Occupy Wall Street

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Samer

I gave you a starting point dollar amount: 1 million dollars.

ANSWER MY QUESTION PLEASE. No more stonewalling, no more excuses.

Sorry you thought I ws stonewalling you but Im sure you can now see why I needed this clarification.

In 1993, Clinton created a new tax bracket at $250,000 and raised the higheat rate to 39.6 percent. Before Clinton’s new bracket, everyone over $86,500 paid 31%.

Its all here OBRA-93

So yes Clinton created and raised taxes on the rich (over 250K) 8.6%

Prior to this tax increase (Clintons first 7 months in office) the highest rate was 31% and it started at $86,500.

In 2010 and soon to be 2011 the tax rate will be 30% at $373,650 (in 2010) and $379,150 (in 2011)

Those are the cut-offs for upper income people.
They are also the reason I gave you such a hard time about how much money. There is no tax on the books for millionaires. There never was, there hasnt even been a bill in congress (that I know of and I look at those things) that calls for an additional tax bracket starting at a million.
So getting you to say a million was integral to this answer.
What you really want is to create a new tax bracket for people who make over a million and charge them $39.6%.
Hey its got my vote. The problem is instead of saying that....... you said tax the rich. (maybe you didnt but the accusation works better for my argument and dropping the GW tax cuts is taxing the rich.) As we both know the rich is a moving target.
Being rich in no longer being in the top bracket according to some. As a matter of fact the democrats want to rasise taxes on both these 2 brackets
Top 2 brackets for 2011

33% $174,400 – $379,150
35% $379,150+

Now in my book 175K isnt rich by any means. If you live in LA or chicago $175k wont even get you around the block. I know because my sister and her hubby make 225K in Chicago and they are barely hanging on.

Now back to the tax the rich and make them pay there (or their if you perfer) fair share. Cant you see that that phrase is nothing more than a democrat sound bite? It has no meaning other than to stur up class warfare. The term rich is loosely defined (at best) and Obama himself said he wanted to raise taxes on the top 2 brackets. Now thats not millionaires. hell thats not even 200K its less than that. But man does it sound really good......... Tax the rich VRS tax everyone over 175K.

The reason we get the top 2 bracket nonsense is that most people have no idea what the top 2 brackets are. Most think there is a bracket for people making over a million dollars. It aint so. It does not exsist. All the proposals and nonsense that you read about taxing millionaires is fodder. Nothing more than grandstanding for the masses. They dont and didnt (even when they had the majority) have the votes in the house or senate to even bring it to the floor on its own.
Why you ask??? Those very rich you want to tax, pour money into both sides of the isle left and right.
Thats why the tax the rich soundbite is so tired. The demcrats arent intereted in taxing the rich anymore than the republicans are.. If they were they would have rammed that thru right behind obamacare. They had the votes to do anything BUT tax the rich as a separate bill.
Understand that you are playing right into there playbook when your repeat that soundbite.
Heres another little secret. If Obamacare stands. There are tax increases for the top 2 brackets built in to the legislation. But you didnt hear any of that when the discussion about the 2000+ page monster was going on....now did ya??
WHY??
Maybe so you just might keep up the class warfare routine because that seems to be the only way back to the whitehouse for the current occupant.

If You would have said hey lets create a new tax bracket for people who make over a million and charge them $39.6%.
I would have been fine with it. What did I get?? Tax the rich. a nice neat little soundbite brought to you by the democrat party.
Think my brother......you may call me uninformed but I do know what the top 2 brackets will be like next year. I also know that both those brackets are staring down the barrel of a tax increase already. (2012)
Ask yourself. Why are the democrats constantly calling for a tax increase when there is already a law that legislates exactly that??




The Ironic part of all this is H.R. 4853 or Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 was passed by the demcrats on the way out the door just before they were replaced by a republican majority congress. The democrats lowered the tax rates to where they are now. Aint it crazy??

Does that tell the whole story?? NO. But Ive got other stuff to do so please Samer ask away and Ill try to adress it later.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

You just mixed up federal and state govt. up you realize that right? FBI obviously federal. Police are a state agency.

An arm of government is charged with enforcing our laws. Depending on the law, it can be local, county, state, or federal; both from the investigation part right through the prosecution & punishment part.

