Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Socialism for the 'Ricn' and 'Poor' ... but where does that leave the middle class ?

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Socialism for the 'Ricn' and 'Poor' ... but where does that leave the middle class ?

    (snip)"Public losses for private gain
    The effective nationalisation of huge sectors of the economy means US taxpayers are picking up the tab for failing banks

    With the nationalisation of Fannie and Freddie, comrades Bush, Paulson and Bernanke started transforming the US into the USSRA (United Socialist State Republic of America).

    This transformation of the US into a country where there is socialism for the rich, the well-connected and Wall Street (ie, where profits are privatised and losses are socialised) continues today with the nationalisation of AIG.

    This latest action on AIG follows a variety of many other policy actions that imply a massive – and often flawed – government intervention in the financial markets and the economy: the bail-out of the Bear Stearns creditors; the bail-out of Fannie and Freddie; the use of the Fed balance sheet (hundreds of billions of safe US Treasuries swapped for junk, toxic, illiquid private securities); the use of the other GSEs (the Federal Home Loan Bank system) to provide hundreds of billions of dollars of "liquidity" to distressed, illiquid and insolvent mortgage lenders; the use of the SEC to manipulate the stock market (through restrictions on short sales).

    Then there's the use of the US Treasury to manipulate the mortgage market, the creation of a whole host of new bail-out facilities to prop and rescue banks and, for the first time since the Great Depression, to bail out non-bank financial institutions.

    This is the biggest and most socialist government intervention in economic affairs since the formation of the Soviet Union and Communist China. So foreign investors are now welcome to the USSRA (the United Socialist State Republic of America) where they can earn fat spreads relative to Treasuries on agency debt and never face any credit risks (not even the subordinated debt-holders who made a fortune yesterday as those claims were also made whole).

    Like scores of evangelists and hypocrites and moralists who spew and praise family values and pretend to be holier than thou and are then regularly caught cheating or found to be perverts, these Bush hypocrites who spewed for years the glory of unfettered Wild West laissez-faire jungle capitalism allowed the biggest debt bubble ever to fester without any control, and have caused the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

    They are are now forced to perform the biggest government intervention and nationalisations in the recent history of humanity, all for the benefit of the rich and the well connected. So Comrades Bush and Paulson and Bernanke will rightly pass to the history books as a troika of Bolsheviks who turned the USA into the USSRA. "(snip)

  2. #2
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Socialism for the 'Ricn' and 'Poor' ... but where does that leave the middle clas

    (snip)"The Party's Over

    By Patrick J. Buchanan

    19/09/08 "CS" -- - The Crash of 2008, which is now wiping out trillions of dollars of our people's wealth, is, like the Crash of 1929, likely to mark the end of one era and the onset of another. The new era will see a more sober and much diminished America. The "Omnipower" and "Indispensable Nation" we heard about in all the hubris and braggadocio following our Cold War victory is history.

    Seizing on the crisis, the left says we are witnessing the failure of market economics, a failure of conservatism.

    This is nonsense. What we are witnessing is the collapse of Gordon Gecko ("Greed Is Good!") capitalism. What we are witnessing is what happens to a prodigal nation that ignores history, and forgets and abandons the philosophy and principles that made it great.

    A true conservative cherishes prudence and believes in fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets and a self-reliant republic. He believes in saving for retirement and a rainy day, in deferred gratification, in not buying on credit what you cannot afford, in living within your means.

    Is that really what got Wall Street and us into this mess — that we followed too religiously the gospel of Robert Taft and Russell Kirk?

    "Government must save us!" cries the left, as ever. Yet, who got us into this mess if not the government — the Fed with its easy money, Bush with his profligate spending, and Congress and the SEC by liberating Wall Street and failing to step in and stop the drunken orgy?

    For years, we Americans have spent more than we earned. We save nothing. Credit card debt, consumer debt, auto debt, mortgage debt, corporate debt — all are at record levels. And with pensions and savings being wiped out, much of that debt will never be repaid.

