The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You're in the minority with that opinion, hence the reason the papers are being phased out.

Uh, duh.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I do find it interesting that we're the same age, but differ so greatly on the need for newspapers. Usually it's an old/young issue, but not in this case.

I guess I'm just "old school" that way.

I don't think we differ "that greatly." I get the vast majority of my news from the internet. Even when I read the paper in the morning, I still visit the Detroit Free Press' website a few times a day as well as other news websites (the Free Press isn't really that great a paper).

Still, I like the morning ritual sometimes of getting up, grabbing the paper off the front poor and reading it while I drink my coffee and my dog snoozes on my lap.

It's nice. I'll miss it.

Also, when reading the paper, I tend to read at least parts of stories that, if they were on the internet, I would never even bother to look at or know existed. That's just a format thing really.

I really didn't think this was a controversial stance or something that need be debated.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by stevew

Just cuz it's easier to read on the toilet does not make it superior. I wonder what they'll call the "sunday paper dump" in 50 years.

All he said was that he'll miss it, not that it's superior.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Still, I like the morning ritual sometimes of getting up, grabbing the paper off the front poor and reading it while I drink my coffee and my dog snoozes on my lap.

It's nice. I'll miss it.

I get up, grab the computer off the desk, and read the the news while drinking coffee with the dog snoozing on my lap.

It's really not that different, other than avoiding the need to wash the ink off your hands when you're done reading it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Uh, duh.

I guess I'm just "old school" that way.

I don't think we differ "that greatly." I get the vast majority of my news from the internet. Even when I read the paper in the morning, I still visit the Detroit Free Press' website a few times a day as well as other news websites (the Free Press isn't really that great a paper).

Still, I like the morning ritual sometimes of getting up, grabbing the paper off the front poor and reading it while I drink my coffee and my dog snoozes on my lap.

It's nice. I'll miss it.

Also, when reading the paper, I tend to read at least parts of stories that, if they were on the internet, I would never even bother to look at or know existed. That's just a format thing really.

I really didn't think this was a controversial stance or something that need be debated.

I'm with ya, and for me it extends to magazines and books also. I sit at a desk and stare at a computer all day at work, its nice to kick it old school once in a while.

If I read a computer screen for a long time, I don't feel all that good - it's like a really mild nausea, or foginess. I also have this feeling I've been wasting my time (even if I was doing something productive). With print, it's just a more positive feeling.

So I guess, umm, flame away?

[lungs]

I always found things like a big reference book (Baseball Prospectus Annual) to be superior for reading on the shitter anyway.

Like JimGA said, I'd rather read today's news than yesterday's history.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by lungs

I always found things like a big reference book (Baseball Prospectus Annual) to be superior for reading on the shitter anyway.

Like JimGA said, I'd rather read today's news than yesterday's history.

I have the MAD Magazine Bathroom Companion on the top of my throne. Been reading that thing a few pages at a time for 2 years now. I'm about 2/3 of the way through that monster.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

JPhil--

I'm not sure about that. The answer probably lies somewhere in the middle. I know that several people commented on how the sunset was how the President could present the upper bracket tax cuts to the people without having to explain deficits in the googleplex range. And, we don't know how many GOPers said that they wanted to make the cuts permanent, knowing that it would never happen, just to get the political credit for supporting it without the political fallout of actually doing it. (i.e. what happens every day in Washington).

But, was I too general when I implied that no one in the GOP wanted the tax cuts to be permanent? I am sure of it. Nice catch.

I really just found the labyrinth of rules around the reconciliation process to be fascinating. It makes sense that filibustering was traded for strict time limits, but I had never heard that before.

[ISiddiqui]

Oh fuck:

[molson]

That's definitely CHANGE

I think when it's all said and done, the tax on the "rich" will need to be far greater the the mild one talked about here, and the "rich" will include anyone with a job.

The spending puts us halfway to socialism, we just need to finish the second half and appropriate more private property.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Oh fuck:

How can anyone believe that is even marginally acceptable? There were plenty of correct criticism about the $400b deficits but this makes that looks tiny.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Can someone more educated that me answer Bucc's question? Is there a plan to deal with a deficits that large? To my economically-uneducated mind it seems like a terrible idea.

[JPhillips]

I really don't have problem with 09-11 as that's the price we pay for having a structural deficit before the need for a stimulus. After that, though, things need to change.

edit: I'd also be curious what's driving that. My guess is that it has far less to do with new spending and much more to do with rising Medicare/Medicaid expense and a reduction in the FICA tax surplus that gets sucked into the general budget.

