Tax the Rich!!!

[billvon 2,400]

>you still haven't worked out have you that there wasn't enough money in
>the entire system for that mortgage money to be repaid...

Yep. Which is sorta the definition of a loan.

>(if only those jews hadn't got into those carriages)

Yes. Giving people loans is EXACTLY LIKE exterminating Jews. Bravo. (Now stop hating the rich or you'll be just like Osama bin Laden.)

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

>you still haven't worked out have you that there wasn't enough money in
>the entire system for that mortgage money to be repaid...

Yep. Which is sorta the definition of a loan.

>(if only those jews hadn't got into those carriages)

Yes. Giving people loans is EXACTLY LIKE exterminating Jews. Bravo. (Now stop hating the rich or you'll be just like Osama bin Laden.)

which the bankers should of known - but they still wanted to create more money for the rich and the poor need houses so what the heck - let's see if we can create a new paradigm...

you perpetually blaming the poor for being crushed by the financial system is analagous to those who say that there wouldn't have been a holocaust if only the jews hadn't of gotten into those carriages - didn't they know what was going to happen to them/they couldn't repay the loan?

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[rhaig 0]

I think blaming people for taking out loans they should have known they couldn't repay is appropriate.

--
Rob

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

I think blaming people for taking out loans they should have known they couldn't repay is appropriate.

the bankers knew they couldn't be repaid so i agree we should blame them
(meanwhile we pay for their bailout)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

I think blaming people for taking out loans they should have known they couldn't repay is appropriate.

the bankers knew they couldn't be repaid so i agree we should blame them
(meanwhile we pay for their bailout)

blame the bankers too.

and blame the people who told the bankers to offer the loans as well.

There is plenty of blame to go around.

--
Rob

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think blaming people for taking out loans they should have known they couldn't repay is appropriate.

the bankers knew they couldn't be repaid so i agree we should blame them
(meanwhile we pay for their bailout)

blame the bankers too.

and blame the people who told the bankers to offer the loans as well.

There is plenty of blame to go around.

meanwhile the poor pay for the bailout of the rich...

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think blaming people for taking out loans they should have known they couldn't repay is appropriate.

the bankers knew they couldn't be repaid so i agree we should blame them
(meanwhile we pay for their bailout)

blame the bankers too.

and blame the people who told the bankers to offer the loans as well.

There is plenty of blame to go around.

meanwhile the poor pay for the bailout of the rich...

where do you get that?

the banks were bailed out. The "rich" pay 70% of the collected tax in the US. How are the poor (many of whom had their mortgages "adjusted" and were in effect given large percentages of their homes) paying for these bailouts?

--
Rob

[billvon 2,400]

>which the bankers should of known . . .

Of course they do. That's why people GET loans - because they don't have enough money to buy the house/car outright, but they still want it.

>you perpetually blaming the poor for being crushed by the financial system . . .

Nope. But I do blame people who promise to do something and then renege on that promise.

>to those who say that there wouldn't have been a holocaust if only the
>jews hadn't of gotten into those carriages - didn't they know what was
>going to happen to them/they couldn't repay the loan?

It was the Nazi camp guards who just "blamed the system" rather than take any action. Wouldn't it be great if those Nazi guards (and those borrowers) took responsibility for their own actions instead of just blaming someone else for what they did?

(It's Godwin hour here on Apocalypse Sunday! One free rapture for the most absurd comparison.)

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

The great irony is if America’s super rich financed the U.S. government the way they used to – by paying taxes rather than lending the government money – that long-term budget deficit would be far lower.

This is why a tax increase on the super rich must be part of any budget agreement. Otherwise the great switch by the super rich will make the income and wealth gap far wider.

Worse yet, average working Americans who can least afford it will either lose the services they depend on, or end up with a tax burden they cannot bear.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/150995/the_great_switch_by_the_super_rich%3A_how_wealthy_americans_started_paying_so_little_in_taxes/

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

>which the bankers should of known . . .

Of course they do. That's why people GET loans - because they don't have enough money to buy the house/car outright, but they still want it.

>you perpetually blaming the poor for being crushed by the financial system . . .

Nope. But I do blame people who promise to do something and then renege on that promise.

so when the rich make promises to each other they can't deliver (look at the returns - and guaranteed!) and we have to bail them out you're going to spend your time pointing at the poor kid in the corner (borrowing to get a house - the horror!). trees, forest - you can connect the dots.

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

if they paid their fair share in taxes we wouldn't have to borrow money to pay the bankers bailout would we?

?? TARP cost nothing. It was repaid.

And if you took all the wealth from the top, you'd just balance the deficit, for one year.

You need to stop mixing up your propaganda.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

The great irony is if America’s super rich financed the U.S. government the way they used to – by paying taxes rather than lending the government money – that long-term budget deficit would be far lower.

This is why a tax increase on the super rich must be part of any budget agreement. Otherwise the great switch by the super rich will make the income and wealth gap far wider.

Worse yet, average working Americans who can least afford it will either lose the services they depend on, or end up with a tax burden they cannot bear.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/150995/the_great_switch_by_the_super_rich%3A_how_wealthy_americans_started_paying_so_little_in_taxes/

so what I see you saying is that the rich need to pay more. How is this an answer to my questioning your assertion that the poor are paying for the bailouts?

