Bush tax cuts extended for two years.

[lunarus]

You know I really get a kick out of these idiots and yes I mean these idiots that say giving a tax break to the upper 2% of Americans will create all these jobs and stimulate our economy.

Okay smarty pants why hasn't it worked since they were first instituted? Have I missed the millions of jobs that are desperately trying to find people to fill them? Were is this government getting the money?

I am going to laugh my ass off when all these rich assholes loose everything because our economy and government fail and they are left with nothing! You can then see how the rest of us have to survive.

And no if I saw you on fire on the street I wouldn't piss on you to put you out. You only function on greed and how much you have. Use you money to put yourself out.

This is not an issue of envy, this is an issue of fairness. This country is built on the back of the lower middle class that does not exist anymore. If there were more ultra rich investing in start ups or trying to do something other than making themselves richer I might see things differently. But all they do is lobby to make sure they don't have to pay shit back to the country that helped them get where they are.

But hey what the hell do I know.

Just watching my cost of living rising WAY out of reach, my pay dwindling to nothing, and ass hats in DC that are to damn rich themselves to see the rest of us 98% peons.

Hope your bank account keeps ya warm...

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

How many rich people live there?

In my house? Two.

 

[Kulindahr]

Funny how generous you are giving money to the public, but let me guess opposed to "Cash For Clunkers" a tax payment directly to Joe Q. Public.

Cash for Clunkers was a feel-good trick, little more.

They've only gotten worse since your side won.

The argument that it takes a while to stop a train and turn it around, or that an avalanche has to be allowed to come to rest before you can clean it up, has some merit here.

It drives you to that doesn't it? It's as Thomas Friedman says in his Op/Ed "From WikiChina"

Fair Use Excerpt:

We have a joke in the embassy: “When someone calls you from China today it sounds like they are next door. And when someone calls you from next door in America, it sounds like they are calling from China!” Those of us who worked in China’s embassy in Zambia often note that Africa’s cellphone service was better than America’s.

But the Americans are oblivious. They travel abroad so rarely that they don’t see how far they are falling behind. Which is why we at the embassy find it funny that Americans are now fighting over how “exceptional” they are. Once again, we are not making this up. On the front page of The Washington Post on Monday there was an article noting that Republicans Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee are denouncing Obama for denying “American exceptionalism.” The Americans have replaced working to be exceptional with talking about how exceptional they still are. They don’t seem to understand that you can’t declare yourself “exceptional,” only others can bestow that adjective upon you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/opinion/01friedman.html?ref=thomaslfriedman

A big part of the reasons for this is that our infrastructure has gone to hell. Municipalities looking for companies to build branches in their communities have learned that you give them good highways or they hit the highway. And America has a lot of highway per capita -- which means this is no time to be slashing revenues.

"Exceptional"? In Palin and Huckabee's case, they believe the U.S. is exceptional because God said so -- and they've read the sermons. Wish they'd read the parts about not being puffed up, pride coming before a fall, etc.

 

[SuperPsyze]

Here's the general sentiment I'm hearing about this.

"Yay, everything is staying the same. Maybe things will be different now!!"

And by the way, the republicans just gave Oprah an $11 million tax cut next year. Now how many jobs will this money create?

I don't know, but I can tell you that about 200 people are gonna find a brand new Prius under their seats! Now that's trickle down...

 

[Kulindahr]

NineofCLubs, that idea has been pretty thoroughly discredited.

Tax cuts for the rich do increase the economy to a modest level, but not enough to make up for the slack. It's not cost-effective. (It never really did make common sense, in the first place.)

I can give you a creditable cite, if you want. I hate to see a guy as nice as you are, who still believes that Voodoo.

I don't think we're on the part of the curve where tax cuts for the rich do anything measurable for the economy. We're definitely nowhere near the point where they spur more revenue than was surrendered.

Kulindahr, gridlock is a good thing. Or would you rather have one party rule? When power changes hands, and the opposite side has power, many will be glad when there is gridlock.

So you were wrong before when you said the Democrats are "in control" of D.C.

I'd rather see the form of gridlock that comes from having multiple parties in Congress -- seven would be nice, and we'd see that many if just California went proportional in their House delegation.

 

[Kulindahr]

If there were more ultra rich investing in start ups or trying to do something other than making themselves richer I might see things differently.

Doing start-ups would be a way of trying to make themselves richer.

^Kulindahr, I agree with most of that except the CashForClunkers comment.

The thing to remember about that program is that it funneled money into the BigThree at a most critical time. It probably saved one of more of them from going under.

Pretty lousy way to do it, giving people who were already planning to buy new cars the money to do it, taking fuel-efficient cars off the road to be replaced by slightly more fuel-efficient ones, and doing nothing at all about the actual clunkers out there -- oh, and destroying the nice modern cars that got replaced, so they wouldn't be available to take the place of really old cars.

Maybe it helped the Big Three. But its other main effect was to raise the carbon load.

I don't know, but I can tell you that about 200 people are gonna find a brand new Prius under their seats! Now that's trickle down...

Is that what Oprah said she's going to do with her windfall?

Maybe I should write and apply for a grant......

 

[Kulindahr]

The irony is that hyperinflation hits the moneyed classes the hardest, which is another kind of "tax" that they were trying to duck out of in the first place.

Actually it hits the hardest on people with fixed incomes, because they have no margin to work with.

 

[Lostlover]

Canada's banks are at a 1 to 18 or 19 ratio for deposit dollar to loaned dollar. And they were the only western country to be spared from the banking crisis.

I think you have it mixed up. The bank must keep 1/10 of customers' money in the vault at any moment. Maybe that's where you're getting that 1 to 10 number.

I'm on my phone now. Will try to back it up later when I can get on a PC.

There's some truth in that. But more, they're sitting on money as an over-reaction to what we just went through.

"Marxists" in power? Not even close.



I'd say you've argued against yourself: if a dollar in the bank means twenty-five to loan, then a billion in the banks would mean twenty-five billion to loan -- which means money sitting in the bank is a good thing.
BTW, someone associated with the Fed recently said that ratio should 1:10, not 1:25, because the bans wouldn't have been in such trouble if they'd had that bigger cushion -- not sure I understand that, if it's a required reserve, but... whatever.



What jobs are going to be opening up? The wealthy don't create jobs -- they haven't since manufacturing ceased to be the investment of choice. Now, they create financial instruments... the same genus of critter that led to this mess.

Want to give the lower portion of the economic ladder some hope? Forget the tax cut for the rich; in fact increase it to the Gipper's level -- and sock the new revenues into infrastructure. People here got hope when a stretch of US 101 that has been worse to drive on than a raw-rock logging road was not merely resurfaced, but torn up down to the foundations and build up to modern standards -- so those motor homes and freight trucks won't be shaking it to pieces. Shoddy infrastructure contributes a lot to general public malaise; fixing it will help, both by lifting spirits because we're not driving on crap any more, and providing jobs -- and training, too; the amount of highway work getting done around here meant that contractors had to hire extra people, and train them.

As for unemployment... if we drop out of the 9%-10% range within five years, I'll be amazed.

 

[Supersix]

So you were wrong before when you said the Democrats are "in control" of D.C.

.

You're splitting hairs. They have the votes, just not the dedication, to do whatever they want. The minority party, which has members who cross the aisle all the time, can only attempt to stop this or that. The fact that there is debate and gridlock is by design, as I have said earlier, to try and prevent one party rule. If the majority party were to stick together, they could pass anything.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think what would happen is that the "giver", i.e. the government, would index that fixed income, Kulindahr. The recipients would receive $1 one week, then $190 the next, and so on, and people'd spend the money right then. (I know this because an old coworker was in China after the war, and experienced this kind of hyperinflation.)

There are a lot of other kinds of income that come in fixed amounts, that don't get indexed -- my disability went a decade without any adjustment at all, and I know people on various retirement plans that pay out the same amount every month, with no adjustments ever.

By contrast, the money'd classes would have no one to index that hyperinflated $$. This is what happened in post-War Hungary, when the moneyed classes were utterly wiped out.

In the end, what you'd see is a devaluation of the $$, which would be worse than a nuclear attack for the finances of countries like China.

I understand that end of it. But it doesn't negate the fact that inflation is a stealth tax on the poor.

Say, Kulin: do you think there are politicians who're trying to hyperinflate the $$ on purpose?

At the behest of the bankers, almost certainly so. Whether they know what they're doing is another matter.

 

[Kulindahr]

You're splitting hairs. They have the votes, just not the dedication, to do whatever they want. The minority party, which has members who cross the aisle all the time, can only attempt to stop this or that. The fact that there is debate and gridlock is by design, as I have said earlier, to try and prevent one party rule. If the majority party were to stick together, they could pass anything.

No. If they're "in control", then there won't be any gridlock. The reason they're not in control is that they don't quite have that magical three-fifths required for actual control. So the shit-for-patriotism boneheads led by Mr. "I hate free speech" McCain can bring anything to a halt.

Though I still think that if the Democrats in the Senate had a leader, the Replutocrats would a a tough time of it.

 

[MoltenRock III]

No. If they're "in control", then there won't be any gridlock. The reason they're not in control is that they don't quite have that magical three-fifths required for actual control. So the shit-for-patriotism boneheads led by Mr. "I hate free speech" McCain can bring anything to a halt.

Though I still think that if the Democrats in the Senate had a leader, the Replutocrats would a a tough time of it.

Agreed! Nancy Pelosi has gotten all the bills thru her side. Wilted lettuce Harry Reid has been ineffectual at best. He's like kitty barf. He's old, disgusting, and stains the carpet.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

Yeah, sadly, I wanted Harry Reid gone.

 

[JB3]

Bad compromise. They should have left the upper level taxes go back up and renewed the middle class cuts, but only for two years. If we weren't still suffering economically, I would say fuck it and let them all expire. We can't afford any of them anyways.

 

[hotatlboi]

Bad compromise. They should have left the upper level taxes go back up and renewed the middle class cuts, but only for two years. If we weren't still suffering economically, I would say fuck it and let them all expire. We can't afford any of them anyways.

I completely agree.

 

[Kulindahr]

Wilted lettuce Harry Reid has been ineffectual at best. He's like kitty barf. He's old, disgusting, and stains the carpet.

That's priceless!

I likely wouldn't have liked a huge amount of what would have gotten through if Reid had a backbone -- but it's indisputable that he lacks one.

I used to think Pelosi lacked one. Maybe she stole his.





Really, I don't think she has much of one, anyway, or she would have gotten a bill through the House leaving the lower brackets alone, and racking up the others to at least Regan levels, and the top to Korean War levels.

That would have been what one calls a "bargaining position".

And if she had good sense, it would have included an increase in the individual exemption to $10k immediately, to be increased steadily (I'd like one of $25k, but $10k would be a huge step in the right direction).

 

[Kulindahr]

I agree, JB3.

It's a simple question of math.

Johan, this is CONGRESS we're talking about.....

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

So, stealing money from the rich, to give to the poor slobs who don't contribute a whit to society, and who will spend it on rent, Pepsi and Cheetos...

That will solve society's ills.

Thank you, amateur economist.

That's such a simplistic and selfish way to view our society in such a distorted way! If the rich accumulate more money, then less money can be made by the other 99% of the population.



Maybe people do foolish things out of depression because most people are desperate trying to survive and they get fucked up in the head after being miserable. People still have happy moments and good days don't get me wrong, but the majority of the public isn't as happy as it COULD be. It's not impossible... Because things that people thought would never change.... DID change. EVERYTHING bad changes in time. The worst and bigger things change over a longer span of years... right in front of our eyes yet we don't see it.

There is not enough money in the world to meet the needs of people even thought there is more then enough shelter, food, water, technology, entertainment, and clothes to benefit society by large. Money is not an unlimited source, because it's backed up by by a piece of shiny metal that people become drawn to like a mental illness. They are imagining in their heads that these RARE (RED FLAG) metals and jewels should determine the effect on peoples' lives. And it causes global devastation so 1% can have a sense of power and control. Because private industries try to make a profit, all our needs are so expensive. And because all the money has a limit in the world, we can't distribute the over-abundance of resources to society. It's a faulty system.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's such a simplistic and selfish way to view our society in such a distorted way! If the rich accumulate more money, then less money can be made by the other 99% of the population.

That would be true only if the rich stuffed the money in their closets. What they do instead is invest in "financial instruments" which are actually investments in items that have to do with exchanging money for real things (e.g. mortgages). All that money theoretically is sitting in places where it can be loaned, and thus do 'work', including paying wages. At root, it all rests on manufacturing and other basics -- and would benefit the national economy more if used there directly.

That latter is what people are really referring to when they say the rich will invest the money and it will produce jobs. The problem is that that is a rare phenomenon any more.

There is not enough money in the world to meet the needs of people even thought there is more then enough shelter, food, water, technology, entertainment, and clothes to benefit society by large. Money is not an unlimited source, because it's backed up by by a piece of shiny metal that people become drawn to like a mental illness. They are imagining in their heads that these RARE (RED FLAG) metals and jewels should determine the effect on peoples' lives. And it causes global devastation so 1% can have a sense of power and control. Because private industries try to make a profit, all our needs are so expensive. And because all the money has a limit in the world, we can't distribute the over-abundance of resources to society. It's a faulty system.

Money isn't based on gold, silver, platinum, iridium, nickel, cobalt, tungsten, uranium... or diamonds, rubies, sapphires, emeralds, peridot... or anything else. It's based on the myth that it has value, and a tacit agreement by everyone to treat it that way.

Personally, I like the idea of it being backed by land on the Moon -- that might encourage us to get there.

BTW, if private industries didn't try to make a profit, there would be no industries.

Once again to money: you don't understand it at all. Money is data, which flows through the economy in ways that communicate what people want and value. That data flow can be distorted, especially by games that make money merely off the change in value of things or -- worse -- the flow of money itself. And so far, no better system for communicating the wants and desires of people has been invented.
That's not to say one won't be. Money is, after all, a type of voting; the internet now provides a method at least as fast as money to provide feedback, so it's possible to at least conceive of something new. The hitch is that people aren't going to do hard work to make things, and get no reward. Try it, and money will get reinvented anyway.
The solution might lie in replacing money with another measure of status -- the other thing money has become. But we need a societal phase change first, a way to provide the basics to everyone without forcing people to work without reward. There's an interesting proposal for that in a book called Voyage from Yesteryear, which is also a good story.

 

[Stardreamer]

That would be true only if the rich stuffed the money in their closets. What they do instead is invest in "financial instruments" which are actually investments in items that have to do with exchanging money for real things (e.g. mortgages). All that money theoretically is sitting in places where it can be loaned, and thus do 'work', including paying wages. At root, it all rests on manufacturing and other basics -- and would benefit the national economy more if used there directly.

That latter is what people are really referring to when they say the rich will invest the money and it will produce jobs. The problem is that that is a rare phenomenon any more.

Which is why I wonder if the best method government and financial leaders could apply to address the inadequacies in the economy is to change the economic landscape to make investments in the 'instruments' less desirable over investing in manufacturing and actual production. Wealth redistribution through taxation does not seem to be the best method.