[AENeuman]

Good Frontline last night on all this. They argued that the Bush combo of new entitlements and lower taxes contributed most to this. which, of course, obama is also trying to do.

makes sense, how can the government create new huge entilements (prescription drugs,etc) and lower taxes and not be in serious trouble?

not sure which would be harder to do: raise taxes or end/curb entitlements. i would imagine the political power of the new and soon to be retired boomers will prevent cutting entitlements.

Favorite line from last night came from Judd Gregg Ranking Member, Senate Budget Committee (R-N.H.):

We are facing a financial catastrophe of inordinate proportions, because we have on the books obligations which exceed the net worth of the American public. In other words, there is $66 trillion of debt out there, and we don't know how we're going to pay for it. ... The net worth of the United States is $44 trillion, so ... we're essentially bankrupt as a country even though we don't admit to it.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...emes/debt.html

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dutch

If you are tired of seeing rich people get all the breaks, work hard, make the right choices, and be rich yourself. But I'll bet once you achieve that goal, you'll might possibly be a little older, you might possibly have a family you are trying to support, and you might possibly being getting to retire pretty soon. Wouldn't it suck if you finally get there and realize that tax breaks have leveled the playing field and some snot nosed 21 year old liberal is making about the same as you?

All the usual Dutch crap aside, anyone with numbers on what percentage of wealth is inherited? Also, on what percentage of the previous generation's top 2, 5, or 10 percent has kids who are also in the next generation's top 2/5/10? I'd suggest there's a really strong correlation between where you start out and where you end up.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I really don't have problem with 09-11 as that's the price we pay for having a structural deficit before the need for a stimulus. After that, though, things need to change.

edit: I'd also be curious what's driving that. My guess is that it has far less to do with new spending and much more to do with rising Medicare/Medicaid expense and a reduction in the FICA tax surplus that gets sucked into the general budget.

Agreed- until something gets done with health care, that bar is going to keep going up. And by "something gets done"- I'm not saying the government gets out of the health care business, they strip it back to bare bones, or completely take it over- but that's where those bars come from.

SI

[Galaxy]

Europe certainly is interesting:

EU president: U.S. economic plan a 'way to hell' - CNN.com
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...ank-of-england

[ISiddiqui]

But that really is insane debt there. I can understand that in the long run we need to do something about health care, especially with the boomers coming of age. I'm not sure if this is the absolute best time for that. Bush already fucked things up and we see that in a craptastic economy and $400 billion in debt. I can accept more debt to get us out, but THAT much? And fixing health care and all the other stuff at the same time... whoa, whoa, whoa...

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Can someone more educated that me answer Bucc's question? Is there a plan to deal with a deficits that large? To my economically-uneducated mind it seems like a terrible idea.

Problem is, nearly half of Americans pay no income tax once credits and deductions kick in. In fact, they could even get more money back than they paid into the system the previous tax year. We have a income system in which half of the country pays to take care of the other half (and give them some money back on top of it).

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

But that really is insane debt there. I can understand that in the long run we need to do something about health care, especially with the boomers coming of age. I'm not sure if this is the absolute best time for that. Bush already fucked things up and we see that in a craptastic economy and $400 billion in debt. I can accept more debt to get us out, but THAT much? And fixing health care and all the other stuff at the same time... whoa, whoa, whoa...

No, I mean that's my point - I don't have a solution about how to fix it but realistically, that growth from 2012 thru 2020 is almost exclusively the growth of health care costs in the government (medicare/medicaid). Basically, if we have the same plans and policies as are in place now, that's what the government will owe.

SI

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

But that really is insane debt there. I can understand that in the long run we need to do something about health care, especially with the boomers coming of age. I'm not sure if this is the absolute best time for that. Bush already fucked things up and we see that in a craptastic economy and $400 billion in debt. I can accept more debt to get us out, but THAT much? And fixing health care and all the other stuff at the same time... whoa, whoa, whoa...

Health care scacres me for a few reasons:

1) A huge aging baby boomer population, which is huge, that will be going on Medicare and state health care plans in which the costs for senior citizens will be out-of-this-world. A smaller, less wealthy working generation that will have to cover these costs.

2) I keep hearing about spending x dollars on health care. What I don't I hear is any changes to keep costs down. What about malpractice protection (which should lower the insurance costs for doctors)? What about cost-to-benefit management (should patients, such as those on Medicaid and such, be allowed to demand and want all the lastest, most expensive treatments if other alternatives exist? Also should we extend the life of an elderly person if it will give them an extra six months or so at the cost it would require?).

3) What about illegal immigrants?

I don't think you can truly "fix" health care costs unless we get realistic about the costs that are involved.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Problem is, nearly half of Americans pay no income tax once credits and deductions kick in. In fact, they could even get more money back than they paid into the system the previous tax year. We have a income system in which half of the country pays to take care of the other half (and give them some money back on top of it).

B.S.

The "half of Americans pay no income tax" fraud | Jay Bookman | ajc.com

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

No, I mean that's my point - I don't have a solution about how to fix it but realistically, that growth from 2012 thru 2020 is almost exclusively the growth of health care costs in the government (medicare/medicaid). Basically, if we have the same plans and policies as are in place now, that's what the government will owe.

SI

It's not solely health care though (though it accounts for quite a bit). There is also a tackling of energy policy, education policy, etc and various other spending (recall that the 2010 budget is about 10% more than 2009 budget and doesn't include the health care reform bill coming later this year).

The other thing is that the CBO's running of the numbers conflict with the WH's (no surprise) and show that after the huge bump of the stimulus year, the debt will grow year after year after year, even though we've been hearing different from the WH.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

2) I keep hearing about spending x dollars on health care. What I don't I hear is any changes to keep costs down. What about malpractice protection (which should lower the insurance costs for doctors)? What about cost-to-benefit management (should patients, such as those on Medicaid and such, be allowed to demand and want all the lastest, most expensive treatments if other alternatives exist? Also should we extend the life of an elderly person if it will give them an extra six months or so at the cost it would require?).

3) What about illegal immigrants?

These two things are huge. Cost-to-benefit management particularly. Why are we giving organ transplants to 75 year old people? Really? Let them kick off.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Problem is, nearly half of Americans pay no income tax once credits and deductions kick in. In fact, they could even get more money back than they paid into the system the previous tax year. We have a income system in which half of the country pays to take care of the other half (and give them some money back on top of it).

I assume you are referencing the Tax Foundation's report to get your data. That was a projection made last fall based on the proposed tax plans at that time from Obama and McCain. The true number is nowhere near half. From 1980 to 2000, the range has been between 18% and 25%, with a spike over the last 8 years to around 33%. Plus there has been quite a bit of disagreement over how the Tax Foundation arrived at their numbers.

The only way someone can get back more than they put in is if they qualify for Earned Income Tax Credit or claim the Child Tax Credit.

The Tax Foundation - Both Candidates' Tax Plans Will Reduce Millions of Taxpayers' Liability to Zero (or Less)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

A pretty scathing critique of the AIG boss and the government's overreaction regarding return of the money.

Op-Ed Contributor - Dear A.I.G., I Quit! - NYTimes.com

Dear A.I.G., I Quit!
Peter Ahlberg
March 24, 2009

The following is a letter sent on Tuesday by Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of the American International Group’s financial products unit, to Edward M. Liddy, the chief executive of A.I.G.

DEAR Mr. Liddy,

It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:

I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

You and I have never met or spoken to each other, so I’d like to tell you about myself. I was raised by schoolteachers working multiple jobs in a world of closing steel mills. My hard work earned me acceptance to M.I.T., and the institute’s generous financial aid enabled me to attend. I had fulfilled my American dream.

I started at this company in 1998 as an equity trader, became the head of equity and commodity trading and, a couple of years before A.I.G.’s meltdown last September, was named the head of business development for commodities. Over this period the equity and commodity units were consistently profitable — in most years generating net profits of well over $100 million. Most recently, during the dismantling of A.I.G.-F.P., I was an integral player in the pending sale of its well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. As you know, business unit sales like this are crucial to A.I.G.’s effort to repay the American taxpayer.

The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.

I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.

But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.

My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That’s probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would “live up to its commitment” to honor the contract guarantees.

That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts “distasteful.”

That may also be why you authorized the balance of the payments on March 13.

At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.

I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It’s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.

You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.

As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.

Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.

The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.

So what am I to do? There’s no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn’t disagree.

That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.’s or the federal government’s budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.

On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients.

This choice is right for me. I wish others at A.I.G.-F.P. luck finding peace with their difficult decision, and only hope their judgment is not clouded by fear.

Mr. Liddy, I wish you success in your commitment to return the money extended by the American government, and luck with the continued unwinding of the company’s diverse businesses — especially those remaining credit default swaps. I’ll continue over the short term to help make sure no balls are dropped, but after what’s happened this past week I can’t remain much longer — there is too much bad blood. I’m not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I’ll leave under my own power and will not need to be “shoved out the door.”

Sincerely,

Jake DeSantis

[cartman]

I think the eventual problem isn't going to be our ability to repay the debt, it will be the inability of finding enough free capital worldwide to buy the government's debt.

It would be like Bill Gates asking you for a loan. You know he's good for it, but you just simply don't have the cash available to loan him the money.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

A pretty scathing critique of the AIG boss and the government's overreaction regarding return of the money.

Op-Ed Contributor - Dear A.I.G., I Quit! - NYTimes.com

Wow so he donated 742k, he must be /so/ hurting...I hope he doesn't wind up in a tent city.

[ISiddiqui]

It's a question of fairness. I'd rather he get his $742k and still be there to fix the mess he didn't create than it be given back to the government.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

Wow so he donated 742k, he must be /so/ hurting...I hope he doesn't wind up in a tent city.

***whoosh***

That was the sound of the author's point going right over your head.

[gstelmack]

Assuming he is correct in not having been involved in all the shennanigans. At $170billion and growing, I don't see how a handful of people could have been responsible.

However, I do agree with him that some folks are getting off scot-free. How you can threaten the global economy and not end up in jail is beyond me.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Let's try a quiz.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The biggest misconception we are getting is that people that have high salaries have always had high salaries. What about people that started off poor, busted their ass, worked their way up, and then are finally making good money at age 45 or 50?

Frankly, I think the biggest misconception is that anyone's talking about changing tax rates to the point that someone grossing, say, $500,000+ will be taxed to the point that they net the same as someone grossing, say, $25,000.

As I posted in the "Recession" thread:

I'm OK with everyone from my tax bracket and up having an overall "income" tax burden (including state & local taxes, and FICA, but not things like capital gains) of 50%.

Now, seventy percent? Probably not. If government services were provided as I saw them in Denmark, Sweden and Norway then sure, but the government still wastes too much of my money for me to go that far.

Which is the other part of the bargain. I'll pay 50% if the government will try to waste less. But since I live a comfortable life and live in a comfortable tax bracket, I'm willing to take the first step.

Besides, as a citizen of Cook County, Illinois, the Federal Government wasting my money is the least of my worries. I'll get around to them eventually, but I've got other fish to fry.

In 10 years I've gone from a net income of 0 to a net income of, well, considerably more than 0. In all that time I can assure you that my ambition was never tempered by the thought that the government would keep taking more of my money as I succeeded in life.

Now, if the tax rate for people making over, say, $200,000/year was 75% or more, I think you might have a point. I think this is one of those talking points that really doesn't have a lot of bases in reality, aside from the fact that everyone likes to bitch about taxes, especially the "rich".

[albionmoonlight]

One of the problems is that we lack the courage/will/sense/whatever to really do the hard things. A more pure capitalism would let big banks fail, no matter what other sectors of the economy they took down. A more pure capitalism would let people die on the street if they could not afford medical care at the going rate.

We don't do that. We bailout certain companies and we have things like Medicare and laws saying that emergency rooms cannot turn people away.

Reasonable people can disagree over whether this is good policy or not. But, we have to acknowledge that it IS the policy right now. Which, as I see it, leaves us with two choices. Either change the policy in an open and public way. Or, acknowledge that the taxpayer is providing these safety nets on the back end and try to keep costs down on the front end (i.e. by more regulations on companies that are "too big to fail" and by more government involvement on preventative care and things like that.)

Right now, we have the worst of all worlds. The out-of-control spending of government run systems without the benefits of them.

[Neon_Chaos]

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

One of the problems is that we lack the courage/will/sense/whatever to really do the hard things. A more pure capitalism would let big banks fail, no matter what other sectors of the economy they took down. A more pure capitalism would let people die on the street if they could not afford medical care at the going rate.

We don't do that. We bailout certain companies and we have things like Medicare and laws saying that emergency rooms cannot turn people away.

I don't think that we as a country choose not to have our sick die on the streets to be a "lack of courage". Nor do I think saving our financial system from catastrophic failure to be "lacking sense". We don't do these things because we lack anything, we do them because they are what we want from our government.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't think that we as a country choose not to have our sick die on the streets to be a "lack of courage". Nor do I think saving our financial system from catastrophic failure to be "lacking sense". We don't do these things because we lack anything, we do them because they are what we want from our government.

I agree with you, actually. But I was trying to present the issue as evenhandedly as possible.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Problem is, nearly half of Americans pay no income tax once credits and deductions kick in. In fact, they could even get more money back than they paid into the system the previous tax year. We have a income system in which half of the country pays to take care of the other half (and give them some money back on top of it).

Many of the wealthy in this country realize that when lower income Americans have a few extra bucks in their pockets, they'll potentially buy their products and services. The head of Starbucks doesn't make his money off billionaires, he makes them off of regular people who may get those credits and deductions. If they have an extra $500 a year in their pocket, maybe they buy an extra cup of coffee every week from.