If the average working Americans (median household income in the 60K range in most states) are depending on services for their daily needs (food/water/shelter/clothing) then they are living beyond their means and are abusing the entitlement system they are depending on.


do you have any original thoughts, or are you a copy/paste bot?

--
Rob

[rhaig 0]

Quote

And if you took all the wealth from the top, you'd just balance the deficit, for one year.

that's right.

Research the sum total of 100% of the taxable incomes from all families making more than 100K. Compare that number to the annual budget. You'll quickly notice that raising taxes on the "rich" isn't the place to start. If you want a balanced budget, we need to spend less, and everyone needs to pay a little more. Even those 51% of households that don't pay any taxes.

--
Rob

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

And if you took all the wealth from the top, you'd just balance the deficit, for one year.

that's right.

Research the sum total of 100% of the taxable incomes from all families making more than 100K. Compare that number to the annual budget. You'll quickly notice that raising taxes on the "rich" isn't the place to start. If you want a balanced budget, we need to spend less, and everyone needs to pay a little more. Even those 51% of households that don't pay any taxes.

Anyone who thinks the budget can be balanced by either cutting spending or raising revenues alone is deluded. BOTH spending needs to be reduced AND revenues raised.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

if they paid their fair share in taxes we wouldn't have to borrow money to pay the bankers bailout would we?

?? TARP cost nothing. It was repaid.

and the effects of the great recession? quantitative easing - where's that money coming from?

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[billvon 2,400]

>so when the rich make promises to each other they can't deliver (look at
>the returns - and guaranteed!) and we have to bail them out you're going
>to spend your time pointing at the poor kid in the corner (borrowing to get
>a house - the horror!)

Yep. Overextending oneself on a loan is indeed often a horror show, one that will generally return to bite them in the ass.

Let me ask you this. If you make a promise to someone, does it mean something to you? Do you then try to honor your promise?

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

And if you took all the wealth from the top, you'd just balance the deficit, for one year.

that's right.

Research the sum total of 100% of the taxable incomes from all families making more than 100K. Compare that number to the annual budget. You'll quickly notice that raising taxes on the "rich" isn't the place to start. If you want a balanced budget, we need to spend less, and everyone needs to pay a little more. Even those 51% of households that don't pay any taxes.

When the top 1% have 40% of the nation's wealth, it does suggest a good place to start. You aren't going to raise much revenue from a million homeless indigents.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

What I have never done is take a penny of welfare....

How noble! And I suppose you never drive on public roads or attended a public school or fly out of a publicly owned airport...

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Let me ask you this. If you make a promise to someone, does it mean something to you? Do you then try to honor your promise?

the banks and the rich certainly don't deliver on their promises - so let's start with them before you pick on the little people. you need to do some clear thinking.

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[wsd 0]

Quote

Quote

What I have never done is take a penny of welfare....

How noble! And I suppose you never drive on public roads or attended a public school or fly out of a publicly owned airport...

Only in your mind does the idea of welfare include all the items you mention.

[billvon 2,400]

>the banks and the rich certainly don't deliver on their promises - so let's
>start with them before you pick on the little people.

So you don't feel like you have to live up to your promises as long as someone else doesn't?

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

>the banks and the rich certainly don't deliver on their promises - so let's
>start with them before you pick on the little people.

So you don't feel like you have to live up to your promises as long as someone else doesn't?

you keep pointing at that tree over there while the rest of us examine the forest...

and, what's the difference between a contract and a promise?

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[billvon 2,400]

>what's the difference between a contract and a promise?

A contract is a formal promise.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Let me ask you this. If you make a promise to someone, does it mean something to you? Do you then try to honor your promise?

the banks and the rich certainly don't deliver on their promises - so let's start with them before you pick on the little people. you need to do some clear thinking.

which promises are you referring to? Give your general confusion with facts like "deficit spending for the banker bailout,' it would be helpful if you could actually be specific here.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And if you took all the wealth from the top, you'd just balance the deficit, for one year.

that's right.

Research the sum total of 100% of the taxable incomes from all families making more than 100K. Compare that number to the annual budget. You'll quickly notice that raising taxes on the "rich" isn't the place to start. If you want a balanced budget, we need to spend less, and everyone needs to pay a little more. Even those 51% of households that don't pay any taxes.

When the top 1% have 40% of the nation's wealth, it does suggest a good place to start. You aren't going to raise much revenue from a million homeless indigents.

a second reply to the same post? In the first, you pointed out that this is a two side solution - more taxes AND less spending.

A recent article asserts that the average tax burden is around 23%, down from typical 27% of recent decades. But the difference is only $500-600B/year. So obviously we can't take seriously DD's insistence on blaming Bush tax cuts for the current deficit.

But if the Feds were to cut spending by $500B (in meaningful ways, not promises to be more efficient later), I'm quite willing to see that tax burden go back up by that same amount. The deficit would be back to reasonable levels, and in a stronger economy, be near the even point as seen at the end end of the 90s.

But without a commitment on the spending side, why would I or any other voter agree to pay more? There's an established pattern of DC spending all the money they get, plus another several hundred (or trillion plus).

The cuts can't come from SS/MC. Those are currently taking in more revenue than spending. Even though this changes later, it was their subsidizing of other spending that contributed to our current affairs. The military has to be the leader in cost savings - it's time for peace dividend #2.