    Our standard of living is inevitably going to fall. For foreigners will not forever buy our bonds or lend us more money if they rightly fear that they will be paid back, if at all, in cheaper dollars.

    We are going to have to learn to live again without our means.

    The party's over

    Up through World War II, we followed the Hamiltonian idea that America must remain economically independent of the world in order to remain politically independent.

    But this generation decided that was yesterday's bromide and we must march bravely forward into a Global Economy, where we all depend on one another. American companies morphed into "global companies" and moved plants and factories to Mexico, Asia, China and India, and we began buying more cheaply from abroad what we used to make at home: shoes, clothes, bikes, cars, radios, TVs, planes, computers.

    As the trade deficits began inexorably to rise to 6 percent of GDP, we began vast borrowing from abroad to continue buying from abroad.

    At home, propelled by tax cuts, war in Iraq and an explosion in social spending, surpluses vanished and deficits reappeared and began to rise. The dollar began to sink, and gold began to soar.

    Yet, still, the promises of the politicians come. Barack Obama will give us national health insurance and tax cuts for all but that 2 percent of the nation that already carries 50 percent of the federal income tax load.

    John McCain is going to cut taxes, expand the military, move NATO into Georgia and Ukraine, confront Russia and force Iran to stop enriching uranium or "bomb, bomb, bomb," with Joe Lieberman as wartime consigliere.

    Who are we kidding?

    What we are witnessing today is how empires end.

    The Last Superpower is unable to defend its borders, protect its currency, win its wars or balance its budget. Medicare and Social Security are headed for the cliff with unfunded liabilities in the tens of trillions of dollars.

    What we are witnessing today is nothing less than a Katrina-like failure of government, of our political class, and of democracy itself, casting a cloud over the viability and longevity of the system.

    Notice who is managing the crisis. Not our elected leaders. Nancy Pelosi says she had nothing to do with it. Congress is paralyzed and heading home. President Bush is nowhere to be seen.

    Hank Paulson of Goldman Sachs and Ben Bernanke of the Fed chose to bail out Bear Sterns but let Lehman go under. They decided to nationalize Fannie and Freddie at a cost to taxpayers of hundreds of billions, putting the U.S. government behind $5 trillion in mortgages. They decided to buy AIG with $85 billion rather than see the insurance giant sink beneath the waves.

    An unelected financial elite is now entrusted with the assignment of getting us out of a disaster into which an unelected financial elite plunged the nation. We are just spectators.

    What the Greatest Generation handed down to us — the richest, most powerful, most self-sufficient republic in history, with the highest standard of living any nation had ever achieved — the baby boomers, oblivious and self-indulgent to the end, have frittered away.

    COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC. "(snip)

    from

  3. #3
    Banned
    Joined
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Cranberry Country
    Posts
    1,202
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Socialism for the 'Ricn' and 'Poor' ... but where does that leave the middle clas

    *yawn*

  4. #4
    Veteran Member winterrose's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2008
    Location
    mississippi
    Posts
    394
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 14 Times in 8 Posts

    Default Re: Socialism for the 'Ricn' and 'Poor' ... but where does that leave the middle clas

    I really don't think there is still a middle class left anymore.

    I only seem to run into the rich or the poor. The middle class is still sitting somewhere in the 1960's.

    [/quote]What we are witnessing today is how empires end.

    The Last Superpower is unable to defend its borders, protect its currency, win its wars or balance its budget. Medicare and Social Security are headed for the cliff with unfunded liabilities in the tens of trillions of dollars. [/quote]

    Most everyone I know that 40 years ago would have been considered middle class is today waiting to see if they are going to have a job at the end of the fiscal year. Lay offs are taking a huge toll on the working class.

    College educated people that just 3 short years ago were living a nice comfortable life, are today applying for jobs in the retail market for not much more than minimum wage.

    Defending our borders, that we failed to do 25 years ago and the result is that now they are so far blurred it is impossible to stem the tide of illegal immigrants that flood the market with cheap labor. That are willing to live 9 and 10 people in a small 2 bedroom apt, house. Rent prices are so far out of touch with the economy, that even the traditionally "ghetto" neighborhoods with poor schools, high crime and drug usage are experiencing higher rent than even 1 year ago.

