Here:
The financial world was fixated on Capitol Hill as Congress battled over the Bush administration’s request for a $700 billion bailout of the banking industry. In the midst of this late-September drama, the Treasury Department issued a five-sentence notice that attracted almost no public attention.
But corporate tax lawyers quickly realized the enormous implications of the document: Administration officials had just given American banks a windfall of as much as $140 billion.
The sweeping change to two decades of tax policy escaped the notice of lawmakers for several days, as they remained consumed with the controversial bailout bill. When they found out, some legislators were furious. Some congressional staff members have privately concluded that the notice was illegal. But they have worried that saying so publicly could unravel several recent bank mergers made possible by the change and send the economy into an even deeper tailspin.
Patriotism is sheltering your income to avoid paying taxes while receiving $700 billion in handouts from the middle class. Mind you, these are the same folks who are already padding their income with late fees, NSF charges, overlimit fees, and interest rates that make the mafia blush.
Awesome. I just love how the Bush administration manages just a little bit more bad faith with the legislature before leaving Washington for good. Then, you have this:
The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.
Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn’t require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return.
I think Booman has the right idea– the Obama administration needs to treat Washington like one big crime scene.
Punchy
Somewhat related, AIG is getting 50 billion MORE ducats, on top of the 85 and 38 it got like yesterday. Theyre stealing. Period. Looting the Treasury.
Walker
The worst part of the scam is that the government is claiming that they are getting collateral for these loans. But the collateral consists of assets that were used as collateral for the previous loans.
The automobile industry is even worse, and that one is being pushed by the Democrats. They want a $25 billion handout. Given their current market cap, we could buy the American car companies for less than $8 billion.
We need to just get it over with and nationalize all these fuckers. Look what it did for Gordon Brown’s political career. Giving these companies in money while leaving management in charge is just more privatization of profits, socialization of risk.
Redhand
We can expect the cronyism, malfeasance and flat-out illegality to last right up to the moment these scum leave office on inauguration day.
Atanarjuat
Walker said:
If the Great Redistributionist gets his way, we could seeing a great deal of Hugo Chavez-style "nationalization" of American industries and institutions. That would certainly warm the cockles of all your little liberal hearts, wouldn’t it?
After all, taxing the rich of this nation to give the chronically lazy a luxurious lifestyle is just the opening act in the Europeanization of the United States of America, so I wouldn’t be surprised at all if "nationalization" followed suit.
– A Country in ICU
Comrade Stuck
This topic is always a struggle for me to understand. But I’ve been watching a guy from the Business Roundtable this morning on C-Span, and I’ve noticed a distinct increase in the bullshit factor from these people. Instead of just coming right out and openly deifying the failed trickle down philosophy of economics, a multy layered level of bullshit is being applied to tell us, just give us more wingnut welfare and it will work this time!. Words like balance, and gradually, are spliced into the same old tired message of big business will govern us fairly and competently. It only reinforces my gut feeling that the whole damn Ponzi scheme needs to be set to the wrecking ball, and something else built in it’s place that is transparent and simplified.
Face
At this point I’m convinced the plan is for Paulson/Bernacke to empty the $700 billion coffer before Obama even sees the WH. This way, they can steal it/hide it/push it around, and it denies Obama any opportunity to use any of it.
There’s no other way to explain how a company the size of AIG could need so much money so fast. There’s no way they legitamitely require this much cash unless they’ve lied so egregiously on their books, or as Punchy says, they’re simply padding their Swiss accounts.
Walker
Not sure why I am responding to @Atanarjuat:
Actually no. I would also be willing to let them go BK.
But it seems that we believe that we believe they are too big to fail. We have two options: nationalization or bankruptcy. Pick one. There is no middle ground.
vishnu schizt
@Atanarjuat: You are a wholesale fraud, sir or madam. You have no integrity, you say nothing original. Your presence here is simply as the idiot contrarian. A pull string doll bleating on cue without intellect or reason.
Genine
This is just getting ridiculous. Its like they’re looting the place on their way out.
And the people making excuses for it are sad.