When the middle class in our country is strong, so is our economy. Our middle class has slowly been eroding away and seeing stresses on them that they've never had before.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by cartman

The only way someone can get back more than they put in is if they qualify for Earned Income Tax Credit or claim the Child Tax Credit.

The Tax Foundation - Both Candidates' Tax Plans Will Reduce Millions of Taxpayers' Liability to Zero (or Less)

And the EITC was designed to refund a portion of FICA taxes that were raised during the Reagan years. It's been expanded since, but the intent was a refund for taxes paid, just taxes with a different name.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Many of the wealthy in this country realize that when lower income Americans have a few extra bucks in their pockets, they'll potentially buy their products and services.

Only if you're selling cheap shit or staples (i.e. milk, Twinkies, Doritos, etc)
Or cigarettes & booze.

Otherwise, taxing me to hand cash to the bottom feeders is nothing more than theft at gunpoint that I get jack shit out of.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Only if you're selling cheap shit or staples (i.e. milk, Twinkies, Doritos, etc)
Or cigarettes & booze.

Otherwise, taxing me to hand cash to the bottom feeders is nothing more than theft at gunpoint that I get jack shit out of.

You need to go find that island you were talking about.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lungs

You need to go find that island you were talking about.

Or take one last stand to try to take this country back from the thieves.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Or take one last stand to try to take this country back from the thieves.

Nah, it's over.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Logan

My biggest problem is the standard, if you will, that a household making over $250K is a wealthy one. I don't care what that means in other parts of the country, but where I live that sort of income doesn't equate to high society. The fact that there's no distinctions for higher cost of living, housing prices, etc is mind-boggling to me.

I agree with this sentiment and wonder if it couldnt be done by zip code etc.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

***whoosh***

That was the sound of the author's point going right over your head.

You sure it wasn't a bowling bowl

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by lungs

And the same morons that are absolutely horrified that we'd invest money on our country are more than happy to invest money in killing Arabs.

We're not investing sh*t. Anyone who buys that rhetoric might as well drink the Koolaide right now. Anything the government takes over will ultimately be run in a less efficient way and will cost more than when it was privatized/decentralized.

[Flasch186]

because privatization wherein the corporation is to look out for the public well being has been awesome so far, Hang on, "Hey Honey, where'd that Peanut butter come from!?"

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

Now, that is funny.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

because privatization wherein the corporation is to look out for the public well being has been awesome so far, Hang on, "Hey Honey, where'd that Peanut butter come from!?"

Where there is a profit INCENTIVE and COMPETITION for that profit, there is innovation and striving for excellence...or does that idea only apply to EA products?

[Flasch186]

ROFLMAO!! good one.

AFAI been able to tell, corporations care about the bottom line 'usually' and very little about the 'common' good. This is truly borne fruit as of late. Could it be pendulous? Sure, but as of now I wouldnt trust most public companies and a few private companies with my life.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

We're not investing sh*t. Anyone who buys that rhetoric might as well drink the Koolaide right now. Anything the government takes over will ultimately be run in a less efficient way and will cost more than when it was privatized/decentralized.

English history doesn't always show that to be the case at all, off the top of my head ..

British Petrolium (BP) for instance was a huge profitable enterprise. This company is still successful now its been privatised.

British Leyland was a successful and profitable nationalised car manufacturer in England, which was then largely bankrupted in the private sector (as the "Rover Group" - the remaining surviving brands are Jaguar and Land Rover now owned by an Indian company).

British Telecom (BT) was a hugely profitable enterprize and helped ensure that Englands telecommunications setup was very modern and even post-privatisation the effective monopology BT have has helped ensure that broadband penetration etc. within England has been very widespread and efficient.

Johnson Matthey this was a near bankrupt private company which was purchased by the UK goverment for the nominal sum of £1 and turned into a profitable enterprise once again (its main 'plant' is in the town I used to live in in England weirdly enough).

I realise there is considerable negativity towards nationalisation of any companies within America, but it doesn't always mean things will be run badly or inefficiently and indeed many types of companies lend themselves to a national monopoly which is best undertaken outside of the private sector imho (otherwise you end up with 'artificial competition' such as the situation in England post privatisation of BT where BT is forced to let its telephone lines to other companies cheaply enough that they can use them and be profitable, but everyone relies upon the same infrastructure).

The advantage of nationalisation as I see it is that companies then don't chase the short-term profit at the risk to the long term stability of the company. This is vital especially in areas of infrastructure such as banking, power, etc. where company bankruptcies could seriously affect other aspects of society.

(and as has been shown during the current debacle if such companies are run privately then there needs to be strict regulation and supervision of them to ensure that their risk taking isn't excessive ...)