Printable View
[QUOTE=Esten;419559]"We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share," Reagan said.[/QUOTE]I agree, and among the many "loopholes" that should be eliminated are the mortgage interest deduction "loophole", the child credit "loophole", the married vs single filers "loophole", and the earned income credit "loophole".
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Jackson; 419564]I agree, and among the many "loopholes" that should be eliminated are the mortgage interest deduction "loophole", the child credit "loophole", the married vs single filers "loophole", and the earned income credit "loophole".
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]But, the comments made by Reagan back then were about a completely different tax code, one that doesn't exist today in any way, shape or form. Liberals like to point out that, historically, tax rates have been much higher than today. But, that's like comparing today's tax system with a flat tax system in place in another country, and saying that the USA has much higher tax rates than the country with the flat tax system. It's apples and oranges.
Back when Reagan made his comments, tax shelters were quite common. The tax laws were set up to encourage them. They were eliminated with the '86 tax act. This, ultimately, led to the S & L crisis. Anyone who was in one of these tax shelters at the time can tell you how that worked. Real estate ventures that were set up to take advantage of the tax laws, without regard for profitability, suddenly lost their tax-preferred status and had to be economically profitable to make sense as an investment. As a consequence, commercial real estate like apartment buildings and shopping centers, lost half their value overnight. Poof!
Using Reagan's comments about an old tax code makes little sense. The "loopholes" that exist today are nothing compared to what existed back then. And, if Obama wanted to go that route, he had a golden opportunity. His Deficit Reduction Panel made a number of significant recommendations in these areas and Obama promptly ignored them all.
He is only interested in tax reform if it serves his class warfare rhetoric. He's never outlined what his so-called Buffett Rule means. He just wants to hide behind that rhetoric. Today, we see that Harry Reid is proposing his own Buffett-Rule, and his version already has been criticized by Buffett, who said he would not support it.
Obama's been on the campaign trail chanting "Pass this Bill" and stating that he wants an up or down vote on his supposed Jobs bill immediately. But, he can't convince his own party. So, McConnell tries to get it floored for a vote because everyone knows it won't pass, and it gets shot down by Reid. Obama has said he wants his bill passed unamended. Now, Reid's amending it. And, now Obama's saying he doesn't want a vote right away. Rather, it should be debated. More of the same from Obama. 13 months left until he's shown the door.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;419562]I heard that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times.[/QUOTE]Hey Stan,
I believe you intended to utilize this quote from WorldTravel69, not mine.
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Jackson; 419569]Hey Stan,
I believe you intended to utilize this quote from WorldTravel69, not mine.
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]Yes. My bad. Always look before you click.
As far as I can tell the world is awash with cash. Individuals and corporations have more cash sitting around than ever before.
The question is, where to put it? This will probably keep the stock market from crashing because some of it will end up there.
The only entity that cannot manage its finances are governments. Not surprising since governments are really cancers, indifferent to the health of the host and in fact, intent on killing the host.
And people like Esten/Obama want to feed this cancer.
Keith Olbermann reads the Statement Released By The Wall Street Protesters published on You Tube.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8o3peQq79Q&feature=player_embedded[/url]
Something to think about.
Copy & Paste it.
Exon
[QUOTE=Exon123; 419615]Keith Olbermann reads the Statement Released By The Wall Street Protesters published on You Tube.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8o3peQq79Q&feature=player_embedded[/url]
Something to think about.
Copy & Paste it.
Exon[/QUOTE]So are we to assume you agree with this guy?
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFZrNSa3b8g&feature=related[/url]
[QUOTE=Punter 127;419620]So are we to assume you agree with this guy?[/QUOTE]Ex is great guy and resonable fisherman BUT is a misguided liberal similar to WT69, and recently Ramiro. Guese thats why he can't go back to texas. LOL. Forgive Ex his shortcoming. He's getting old. LOL. Happy Mongering All. Toymann
Hi Toymann,
Did you take "El Jeffe" fishing with you last month?
Exon
Here are your Wall Street Occupiers:
[url]http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/eyewitness-history_595200.html[/url]
Something to think about.
As that author notes, the group has no real demands or goals. They haven't even authorized anyone or any group to speak on their behalves and, to the extent someone tries to articulate what they're protesting, they get shot down by others who say that it's not what the protests are about. These folks are reminiscent of the protest chants from the misguided youths and miscreants protesting against the G7 a few years back:
"What Do We Want?" "We're Not Going To Tell!"
"When Do We Want It?" "Now!"
Unlike the unwashed OWS protesters now calling into question whether things in the US are a bit off track, the nicely focused economic gurus at whose altars you and your ilk worshiped (and incredibly still do) were quite certain of their nostrums. They knew what they wanted. They articulated everything elegantly with self confidence that was mesmerizing.
They convinced political decision makers around the globe that unbridled financial markets would forever rise, that global wealth floating on oceans of debt was a good thing, that esoteric risk management practices had made markets safe and all would be well if they were left to master the universe as the gods they are. We know how that worked out. And if you can't quite grasp it, that's what all the fuss is about.
I see you, Jackson, Wally, Alamo, et al attack Esten as if you were all schooled macro-economists, rather than admittedly intelligent individuals (with a few well known exceptions), whose incessant navel gazing results in simplistic, demonstrably erroneous, fact-challenged, self-satisfied, self-inflated views of things.
Funny, but for a group of guys ostensibly brought together by mongering, you spend more time on intellectual onanistic activity on this site, than all the teenage boys at a small prep school in US sex prison beating their puds under their sheets.
[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 419667]Here are your Wall Street Occupiers:
[url]http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/eyewitness-history_595200.html[/url]
Something to think about.
As that author notes, the group has no real demands or goals. They haven't even authorized anyone or any group to speak on their behalves and, to the extent someone tries to articulate what they're protesting, they get shot down by others who say that it's not what the protests are about. These folks are reminiscent of the protest chants from the misguided youths and miscreants protesting against the G7 a few years back:
"What Do We Want?" "We're Not Going To Tell!"
"When Do We Want It?" "Now!"[/QUOTE]"In the US, it is about a system that privatized massive gains and then socialized huge losses; allowed bailed-out banks to resume past behavior with seemingly little regulatory and legal consequences; and is paralyzed when it comes to alleviating the suffering of victims, including millions of unemployed (too many of whom are becoming long-term unemployed, slipping into poverty, and losing access to safety nets). The result is a visible and growing gap between the haves and the have-nots in today's America."
Personally I refuse to identify with either group anymore. I don't think it was Republicans that privatized gain and socialized losses and I don't think it's Democrates that are trying to restore power to the poor. I think the whole blue v red thing is a smokescreen so we (the people) continue to blame each other for our ills while the richest 1, who could care less about party affiliations because they own them both, keep squeezing the margins until they quite literally own it all. I think soon small enterprise, like what Jax and a few others here do will eventually be nearly impossible in the US.
I think that the job market will be intentionally kept very tight for the next 5-10 years until worker attitudes shift back to a mentality more like what existed in the 30's where people would do anything for work regardless of the cost. Here's a great story from 1931 [url]http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0.9171,752972,00.html[/url] note paragraphs 1 and 4. They had to pay $1. 50 of their daily wage of $4. 00 to sleep in a bunkhouse and "Facing hunger, seeing hundreds of unemployed waiting around for their jobs, the striking workers modified their demands." As men died building the tunnel they would give the job to somebody standing there waiting. Why? Because the $2. 50 a day was the only thing keeping their families from starving.
Again I don't think this is a red v blue thing and I'm sure I'll get burned severly by the flamers but I agree with the people identifying themselves as 99%ers, something is seriously wrong with the state of our democracy.
[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz;419669]"In the US, it is about a system that privatized massive gains and then socialized huge losses; allowed bailed-out banks to resume past behavior with seemingly little regulatory and legal consequences; and is paralyzed when it comes to alleviating the suffering of victims, including millions of unemployed (too many of whom are becoming long-term unemployed, slipping into poverty, and losing access to safety nets). The result is a visible and growing gap between the haves and the have-nots in today's America."[/QUOTE]Hey Daddy:
You are entitled to your perspective that it's not a Red v. Blue thing. I disagree, but not to as great a degree as you might imagine.
A couple comments, though. First, your link doesn't work. I presume it was to something about worker conditions in the 30s. No matter. I've read enough Steinbeck to know what you're referencing. Suffice it to say that we would benefit if the pendulum swung back in that direction a bit. I don't suggest for a second that we go all the way back there. It was not a good time. But, the pendulum has swung fully the other way for quite a while.
As for starting a business by young entrepreneurs in today's regulatory climate, I can tell you that it's already illegal. I don't mean to suggest that people don't start businesses. But, I do mean to suggest that you have to break dozens of laws to get it done, including reporting requirements, insurance requirements, payroll laws, etc, etc, that are far too onerous for a start-up to understand, much less comply with. I've seen this first hand. By the time your business gets larger, you can comply with most of the regs, but then there are more and more of them that you can't navigate, have no hope of complying with, or simply don't even know about until the government shows up asking questions.
