nope they should have been banged flat

Post #351,179 by boxley 11/24/11 10:21:52 AM Reply	nope they should have been banged flat fdic bailouts only not selective protection of the "right rich" Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #351,183 by Another Scott 11/24/11 11:13:44 AM Reply	We tried that in the 1930s. Didn't work so well. You can't let the banking system collapse without huge consequences. Insured deposits are only a small part of the banking system these days. "Shadow banking" makes it worse - http://en.wikipedia...._financial_crisis One can't simply wash one's hands and say "tough luck". One has to address the system as it exists. Cheers, Scott.
Post #351,185 by drook 11/24/11 11:28:24 AM Reply	Analogy Joe takes a child, ties a rope around its waist, and hangs it over a cliff. Bob says, "Dude! You can't do that! Pull that kid back up." Steve says, "I've been telling you from the beginning they shouldn't be hanging kids off a cliff. Now you want to keep holding on to the rope. If you really thought it was wrong you'd untie the rope right now. You're part of the problem." -- Drew
Post #351,188 by boxley 11/24/11 11:57:39 AM Reply	banks would have collapsed system would not why does handing banks shitloads of taxpayer money help the system? Is the system better now? You want to tax the rich until they are poor, letting the banks fail would have done that and the deficit would be a whole lot smaller Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #351,190 by drook 11/24/11 12:07:41 PM Reply	Lookit all that straw If you're going to exaggerate what we want, try: "You want to throw rich people out of their 38th floor boardrooms to pop like over-ripe grapes when they hit Wall Street below." -- Drew
Post #351,192 by jake123 11/24/11 12:18:38 PM Reply	Who says that's an exaggeration?
Post #351,224 by mmoffitt 11/25/11 8:54:39 AM Reply	What he said.
Post #351,228 by boxley 11/25/11 9:45:19 AM Reply	who is exagerating when fair share is north of 70% of income Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #351,230 by Another Scott 11/25/11 9:46:22 AM Reply	You understand what "marginal rate" means, right?
Post #351,233 by boxley 11/25/11 9:49:55 AM Reply	Re: You understand what fair is right? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #351,235 by Another Scott 11/25/11 10:06:46 AM Reply	Yes. It's not fair for the rich to take ever larger proportions of national income. The tax rates on high incomes have been too low for too long. Capital gains and "carried interest" should not be taxed at lower rates than "ordinary" income - doing so invites distorted "investments" and money shufflings that are only done to reduce taxes. We have over 100 years of modern economics data that tells us that all of those "reforms" aren't good for the country, nor for the rich (because the economy grows more slowly). High GDP growth is strongly correlated with more progressive tax rates and the reverse is strongly correlated with real incomes for the majority that stagnate or fall. All of this is easy to see (review AngryBear for some of the data). Don't fall for the senseless talking points by the know-nothings on the Right. Talking points about "fairness" for those who have done very well for the last 30 years while the majority have not aren't reality. Cheers, Scott.
Post #351,236 by boxley 11/25/11 10:11:44 AM Reply	stale data set "It's not fair for the rich to take ever larger proportions of national income" the percentage has moved 5 points the other way since 2008 trying to strain to gloss over that hurts your argument Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #351,239 by Another Scott 11/25/11 10:39:55 AM Reply	Still a lot higher than the '40s-'70s historical norm. http://economistsvie...troversies-a.html From June - http://economix.blog...fitable-recovery/ In their newly released study, the Northeastern economists found that since the recovery began in June 2009 following a deep 18-month recession, Âcorporate profits captured 88 percent of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1 percentÂ of that growth. The study, ÂThe ÂJobless and Wageless RecoveryÂ From the Great Recession of 2007-2009,Â said it was ÂunprecedentedÂ for American workers to receive such a tiny share of national income growth during a recovery. According to the study, between the second quarter of 2009, when the recovery began, and the fourth quarter of 2010, national income rose by $528 billion, with $464 billion of that growth going to pretax corporate profits, while just $7 billion went to aggregate wages and salaries, after accounting for inflation. The share of income growth going to employee compensation was far lower than in the four other economic recoveries that have occurred over the last three decades, the study found. [...] ÂAggregate employment still has not increased above the trough quarter of 2009, and real hourly and weekly wages have been flat to modestly negative,Â the report concludes. ÂThe only major beneficiaries of the recovery have been corporate profits and the stock market and its shareholders.Â HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #351,240 by boxley 11/25/11 10:45:00 AM Reply	Corporate profits is not individual earnings the millionaire count is still negative Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #351,251 by Another Scott 11/25/11 2:32:58 PM Reply	"Corporations are people my friend." HTH.
Post #351,252 by boxley 11/25/11 2:37:54 PM Reply	mebbe so, never saw one shopping at walmart tho Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #351,253 by Another Scott 11/25/11 2:43:38 PM Reply	They shop at Nieman-Marcus. Attempting to get back on topic: Corporate profits don't go to much of the bottom tax brackets. They go to management and to shareholders - people who have been paying taxes that are too low. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #351,254 by boxley 11/25/11 2:51:01 PM Reply	go to management sure when I had investments in the market I never got a dime of profit as a shareholder, so what shares do you own that are receiving too much profit that I can tax? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #351,255 by Another Scott 11/25/11 2:59:17 PM Reply	You're making a nice impression of a brick wall today. Try Krugman's column today. Maybe that'll help. http://www.nytimes.c...are-the-99-9.html I think I'm done. Got chores to do... ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #351,256 by boxley 11/25/11 3:22:09 PM Reply	you brought up shareholders by and large shareholders are us Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #351,278 by drook 11/25/11 11:59:01 PM Reply	Wrong http://www2.ucsc.edu...power/wealth.html In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. When you say, "by and large shareholders are us," are you blind, stupid or mendacious? I like you, man, but that's a fucking whopper by any standard. -- Drew
Post #351,286 by crazy 11/26/11 6:51:43 AM Reply	Hey, maybe he's REALLY rich and we didn't know! Listen to a story 'bout a man named Jed
Post #351,301 by boxley 11/26/11 4:47:20 PM Reply	do you have a 101k? if you do what do you think its invested in? http://www.palmbeach...-sink-751950.html free example what drove the tech bubble back in the day? 401k money pension funds have a chunk. State and municipal folks invest heavily. Look at the Alaska perm fund, 40% is in the market. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #351,315 by drook 11/26/11 8:35:20 PM Reply	You mean 401k? Read the quote again: The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. There may be 50 times more people who have some money in stocks, but of the total dollar value of the stocks, it's mostly held by the rich. People with money on 401s don't drive investment activity. -- Drew
Post #351,325 by folkert 11/27/11 12:46:24 AM Reply	Yes it does drive... People with money on 401s don't drive investment activity. Yes they do... investment into the "401K's" managers pocket.
Post #351,376 by mmoffitt 11/28/11 10:18:48 AM Reply	Ed Zachary!
Post #351,248 by drook 11/25/11 1:08:38 PM Reply	Sure, measure from the peak Where are they compared to historical norms? More important, when's the last time the income polarization was this extreme? -- Drew
Post #351,249 by boxley 11/25/11 1:19:40 PM Reply	sure, stop measuring at the peak 1929, 1912, 1880 etc Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #351,194 by Another Scott 11/24/11 12:33:13 PM Reply	The Fed gave the banks $16T in accounting entries. http://www.dailykos....-tothe-Recipients! That "taxpayer money" isn't flooding the economy - it's on ledgers so the banks appear to be solvent. As they actually become solvent again, the Fed will drain that money back out of the banking system. http://www.federalre...anke20100325a.htm It's accounting entries. Not real money as far as the real economy is concerned because it's not circulating. Nice try with the trolling though. ;-) HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #351,225 by mmoffitt 11/25/11 8:55:35 AM Reply	Heh. "Real money" We don't have that anymore. We have bits.
Post #351,227 by Another Scott 11/25/11 9:44:43 AM Reply	Yup. Felix said that it should become even less "real" as it's too expensive to exchange coins and bits of paper now. http://blogs.reuters...reliance-on-cash/ Cheers, Scott.
Post #351,243 by mmoffitt 11/25/11 11:55:37 AM Reply	From your link, wtf? For individuals, cash clears at par: if you give me a $100 bill, then IÂm $100 richer and youÂre $100 poorer. No oneÂs going to jump in and charge a fee for facilitating the transaction. And if I then deposit the $100 bill into my checking account, once again I see the full amount appear on my statement. But the fact that most people never get charged for cash transactions is corrosive, in its own way: it helps to impede the inevitable-yet-glacial move away from cash and towards more secure, easier, and cheaper forms of payments. One at a time: more secure B.S. 1: Physical control over something - anything - is always the most secure. With cash, I have that. With a bankster's bits, I don't. Not to mention the non-trivial invasion of my privacy with respect to how I spend my money if I use anything other than cash. easier B.S. 2: Who refuses cash? What's easier than me handing over cash? cheaper B.S. 3: Cheaper for whom? There are no fees associated with my transaction if I use cash and many, many times, I get a discount for using cash. This is true for everything from AvGas to flowers for my wife. This call for the end of cash smacks of "I've got an Econ/Business degree. I can't contribute anything real to society, so I'll charge a fee for everything productive that everyone else does. You gotta let me. It's better. And besides, how am I gonna pay for my Armani if you don't?"
Post #351,244 by boxley 11/25/11 12:13:14 PM Reply	remember the movie popeye? this is what street and the democrats want to do to us http://www.youtube.c...tch?v=g0ahJPxfGp4 Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #351,377 by mmoffitt 11/28/11 10:21:40 AM Reply	I remember what Chase actually did to me.
Post #351,247 by drook 11/25/11 1:01:42 PM Reply	You paid cash for your car? You mail an envelope full of cash to pay your electric bill? Or do you walk to their office each month? -- Drew
Post #351,258 by crazy 11/25/11 3:30:34 PM 11/25/11 3:31:02 PM Reply	Yes, I did. And at one point I'd walk around the corner to the local smoke shop that also acted as a payment center for the electric company (and others) and pay cash. Edited by crazy Nov. 25, 2011, 03:31:02 PM EST Expand All History
Post #351,269 by boxley 11/25/11 6:41:36 PM Reply	thats the way po' folks do it Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #351,287 by crazy 11/26/11 7:01:19 AM Reply	Yeah, well I lived on eggs (cheapest most digestible cost effective protein) and mac and cheese (box crap) for a few years. I always PRESENTED well though, no matter what the situation. During "job training" when I was about 19, we were in a presentation on how to interview. Large crowd with a single speaker. I was in the front row. I had no experience, a poor high school education (was thrown out about 1/2 way though, but still got a diploma), no training, no nothing. I was a lost cause. Speaker: When you are in an interview situation, you need to appear relaxed and confident, like you are interviewing them, not the other way around. You do NOT need the money. You need to NEVER appear needy or desperate. You MUST sit a certain way, and look a certain way for the best possible impression. He then pointed at me, and said: Do what he is doing right now. It seems like I relax like a rich confident guy when I'm watching an lecture.
Post #351,373 by mmoffitt 11/28/11 10:14:45 AM 11/28/11 10:17:10 AM Reply	The last car I bought, I did. I pay cash for everything I possibly can. Unfortunately, thanks to the bankster class, that isn't everything anymore. The dealer said he could get me 3.0% on a loan. The Credit Union across the street said I could get 2.75% if I filled out all the PII on myself I had available and gave it to them. I told them to FO. I was not about to fill out their 10 page enrollment form at my age. Went to the dealer and said, "I've decided to just pay cash for the car. I've decided the banksters have already gotten enough of my money." The dealer said, "You're damned right they do. And they're not giving any of it back." (Edit: 2nd paragraph added) Edited by mmoffitt Nov. 28, 2011, 10:17:09 AM EST Expand All History

Welcome to IWETHEY!