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

You missed my point. I was talking about the whole smaller government dogma as a whole, this applies on Federal/State/Local. By saying you want a smaller government, you are restricting their power to enforce. Think about highway cops. Smaller budget leads to less officers who then cant catch speeders. This applies on each level as well.

I did clarify a bit of efficiency but that's something that is hard to gauge in real time.

We have CHP out here, a state controlled police force, not federal. Without the leeches and over spending of the federal govt. I think we would have more than enough money to go around for important infrastructural spending as well as local police and education (state level would also be better imo)

We do not need a large federal govt. the states can for the most part govern themselves, as they should. Dont get me wrong there is a place for the Fed Govt. national defense, etc. but right now its way to fat, its spends to much and even OWS can agree it is corrupt on both sides of the aisle and politicians put themselves ahead of the people on a regular basis

[Samer]

I want my money back. I waited more than one week for that "answer"?

Here was the original question I posted on December 13th:

Why is it that the current unemployment rate in the US is very high, yet the rich, I mean 'job creators', are wealthier today than they have ever been in the history of the US?

In that quote, by 'rich', you can comfortably assume people much wealthier than you or I. If it helps to move the 'discussion' along (doubt it ), you can assume personal income above 1 million per year defines a 'rich' person, and we are only discussing taxes on that money.

Your answer did not come close to anything remotely resembling an adequate response to my question.

By the way "their" is not my preference, it is the difference between correct and incorrect English.

Finally, when you say something is a 'democrat' proposal, it is insulting to me and many others. I would appreciate 'Democratic'. Thank you for your consideration.

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by Alex

An arm of government is charged with enforcing our laws. Depending on the law, it can be local, county, state, or federal; both from the investigation part right through the prosecution & punishment part.

I understand this. I just was trying to show that local law enforcement would be able to take care of local matters. And as I wrote later Im not for abandoning all federal agencies. Especially law enforcement. Im just for cutting out the fat.. and the Fed. Govt. is fat.

[mrlmd]

The true meaning of the 1%

[massacremasses]

^ I agree with that sign 100%.

[Alex]

@massacremasses - There is no guarantee that state governments, given more resources, would be any less corrupt than a federal one with those same resources. In one sense, the audit and monitoring capabilities of the larger agencies may be more likely to pick up unexpected anomalies in spending and/or corruption, than are found by the less-skilled, less-resourced, and generally smaller watchdog groups in individual states. Just check out the number of convicted public officials sorted by state, from a NYT piece a few years ago. Or more modern examples posted up on the "Corruption News Blog", which portends to track news stories related to state and local corruption. Anti-corruption efforts should be lauded at all levels, but the distinction between state efforts and federal efforts does not necessarily point to one being more effective than the other.

[kyrider]

Once again you are just proving my point.

[Alex]

Do tell. FWIW, KY was the 9th most corrupt per capita.

BTW: are you ever going to answer the question I obliged you on?

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by Alex

@massacremasses - There is no guarantee that state governments, given more resources, would be any less corrupt than a federal one with those same resources. In one sense, the audit and monitoring capabilities of the larger agencies may be more likely to pick up unexpected anomalies in spending and/or corruption, than are found by the less-skilled, less-resourced, and generally smaller watchdog groups in individual states. Just check out the number of convicted public officials sorted by state, from a NYT piece a few years ago. Or more modern examples posted up on the "Corruption News Blog", which portends to track news stories related to state and local corruption. Anti-corruption efforts should be lauded at all levels, but the distinction between state efforts and federal efforts does not necessarily point to one being more effective than the other.

For sure Im not necessarily saying thats how it would go down, I dont really know. BUUUT what I do know is that when things are left to the state. people will have a much larger say in their own lives, rather than a small group of people making rules for the entire country. Does that make sense or you just entirely disagree with me? You cant really site sources saying it would be a bad idea as it hasnt been that way in a long time as we've been voting away states rights for a long time...

[Alex]

I think you need to define what rules you are talking about. The powers granted to the States are clear, as are the powers reserved by the Federal government.

There's a clear list right here. It's constitutionally defined. Yes - there is some fuzziness in the commerce clause. And yes, the conflict between state courts/federal courts/supreme court when they disagree on key issues/cases is tilted toward the highest court in the country.

But what exactly are you proposing? The cry for "States rights!" is the exact same cry, the same words, in fact, that were used to combat civil rights efforts 50 years ago, which is one reason why the subject gets sensitive when people haven't defined their terms.

[massacremasses]

I'm talking about the 10th amendment.

The federal has over stepped its boundaries on multiple occasions.


Shoot the link you cited has that part in the bottom of the states rights section. I guess I havent read up on the civil rights movement as I was not aware that is the verbiage they used to fight it.


Edit* wait did I ever answer your question? Im not avoiding answering questions. I just forget and sometimes when Im trying to make another point...

also a great example of what im talking about here is something Im sure you are familiar with since you also live here in CA. The whole Marijuana debacle... Its a perfect example of the Federal Government overstepping its boundaries.

[Alex]

Which of those multiple occasions are you most concerned about? How would have or should have the states handled it differently?

Edit: I see your edit, and that is an interesting example. Federal law is in direct conflict with state law. But what is the federal government doing about it that you object to?
Posted via Mobile Device

[massacremasses]

The DEA is raiding state approved shops that sell medical marijuana. Thats in direct conflict to the state law allowing the sale of marijuana for "medical" needs.

Not really sure how the state should handle it honestly. The Federal govt. has a grip on the states and can influence them by holding back federal funds...

[kyrider]

Originally Posted by Alex

Do tell. FWIW, KY was the 9th most corrupt per capita.

BTW: are you ever going to answer the question I obliged you on?

Repeal Obamacare.

O.K. You did it again by bringing up the state I live in.

Alex c'mon man!

I guess you have not read a lot of my early posts.

You just don't get me.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Samer

I want my money back. I waited more than one week for that "answer"?

Here was the original question I posted on December 13th:

Why is it that the current unemployment rate in the US is very high, yet the rich, I mean 'job creators', are wealthier today than they have ever been in the history of the US?

In that quote, by 'rich', you can comfortably assume people much wealthier than you or I. If it helps to move the 'discussion' along (doubt it ), you can assume personal income above 1 million per year defines a 'rich' person, and we are only discussing taxes on that money.

Your answer did not come close to anything remotely resembling an adequate response to my question.

By the way "their" is not my preference, it is the difference between correct and incorrect English.

Finally, when you say something is a 'democrat' proposal, it is insulting to me and many others. I would appreciate 'Democratic'. Thank you for your consideration.

As I said Im not done.....more to come and Ill get to your question.
Sorry the term democrat is offensive to you but it does just so happen to be the word used to describe the party that is issuing the "proposals". Democratic means something totally different. (That is if you dont know that already.) Im guessing liberal is offensive too??? lol must be just as offensive as "far right wing" or maybe............. republican.

Relax ill get to why the millionaries are not putting up the hard earned cash.

Thought I would let you digest the first part of my response. To kill a little time, go ahead and show me where I have been mistaken in my last post. Its all a fact and a matter of record.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Alex

There's a difference between persuasive and annoying. I ran out of patience for the latter.

so now its an annoying trainwreck.

Got it.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by kyrider

Repeal Obamacare.

Do you really believe that his best option to increase his election chances next year is to repeal Obamacare? Or is it just something you would wish to happen separate from the "what would you do" question?

Originally Posted by kyrider

O.K. You did it again by bringing up the state I live in.

Come on - we're talking about state corruption vs. federal corruption, and your state is the first two letters in your userID. It's brought up in every single post you make! BTW: I was just flabbergasted to see California at 48th on that list, given our well-deserved reputation for a questionably effective state government. Maybe it just means this state is just bad at actually catching the corruption.

Originally Posted by kyrider

You just don't get me.

What am I not listening to? How am I not getting you?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

The DEA is raiding state approved shops that sell medical marijuana. Thats in direct conflict to the state law allowing the sale of marijuana for "medical" needs.

Not really sure how the state should handle it honestly. The Federal govt. has a grip on the states and can influence them by holding back federal funds...

I don't know either. I hadn't realized that there were recent raids again, I thought the DEA had generally stopped that back in 2009, other than for egregious violators of both the state & federal laws. Recent articles make it seem as if it may not be that simple.

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by Alex

I don't know either. I hadn't realized that there were recent raids again, I thought the DEA had generally stopped that back in 2009, other than for egregious violators of both the state & federal laws. Recent articles make it seem as if it may not be that simple.

lots of shops around here have closed up because they got letters from the federal govt. they WILL be raided and shut down if they dont do it voluntarily... I dont smoke weed, and havent in a long time, nor do I drink, but I have a huge problem with the state voting to legalize something and the federal govt. stepping in and saying naa you cant do that. Them stepping in according to the 10th amendment is unconstitutional. Its interesting.

[kyrider]

Alex,

If you don't want to take the time and go back and read my posts so you can better understand me then that is your prerogative.

Have you never seen the third episode of the fourth season of the Soprano's?

I mean my gawd sportscenter is on!

[Alex]

Originally Posted by kyrider

If you don't want to take the time and go back and read my posts so you can better understand me then that is your prerogative.

I've just re-read every one of your posts in this thread, and unless there's subtext I'm missing, it's out there for all to see:

• pro tea party
• anti OWS, with a peculiar bent that the movement is primarily an anti-semetic plot
• pro silly videos
• pro provably incorrect "data" about finances/taxes/government

EDIT: I do have to point out, that you seem to be able to express any and all of your views without overly provoking or attacking your fellow members here, and I appreciate that.

Originally Posted by kyrider

Have you never seen the third episode of the fourth season of the Soprano's?

Seen 'em all, but that one doesn't particularly stand out for me, even after reading the episode description.

Originally Posted by kyrider

I mean my gawd sportscenter is on!

Get a DVR!

[kyrider]

I've just re-read every one of your posts in this thread, and unless there's subtext I'm missing, it's out there for all to see:

Bless your heart.

EDIT: I do have to point out, that you seem to be able to express any and all of your views without overly provoking or attacking your fellow members here, and I appreciate that.

Thanks for noticing! I often try not to overly provoke or attack.

Seen 'em all, but that one doesn't particularly stand out for me, even after reading the episode description.

Once again, Bless your heart.

Get a DVR!

I have three.

[shiroganeshinobi]

Apparently, Facebook has this OWS letter as the top political story link for 2011.

Open Letter to that 53% Guy
It's a fantastic appeal to reason.

Original source on facebook.

almost40, if you're going to link numbers, please cite your sources. I noticed in your rant that you mentioned that Democrats dont want to raise taxes anymore than Republicans. According the biased news radio station I listen to everyday and the news I see on the Internet, I always see how Republicans dont want the Bush tax cuts to expire or doesn't want a millionaires surtax. You also blame Democrats for their weak polices but isnt part of the blame on Republicans for neutering what Democrats originally wanted before they compromised? People remember the result but never the fight to get there.

You love to talk about class warfare. I recall a picture of a protest sign which said "It's only class warfare when we fight back!". God forbid we raise taxes against the generous job creators, amirite? It's hilarious that you hold Clinton's term as high taxes when it's actually been higher. Go back about 50 years. The funny thing about Republicans is they have a selective memory.

[Samer]

Originally Posted by almost40

Sorry the term democrat is offensive to you but it does just so happen to be the word used to describe the party that is issuing the "proposals". Democratic means something totally different. (That is if you dont know that already.) Im guessing liberal is offensive too??? lol must be just as offensive as "far right wing" or maybe............. republican.

Either you are playing stupid because you like to argue and you will NEVER admit that you are wrong, or you are genuinely ignorant of this particular topic.

In any case, you are wrong again. Now you have the audacity to tell me when I should or should not be offended.

Against my better judgement, I will respond to you as if you genuinely do not understand this distinction. PLEASE do not give a knee-jerk smart-ass response as I do not intend on being sarcastic in this particular post. Just read my words and take a deep breath.

It is a fact that when you say that something is a 'democrat' proposal, that is offensive to many people, not just me. At the same time, I label myself as being a Democrat. Does that sound like a contradiction? It is not. Context has a large impact on the meaning of a word.

It is also true that we live in a Democratic society and in that context, that has nothing to do with party affiliation. But in the context of U.S. politics, it is understood what a Democratic proposal is (the opposite of a Republican proposal). Your argument is false because I could easily say, well, we live in a Republic, so please don't say a 'Republican' proposal, you should say a tea-bagger proposal. Do you see how that may be offensive to someone?

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by Samer

Why is it that the current unemployment rate in the US is very high, yet the rich, I mean 'job creators', are wealthier today than they have ever been in the history of the US?

I haven't read the entire thread, but I think this is an interesting question. Of course, it has many different answers depending on your perspective, but I will give you mine. Unemployment is high for two reasons. The first is that businesses are not hiring or re-hiring people because the forecasted future is uncertain. Business are playing it smart by holding on to cash, and not taking large risks, the way they may have been prior to the economy crashing. Therefore, there are less jobs, and less pay raises which leads to people having less disposable income. This leads to the second reason. Consumer confidence is very low. Businesses have seen declines because people are less likely to spend money. They see their pay either static or decreasing, and they see their investments (stocks, house, etc.) declining. Therefore, they too are playing it smart by saving money and not spending it.

So how do you turn it around? That is the trillion dollar question. The idea that the government can invest tax money in the economy to stimulate it to the point where it has a lasting impact is rather foolish in my opinion. But what they can do is try to mitigate some of the uncertainty in business. They can lower taxes on them instead of threatening to raise them. They can stop trying to control business through unnecessary regulations. They can stop pointing their fingers and blaming those who are successful. This whole idea that getting rich is a bad thing just blows my mine. The best thing they can do is just stay out of the way.

Think of it this way. You run a business that has been historically successful. However, sales are down, despite all your efforts, and the future is uncertain. Your expenses, as a percent of your revenue continues to grow despite the cuts you have been making. The president is on TV criticizing you because you have built a successful business, and are currently not expanding. He's also on TV talking about raising your taxes. Your portion of your employees health insurance has just gone up by 20% because of the new Healthcare law. You could take a chance and hire some new employees with the hope that the revenue they bring in may offset the extra expense. Or you could try to hold on to cash and try to ride out the added taxes and expenses in the hopes that things get better soon. Which do you do? The smart business decision is probably the latter.

This is a reality for many businesses, and many of those people the government criticizes and calls "rich".

As for the loony Wall Street Protesters, I'm not sure what they have accomplished (other than costing businesses money, some their jobs, and of course, the taxpayers millions of dollars), but then again, I'm not even sure what they wanted in the first place.

Here's hoping for a cold winter.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

....I have a huge problem with the state voting to legalize something and the federal govt. stepping in and saying naa you cant do that. Them stepping in according to the 10th amendment is unconstitutional. Its interesting.

I bet you would feel differently if the state was legalizing something you disagreed with. What if instead of marijuana, they had legalized segregation, or something equally distasteful?

As for your comment about the constitutionality according to the 10th amendment, this is just an opinion. One that is not supported by the courts. Agree or disagree, but the SCOTUS has ruled that this falls under the interstate commerce clause, and therefore is delegated to the Feds to control and regulate.

[Samer]

Originally Posted by revstriker

I haven't read the entire thread, but I think this is an interesting question. Of course, it has many different answers depending on your perspective, but I will give you mine. Unemployment is high for two reasons. The first is that businesses are not hiring or re-hiring people because the forecasted future is uncertain. Business are playing it smart by holding on to cash, and not taking large risks, the way they may have been prior to the economy crashing. Therefore, there are less jobs, and less pay raises which leads to people having less disposable income. This leads to the second reason. Consumer confidence is very low. Businesses have seen declines because people are less likely to spend money. They see their pay either static or decreasing, and they see their investments (stocks, house, etc.) declining. Therefore, they too are playing it smart by saving money and not spending it.

So how do you turn it around? That is the trillion dollar question. The idea that the government can invest tax money in the economy to stimulate it to the point where it has a lasting impact is rather foolish in my opinion. But what they can do is try to mitigate some of the uncertainty in business. They can lower taxes on them instead of threatening to raise them. They can stop trying to control business through unnecessary regulations. They can stop pointing their fingers and blaming those who are successful. This whole idea that getting rich is a bad thing just blows my mine. The best thing they can do is just stay out of the way.

Think of it this way. You run a business that has been historically successful. However, sales are down, despite all your efforts, and the future is uncertain. Your expenses, as a percent of your revenue continues to grow despite the cuts you have been making. The president is on TV criticizing you because you have built a successful business, and are currently not expanding. He's also on TV talking about raising your taxes. Your portion of your employees health insurance has just gone up by 20% because of the new Healthcare law. You could take a chance and hire some new employees with the hope that the revenue they bring in may offset the extra expense. Or you could try to hold on to cash and try to ride out the added taxes and expenses in the hopes that things get better soon. Which do you do? The smart business decision is probably the latter.

This is a reality for many businesses, and many of those people the government criticizes and calls "rich".

As for the loony Wall Street Protesters, I'm not sure what they have accomplished (other than costing businesses money, some their jobs, and of course, the taxpayers millions of dollars), but then again, I'm not even sure what they wanted in the first place.

Here's hoping for a cold winter.

Well at least that is a fair attempt at answering my question. Unfortunately, many of your statements do not agree with the facts.

Just a few points:

Your argument about what the Government can do:

"They can lower taxes on them instead of threatening to raise them."

Please refer to my original question. Lower taxes on the wealthiest 1% succeeded in making them wealthier than they have ever been before. These tax cuts have failed to create jobs. It cost us huge deficits and a great recession to prove that trickle down economics doesn't work.

Tax cuts on small businesses on the other hand have been proposed by Obama, and they may have occurred, I honestly haven't followed it recently so this can be researched.

"They can stop trying to control business through unnecessary regulations."

Like the unnecessary regulations on mortgage loans and Wall Street that were lifted by Bush and brought us the financial meltdown of 2008?

"They can stop pointing their fingers and blaming those who are successful. This whole idea that getting rich is a bad thing just blows my mine. The best thing they can do is just stay out of the way."

Just because you say something doesn't make it true. Being successful isn't a bad thing, and President Obama doesn't think it is a bad thing. In fact, we all know that private sector job growth and economic growth is critical to bringing back financial order and getting a handle on our debt. In fact, we've had private sector job growth for several months, I don't remember exactly how many (11+ I think).

You think the OWS people are silly yet this thread is full of simple real world examples of legitimate concerns of OWS and it has nothing to do with envy or criticism of a legitimate business being successful.

Let me give you a simple example once again. All of these events are proven facts:

Goldman Sachs packaged a bunch of sub-prime mortgages into securities. These subprime loans were possible because mortgage companies were bending the already softened rules under Bush because he, like you, doesn't want 'unnecessary regulation'. It has now been shown that the mortgage companies specifically targeted minorities and pushed them into subprime loans with higher rates because they got a much higher commission on these loans.

Back to Goldman. They paid off the ratings agencies to give AAA ratings to these securities which internal Goldman Sachs emails referred to as a "****** deal". It turns out that Goldman was putting their money where their mouth is. At the same time that they were pushing these investments heavily on clients, they were shorting (betting against) the SAME investments at the same time.

So, do you honestly think that all of the OWS people are silly when they are holding a "Goldman Sucks" sign? Are they just anti success or is there more to the story?

I have yet to see an OWS person holding an "Apple Sucks" sign. You know why? There isn't anything wrong with a successful honest innovative business that makes money and enriches the lives of millions of people. Goldman Sachs and others are far from that.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

almost40, if you're going to link numbers, please cite your sources. I noticed in your rant that you mentioned that Democrats dont want to raise taxes anymore than Republicans. According the biased news radio station I listen to everyday and the news I see on the Internet, I always see how Republicans dont want the Bush tax cuts to expire or doesn't want a millionaires surtax. You also blame Democrats for their weak polices but isnt part of the blame on Republicans for neutering what Democrats originally wanted before they compromised? People remember the result but never the fight to get there.

Try HR 4853 as mentioned.
Intoduced on 3/15/10
passesd the house 3/17/10
passed the senate on 9/22/10
signed by obama on 12/16/10

Introduced and passed by both the House and Senate before the midterm election (democrat majority)

Its major purpose was to extend the Bush tax cuts and unemployment insurance.
Brought to you by the democrat party who had control of all 3 branches of Government at the time it cleared the house and the senate.

Now why would the democrats vote this way???
Because they have no interest in raising taxes on the rich. They like the money pouring into the campaign offices just as much as the republicans.

Its all a smoke screen to promote class warfare and garner votes.
Is it that hard to see???? They say one thing, and do another.
Its pretty obvious if you read the bills and ignore the proposals that are nothing more than grandstanding. Of course thats what makes headlines. Grandstanding.

I would like to correct something here.......
People remember the result but never the fight to get there.
In reality its more like people remember the soundbites and not the way there party voted in the house and senate to create law.

Btw I did post my sources
OBRA-93
H.R. 4853

[kyrider]

Samer, may I call you that?

That just does not mesh with the Gosin Owte hypothesis. Have you studies economics before?

Are you familiar with the Bavarian theory of marginalists economic flow?

And may I ask your opinion of President Obama?

[Samer]

Samer, may I call you that?

That is my name. So the answer is yes.

That just does not mesh with the Gosin Owte hypothesis. Have you studies economics before?

Are you familiar with the Bavarian theory of marginalists economic flow?

I studied economics in College but I don't have a degree in economics. I'm an engineer. However, I was not aware that having a degree in economics was a prerequisite for a discussion about basic political policy. Do you have a degree in economics?

I'm not familiar with any of these things you mentioned, and I'm not sure the first thing you typed is actually a thing at all...

And may I ask your opinion of President Obama?

I support him a great deal more than I would support any of the current Republican candidates. I suspect anyone who has followed this thread has probably picked up on that.

Instead of these questions, why did you not respond directly to the open questions that I have been asking? I admit that to me at least, they are somewhat rhetorical

[kyrider]

Originally Posted by Samer

Samer, may I call you that?

That is my name. So the answer is yes.

That just does not mesh with the Gosin Owte hypothesis. Have you studies economics before?

Are you familiar with the Bavarian theory of marginalists economic flow?

I studied economics in College but I don't have a degree in economics. I'm an engineer. However, I was not aware that having a degree in economics was a prerequisite for a discussion about basic political policy. Do you have a degree in economics?

I'm not familiar with any of these things you mentioned, and I'm not sure the first thing you typed is actually a thing at all...

And may I ask your opinion of President Obama?

I support him a great deal more than I would support any of the current Republican candidates. I suspect anyone who has followed this thread has probably picked up on that.

Instead of these questions, why did you not respond directly to the open questions that I have been asking? I admit that to me at least, they are somewhat rhetorical

Before I start answering your questions I just wanted to get a feel of who I was discussing this with. So by now I know that you are not familiar with what I stated above and that is o.k. Are you familiar with Dewey Philosophy? The emotional and logical political mind?

[Samer]

Originally Posted by almost40

(democrat majority)

I went through the trouble of explaining that it was insulting to use that word in that context and your very next post does it again...

Rude!

Link to original page on YouTube.

[Samer]

Originally Posted by kyrider

Before I start answering your questions I just wanted to get a feel of who I was discussing this with. So by now I know that you are not familiar with what I stated above and that is o.k. Are you familiar with Dewey Philosophy? The emotional and logical political mind?

No, and I'm not going to answer any more of these types of questions. I don't own this thread, and I'm not interested in playing 20 questions.

What does an answer to any of these questions have to do with the validity of my arguments?

You don't need to be a math major to know that 1 + 1 = 2. Please address the issues, this thread should not be about me or anyone else. Issues please.

[kyrider]

Originally Posted by Samer

No, and I'm not going to answer any more of these types of questions. I don't own this thread, and I'm not interested in playing 20 questions.

What does an answer to any of these questions have to do with the validity of my arguments?

You don't need to be a math major to know that 1 + 1 = 2. Please address the issues, this thread should not be about me or anyone else. Issues please.

Thats cool.

I just thought from reading the above that you would be familiar with John Dewey. You do know who John Dewey is right?

This may be a little out there but does it bother you that I am a pre-gen owner? I bet you could probably care less but then again you could be the kind of person who could be biased.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by Samer

Well at least that is a fair attempt at answering my question. Unfortunately, many of your statements do not agree with the facts.

Just a few points:

Your argument about what the Government can do:

"They can lower taxes on them instead of threatening to raise them."

Please refer to my original question. Lower taxes on the wealthiest 1% succeeded in making them wealthier than they have ever been before. These tax cuts have failed to create jobs. It cost us huge deficits and a great recession to prove that trickle down economics doesn't work.

Tax cuts on small businesses on the other hand have been proposed by Obama, and they may have occurred, I honestly haven't followed it recently so this can be researched.

It's not about making someone wealthy or not wealthy. It's about giving businesses (which in a lot of cases, are individuals) motivation to take risks and grow. Without a willingness to do this, they will not do so.

There's been talk about business tax cuts, but nothing meaningful has really happened yet. And a lot of times, the cuts proposed have been offset by increased expenses in a lot of cases.

The term "trickle down" is supposed to imply a negative, but the fact is, this is the way that businesses work. A business won't invest (more) profits in employees unless it can actually make that profit.

So what is wrong with the top 1%, who in most cases have taken risks and worked to build a business and in turn build wealth, what is wrong with them making more money? Do you knowingly make bad investments with your money?

"They can stop trying to control business through unnecessary regulations."