    Read the popular magazines, they aren't as flippantly materialistic as in the past. Every one touts how to "live cheaper" "save money" "how to get a bargain on everyday needs".

    the greatest myth ever believed....."American Middle Class"
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    "I'm gonna have a drink and walk around, I got a lot to think about, oh yeah"---Concrete Blonde

  5. #5
    Yekhefah
    Guest

    Default Re: Socialism for the 'Ricn' and 'Poor' ... but where does that leave the middle clas

    Yep, the middle class is already gone in California and is rapidly disappearing everywhere else. We'll be like Mexico - a small elite group of uber-rich who rule over an impoverished proletariat.

  6. #6
    TheSexKitten
    Guest

    Default Re: Socialism for the 'Ricn' and 'Poor' ... but where does that leave the middle clas

    Quote Originally Posted by Yekhefah View Post
    Yep, the middle class is already gone in California
    Let's not be too hasty now... give it 5 years!

    ahaha.

  7. #7
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Socialism for the 'Ricn' and 'Poor' ... but where does that leave the middle clas

    What happened to the 'trickle down'????

  8. #8
    Featured Member minnow's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,003
    Thanks
    242
    Thanked 519 Times in 315 Posts
    Blog Entries
    10
    My Mood
    Twisted

    Default Re: Socialism for the 'Ricn' and 'Poor' ... but where does that leave the middle clas

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSexKitten View Post
    Let's not be too hasty now... give it 5 years!

    ahaha.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    aha- the "5 yr. plan", that was staple of old USSR. Middle class isn't gone, but it is sure being eroded. Put another way, a transfer of wealth is taking place. Some contributing factors, besides globalism include:

    1) Widening pay gap between upper mgt & workforce- In 1980, average CEO made 40 times average worker- last few years, CEO makes 400x average worker.
    2) Shipping jobs overseas- Yes, I've heard that new wealth overseas means more potential US products bought. I don't think, that it offsets the lower tax (read US infrastructure) revenues from displaced workers likely working for less $$, not to mention where's the trickle down when products are no longer built by US workers??
    3) Huge oil price spike in last yr: Figure median household contributing an additional 1.5% of income to OPEC nations. ( $19.70 for a $20 lapdance, anyone???)
    Yep, US lower/middle class drifting towards third world lower/middle class standards. Not to thread hijack, but US may be experiencing a talent drain as certain skilled "professionals" become ex-pats. (Income up to a certain ammount is tax free, contract companies often pay foreign/local taxes as part of the deal). Losing skilled professionals to other nations isn't something that is readily replaced/recaptured.

  9. #9
    Veteran Member stripperMBA's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    554
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 159 Times in 58 Posts
    My Mood
    Bored

    Default Re: Socialism for the 'Ricn' and 'Poor' ... but where does that leave the middle clas

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard_Head View Post
    What happened to the 'trickle down'????
    Shit trickles down.
    Last edited by stripperMBA; 09-20-2008 at 03:33 PM. Reason: spelling
    "Can we read it on the Smoking Gun? "

  10. #10
    God/dess Paris's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,345
    Thanks
    168
    Thanked 801 Times in 419 Posts

    Default Re: Socialism for the 'Ricn' and 'Poor' ... but where does that leave the middle clas

    Where does this leave the middle class? Why, voting for Obama, of course.


    Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!


  11. #11
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Socialism for the 'Ricn' and 'Poor' ... but where does that leave the middle clas

    Where does this leave the middle class? Why, voting for Obama, of course.
    Undoubtedly, a large number of the remaining middle class Americans WILL vote for Obama. Certainly the remnants of big union labor will do so (i.e. auto ), as they are hoping for protectionism and gov't subsidies to the US Auto industry. Certainly a huge swath of civil service workers and gov't contractors will do so, as they are hoping that gov't spending levels that might affect their paychecks will not be cut. Certainly a large number of employees of quasi-monopoly industries will do so, from Microsoft to electric / telecom utilities to Price Waterhouse Coopers, in hopes that the US gov't will allow their de-facto monopolies to continue.