I'm not even talking about normal tax stuff. Some of the whacky environmental, federal and state reporting requirements are insane, as are all of the regulatory agencies set up to protect worker rights. I have horror stories. I'll give you just one of many. We have a former employee who sued claiming she was discriminated because of her sexual orientation. So, she filed a claim with the state governmental agency. Those geniuses then fire off a 50 question form, which you must respond to. Fully half of the questions were this variety."Identify each of your supervisors and their sexual orientation." "For each supervisor, identify each employee who works for the supervisor, name, address, telephone number, etc, and state each employee's sexual orientation." Mind you, these are questions coming from a government agency. As to each of these questions, my response was that I would be happy to poll our employees and supervisors about their sexual orientation if the government agency would indemnify us against the ensuing lawsuits. I haven't heard back yet. There are many, many, many more examples just like this. So, you're spot on when you say that start-ups have no chance, at least if anyone expects that they will comply with the laws or the amazingly stupid bureaucrats the government employs.
Finally, I absolutely agree that banks are a problem. I personally believe that the most recent crisis was started by government and their mandates via HUD that people who don't deserve a loan must get a loan. The left leaning among us think it was excessive risk taking by banks, but even they would concede that the government was at least partially at fault. Regardless of who you blame, though, the real question is, what have we done to fix this?
This is where the Red v. Blue comes in, because the short answer is, [u]absolutely nothing. [/u] Indeed, Dodd-Frank permanently institutionalizes too-big-to-fail. It is impossible for the regional and community banks to compete with the too-big-to-fail banks. The new fees levied unfairly on the latter to fix the sins of the former have rendered it impossible to compete. The regional and local banks don't have the same access to the fed funds window that the TBTF banks do, nor can they compete across international lines with "hot money" made available by the Fed. In short, we have institutionalized a few chosen TBTF banks who we'll never be able to let fail now, so we'll always have to bail them out.
The better solution would, and still would, be to break them up. Or, if you're not going to do that, then impose an increasingly high set of FDIC tariffs on them as their assets under management get larger and their business model gets riskier based on business segments. The current regulations pay lip service to this latter idea, but it's only lip service.
I make no claim that Republicans are shining knights with only the people's best interests at heart. I claim only that the ones now trying to sidle up to the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd, the Democrats and their union buddies, are the ones who brought you this mess in the first place, are the ones who had a chance to fix it, but are also the ones who took most campaign dollars from the banks last election, so they're not even trying to fix it. Look at how the Dems reformed Fannie and Freddie, which are huge Dem contributors. They've done nothing with these multi-billion losers despite repeated Republican efforts to fix the problem.
So, no, it's not all Red v. Blue. But, to the extent Dems claim to be the "people's" party, they are utterly hypocritical. Republicans may be more [i]overtly[/i] Business friendly but at least they're not hypocrites. And, to the extent Dems complain about fat cat bankers, I cringe. Democrats have done more to perpetuate them than anyone in the past 60 years.
I think we as a country need more of our last posts and less of this "For the Liberal Knuckleheads." I'm a progressive, and I've served my country, and I work really, really, hard. I think the answer to our ills lies between our positions and not in further polarizing us. I'm a big fan of Stew Beef and went to the rally last October. It's time for us to bind together and take the best ideas and move forward. Some of those ideas will be conservative and some progressive. It's this us v them mentality that continues to hurt our country.
[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz;419676]I think we as a country need more of our last posts and less of this "For the Liberal Knuckleheads."[/QUOTE]Lest you take my poor attempt at humor out of context, that post and its subject line were a direct response to Exon's post about 5 earlier titled "For you Republican Motherfuckers." That may not excuse the title completely. But, in my defense, I would submit that those who give must be willing to receive. And, for Exon, the word "Motherfucker" is something of a term of endearment. I don't think he's so thin-skinned that he'll wilt at the word "Knucklehead," although the word "Liberal" may render me persona non grata.
Also, I'm not sure I agree that we all need to start softening our views to meet in the middle, either. As a friend of mine used to say,"I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong."
But, we likely could find some common ground on banks. I'm not against them. I just think the current policies and regulations, and those of the past 20 years, cause them to be a pernicious problem. We need banks. We need lots of banks. But we don't need 5 humongous, monolithic banks. US banks have convinced the current administration that they can't compete against foreign banks unless they can grow to steroids-addled proportions, and foreign banks have convinced their home countries of the same. The country that wins will be the first to call bullsh*t.