Add to that that Russ Feingold may in line for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairmanship but some people do not think he should get it because he was against the Iraq War.
Yeah, he shouldn’t get the job because he was right.
This is insanity.
Obama has A LOT of work cut out for him and his administration. I will definitely do my best to support his efforts.
Napoleon
Speaking of economics, this post a few minutes ago by Jennifer in an earlier thread is a great description of what is happening:
Jennifer says
Jennifer
Thanks, Napoleon. I was just getting ready to ask Atanarjuat exactly how capitalist economies function when over 50% of the participants in them have no money.
El Cruzado
Seeing the wingnuts create a new continent out of whole cloth sure gives credence to the theory that they live in their own reality. But I’d appreciate it if they could at least give it an original name like, say, Atlantis. Otherwise I might end up confusing that communist place with the land where I grew up.
jrg
Atanarjuat, do you have any idea what you are talking about?
The alternative is *giving* them money, you fool. Conservatives are the ones who are always talking about "running the government like a business". Does giving a blank check to a failed management team at a failed corporation seem like a smart business move to you?
You are arguing for giving businesses money while receiving something of lesser value in exchange.
The shareholders and bond holders in these institutions need to take a bath, then the institutions should re-capitalize, the government should buy the newly issued stocks and bonds. Otherwise, it’s a handout to the same people who got us into this mess.
Napoleon
@Jennifer:
Thats easy "Country First"
You just need to close your eyes and clap loud enough and everything will be OK.
The Grand Panjandrum
*Clicks heels twice and says: "There’s no place …"
Gosh Toto, I think I can see Kansas from here!
Atanarjuat
Walker, that’s one thing we can both agree on. Wall Street and all its attendant institutions like these shady banks need to be reformed, just as Senator John McCain has tirelessly pointed out.
If it takes wholesale bankruptcy to burn out all the maggots and lance the would, so be it.
However, you’ve probably taken note of the fact that many democrats are for even more bailout schemes and financial "stimulus" packages. In that regard, Obama is no different from Paulson or Bernacke, except that the Great Redistributionist wants to up the ante by ensuring that shiftless bums (i.e., most liberals) can also get a piece of the action.
Hey, maybe if things work out, most of the "Yes We Can" drones can get also a 60-inch plasma TV to boot, which could be your reward for the trauma of knee-jerk hatred of Bush for eight years.
– A Country Tipping into the Abyss
Skullduggery
This is nothing compared to the horrible crime of the Clinton White House removing the Ws from keyboards and forcing taxpayers to fork over $4,850 (that’s more than two hundred dollars!) to fix it.
This shit reminds me of that line about war casualties: a couple of thousand dollars is a tragedy, looting a couple trillion is a statistic.
Napoleon
By the way, on a somewhat related matter to the economy and the disconnected from reality right wing memes, This American Life on Sunday (which is when it is on for me) had a piece that was in honor of Studs Terkel, which was an oral history piece that he made talking to people who lived through the depression and he had one guy in the mix who was basically a complete denier of the existence of the Depression. He said stuff like there was no bread lines in NYC, just a few beggars, that the 30’s were a glamorous time, that the New Deal was nothing more then an invention of FDR to raise taxes and stuff like that. There is no lie to big to tell by the defenders of the right and the wealthy in America, and it has been that way for a long time.
Comrade Jake
Before you bother to respond to Atanasshat, just remember: he guaranteed a McCain victory. Guaranteed it. The dude is fucking clueless.
rachel
What do you mean "like"?
Commie-rade Rommie
"Shiftless bums (i.e., most liberals)"
Mr. DoubleQ, the friendly hand puppet, would, at this time, like to point to the electoral scoreboard.
I would be curious to know the reason(s) how a few liberals escaped bumhood – it might be a useful survival technique when the Great Collapse hits home.
(I know, don’t feed the beastie – but it stuck its head too far out of the cave, and it might do it again if prodded)
Brian J
You know, I read about this last night over at Kevin Drum’s site, and my first thought was just absolute confusion. A lot about this doesn’t make sense to me, not least of all because I’m not a tax lawyer (not yet, anyway).