    However, most of these types of jobs are dependent on some OTHER industries / workers to actually create wealth ... wealth that is then recycled to these industries via de-facto government mandate. As anti-business gov't policies has caused OTHER industries to decline / relocate / outsource, these gov't endorsed industries have continued to flourish ... but the lost wealth creation has been replaced by the creation of additional DEBT.

    Reduced to the simplest terms, the salaries of many middle class Americans who are likely to vote for Obama are being paid for by ever increasing levels of government debt ... which Obama plans to increase even further. However, this has far reaching consequences for the US dollar, on interest rates, on the prices of imported commodities like oil etc. which I doubt can be held at bay for even a single 4 year presidential term. Thus, as is often the case, seeking short term 'gains' is likely to come at the cost of longer term 'losses'. But, as I have posted about many times, it would take until 2012 for this cause and effect relationship to 'come home to roost' in the minds of future voters.

  12. #12
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: Socialism for the 'Ricn' and 'Poor' ... but where does that leave the middle clas

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post

    Reduced to the simplest terms, the salaries of many middle class Americans who are likely to vote for Obama are being paid for by ever increasing levels of government debt ... which Obama plans to increase even further.
    Economists have determined that McCain's economic plan will increase national debt more than Obama's plan.

  13. #13
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Socialism for the 'Ricn' and 'Poor' ... but where does that leave the middle clas

    Economists have determined that McCain's economic plan will increase national debt more than Obama's plan.
    Apparently it must AGAIN be pointed out that Obama's economic projections are based on the assumption that 'rich' Americans earning more than $250k per year will simply suck it up and pay additional taxes. However, in point of fact, many 'rich' Americans are ALREADY taking tax minimization measures for their money ... with one instant example being the heavy inflows of new money into federal and state tax free municipal bonds (and mutual funds comprised of said tax free municipal bonds).

    When 'rich' Americans take such action, not only does the gov't NOT receive an increase in income tax revenue as Obama's experts have assumed, but the gov't also LOSES the former tax revenue it was receiving when that 'rich' American's money was still invested in a taxable investment vehicle !!! Obama's financial proposals make no provision for this, despite the fact that defensive tax measures are already starting to happen before Obama is actually elected and before his tax increases can be put into effect. Thus when REAL WORLD actions and reactions take place, Obama's plan will result in a far larger 'current account deficit'. But feel free to believe the theoretical bulls#!t.

  14. #14
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Socialism for the 'Ricn' and 'Poor' ... but where does that leave the middle clas

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    But feel free to believe the theoretical bulls#!t.
    Theoretical bullshit? Such as cutting taxes for the rich, deregulating markets and signing 'free' trade pacts under the guise of stimulating the economy for everybody? We all know how those GOP stalwarts worked don't we?

  15. #15
    Banned
    Joined
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Cranberry Country
    Posts
    1,202
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Socialism for the 'Ricn' and 'Poor' ... but where does that leave the middle clas

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    Apparently it must AGAIN be pointed out that Obama's economic projections are based on the assumption that 'rich' Americans earning more than $250k per year will simply suck it up and pay additional taxes. However, in point of fact, many 'rich' Americans are ALREADY taking tax minimization measures for their money ...
    So the bailout being required because of poor handing of the Bush admin, as well as the Republic congress means that everyone is going to have to pay......but, hey, as you said, the rich will move their money to switzerland/carribean, and then we'll (the middle class) will be stuck paying for it all.

    But thats ok cuz this is free-market capitalism...right?

  16. #16
    God/dess FBR's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2003
    Posts
    8,351
    Thanks
    85
    Thanked 342 Times in 244 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Mellow

    Default Re: Socialism for the 'Ricn' and 'Poor' ... but where does that leave the middle clas

    $250K a year is not rich. I get tired of being a tax target from a promoter of class envy.

    FBR
    Once again I have embraced my addiction and have put off the moral dilemma to another day.

  17. #17
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Socialism for the 'Ricn' and 'Poor' ... but where does that leave the middle clas

    Such as cutting taxes for the rich, deregulating markets and signing 'free' trade pacts
    I see you're bringing up the Clinton years again ... capital gains tax cut ... repealing the Glass-Stegall Act ... NAFTA ... but if I remember correctly wasn't Clinton a democrat ?


    So the bailout being required because of poor handing of the Bush admin
    Look, I'm no fan of GWB. But the facts are the facts. The bailout was required because, in large measure, democratic politicians from Carter to Clinton to Barney Frank & Charlie Rangel created and promoted gov't directives that banks must make mortgage loans to people who couldn't qualify for conventional mortgage loans because they can't afford to make the mortgage payments ... and then they created additional gov't directives that people who (surprise, surprise) can't afford to make the mortgage payments on the mortgage they should never have qualified for in the first place can't be foreclosed on to allow the lender ( and the lender's capital investors) to recoup some portion of the value of their bad loan.

    In 2003 GWB proposed tighter regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when the 'subprime' delinquency problem first started growing by leaps and bounds ... and democrats in congress shot it down because they wanted to continue promoting increased home ownership for minorities and the urban 'poor'. Links to all of this stuff have already been posted. You are obviously free to ignore the facts of the situation, as the mainstream media does. However, that does not change history.

    and for the record, most republicans are NOT supportive of this bailout ..



    also on this morning's talking heads shows ...

    (snip)"House Democrats plan to insist on adding protections for homeowners facing foreclosure. They also want to add a measure to help homeowners facing bankruptcy and an executive compensation restriction designed to prevent golden parachutes for the heads of troubled institutions.

    Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who was supportive of the bailout concept in a statement released Friday, believes that “whatever gets done in Congress has to protect Main Street,” senior adviser Stephanie Cutter said on MSNBC on Saturday."(snip)


    (snip)"Appearing with him, House Republican Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio retorted: “We’ve already dealt with that, when we had the housing bill last summer. I didn’t vote for it, because it’s $300 billion bailout for scam artists and speculators and others around the housing industry"(snip)

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 09-21-2008 at 06:13 PM.

  18. #18
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: Socialism for the 'Ricn' and 'Poor' ... but where does that leave the middle clas

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    Apparently it must AGAIN be pointed out that Obama's economic projections are based on the assumption that 'rich' Americans earning more than $250k per year will simply suck it up and pay additional taxes. However, in point of fact, many 'rich' Americans are ALREADY taking tax minimization measures for their money ... with one instant example being the heavy inflows of new money into federal and state tax free municipal bonds (and mutual funds comprised of said tax free municipal bonds).

    When 'rich' Americans take such action, not only does the gov't NOT receive an increase in income tax revenue as Obama's experts have assumed, but the gov't also LOSES the former tax revenue it was receiving when that 'rich' American's money was still invested in a taxable investment vehicle !!! Obama's financial proposals make no provision for this, despite the fact that defensive tax measures are already starting to happen before Obama is actually elected and before his tax increases can be put into effect. Thus when REAL WORLD actions and reactions take place, Obama's plan will result in a far larger 'current account deficit'. But feel free to believe the theoretical bulls#!t.
    I really don't think people are going to significantly change their financial strategies over a 5% increase in taxes on income over $250,000. When President Clinton passed a similar tax increase, tax revenues increased significantly.