Like the unnecessary regulations on mortgage loans and Wall Street that were lifted by Bush and brought us the financial meltdown of 2008?

In some cases, yes. In a lot of cases, the lifting of regulations had nothing to do with the financial meltdown. But there are thousands of regulations out there which cause more harm than good, and slow growth.

"They can stop pointing their fingers and blaming those who are successful. This whole idea that getting rich is a bad thing just blows my mine. The best thing they can do is just stay out of the way."

Just because you say something doesn't make it true. Being successful isn't a bad thing, and President Obama doesn't think it is a bad thing. In fact, we all know that private sector job growth and economic growth is critical to bringing back financial order and getting a handle on our debt. In fact, we've had private sector job growth for several months, I don't remember exactly how many (11+ I think).

Well, just because you say it doesn't make it true either. But the fact is, Obama wants to take more of my wealth in order to redistribute it to those who are somehow more worthy. This was the platform he ran on in 2008. So if I work hard and long hours, take huge financial risks, I am "rewarded" by Obama wanting to punish me, by taking even more of my money. Obama has pointed his figure at individuals, calling their salaries "obscene", and even suggesting specific industry taxes on indviduals.

You think the OWS people are silly yet this thread is full of simple real world examples of legitimate concerns of OWS and it has nothing to do with envy or criticism of a legitimate business being successful.

Let me give you a simple example once again. All of these events are proven facts:

Goldman Sachs packaged a bunch of sub-prime mortgages into securities. These subprime loans were possible because mortgage companies were bending the already softened rules under Bush because he, like you, doesn't want 'unnecessary regulation'. It has now been shown that the mortgage companies specifically targeted minorities and pushed them into subprime loans with higher rates because they got a much higher commission on these loans.

Back to Goldman. They paid off the ratings agencies to give AAA ratings to these securities which internal Goldman Sachs emails referred to as a "****** deal". It turns out that Goldman was putting their money where their mouth is. At the same time that they were pushing these investments heavily on clients, they were shorting (betting against) the SAME investments at the same time.

So, do you honestly think that all of the OWS people are silly when they are holding a "Goldman Sucks" sign? Are they just anti success or is there more to the story?

I have yet to see an OWS person holding an "Apple Sucks" sign. You know why? There isn't anything wrong with a successful honest innovative business that makes money and enriches the lives of millions of people. Goldman Sachs and others are far from that.

I'm certainly not a Goldman Sachs fan, and I think a lot of things around sub prime lending was pretty stupid. Including the encouragement by some in Congress to make loans to those with low incomes. Even more than Goldman, I think the government's running of Fannie and Freddie had a lot to do with things also.

As for the OWS people, when they first started protesting, they didn't have a consistent message, other than anti-business. As for your statement about Apple, I have no idea if there are such signs or not, but there are certainly anti-capitalism signs all over the place. I'm sure the executives and employees of Apple don't agree with this sentiment.

So make a statement about Goldman, or some other business you don't like? Sure. But go out there and trash public lands, steal taxpayer funds for your cleanup, put some small businesses out of business, and they get zero sympathy from me.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Samer

Goldman Sachs packaged a bunch of sub-prime mortgages into securities. These subprime loans were possible because mortgage companies were bending the already softened rules under Bush because he, like you, doesn't want 'unnecessary regulation'. It has now been shown that the mortgage companies specifically targeted minorities and pushed them into subprime loans with higher rates because they got a much higher commission on these loans

look here
12 U.S.C. § 2901
Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

This where it all started.
Blame GW if you please...it makes a good soundbite........ but it just isnt the truth.
Do you mind telling me what rules GW softened??

Ron Paul, characterized the changes made to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 under the Clinton administration as "forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks."

Originally Posted by Samer

The mortgage companies specifically targeted minorities and pushed them into subprime loans

As regulated by the federal government.

It only makes sense that if you have bad or no credit you will pay more in interest than a more credit worthy borrower.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by Samer

I went through the trouble of explaining that it was insulting to use that word in that context and your very next post does it again...

Rude!

It's insulting to say democratic majority?? I don't get it. This must be in some new version of the Politically Correct manual.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by revstriker

It's insulting to say democratic majority?? I don't get it. This must be in some new version of the Politically Correct manual.

Its only insulting when I say democrat majority. I guess democrat anything is now offensive. shiroganeshinobi didnt get the memo, but he better watch his step. He too might be considered rude.