But let me give these guys the benefit of the doubt. I was a supporter of the bailout because, despite still not being entirely sure of what was going on, I could appreciate the potential weight of the situation. I might not like the idea of money being used in this way, but I could accept the idea that it was the least bad of all the shitty options. With that in mind, let me say that this might just be an acceptable revision of the tax code…for banks. The article in The Washington Post that John and Kevin Drum cited seems to having many who support it saying that this change was made because it would allow financial institutions some help in merging with each other, which would, I imagine, make it easier for the system as a whole to stay solvent. But doesn’t it apply to other corporations as well? If so, why can’t it just be limited to banks, at least right now? Are other institutions, if they are in fact allowed to take advantage of the change like the article seems to imply, going to do so? I would think so.
Anyway, the real eye catcher in the article was this paragraph:
It must be a thing that only tax lawyers and accountants can understand properly, because the way I’m reading it, that just doesn’t seem right.
Dennis - SGMM
Oh please, not that! Anything but that! Please don’t subject us to better cars, better wages, better food, better medical care no foreign wars, and longer vacations.
Zifnab
Hahaha! Wall Street needs to be reformed. But not by the US Government. It just needs to go off and reform itself. Because if the government steps in to institute reforms, that’s dirty filthy stinking SOCIALISM, but if you just start shoveling cash into the flaming wreck of a collapsed industry that’s the real ticket.
Alternately, you can go the way of the true believer purists and let all the banks fail. Which works fine right up until you see how all those banks serve as the lynchpins of commerce and watch the whole blessed capitalist system go belly up because the guys who traditionally supply capital have cratered.
Atanarjuat has the best idea of all, though. Cling blindly to ideology while claiming how McCain totally would have fixed everything twice as good and ten times as fast with his magic economics fixing stick. Then blame every economic downturn on Obama and scream like a banshee at every proposed solution because ZOMG! EVERYTHING IS SOCIALISM!
But yes. Atanarjuat is a dumbass. Meanwhile, for those of us who care about shit that actually matters, I feel like a helpless fucking tool. The Republicans want to issue bullshit insurance to cover institutions that already failed. The Democrats just want to cut out the pretense of a middle man and give away tax dollars for nothing. The few sane and responsible politicians are just outnumbered, outgunned, and out-flanked. I have no idea how Obama could Hope his way out of this one. At the end of the day, we are well and truly fucked.
Zifnab
But you’ll be paying HIGHER TAXES! Zomg, no!
Atanarjuat
Comrade Jake said:
Yes, Jake, you’ve emphatically pointed this out before, and now you’re repeating yourself.
You didn’t bother to respond to my prior response, but I’ll state it once again for those who are not aware of your hateful obsession with me: contrary to the ridiculously high bar that anti-conservative haters like "Comrade Jake" have set for Republicans and anyone who is not a liberal, yes, we on the other side of the political aisle are not perfect, nor are we 100% correct all of the time.
Got it this time? Or will you remain willfully clueless so you can keep prancing around with your whiny "he’s just sooooo wrong! Don’t listen to him, everyone!!!"
I predicted a McCain/Palin win, and I was wrong. There were liberals in 2004 who predicted a Kerry/Edwards win, and they were wrong. However, the mountains are still standing, the trees keep growing, and the sun is still rising. It wasn’t the end of the world then, and it wasn’t the end of the world now. Most conservatives are now starting to regroup and hash out what went wrong so that we can do a better job next time. That’s what grownups do. Standing around and screaming, "you were wrong! You were wrong!" only makes you look like a sore winner.
Got that?
Good.
– A Country on its Knees
Atanarjuat
Zifnab said:
Jesus Christ tap-dancing on a cracker! Just WTF are you talking about? On one hand, you decry, "shoveling cash into the flaming wreck of a collapsed industry," and then you turn around and ridicule the notion that the whole rotten system should be allowed to collapse on itself.
Make up your mind already and stick to one consistent message. You’re bordering on incoherency otherwise.
– A Country Waylaid
Napoleon
How? The cash back stuff? I assume that what they are allowing is to apply the losses from the failed company to be applied more readily to gains from the surviving company and that the survivor could apply for cash back which were taxes paid in other years.
And you are right, it would apply to any company, and it is nothing sort of a raid on the Treasury by the Republicans.
Dennis - SGMM
The mountains of West Virginia are being "topped" by the coal companies and Bushco has pushed through a regulatory change that will allow those same coal companies to dump the resultant waste onto running streams. That same Bushco has enabled logging companies to clear cut old growth forests. And now the Republicans are touting the virtues of someone who feels that the sun is only 6000 years old. Chosen, meet wilderness.
Comrade Jake
@Atanarjuat:
Nobody expects you to be perfect. We’d just prefer a troll who had a fucking clue, that’s all.
"I might have guaranteed a McCain victory, but nobody’s perfect!" doesn’t really advance your argument much. You might as well propose that you’re struggling to understand why 2+2=4, but that you’ll get it eventually, if we just give you enough time, and weren’t such judgmental libruls.
Conservatively Liberal
I see that Atanarjuat, I mean myiq2xu, oops, I mean GoatBoy is hard at work rustling up some fresh goats for more hot goat sex. He must have worn the old goats out already.
The Whispering Goatfucker is in da house. Engage at your own risk. Me? I prefer safe blogging, I’ll pass on what GoatBoy is offering.
Nationalize everything that is failing that we want to keep, shut the rest of the crap down and cash it out and/or sell off the assets. The Republicans have clusterfucked the whole works and all we are doing now is handing the last of the cash over to them before someone intelligent takes the helm.
The Republicans and Bush/Cheney have created one big crime scene but these criminals are going to walk and they are taking the money with them. Nobody is going to be held accountable for anything and that is the end of it. Even the Democrats are going to stonewall Obama because too many of them got their hands dirty too and they are going to do everything they can to cover their asses. The Republicans were smart this time, they let some Democrats get in on the action just to make things a real nightmare for us.
The best government that money can buy. Can I haz a refund?
Smith
I think deep down we all knew this was either going to happen or was happening. It’s still sickening to see it in print however. I hope Obama gets on top of this immediately – these CEO’s, Paulson, and Bernake are no better then criminal thugs who should have their asses thrown in jail.
The sadder fact is that this money is probably already lost and unrecoverable – probably in some Swiss bank or Cayman Islands account somewhere. Another sadder fact is that these guys (AIG in particular) are still begging for more money. Insane. If people were mobilized in this country there’d be a mass protest and Bernake and Paulson would be in the stocks.
Zifnab
Yes. It’s one of those "Damned if you do, damned if you don’t" situations. The investment banks have us by the proverbial balls.
Your response – McCain would have solved this problem lickity split if only *sob* someone *sob* had listened *bemoan* *rend garments* *nash teeth* – is the same garbage voodoo economics we’ve been hearing for decades. "Oh, just listen to the Republicans and you’ll be swimming in cash in no time… what’s that Savings and Loan cratered? Don’t worry, we’ll just deregulate the energy industry. Can’t fail this time. Oops! Enron! But hey, don’t sweet it, we’ve just implemented a bunch of great new policies for the investment banks. Oh shit! They failed! I blame some bill that got passed under Carter in the 70s."
And always, always, always the Republican mantra of cutting taxes (on the rich – cause a $500 working poor credit is wealth redistribution). Never mind the trillion dollar war, the soaring national deficit, the collapsing infrastructure, and the sagging tax base, we need to cut that capital gains rate so billionaire investment bankers selling toxic assets have enough money to buy their forth yacht.
Why oh why did we vote for Obama when McCain could have given us 4 more years of this?!
bago
Actually, I think atanmenehad is just a true believer who still has the cogent facilities to be turned. Slowly
Conservatively Liberal
No Sale.
Tsulagi
Is Phil Graham, McCain’s “Nation of Whiners” chief economic adviser, now at Treasury? That kind of thing sounds like his Enron Loophole he slipped into a commodities trading bill while still a senator. Straight talkin’ Pubs loves them their sneaky loopholes.
Gave Enron a license to virtually print money as they screwed over CA and other states at the start of the Bush admin, but in the finest of bedrock Bush traditions still managed to go bankrupt. Republican competence you can count on. That loophole did wonders for oil prices too. Some estimate it accounts for up to 30% of the price of a barrel of oil.
-A Country still being fucked over by Republicans.
cain
I’m not sure buying the auto industry is any cheaper than giving them money other than the govt gets to control how the money is being spent. I’m assuming that the amount of money to keep Ford and others solvent is a static amount.
Bailout for car companies is probably going to happen because nobody gave a shit when itwas all white collar workers in Wall St. losing their shirts, but unions and the like will care about this. The finance for this stuff is an utter mess. I have no idea how they plan on solving this. Either way, I don’t see how cutting middle class taxes is going to work with this much bailout going on.
Personally, I’m sure we can get some money by garnishing the wages of all the top management or something. We can at least tax the people who got us into this mess.
cain
liberal
@Atanarjuat:
Not really. At least me, my interest is in nationalization in the sense of receivership, to put these firms back on their feet. After which, at some point, the guvmint would sell the firms off.
liberal
@cain:
A very simple method that would go a long way would be a transaction tax.
liberal
@Atanarjuat:
False dichotomy. If you were capable of reading, you’d see that Zifnab is referring to a middle way: injecting capital with the government controlling the reins and instituting reforms, as opposed to (1) giving them $$ with few meaningful constraints, or (2) letting the system complete its implosion.
liberal
I’d like to see what ThymeZone says about these things, given how attached he was to the passing of the bailout bill.
Atanarjuat
liberal said:
…actually agreeing with me, and even said the following above:
Do try to keep up, "liberal." You’d embarrass yourself less often.
– A Country Needing the Jaws of Life
Objective Scrutator
As a strict disciple of the Free Market, I think that we should let these companies rot. I support the House Republican position of leaving these corporations to their own devices, because the ones that want to survive will discipline themselves better. Of course, if the bailout money HAS to be passed, for some stupid reason, I think that we should still leave the corporations to their own devices.
Government intervention in the economy inevitably leads to an apathetic, stupid population. Thanks to the government program of Social Security, most Americans are now too stupid to save their money for retirement, and they need their mommies to do it for them. Privatization of that service would probably lead to a massive, permanent boom in our economy.
None of this would have happened if we would just take away the taxation power from the Feds, and we stopped catering to Socialists. Then again, the American people shouldn’t be complaining too much about this. After all, they voted for the Socialist Proposition 1 in California. (They also voted for Proposition 2 there, which is a Communist attempt to destroy our great factory farming industry, and all for the rights of some stupid poultry/swine.)
Basically, if you’re going to denounce one form of Socialism, you have to denounce it all. The government should only provide us with court systems, law enforcement, roads, and a massive military. Nothing else is necessary.
wingnuts to iraq
Atanarjuat needs to go to Iraq.
Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon)
@Brian J:
You can’t be serious. The bailout bill was an emergency measure meant to address an emergency situation, and King Henry essentially slipped some pork into it. There is no bottom of the barrel with these fuckers.
Brian J
More explanation, please.
Brian J
When I said, I meant that it was plausible, to this amateur, that this could help banks merge and stay solvent. It makes sense on a very basic level, at least to me. But as I said right after the passage that you quoted, the article in The Post made it seem like it would apply to all companies, not just banks. This makes me think that this is in fact a giveaway and that the claim that it would help the banks, while possibly technically true, is just being used as a cover for what they wanted to do already.
Jennifer
I only have one question for Atanasshat:
Suppose the Republican dream of zero taxes on the rich could come true, and in short order, the other Republican dream of letting just a few guys own everything came true (and we aren’t that far away from it now), please explain for us how at that point we would have any type of economy at all.
I’m really curious about your answer to this, because it occurs to me that when too few people have all the money, everything goes in the shitter for everyone – including those fairly well-off, because they can’t make any money through manufacture or anything else, since no one has money to buy their product, rent their property, borrow from them, etc. Please explain why allowing this to occur in the name of ideology makes any sense for the 95% of the population who will suffer as a result, or even the other 5% who will as a consequence see the value of their wealth shrink.
liberal
@Atanarjuat:
Nope. Depends on what "do" and "don’t" reference.
His previous post makes clear that you’re framing a false dichotomy.
Comrade Tax Analyst
OK, well, without having the time to go read Section 382, I’m speculating it may be about changing the rules regarding application of NOL’s (Net Operating Losses). I haven’t looked at this in several years, but the last time I did, the Code restricted the ability of the Parent company of a Consolidated Corporation from using these losses when they were generated by a Subsidiary. I believe the intent was to keep these Consolidated entities from buying up companies solely to latch onto their large Loss Carryovers for the purpose of lowering or even eliminating the taxable income of a Corporation that is very profitable. The way it stood was that those losses generated PRIOR to being acquired by the Consolidated entity could only be used to offset gains generated on that Separate Company level. If that separate company never shows a separate profit after being acquired they would not be able to use those losses. New losses after being acquired WOULD, of course, be appropriately usable at the Consolidated level, but those old ones, uh-uh, no. So you see, if my corporation stands to show a Current Year Net profit of, say, $500 MegaBegaDegaGazillion dollars, but I can BUY up a separate company that’s NEVER shown any profit and has been merrily building up unusable NOL’s for many years (there is a limit on how many years these carryovers are good for…I believe around 15 years the oldest one is no longer usable), well, if I am allowed to immediately apply that to my overall Consolidated Corporation Net Income then I can save myself a whole shitload of Corporate Income Tax. If I have NO restrictions on it’s use I can maybe even apply it BACK to years I already paid Corporate Income Tax on. That’s where the "Cash Refund" part would come into play. I could use it to amend those prior returns where I PAID tax, reduce that return’s Net Taxable Income and then apply for a Refund of what I "Overpaid", and I use that word loosely here, because I only "Overpaid" it in this Alternative Universe where a company I didn’t own lost money in a year I didn’t own it and now I’m suddenly going to take it’s losses to offset income of a company that was unrelated to it at that time.
Whether or not loosening the restrictions is a good idea for our country or not, well…I don’t really know. I’m hardly a student of the intracacies of Corporation Taxation, but I’m guessing that whoever wants the change could care less about what’s actually good for the country in the overall scheme of things.
liberal
@Objective Scrutator:
Uh huh. Like that worked well the first time around.
I guess that’s true, using yourself as an example of someone who apparently thinks that a modern economy can exist without government intervention.
LOL!
It would in fact lead to more looting of Main Street by Wall Street.
I guess Proposition 13, which was government transferring vast amounts of wealth from producers to landowning parasites, was just fine?
Are you a Real Libertarian, or a ROYAL Libertarian?
Atanarjuat
Liberal, to mix metaphors, you’re tying yourself into knots in your laughable attempt to unpaint yourself out of that corner you’ve dumbly backed yourself into.
A decent person would apologize and move on, but given your choice of alias, this simply won’t happen. But do keep trying to stuff words in my mouth; it’s perhaps the only self-amusement you can engage in while counting down the days for the coronation of the Great Redistributionist on January 20, 2009.
Now that’s sad.
– A Country Violated
liberal
@Atanarjuat:
Backatcha.
Atanarjuat
Jennifer, considering that you chose to mangle my alias to "Atanasshat," I very, VERY much doubt the sincerity or honesty of your question.
In other words, you’re a typical liberal.
Though you don’t merit a longer answer, the short answer is simply this: no conservatives are agitating for the rich of this nation to pay "zero taxes." That’s just the usual hyperbole spewed by leftist minions who’ve feverishly chug-a-lugged too much anti-conservative Haterade.
But thanks for the chuckle.
– A Country Kneecapped
JR
"Atanarjuat" is conservative-speak for "GoatBlower"
I wouldn’t talk with these humanoid-ish things. It is how America got into this mess in the first place.
Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon)
Why oh why do we continue to feed the lame troll Atanarjuat? Anyone who reads John’s post and then goes on to worry about Obama the Redistributor is in possession of barely enough brain power to continue breathing.
I’ll say this for BushCo: unlike the Mafia, they operate right out in the open, daring anyone to stop them. Obviously Reid and Pelosi and the house Dems don’t have the cojones to stand up to them (or they’re equally complicit).
Calouste
Some of these corrupt fuckers need to be put up against the wall, China-style. It’s just the only thing that is going to deter them as a group at large.
Fulcanelli
"Too Big To Fail" = Too big to be insured by the Government, (i.e. FDIC, taypayers), too big to invest corporate, state or federal Government pension or 401K funds in (private, personal investors only)…
Also "Too Big To Fail" = The United States of America.
"Not Too Big To Fail" = The utterly bogus myth of the "Free Market".
Kudos to Mr. Cole and the denizens of BJ… This is the place to hang out lately…
Chris Johnson
The actions of these bank and capitalist-government people are making Marxism look freaking sensible, which I didn’t believe was possible. Things had better be sorted out before long, or it’s gonna be HELLO, other extreme.
I don’t think that would be good, but then I’m a small business owner and to a certain extent I’d like to be a market actor. I don’t want big corporations stomping me flat, but I also would not like the government setting my prices or telling me what I can produce, short of preventing me from doing flat-out fraud.
Jennifer
Atanasshat – no, I’m serious, I want you to attempt to answer my question: how do you keep a capitalist, consumer economy working when just a handful of people own everything and have all the money?
Your doubts about the sincerity of my question notwithstanding, I’m sure you can see why this is an important question given that as of 1998, the wealthiest 10% owned 70% of the wealth in the country, while the poorest 40% owned 2/10ths of 1%, and the spread has grown since then. How do you keep a consumer economy going when half of the people in it can’t participate in it because they have no income left for discretionary spending? While I appreciate your typical conservative attempt to duck providing an answer by questioning my sincerity, I really want you to explain how you keep the engine going when there is nothing to fuel it.
My guess is you responded in the way you did because you either don’t have an answer to the question, or realize that the answer makes your entire ideology look foolish and unworkable.
Josh Hueco
@Objective Scrutator:
And if I changed my name to "Brad Pitt" I’d be swimming in pussy.
Atanarjuat
Jennifer said:
Sure, just keep it up with that infantile renaming, and I’ll treat you as seriously as you deserve.
I answered your question, but I guess it wasn’t short enough for your shorter attention span. Here it is again, in bold relief, this time:
No conservatives are agitating for the rich of this nation to pay "zero taxes." That’s just the usual hyperbole spewed by leftist minions who’ve feverishly chug-a-lugged too much anti-conservative Haterade.
And, as I said, I’d give you a longer, more detailed answer if your question showed any sincerity or honesty. The fact that you INSIST on the infantile name-calling only proves that I was right.
I don’t know where you’re from, but where I grew up, childishness is not rewarded, so no dice.
– A Country Undermined
Objective Scrutator
Actually, Big Government was responsible for that ‘the first time around’, by trying to set the gold standard. There should be no ‘standard’ for money, just how the two contractors (the buyer and the seller) perceive the value of that money (e.g. gold). And nearly every economist agrees that the New Deal extended the Great Depression, like Gene Smiley, who correctly states that there are few public goods. Every time a good is publicized, the economy starts to become more limited.
And yet the CIA says that Somalia, the most free market state in the world, has a growing economy. American could learn several lessons from Somalia, but I’ll stop here.
The people would reject the looters, and flock to the honest shepherds of the bank. Why do you assume that consumers are so stupid? What government intervention does here is take away the incentive to research SS, so people too lazy to research the issue get to remain about as wealthy as people who do.
No. That’s a nice strawman you’ve set up, here.
I’m a libertarian on economic matters, but not on any other subject. I have a high commitment to winning the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, the War on Fornication, and other wars that are crucial for our moral survival.
Tsulagi
@Brian J:
Google is your friend.
Wiki has a brief article on the Enron Loophole. A Baltimore Chronicle commentary fleshes that out some. Multiple Choice McCain when it comes to regulation has opposed closing the loophole while Obama takes the opposite position.
TenguPhule
Irony of the Day.