  19. #19
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Socialism for the 'Ricn' and 'Poor' ... but where does that leave the middle clas

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    I see you're bringing up the Clinton years again ... capital gains tax cut ... repealing the Glass-Stegall Act ... NAFTA ... but if I remember correctly wasn't Clinton a democrat ?
    So you want to give credit for the strong economy during the Clinton years to the GOP majority but don't want to assign them any of the blame for any of the havoc they may have caused? Nice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    Look, I'm no fan of GWB. But the facts are the facts. The bailout was required because, in large measure, democratic politicians from Carter to Clinton to Barney Frank & Charlie Rangel created and promoted gov't directives that banks must make mortgage loans to people who couldn't qualify for conventional mortgage loans because they can't afford to make the mortgage payments ... and then they created additional gov't directives that people who (surprise, surprise) can't afford to make the mortgage payments on the mortgage they should never have qualified for in the first place can't be foreclosed on to allow the lender ( and the lender's capital investors) to recoup some portion of the value of their bad loan.
    Here's another fact, it was Phil Graham (McCain's top economic advisor) who was responsible for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (which led to the deregulation of the derivatives market) which also was a main contributor to our current mess.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    In 2003 GWB proposed tighter regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when the 'subprime' delinquency problem first started growing by leaps and bounds ... and democrats in congress shot it down because they wanted to continue promoting increased home ownership for minorities and the urban 'poor'. Links to all of this stuff have already been posted. You are obviously free to ignore the facts of the situation, as the mainstream media does. However, that does not change history.
    Wasn't there a GOP majority at that time? And a republican president?

  20. #20
    Banned
    Joined
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Cranberry Country
    Posts
    1,202
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Socialism for the 'Ricn' and 'Poor' ... but where does that leave the middle clas

    Thank you Richard,

    as you can see, hook line and sinker on the trap set-up.........like I said, I am a liveberal, but, atleast I can see over the party lines to see where one has failed and the other suceeded in policy.

    And hopefully this will clear-up some cherry-picking that has been going on for a bit....

  21. #21
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Socialism for the 'Ricn' and 'Poor' ... but where does that leave the middle clas

    I really don't think people are going to significantly change their financial strategies over a 5% increase in taxes on income over $250,000
    I would agree with you to some extent if the proposed Obama tax increase were only 5%. But if you check your calculator you'll see that 38/33 = 1.151 or a 15% increase. I would even agree with you a little bit if this were the ONLY proposed tax increase, but Obama also plans to remove the cap on SSI taxes for those earning more than $250k per year ... which will add another 12% tax increase on top of the 15% income tax increase for people like FBR who are small business owners. Trust me on this ... a de-facto 27% total tax increase WILL cause people to change their economic behavior !!!


    I am a liveberal, but, atleast I can see over the party lines to see where one has failed and the other suceeded in policy.
    well I am a libertarian, and I can also see that some members of both parties are clearly worthy of blame sharing. However when it comes to policy, I agree that Clinton's policy of increased minority / low income home ownership did indeed succeed ... as did his policy re NAFTA, China trade etc. It remains to be seen whether those policies were actually a good idea for the long term.

    I also agree that I personally wish that some of GWB's policies would have failed i.e. his new entitlement program for prescription drugs and his 'subprime' mortgage bailout. Like Clinton, GWB is guilty of 'pandering' to constituency groups ... not to mention the majority of congress who went along with these policies.


    Wasn't there a GOP majority at that time? And a republican president?
    However there were occasions where a democrat minority used their filibuster veto to stop 'good' policies from being implemented ... which was the case in regard to GWB's proposed tightening of Fannie / Freddie regulation in 2003. This never happened under Clinton or any Democrat president.
    Last edited by Melonie; 09-22-2008 at 03:21 AM.

  22. #22
    God/dess leilanicandy's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2005
    Location
    where they like American Boys
    Posts
    2,111
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default Re: Socialism for the 'Ricn' and 'Poor' ... but where does that leave the middle clas

    I think we should take in account what these people think the middle class is?

    I feel that most government officials do not consider middle class people. It is rumor they think middle class people are those who make 150,000.00 to 2.5 million a year. So why most Americans think that their 50,000.00 a year income is middle class. It is not in so many eyes. Since the middle class is such a big group that is barley middle class to upper middle class. I find it insulating to the American people. That congress do not general state, which pay class will be tax and how much and why these percentages. The middle class people could be millionaire. So I just want an a plain statement from my government to explain why would my taxes will be higher than those who make more than I. How do they see this as a fair judgment?

