend themselves from other humans.

We tried the trickle down idea. It failed miserably. It is time to try something else, don't you think? Of course it is a utopian ideal. But compared to what we have today, nearly anything but the status quo would be an improvement of monumental proportion.

I think even Reagan would be disgusted with the current situation....

Investment Manager Explains Why 99.5% Of Americans Can Never Win

As an interesting side note one could point out that the crash of 2008 served as a minnowing of the financial industry down to only a few major international conglomerates.  It seems that "three" is the magic number for national competition these days.

Of course then one must ask when will come the "calamity" which narrows us internationally?

Choad wrote:

Sure, after they've deducted the expense of buying our courts, executive and legislatures to give manufacturing, mining and other primary industries carte blanche to fuck us and their own workforce sideways.

I disagree that industry is fucking their workforces.  Increases in wages and benefits are negotiated from a position of strength.  Because the economy is shitty and we have the lowest Labor-Force Participation Rate in 35 years, you can't expect industry to increase wages.  My daughter just applied for a part-time clerical job.  There were 130 applicants.  Not until the government's boot is lifted from the neck of our economy will you see any real growth in wages.

phreddy wrote:

Not until the government's boot is lifted from the neck of our economy will you see any real growth in wages.

{sarcasm}It is definitely over-regulation and the government boot - it couldn't have anything to do with off-shoring to countries where the buildings fall down on top of the workers.{/sarcasm}

Last edited by Emmeran (2013-11-14 14:53:22)

phreddy wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Not until the government's boot is lifted from the neck of our economy will you see any real growth in wages.

{sarcasm}It is definitely over-regulation and the government boot - it couldn't have anything to do with off-shoring to countries where the buildings fall down on top of the workers.{/sarcasm}

It has everything to do with off-shoring, which is what businesses do when their own country makes it too difficult to do business at home.

I'm sorry worker safety and clean water/air seem to have ruined the business environment.  So much for leaving things better than you found them, fuck it all - trash the place and the people then take your money and run.

You should have seen what they took out of my golden parachute (tin parachute actually), the actual amount was terrifying.  Between State and Fed they took more than 70% of my money.

GooberMcNutly wrote:

The other 76% goes right back out in checks to welfare, the states welfare, foreign government, incentive programs, etc.

I don't begrudge the 24%, it's the other 76% kickbacks that make me mad.

Those numbers smell suspect but never mind. We offshored our production and idled a corresponding huge share of our workforce. How are they supposed to eat?

JPMorgan’s Twitter session that went horribly wrong

choad wrote:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/02/the-rise-and-rise-and-rise-of-the-001-percent-in-america/283793/

I've been pounding that drum for years.  Hell I'm in the top income tax bracket but that isn't much of an accomplishment, it's all in the Capital Gains.  Naturally CapGains are taxed at basically poverty level income rates.

The argument is always the same:  If you tax CapGains at a higher rate nobody will invest.  Obviously this is a bullshit spin, what are they going to do with that $500mm - stick it under their mattress?  The truth is if you tax CapGains at the same rate as income tax they will still invest, they'll just bitch about the extra 20% haircut on their profits.  Only a fool would believe that an investor would pass on the rest of the profit on their investments because of that haircut.  That money has to be put to work somewhere and the markets are the most liquid and transparent of all investments available.

Emmeran wrote:

I'm in the top income tax bracket

So when is the SSG USMC R&R Resort for High-Street Vets opening?

choad wrote:

Reuters: India Is More Equal Than The US

Isn't that wonderful. But unfortunately, as with all Leftist policies, you eventually run out of other people's money. So, in our quest to make everyone equal, let's make everyone equally poor.  Take a lesson all you adherents to Obamanomics.

the left-leaning Indian Congress Party, in power since 2004, implemented substantial wealth-redistribution policies.  These policies are now weighing heavily on the national budget.

Economic growth has slowed to below 5 percent, and inflation — around 8 percent to 8.5 percent annually — has eroded wages.

The key cause of inflation is India’s large budget deficits, which have recently been running at 4 percent to 5 percent of GDP. Though one year’s shortfall almost reached 8 percent. The expensive populist programs help keep deficits high.

phreddy wrote:

choad wrote:

Reuters: India Is More Equal Than The US

Isn't that wonderful. But unfortunately, as with all Leftist policies, you eventually run out of other people's money. So, in our quest to make everyone equal, let's make everyone equally poor.  Take a lesson all you adherents to Obamanomics.

Exactly - which is why the Rural Telephone Tax (Universal Services Fund) crushed our economy for almost a century.

I'll believe India has income equality when their sanitation rates begin to approach those of your normal third world nation.

choad wrote:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/11/daily-chart-2

All that shows is that no matter how hard you legislate wealth "leveling", it just gets worse. From WWII through the beginning of the Welfare state, then hit the late 70s or early 80's and see how boom in WIC, subsidized housing, education grants, increased minimum wage and all of the other silver bullets designed to kill poverty have just made it worse.

Talk all you want about "too big to fail" or "too rich to jail" but there is also a persistent problem with "too poor to work" where the simple fact of being poor is enough to qualify you for enough programs to live on. You might never be "rich", but it certainly leaves you enough time to hang out with your friends all day and maybe do a little "side work". I grew up in a community like that and still meet people I grew up around that are proud that they have children who are third generation welfare wards, where literally nobody in their three generations of family has EVER had what you would call a long-term job, something lasting more than a year.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/11 … musicians/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turtles