And with a side order of "McCain, who supported the bailout to the point of ‘suspending his campaign’, is actually against the bailout of Wallstreet!"
Third, when did McCain’s Proposed Bailout for Homeowners become ‘Not Socialism’?
TenguPhule
We’ve hooked a really big Wingnut here, folks.
And he supported McCain.
The FSM loves it some irony, it does.
TenguPhule
Where everything is for sale cheap. Including Human life.
And when all of the banks are looting and throwing up large disincentives to break into the business? Then what? Ask them nicely to be fair?
We have you for a shining example for starters.
Right, because there’s not enough on their minds besides working 40+ hour days, raising families and worrying about everything else that idiots like you INSIST it is their fault for not spotting every little wordplay and nuance that could screw them over.
TenguPhule
And if you believe you can fly, start jumping off buildings.
Terminal Case of Stupidity indeed.
Objective Scrutator
Why do you hate America?
I was hoping McCain would win, and then die. Apparently, some moonbats have a problem with that.
Why do you hate Jesus?
So? Slavery can sometimes be useful, particularly for welfare queens and other criminals. All you have to do is have a system of slavery that encourages the slave to work. I think that the system of slavery outlined in the Bible would work much better than the old one we had.
I think you’d be hard pressed to find 100% of banks lying to the customers. Maybe Fannie and Freddie were, but that’s why Americans are leaving them to die.
Non sequitir.
The free market will find a way to adequately educate the populace about privatized social security, and will be able to reduce the costs for all (which Big Government has no reason to try and attempt). If you don’t have the time or the money to deal with these institutions, you shouldn’t be dealing with Social Security. It’s as simple as that.
liberal
@Objective Scrutator:
LOL!
I guess you’ve never heard of "information asymmetries." You also don’t know much about economic history, like most so-called libertarians.
But if you had actually read the linked essay, you’d see that there are two types of libertarians: (1) nasty feudalist types who despise freedom and are enemies of liberty, and (2) real libertarians.
Unfortunately, many (and AFAICT probably a majority) of so-called libertarians are in category (1).
liberal
@TenguPhule:
Given that the last few posts have morphed into spoof, I’m not so sure.
The site linked in the name is pretty funny and has been talked about here before…
Objective Scrutator
"I guess you’ve never heard of "information asymmetries." You also don’t know much about economic history, like most so-called libertarians."
I do know that George Akerlof is a great family values man. And he’s from the London School of Economics, which has promoted several free market values; I’d prefer the Chicago School of Economics’ policies be implemented first, but apparently, Krugman and the rest of the Keynesian quacks would go to any means necessary to keep it out of our government.
"But if you had actually read the linked essay, you’d see that there are two types of libertarians: (1) nasty feudalist types who despise freedom and are enemies of liberty, and (2) real libertarians."
Geolibertarians are Hippies, not real libertarians. Are you saying that one cannot be a real, pure libertarian unless they pay a mandatory property tax? Libertarianism is often founded on the precept that private property is an inalienable right.
Josh Hueco
@Objective Scrutator:
No please, go on. I’ll even lend you the shovel.
Trollin’, trollin’ trollin…WINGNUT!
Conservatively Liberal
Yup. The Whispering Goat Blower. Might as well be talking to a brick wall, with goats on the other side.
Jennifer
Yes, I notice that his hurt feelings keep him from considering the logical end-point of the unfettered capitalism he so fervently supports.
Or so he says.
RobW
An alleged Libertarian arguing in favor of slavery. Far out.
Jeff S
@Atanarjuat:
Funny you refer to "most liberals" (which is the Neocon’s word for ‘party who spends less than us’) as "shiftless bums", when Democrats overall are much more highly educated and wealthy than Republicans overall.
An American with an education knows that, if he or she is making $500,000 annually, a 3% tax hike on the top half of their income not only won’t affect their life a whole lot, but will help to short up budgets (once Big-Government Neoconservatives are no longer in power), thus increasing the value of the dollar. An uneducated Neocon Fascist, however, gets angry at such a prospect, because it is going to hurt 1% of the population, while helping the "Other 99%", of which he or she is normally a part.