    Now Obama I believe dose that with the American people. Now I do not believe in all of is views as for taxes. Yet as American we have the right to say this not fair. We should be active in our local government. If the people get together and put things on paper. It some how becomes law. If their is to many people sitting at home, bar, work, on chat complaining. Yet not complaining to their local government to make changes. It will not happen! They can hear the American people if it is bombarded in writing!

    Look how many Non religious people got together to band Christmas decoration from the work places and public offices. I say we stop complaining this way and go to our local government. Or else we suffer! I don't think I should have to pay for other mistakes. Yet After what just happen, thier is no way we can escape taxes if anybody tells you other wise they just want your vote.
    Last edited by leilanicandy; 09-22-2008 at 08:48 AM.
    If you want the present to be differant from the past, study the past.
    Baruch Spindza

    It is what it is, not what you want it to become, that's important -- at least for now. Today, remember that things worth having are worth waiting for!
    The Stars

    Minds are like parachutes: They only function when open.
    Thomas Dewar

    Dont throw away the old bucket until you know whether the new one holds water.
    Swedish Proverb

  23. #23
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Socialism for the 'Ricn' and 'Poor' ... but where does that leave the middle clas

    As much as I LOVE to blame Dems and Libs for screwed up economics; as much as they deserve blame for blocking reform of Fannie & Freddie; and for changing the banking regs; let's NOT let Bush & the Reps off the hook. It was Bush who appointed two unqualified Treasury Secretaries. It was Bush who appointed Chris Cox ( former Republican Congressman) head of the SEC who did away with the "Uptick Rule" and loosened cash reserve requirements and changed the accounting guidelines. Let's be sure to also include " The Maestro" Alan Greenspan who pumped out too much easy money and Bernanke who got phobic about a correction and let the bubble continue to expand.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Joined
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Cranberry Country
    Posts
    1,202
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Socialism for the 'Ricn' and 'Poor' ... but where does that leave the middle clas

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    As much as I LOVE to blame Dems and Libs for screwed up economics; as much as they deserve blame for blocking reform of Fannie & Freddie; and for changing the banking regs; let's NOT let Bush & the Reps off the hook. It was Bush who appointed two unqualified Treasury Secretaries. It was Bush who appointed Chris Cox ( former Republican Congressman) head of the SEC who did away with the "Uptick Rule" and loosened cash reserve requirements and changed the accounting guidelines. Let's be sure to also include " The Maestro" Alan Greenspan who pumped out too much easy money and Bernanke who got phobic about a correction and let the bubble continue to expand.
    Thank you, this isn't a Dem fuck-up, or a Rep fuck-up, this is a Royal Wash. DC fuck-up.

  25. #25
    Featured Member Miss_Luscious's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Raleigh
    Posts
    988
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 36 Times in 23 Posts

    Default Re: Socialism for the 'Ricn' and 'Poor' ... but where does that leave the middle clas

    Quote Originally Posted by G-Real View Post
    Thank you, this isn't a Dem fuck-up, or a Rep fuck-up, this is a Royal Wash. DC fuck-up.
    Yep. There is PLENTY of blame to go around. Everybody had their hands in this cookie jar. At this point, we just need to get shit fixed.
    "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." - Bertrand Russell

    "It's just a matter of people having low self esteem and being way too easily offended." -Random Guy on a Internet Forum

    Quote Originally Posted by Katrine View Post
    Ya'll bitches need to calm down. Cerously.
    In other words: Boo-motherfucking-hoo

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Middle Class Game Is Up ...
    By Melonie in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-12-2010, 08:02 AM
  2. Wealthy and middle class fleeing from NY
    By Deogol in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 11-07-2009, 12:42 AM
  3. 'middle class' now pinching pennies ...
    By Melonie in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-18-2007, 06:13 AM
  4. Future of the Middle Class ...
    By Melonie in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-25-2007, 05:55 PM
  5. The shrinking middle class in the U.S.
    By PhaedrusZ in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-25-2006, 08:00 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •