Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    So, you're OK with the bankers getting bonuses made of you tax money? You're ok that the banks kept the money instead of putting it back into circulation? It is not trickling down is it?
    I dont think I said any of that. Try putting your magic hat back on the shelf.

    I don't think the banks should have been given a dime, so no I am not ok with anyone getting bonuses of taxpayer money.

    What I said was if Palandri was a banker getting the big bonuses, he would likely not be complaining about it. But because he is not getting the bonus he has a beef. That is not saying no one should be bothered by it. My original comment was specific to palandri.

    Can you super smart liberals get it now? My point was not that hard to follow, but you all seem to be either confused or possessed by the need to extrapolate my comment into something it's not.

    I am sure I could get more understanding from and have to do less explaining to the piles my dogs leave in the yard.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by jaguar717 View Post
    Forsaken, could you put an extra 5 seconds into proofreading your posts? The broken English is downright painful.

    We're not the ones suggesting a failure be bailed out. That's a straw man--the command & control types declare a bailout "necessary", and then turn around and use it as an excuse to seize further power, dictate terms of pay, etc. That's a path to Old Europe stagnation where the gov't picks the "winners" and "losers" by favor.

    We're saying get out of all of it. Gov't has no more place dictating bank pay than it does engineer pay, doctor pay, or electrician pay. If you succeed, you're rewarded. If you fail, you suffer the consequences (whether it's getting fired for being a crappy electrician, or having the shareholders can you when your company stops profiting).

    As far as the wealth argument, the fundamental thing you and the control-types seem to miss is that wealth isn't some fixed, zero-sum figure. Wealth is CREATED, and that was the whole point of the "American experiment" of individual rights and restrained government.

    Income is what's taxed, not wealth. And since we don't apply a flat tax (where your tax burden would rise proportionately with your income), it means that your tax burden accelerates faster than your income rises. If you're a blueblood politician, rates don't really matter because you've already "got yours".

    But if you actually believe in the American dream of moving up in life, the confiscatory tax rates make that much more difficult. It's basically a move toward a caste system: if you're a trust-fund senator, you keep living comfortably, and don't have to worry about more unwashed masses moving up to where you are.

    As much class-warfare rhetoric as you hear from the big government types, it's not about the rich at all. It's an attack on anyone who hopes to BECOME rich (or upper middle class if they're middle class, or middle class if they're working class, etc).
    I could care less if its painful, frankly it was the intent. Answer the question. Let me put it as simply as possible for you.

    If one (1) percent of the population of the United States of America control ninety nine (99) percent of the wealth, do (did ) they pay ninety nine (99) percent of the taxes?
    Last edited by xForsaken; 09/30/2009 at 09:58 PM.
  3. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    If one (1) percent of the population of the United States of America control ninety nine (99) percent of the wealth, do (did ) they pay ninety nine (99) percent of the taxes?
    I think the figures are a bit off in your post. Here's a quick breakdown:

    The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $66,532) earned 68.7 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.6 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $410,096) earned approximately 22.8 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 40.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid more in federal individual income taxes than the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.
    emphasis mine

    The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
  4. #24  
    Thanks groovy, thats all I wanted to know.
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    I dont think I said any of that. Try putting your magic hat back on the shelf.

    I don't think the banks should have been given a dime, so no I am not ok with anyone getting bonuses of taxpayer money.

    What I said was if Palandri was a banker getting the big bonuses, he would likely not be complaining about it. But because he is not getting the bonus he has a beef. That is not saying no one should be bothered by it. My original comment was specific to palandri.
    You were pointing out that the "electrician is jealous over the bakers wealth in a time of recession". I get that. I pointed out where that banker was getting his wealth from, the electricians taxes. In a time of recession, a company that is receiving OUR tax money to bail them out and stabilize our economy should not be giving huge bonuses to its execs. But that is what is happening and you seem perfectly fine about that. Conservatives have a term for that called "Redistribution Of Wealth". When it goes from the rich to the poor, conservatives get angry and yell "SOCIALIST!!!" When goes from the poor to the rich, conservatives see no problem with that and say, "Gee, you should stop being a stupid electrician and get a better job."

    Can you super smart liberals get it now? My point was not that hard to follow, but you all seem to be either confused or possessed by the need to extrapolate my comment into something it's not.

    I am sure I could get more understanding from and have to do less explaining to the piles my dogs leave in the yard.
    Conservatism 101: Spin Spin Spin... INSULT!
  6. #26  
    The one thing I have noticed about this thread and ones similar to it is this. The conservative view point is set to complain about the past for the most part. While they do make a few misinformed points, it still is the same arguement. Whether it is bank or auto bail outs or the upcoming health care reform, it comes down to one little arguement; No govt intervention. I still wonder, what they would be yelling about if the govt had not bailed out those estemed institutions, Might I suggset, however humbly, that it would be "why the hell didnt you do something, you knew or should have known that allowing the banks to go under and the auto industry to collapse would put us all out of work". Or something to that nature.

    Up here in the great white north, where yes Jimmy, we have uber over sight on your banks, we ended up in quite the different set of circumstances. Our banks came through the whole thing virtually unscathed. Yes they lost a little in value, as did many banks, but even our branches down in the good US of A, remained extremely viable. Why, well, a lot of reasons, the main one is they are answerable to a govt body of regulators. Up here in the great white north, share holders are tax payers, **** off the share holders, you **** off your tax payers. By allowing your banks to run amok buying up garbage, with no over sight is just plain stupid. But hey, we dont want big govt. We dont want to pay for the banks mistakes either. I would suggest, again however humbly, these bailed out institutions are or have paid back a lot of the money that was borrowed, with interest. Does this excuse giving execs bonuses, while laying off rank and file bank employees,,, HELL NO.. but again that is another story. One that I am sure, will be debated endlessly.
  7. #27  
    Complaining about the past? Like still complaining about Bush's overspending a year later as a distraction from spending 5x that much now?

    I'm pretty sure those of us fighting against the command-and-control status quo are opposed to the present takeovers and bailouts and patronage spending.

    And I'm pretty sure I've never complained about a lack of government interference. It's the seize-everything types constantly proposing to fix past government failings by grabbing more control and throwing money away even faster.

    So no, I wouldn't have had a single problem letting failed institutions fail and efficient ones buy up their assets for pennies on the dollar to make them profitable. That's Schumpeter's "creative destruction"--as opposed to what we're doing now which is cementing stagnation in place and establishing a "political class" who dictate orders and pick the winners and losers.

    Just like dying Old Europe, and every banana republic with a thug government.
  8. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    What ever happened to real conservatives who were thoughtful and pragmatic? You know ...the kind that showed respect and received it in return? Not only from the loyal opposition, but from the remainder of the civilized world?
    Not like the respect you've shown in these threads?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  9. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    The one thing I have noticed about this thread and ones similar to it is this. The conservative view point is set to complain about the past for the most part.
    And we all know that you're expert at the conservative viewpoint. Do tell us...
    While they do make a few misinformed points, it still is the same arguement. Whether it is bank or auto bail outs or the upcoming health care reform, it comes down to one little arguement; No govt intervention. I still wonder, what they would be yelling about if the govt had not bailed out those estemed institutions, Might I suggset, however humbly, that it would be "why the hell didnt you do something, you knew or should have known that allowing the banks to go under and the auto industry to collapse would put us all out of work". Or something to that nature.
    Maybe. I was busy at the time yelling for them not to bail them out. They didn't listen.
    Up here in the great white north, where yes Jimmy, we have uber over sight on your banks,
    and there's still a santa claus?
    we ended up in quite the different set of circumstances. Our banks came through the whole thing virtually unscathed. Yes they lost a little in value, as did many banks, but even our branches down in the good US of A, remained extremely viable. Why, well, a lot of reasons, the main one is they are answerable to a govt body of regulators. Up here in the great white north, share holders are tax payers, **** off the share holders, you **** off your tax payers. By allowing your banks to run amok buying up garbage, with no over sight is just plain stupid. But hey, we dont want big govt.
    This illustrates just how little you know about "our situation". It was "big government" that opened up the floodgates to bad loans in the first place. All you can see is the bankers greed. It was the government that handed them the laws and policies that allowed for the crummy trading instruments, to begin with. Good old Barney Frank
    We dont want to pay for the banks mistakes either. I would suggest, again however humbly, these bailed out institutions are or have paid back a lot of the money that was borrowed, with interest. Does this excuse giving execs bonuses, while laying off rank and file bank employees,,, HELL NO.. but again that is another story. One that I am sure, will be debated endlessly.
    Unfortunately we don't allow Canadians to tell us how to run our banks, sorry.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    This illustrates just how little you know about "our situation". It was "big government" that opened up the floodgates to bad loans in the first place. All you can see is the bankers greed. It was the government that handed them the laws and policies that allowed for the crummy trading instruments, to begin with. Good old Barney Frank
    Actually, it was deregulation, or in other words, A LACK OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION, but thanks for playing...
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions