This is a lesson about the "velocity of money".
It is a slow day in a damp little Irish town. The rain is beating down and the streets are deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit.
On this particular day a rich German tourist is driving through the town, stops at the local hotel and lays a €100 note on the desk, telling the hotel owner he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one to spend the night.
The owner gives him some keys and, as soon as the visitor has walked upstairs, the hotelier grabs the €100 note and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher. The butcher takes the €100 note and runs down the street to repay his debt to the pig farmer. The pig farmer takes the €100 note and heads off to pay his bill at the supplier of feed and fuel. The guy at the Farmers' Co-op takes the €100 note and runs to pay his drinks bill at the pub. The publican slips the money along to the local prostitute drinking at the bar, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer him "services" on credit. The hooker then rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill to the hotel owner with the €100 note.
The hotel proprietor then places the €100 note back on the counter so the rich traveller will not suspect anything. At that moment the traveller comes down the stairs, picks up the €100 note, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, pockets the money, and leaves town.
No one produced anything. No one earned anything. However, the whole town is now out of debt and looking to the future with a lot more optimism.
And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is how the bailout package works.
:) :)
Quote from: John Raabe on December 09, 2010, 02:35:24 PM
This is a lesson about the "velocity of money".
It is a slow day in a damp little Irish town. The rain is beating down and the streets are deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit.
On this particular day a rich German tourist is driving through the town, stops at the local hotel and lays a €100 note on the desk, telling the hotel owner he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one to spend the night.
The owner gives him some keys and, as soon as the visitor has walked upstairs, the hotelier grabs the €100 note and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher. The butcher takes the €100 note and runs down the street to repay his debt to the pig farmer. The pig farmer takes the €100 note and heads off to pay his bill at the supplier of feed and fuel. The guy at the Farmers' Co-op takes the €100 note and runs to pay his drinks bill at the pub. The publican slips the money along to the local prostitute drinking at the bar, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer him "services" on credit. The hooker then rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill to the hotel owner with the €100 note.
The hotel proprietor then places the €100 note back on the counter so the rich traveller will not suspect anything. At that moment the traveller comes down the stairs, picks up the €100 note, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, pockets the money, and leaves town.
No one produced anything. No one earned anything. However, the whole town is now out of debt and looking to the future with a lot more optimism.
And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is how the bailout package works.
Interesting story. Of course you all realize that the German tourist and the 100 euro note are entirely unnecessary.
hold the phone...the story did make me smile, :) fun story
everyone just traded an account receivable for an account payable.
GDP growth = 0
stir the pot....
Here is how it used to work in America
The hotel owner worked real real hard and used some old paint to fix up the room and cleaned it really well, so the tourist wanted to stay for $100
the hotel guy took 50 of it and fixed up his next room and he took 50 and loaned it to his friend, the butcher.
The butcher used the 50 to buy more meat at wholesale from his friend the pig farmer, then sold it at retail. He did this a few times until he had made extra profit that paid off the 100 he previously owed to the farmer, he still has the original extra 50 that had helped grow his business, with the profit he is now paying off the 50 he borrowed from the hotel clerk. He business will remain larger that it was before
because the hotel clerk fixed up the 2nd room, he now made another 100 from a second tourist that he used the 50 to fix the 3rd room and loaned 50 to his friend the pig farmer. The farmer added the 50 to the money that the butcher repaid him and added to his bunch of pigs
etc etc etc
the original 100 that was made by the hotel owner from igenuity and hard work turned into a 1000 though out the community
give me the old days. I guess im an old fart ???
If only it were that easy...
Here's the Wikipedia definition of the velocity of money: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money
Here's the chart of this for the last 50 years. Grey bars are recession years.
(https://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/countryplans/velociy.jpg)
Quote from: Txcowrancher on December 10, 2010, 12:53:51 PM
hold the phone...the story did make me smile, :) fun story
everyone just traded an account receivable for an account payable.
GDP growth = 0
stir the pot....
Here is how it used to work in America
The hotel owner worked real real hard and used some old paint to fix up the room and cleaned it really well, so the tourist wanted to stay for $100
the hotel guy took 50 of it and fixed up his next room and he took 50 and loaned it to his friend, the butcher.
The butcher used the 50 to buy more meat at wholesale from his friend the pig farmer, then sold it at retail. He did this a few times until he had made extra profit that paid off the 100 he previously owed to the farmer, he still has the original extra 50 that had helped grow his business, with the profit he is now paying off the 50 he borrowed from the hotel clerk. He business will remain larger that it was before
because the hotel clerk fixed up the 2nd room, he now made another 100 from a second tourist that he used the 50 to fix the 3rd room and loaned 50 to his friend the pig farmer. The farmer added the 50 to the money that the butcher repaid him and added to his bunch of pigs
etc etc etc
the original 100 that was made by the hotel owner from igenuity and hard work turned into a 1000 though out the community
give me the old days. I guess im an old fart ???
What did the hooker do?
just kidding.
Aside from the amusing story I only have one thing to say about. I disagree with is this line: "No one produced anything. No one earned anything. However, the whole town is now out of debt and looking to the future with a lot more optimism."
That's not exactly true tho. The farmer produced a pig, the shop sold feed and fuel, the pub sold drinks, the prostitute presumably earned her money. The only distinction was that they used credit instead of money in the first place. Credit spends like money, they did not need the tourist to repay their debts.
This is nothing like the bailout.
The bailout story looks more like this:
The town was prospering nicely, the banks took a large percentage of credit out of circulation with fraud and criminal accounting. By removing the credit there was not enough for all debts to be serviced. When this happened debts rapidly defaulted. The banks decided they needed everyone's money and just took it. Now that the banks have the peoples wealth, and the debt stays with the people who have no money. That was how the bailout worked.
It is well documented that money given to lower income folks (say the unemployed) is put into circulation faster than money given to the wealthy (who are more likely to save rather than spend it).
That said, could the bailout money have been better spent in a jobs or other broad transfer program rather than given to banks?
I personally think that we get rid of payroll taxes and go to a national sales tax.
Quote from: muldoon on December 10, 2010, 01:07:46 PM
Quote from: Txcowrancher on December 10, 2010, 12:53:51 PM
hold the phone...the story did make me smile, :) fun story
everyone just traded an account receivable for an account payable.
GDP growth = 0
stir the pot....
Here is how it used to work in America
The hotel owner worked real real hard and used some old paint to fix up the room and cleaned it really well, so the tourist wanted to stay for $100
the hotel guy took 50 of it and fixed up his next room and he took 50 and loaned it to his friend, the butcher.
The butcher used the 50 to buy more meat at wholesale from his friend the pig farmer, then sold it at retail. He did this a few times until he had made extra profit that paid off the 100 he previously owed to the farmer, he still has the original extra 50 that had helped grow his business, with the profit he is now paying off the 50 he borrowed from the hotel clerk. He business will remain larger that it was before
because the hotel clerk fixed up the 2nd room, he now made another 100 from a second tourist that he used the 50 to fix the 3rd room and loaned 50 to his friend the pig farmer. The farmer added the 50 to the money that the butcher repaid him and added to his bunch of pigs
etc etc etc
the original 100 that was made by the hotel owner from igenuity and hard work turned into a 1000 though out the community
give me the old days. I guess im an old fart ???
What did the hooker do?
just kidding.
Aside from the amusing story I only have one thing to say about. I disagree with is this line: "No one produced anything. No one earned anything. However, the whole town is now out of debt and looking to the future with a lot more optimism."
That's not exactly true tho. The farmer produced a pig, the shop sold feed and fuel, the pub sold drinks, the prostitute presumably earned her money. The only distinction was that they used credit instead of money in the first place. Credit spends like money, they did not need the tourist to repay their debts.
This is nothing like the bailout.
The bailout story looks more like this:
The town was prospering nicely, the banks took a large percentage of credit out of circulation with fraud and criminal accounting. By removing the credit there was not enough for all debts to be serviced. When this happened debts rapidly defaulted. The banks decided they needed everyone's money and just took it. Now that the banks have the peoples wealth, and the debt stays with the people who have no money. That was how the bailout worked.
Not exactly.
You forgot this part:
Politicians decided that fair wasn't fair so created new laws to make fair more fair. To make fair, fair, the politicians forced the banks to loan money to those who could not afford to pay it back, the banks realizing they were being played by the politicians used the government run bank called 'Freddy Mac' and 'Fannie Mae' to 'secure' their loans which they knew would default.
When the loans defaulted the banks needed money to bail them out because the politicians who claim to be for the little guy aren't. So the politicians, who prefer the elites to the needy, allowed the banks to print lots of money which they then used to bail themselves out.
Meanwhile the poor get poorer and keep electing the same politicians because they don't get it.
The end.
you forgot the part where they waved a magic wand and changed accounting rules to allow all the bad assets to suddenly become good assets... poof... no more problems. can't wait to see what they come up with next.
Quote from: StinkerBell on December 10, 2010, 01:21:01 PM
I personally think that we get rid of payroll taxes and go to a national sales tax.
That FairTax. Nothing taxed until the money is spent.
Quote from: MountainDon on December 10, 2010, 03:51:46 PM
Quote from: StinkerBell on December 10, 2010, 01:21:01 PM
I personally think that we get rid of payroll taxes and go to a national sales tax.
That FairTax. Nothing taxed until the money is spent.
Enjoy your tax hike
Quote from: John Raabe on December 10, 2010, 01:19:33 PM
It is well documented that money given to lower income folks (say the unemployed) is put into circulation faster than money given to the wealthy (who are more likely to save rather than spend it).
That said, could the bailout money have been better spent in a jobs or other broad transfer program rather than given to banks?
It is well documented that the Rich pay the salaries of the poor.
That being said not taking higher taxes is not 'giving' the rich anything.
Giving those whom do not pay taxes is called 'redistribution of wealth' and does not actually help them.
QuoteI am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
-= On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766 =- Benjamin Franklin
It should be noted that the largest populations of the poor in the USA is in cities that have been long run by Democrats.
I, as a Libertarian, do not support the idea of big government in any form and tend to think that Benjamin Franklin had it right.
Quote from: OlJarhead on December 13, 2010, 05:36:21 PM
It should be noted that the largest populations of the poor in the USA is in cities that have been long run by Democrats.
It is well documented that 'Red' states get back much more from the federal government than they pay in taxes. The 'Blue' States subsidize them
Here is a very interesting interview with Guy Kawasaki about starting a business in this economy...
http://ethix.org/2010/10/26/guy-kawasaki-starting-a-business-answer-to-lost-jobs
Interesting magazine too.
Quote from: Ajax on December 13, 2010, 06:12:35 PM
Quote from: OlJarhead on December 13, 2010, 05:36:21 PM
It should be noted that the largest populations of the poor in the USA is in cities that have been long run by Democrats.
It is well documented that 'Red' states get back much more from the federal government than they pay in taxes. The 'Blue' States subsidize them
Correction, the Federal Government takes from all American's and re-distributes to some American's. It is not really relevant that a state's population may have voted one way or another in a previous election. Indeed, you could decide that Colorado was a Blue State (a dumb way to define a state anyway) recently yet previously you would have called it Red. Means nothing.
My statement is actually factual in every sense. Democrats control the poorest neighborhoods nationally by a huge margin. One must ask oneself: if Democrats have had power in this city for 60-100 years and we're still starving is it possible that their policies of re-distribution do nothing but keep the poor poor?
I've heard this "the blue states support the red states" argument many times which is kinda funny actually because it isn't very original. However, for the sake of this discussion let me add this:
Your statement is basically accusing people of befitting from the services they are forced to pay for.
Ok, so what is your point? The Blue states control the country (largest population centers) they force the red states to pay for services whether they want to or not, the red states use the services they are forced to pay for and then what? The Blue states accuse them of using the service?
Amazing.
But again, it doesn't change the fact that the RICH pay the taxes by huge margins (nearly 50% of American's pay little to no taxes) and pay the salaries of the poor. Demonizing them is pretty goofy :)
OH and by the way, no government working in this nation or in any other nation pays ANY taxes. SO remove them from the equation. And, of course, neither does the military (and I served for over 8 years and am a veteran -- for the record).
If you don't realize that I'd be happy to explain it ;)
Quote from: Ajax on December 13, 2010, 06:12:35 PM
Quote from: OlJarhead on December 13, 2010, 05:36:21 PM
It should be noted that the largest populations of the poor in the USA is in cities that have been long run by Democrats.
It is well documented that 'Red' states get back much more from the federal government than they pay in taxes. The 'Blue' States subsidize them
Another problem with this statement is that it fails to take into account (Huff and the gang never bother to do this of course) the salaries of workers at certain facilities in those 'red' states. The original articles were published in 2004 and some of the 'red' states are really blue (colorado mentioned earlier is one of them) but besides that Sandia National Lab has very high payed employees on the government payroll. This is just one example but must be considered.
Furthermore, the figures used for this argument aren't actually total money figures, they are 'per capita' figures which ignore the fact that a state with 2 million people that gets 200 million dollars is going to appear to get more government money 'per capita' then a state with 30 million that gets 2 billion dollars.
So, sure, you can say the little state that got 9 bucks a person is a hog because they got 9 bucks versus the state with people that only got 4 bucks but if the state with 4 bucks got 200 times the money you're being rather disingenuous.
But then anyone reading Huff or similar sites is of course not really intellectually honest...do a little research, it's amazing what you might find.
Ah the old partisan debates. The poor are the problem; it's all their fault, etc..... The flaw with the article has nothing to do with any of the rich vs. poor. It is politics. In 2004 Republicans controlled the house, senate, and white house. I wonder where the federal spending pork went? Both parties are just as corrupt. Even though a majority of the population of the United States lives in Urban and Sub Urban areas, they are not represented equally in congress because of the divisions set up in the Constitution. This gives people in rural unpopulated states more representation per vote. More representation = more power = more money.
Also that is completely untrue that they were always democrat. Many have switched back and forth. Same exact politicians too, they just change party with whatever way the political winds are blowing.
Quote from: StinkerBell on December 10, 2010, 01:21:01 PM
I personally think that we get rid of payroll taxes and go to a national sales tax.
"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds...[we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for [another]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression." ~ Thomas Jefferson
Quote from: Squirl on December 14, 2010, 09:32:18 AM
Ah the old partisan debates. The poor are the problem; it's all their fault, etc..... The flaw with the article has nothing to do with any of the rich vs. poor. It is politics. In 2004 Republicans controlled the house, senate, and white house. I wonder where the federal spending pork went? Both parties are just as corrupt. Even though a majority of the population of the United States lives in Urban and Sub Urban areas, they are not represented equally in congress because of the divisions set up in the Constitution. This gives people in rural unpopulated states more representation per vote. More representation = more power = more money.
Also that is completely untrue that they were always democrat. Many have switched back and forth. Same exact politicians too, they just change party with whatever way the political winds are blowing.
Being Libertarian I tend to see things a little differently perhaps but being into History I'm often confused with the R's....funny how that works.
In 2004 the R's controlled all three but weren't really Republicans, they were actually more 'Progressives' then anything else...the same Progressives that also call themselves Democrats. This is why there is so much confusion and the D's and R's fight back and froth while doing the same thing all the time.
Of course not all Republicans are progressives, nor are all Democrats. However non-progressive Republicans tend to be Conservatives that lean to the Libertarian side while non-progressive Democrats don't really exist -- why? Because the Progressives (by the way Teddy Roosevelt was really the first big Progressive) co-opted the democratic party.
Anyway, what amazes me is that when the spending got really out of hand 2006-2008 the MSM and the Democratic party loves to blame that on Bush however they forget that the R's lost the house and senate to the D's in 2006 and the last two years of Bush's presidency the purse strings were controlled by the D's -- and Bush, being a Progressive didn't veto anything.
As for the Constitution you will note that representation is not in accordance with the originally intended guidelines, were it so the Cities would have even more representation but so too would the rural areas. In truth the problem isn't that the Constitution gives more representation to the rural folks nor that they get more money (they don't) but that Gerrymandering has drawn districts in such a corrupt way that representation is manipulated so much that it's totally corrupt in some areas (look at Barney Franks district).
Worst still is that those who side with the D's won't demand a stop to the corruption of the D's because they view them as their team while the R's won't either -- it's their team.
The Libertarians are just called crazy and ignored -- while they are the closest out there to the Founders.
Nice huh
I was discussing taxes and the benefits that the wealthy were getting in the US with my BIL
My position was basically that the wealthy in the US were NOT paying their fair share
his position was that I was just another 'tax the rich' liberal, envying the rich and fostering class warfare etc etc or basically the sh** that comes out of Anal Cystbaugh's mouth daily (but I digress)
Unfortunately I did not have facts at the time to back up my assertion, so I went to the IRS website and, sure enough, there were the facts and figures
Based on the latest year published, 2008
people earning over 200,000 in "taxable income" in 2008 earned $1,975,000,000,000 out of a total of $4,025,000,000,000 (these are rounded numbers)
that is 49% of "taxable income" in the US -- about half
This same group of tax payers (roughly the top 10% of individuals) that earned over $200,000 paid
$519,000,000,000 out of a total of $834,000,000,000 in total income tax
or about 62%
or put another way they paid on average about 12% more than the 'bottom half' of us that earned under $200,000 in 2008
to me this really doesn't look like the top 10% are over taxed at all based on their income
add to this that these tax payers only pay Social Security tax in the first $103,000 or so ....
arguably these top 10% get much larger benefits from living in the US in terms of services and protection of their wealth, yet they pay on average only 12% more taxes
or actually after SS tax is taken into consideration they pay about 6% more than the bottom half of the income
Does this seem out of line to anyone else.....
Another thought
IF the cap were taken off the Social Security Tax the money going into SS would roughly double.
seems to me that that would cure a lot of funding problems for SS
does anyone here think that the wealthy (over $200,000 a year group ) really need an Obama tax break
another interesting factoid from the IRS
the top "Size of Adjusted Gross Income" bracket was "$10,000,000 or more"
13,312 tax payers earned an average of about $30,000,000
these top 13,312 tax payers paid and average of 21 % tax on their 'adjusted Gross income"
this is alot of money
but
We payed about 22% last year (NOT including Social Security) and we sure aren't in the over $200,000 per year group
yep, I guess I am just another 'tax the rich' class envy guy
Windpower, the numbers can be spun anyway someone wants to for talking points. Earlier it was mentioned that 50% of taxes are paid by the rich. Agreed. OK. That means that 50% of the taxes are paid by the people that have 95% of the wealth. So the converse is that the other 50% of all taxes are paid by people that only have 5% of the wealth in this country. And who said the system was fixed?
Good points Erik but I must disagree about Bush. Let's not forget that the war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan is done through debt and of course a lot of military spending is never fully known because it is done "off-book". Bush also created the Department of Homeland Security (Stupidity) which was the single largest creation of Federal government employees since the days of FDR. More Federal employees means more taxes, or deficit financing. Deficit financing is done through China and other nations buying U.S. debt, or Helicopter Ben firing up the presses. Either way is no good. Also the Bush's are more neoconservatives or neocons than Progressives.
Re FairTax
Quote from: Ajax on December 12, 2010, 07:32:44 PM
Enjoy your tax hike
Why does that have to amount to a tax increase? Do away with a system that no one can currently understand or believe in and replace it with something simpler, easier to understand.
Or at least do a FlatTax. I can not understand why a person with a higher income should have to pay a higher rate than somebody who just barely gets into the taxable income area. After a personal exemption, pay the same percentage. Do away with loopholes.
The so called FairTax advocates are looking at the tax issue all wrong. All they are doing is taxing the people differently, and by some analyst figures more. What needs to happen is for the tax flow to the Fed gov't to lessen. If you are for smaller, less intrusive gov't then continuing feeding the Federal monster the same amount of taxes or more is not the way to slay the beast.
If the FairTax was adopted every purchase and service would be taxed. I think it would hurt the middle class and poor the most. Gas would NEVER be under $4/gallon. Just think now labor would be taxed. Tree service company cuts down a hazzard tree and the bill is $500 labor, guess what you pay tax on that labor. go to the dentist for a check up and cleaning bingo! same thing. Mechanic puts a $30 part on, but has $300 labor same thing you are taxed on his labor.
Plus if you believe, as I do that tax protesting is one of the highest forms of patriotism. This makes it almost impossible for citizens to "avoid" the IRS Nazi's.
Someone should muzzle Neal Boartz. He is very far from being a true libertarian.
I believe you are missing part of the point. Yes you would pay "more" for the tree or tooth removal or the mechanics services. But you'd be starting with a full wallet or bank account, not one that was short a chunk with every paycheck received. No tax until you spend it.
Or for those who have problems with that why not a flat tax?
I don't think every business in the US should have to act as a tax collector. This makes them all agents of the state. A better system would be an asset tax. You pay based on your net worth, maybe .01%. Eliminate all other taxes. All this new tax would be paid to your local government which in turn would forward a share to the state. The state would then send a share to the feds. Take the private sector out of tax collecting. The same asset tax would be applied to business but they would no longer need to do the IRS's job for them. If you fall behind you get a 4 year grace period to catch up before they take your stuff.
Quote from: Shawn B on December 14, 2010, 01:30:50 PM
Good points Erik but I must disagree about Bush. Let's not forget that the war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan is done through debt and of course a lot of military spending is never fully known because it is done "off-book". Bush also created the Department of Homeland Security (Stupidity) which was the single largest creation of Federal government employees since the days of FDR. More Federal employees means more taxes, or deficit financing. Deficit financing is done through China and other nations buying U.S. debt, or Helicopter Ben firing up the presses. Either way is no good. Also the Bush's are more neoconservatives or neocons than Progressives.
Bush was a progressive -- so your point is what? R or D it makes no difference when they are all the same 'Progressive' party in the end.
As for growing the Federal Government it's grown far far more under Obama then anyone else since FDR...but I digress.
The best way to see who spent what (and to get away from the whole 'off the books' nonsense) is to just look at the debt and how much it rose under Bush vs how much it's risen since Obama and the D's were in total control with large majorities....it's grown more then THREE AND A HALF TRILLION in less then two years with Obama and the bid D's in power....before that it grew about ONE AND A HALF Trillion.
So let's just set the record straight shall we?
Under Bush and the R's in power the debt grew 2.3 TRILLION in FIVE years 200-2005 then the Democrats took over the congress (purse strings) and the debt grew 1.5 TRILLION in TWO years.... (that means MUCH MORE then the previous 5 when based on a year over year number) and then when Obama took over and the democrats gained filibuster proof majorities in BOTH houses the debt grew THREE AND A HALF TRILLION DOLLARS IN LESS THEN TWO YEARS.
Spin that anyway you want but you cannot say that Bush was the biggest spender by any stretch...oh and my source? The US Treasury d*
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
So, friend, Bush = Progressive, Obama = Marxist, both are bad.
However the D's are bad with a big B and the R's are bad with a little b when it comes to bankrupting the country.
As for taxes, it's all nonsense. Get rid of Personal Taxes -- all of them -- and return to the 'pre-income tax' period.
Ya I know the silly folks that argue that business will just put the taxes onto you anyway crowd will argue against this but that's because they don't understand that business does that now already, the difference is that when you no longer have to go to H&R Block because you no longer pay ANY personal taxes the class warfare (yes it is) can stop, we can stop demonizing people for working hard to earn a dime and we can start fixing the problem.
As for the rich not paying their fair share that's the most 'Marxist' thing I've heard all day. There is no 'fair' and there is no 'fair share' that's just political bullcrap. The reality is that the rich pay the taxes and the poor do not. Plain and simple. Demonize them all you like but 10cc had it right back in the '70s "Tax the Rich to Feed the Poor until there are no Rich no more".....that's what you'll get.
Wanna fix the problem? Stop envying someone else, work towards ending government programs (all but the most necessary like the military) and return to independence from Government.
Life, Liberty and Property!
Man you got it all wrong. All these government givaway programs are not about transfering wealth they are about keeping people from revolting. If you allow the rich to get richer and give nothing to the poor. The poor will kill the rich. Can't have that so they devised a system where the middle class pays the poor to not kill the rich. What a deal.
Quote from: ScottA on December 14, 2010, 06:46:58 PM
Man you got it all wrong. All these government givaway programs are not about transfering wealth they are about keeping people from revolting. If you allow the rich to get richer and give nothing to the poor. The poor will kill the rich. Can't have that so they devised a system where the middle class pays the poor to not kill the rich. What a deal.
Nope. Historically the poor get richer.
When one looks back in history it is clear that when Government DOES NOT have programs to help everyone then prosperity reigns. It's only when jealous people try to manipulate who gets to be wealthy through regulation and government that things get crazy.
Take Rockefeller -- demonized and called a Robber Barron...but was he really? It is a fact that he took Kerosene from $160 a barrel to $17 a barrel thereby making people live better lives, saving them money, allowing them to use their hard earned dollars for other purchases and saving the whales....During this period real wages ROSE for the average worker but the so called 'Robber Barons' were demonized by those who could not keep up with them. Why do you suppose that was?
Because they could not gouge YOU and keep the poor poor so they went after the very people who raised the standard of living for the poor.
That's what is going on today too. The rich are not the problem, government, government programs and socialists are the problem.
tertiary trivia.
socialism is great, until you run out of other peoples money. thats all that really has to be said about how our economy works. it works great, until you run out of other peoples money. be it "taxing the rich" or "selling bonds to the chinese" or "making the tobigtofail banks sop up the offering" or "taxing the little guy". the source does not matter, they are lines enacted to cause division and get people angry about how one side is advancing over the other. The truth is we are all getting screwed. But eventually they DO run out of other peoples money. mathematically they are well past the insolvent line. everyone knows it, but no one accepts it. So we just plod along, nodding like fields of grain.
I guess "Historically the poor get richer" depends on what the definition of rich is.
If so many people are getting "Rich" why Don't I know anyone who is?
If the middle class constantly get poorer from paying taxes for the rich, how is that poor getting richer?
astidham,
I dont agree necessarily with the notion, but it is accurate.
100 years ago in 1910, many people in this country lived in mud huts, dugouts. they had no electricity, no phone, no car, and faced real possibility of starving to death. Now, everyone - even those on welfare - have food, vehicles, cable tv, internet, basically people have whatever is important to them. From necessities to toys. The quality of life for the poor has increased.
What you are thinking is that the hardships on the middle class have increased, and that is accurate. But again, this is just sqabbling over who gets what piece of the pie. The notion the pie is shrinking is not discussed. If you ask the rich you'll get "the savage poor are taking it in entitlements" and if you ask the poor its "those fatcat rich guys are keeping their money". The entirel political system is arranged to divide and split the people. The reality is that the pie is getting smaller and everyone is getting squeezed by it. To understand why the pie is getting smaller you have to look further up the food chain. hint- it's not by accident.
Quote from: muldoon on December 14, 2010, 08:08:04 PM
astidham,
I dont agree necessarily with the notion, but it is accurate.
100 years ago in 1910, many people in this country lived in mud huts, dugouts. they had no electricity, no phone, no car, and faced real possibility of starving to death. Now, everyone - even those on welfare - have food, vehicles, cable tv, internet, basically people have whatever is important to them. From necessities to toys. The quality of life for the poor has increased.
What you are thinking is that the hardships on the middle class have increased, and that is accurate. But again, this is just sqabbling over who gets what piece of the pie. The notion the pie is shrinking is not discussed. If you ask the rich you'll get "the savage poor are taking it in entitlements" and if you ask the poor its "those fatcat rich guys are keeping their money". The entirel political system is arranged to divide and split the people. The reality is that the pie is getting smaller and everyone is getting squeezed by it. To understand why the pie is getting smaller you have to look further up the food chain. hint- it's not by accident.
The majority of these increases are due to a more advanced civilization, event the "poor" Indians had guns and lived in mud or hide coated huts.
my Grandparents never owned cell phones. lol
Quote from: OlJarhead on December 14, 2010, 06:52:07 PM
Nope. Historically the poor get richer.
On some level you are correct, however history also shows us that given enough power the rich will starve and murder the poor for their own gain. That's what we are seeing today except they are no longer starving them (at least not in this country). They are forcing you, and me to feed them so that other history doesn't repeat itself. Your argument would be 100% valid if the playing field was level. It's not and never will be. You are correct that the social programs are designed to keep the poor, poor, just like the schools are designed to keep the poor ignorant.
Quote from: ScottA on December 14, 2010, 09:45:08 PM
Quote from: OlJarhead on December 14, 2010, 06:52:07 PM
Nope. Historically the poor get richer.
On some level you are correct, however history also shows us that given enough power the rich will starve and murder the poor for their own gain. That's what we are seeing today except they are no longer starving them (at least not in this country). They are forcing you, and me to feed them so that other history doesn't repeat itself. Your argument would be 100% valid if the playing field was level. It's not and never will be. You are correct that the social programs are designed to keep the poor, poor, just like the schools are designed to keep the poor ignorant.
This is why the second Amendment to the Constitution is so important.
You should be free top earn whatever you can (by legal and moral means anyway) however if you drag yourself from rags to riches and then try to oppress the poor the poor have the right to rebel and shoot you.
Liberty is the key folks, socialism is evil.
Read the Constitution, understand it, read the Federalist Papers, read 'Patriots History of the United States', read 'Three Men of Boston' and then read 'The Real George Washington' and 'Common Sense' and finally 'The Creature from Jekyll Island' and 'Meltdown' and then ask yourself: who's fault is it?
And the answer will be? YOU and ME!
It's our fault and to fix it we must first cast out all incumbents.
Quote from: MountainDon on December 14, 2010, 03:54:39 PM
Re FairTax Quote from: Ajax on December 12, 2010, 07:32:44 PM
Enjoy your tax hike
Why does that have to amount to a tax increase?
For middle and lower classes, it has to be. The math won't work any other way.
Quote from: MountainDon on December 14, 2010, 05:30:34 PM
But you'd be starting with a full wallet or bank account, not one that was short a chunk with every paycheck received.
Or for those who have problems with that why not a flat tax?
You won't get your whole paycheck. If you make $50K and take home $40K under the current system, under the FT you'd be payed $40K. The $10 grand are imbedded taxes that have to be eliminated.
The whole concept is a shell game designed to prey on the average American's hatred of the current system to push through a huge tax reduction for the rich. Plus it has numerous other flaws.
Quote from: OlJarhead on December 14, 2010, 06:38:49 PM
Quote from: Shawn B on December 14, 2010, 01:30:50 PM
Good points Erik but I must disagree about Bush. Let's not forget that the war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan is done through debt and of course a lot of military spending is never fully known because it is done "off-book". Bush also created the Department of Homeland Security (Stupidity) which was the single largest creation of Federal government employees since the days of FDR. More Federal employees means more taxes, or deficit financing. Deficit financing is done through China and other nations buying U.S. debt, or Helicopter Ben firing up the presses. Either way is no good. Also the Bush's are more neoconservatives or neocons than Progressives.
Bush was a progressive -- so your point is what? R or D it makes no difference when they are all the same 'Progressive' party in the end.
As for growing the Federal Government it's grown far far more under Obama then anyone else since FDR...but I digress.
The best way to see who spent what (and to get away from the whole 'off the books' nonsense) is to just look at the debt and how much it rose under Bush vs how much it's risen since Obama and the D's were in total control with large majorities....it's grown more then THREE AND A HALF TRILLION in less then two years with Obama and the bid D's in power....before that it grew about ONE AND A HALF Trillion.
So let's just set the record straight shall we?
Under Bush and the R's in power the debt grew 2.3 TRILLION in FIVE years 200-2005 then the Democrats took over the congress (purse strings) and the debt grew 1.5 TRILLION in TWO years.... (that means MUCH MORE then the previous 5 when based on a year over year number) and then when Obama took over and the democrats gained filibuster proof majorities in BOTH houses the debt grew THREE AND A HALF TRILLION DOLLARS IN LESS THEN TWO YEARS.
Spin that anyway you want but you cannot say that Bush was the biggest spender by any stretch...oh and my source? The US Treasury d*
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
So, friend, Bush = Progressive, Obama = Marxist, both are bad.
However the D's are bad with a big B and the R's are bad with a little b when it comes to bankrupting the country.
As for taxes, it's all nonsense. Get rid of Personal Taxes -- all of them -- and return to the 'pre-income tax' period.
Ya I know the silly folks that argue that business will just put the taxes onto you anyway crowd will argue against this but that's because they don't understand that business does that now already, the difference is that when you no longer have to go to H&R Block because you no longer pay ANY personal taxes the class warfare (yes it is) can stop, we can stop demonizing people for working hard to earn a dime and we can start fixing the problem.
As for the rich not paying their fair share that's the most 'Marxist' thing I've heard all day. There is no 'fair' and there is no 'fair share' that's just political bullcrap. The reality is that the rich pay the taxes and the poor do not. Plain and simple. Demonize them all you like but 10cc had it right back in the '70s "Tax the Rich to Feed the Poor until there are no Rich no more".....that's what you'll get.
Wanna fix the problem? Stop envying someone else, work towards ending government programs (all but the most necessary like the military) and return to independence from Government.
Life, Liberty and Property!
Erik, You miss my point. I'm not saying that Bush spent more than Obama. What I am saying is he GREW the size of Federal employees more than Obama by creating the Dept Of Homeland Security. Remember that act Federalized ALL airport security. 100,000's of NEW Federal employee's that you and me and everyone else that pays taxes has to support. It will take an almost act of God to un-Federalize these people....which means it will probably never happen. Governments never historically relent power that they granted themselves (usurped) or unknowing voters granted to them. You seem to have took my criticism of Bush has support of Obama? Not so. I'm a libertarian like yourself, and being so criticize all big gov't types regardless of political party. I agree we should return to the pre-income tax period.
On Bush's spending you forgot to include the first bailout package that occurred prior to the 2008 election, that one was around $850 Billion. He asked for $700 Billion then Congress added another $150 Billion extra.
Historically every President outspends the other. It's just we have not seen this level of spending increases in many decades, until the Bush-Obama era. When one adjusts Reagan's spending for inflation he would have fit in nicely too at the Bush-Obama table too.
To understand the last decade of politics one has to understand what a neo-conservative or neocon is. To lump then in with Progressives is not totally accurate.
You are right that gov't programs need to be downsized, eliminated, and Federal workers put back into private business. I would also cut and downsize some of the military. It is either the 2nd or 3rd most expensive Federal department. Plus it allows the American Empire to exist over sea's which is another major expense
Anyway it appears we are basically on the same page.
Erik,
Nice reading list. I've read and own many of them already. Still need to pick up a couple.
Quote from: Shawn B on December 15, 2010, 12:02:40 PM
On Bush's spending you forgot to include the first bailout package that occurred prior to the 2008 election, that one was around $850 Billion. He asked for $700 Billion then Congress added another $150 Billion extra.
TARP was authorized for $700 billion, never disbursed near that amount, has already had a great deal paid back, and is currently esitmated to have a total cost to taxpayers of $30 to $50 billion.
Some interesting quick facts on the growing wealth gap.
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#the-gap-between-the-top-1-and-everyone-else-hasnt-been-this-bad-since-the-roaring-twenties-1 (http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#the-gap-between-the-top-1-and-everyone-else-hasnt-been-this-bad-since-the-roaring-twenties-1)
I would hope that no matter where you stand politically you could agree that these are ominous trends, unless of course you happen to be one of the top 1%. Where do these charts lead us? Not too hard to read.
A runaway train.
Quote from: OlJarhead on December 13, 2010, 05:36:21 PM
I, as a Libertarian, do not support the idea of big government in any form and tend to think that Benjamin Franklin had it right.
I am surprised to hear that from you, as Franklin was a socialist. Welcome to the dark side!
Ben Franklin a socialist...... ??? ???
Ben Franklin was a consummate politician, social commentator and statesman with a wicked sense of humor. As such he can be claimed by just about any political persuasion.
The Rational Optimist (http://goo.gl/WnhtM) by Matt Ridley. A great book that points out that (almost) all boats are rising even though the percentage of income flowing to the most wealthy is rising the fastest. At some point the wealthy will be forced to more equitably share their income. Some of the most wealthy (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet) are already asking for this.
We live in unusual times however. In the early 1930's the poor or stalled lower middle income folks where demanding social solutions from government and actions that would benefit their economic sector with a greater share of the country's wealth.
Now, at least part of the lower and middle income classes have been captured by a Tea Party mentality that seeks to reduce the role of government and end support of the very programs that improve their economic well-being.
It's like the working class folks who have not participated in any of the wealth increases of the last 40 years are saying "We want the wealthy to keep more for themselves and quit having to share with us".
I don't quite understand how we got in this position.??? I thought self-interest was a basic fact of how modern economies and political systems work... doesn't seem to be true now. Is this just the natural result of wealthy corporate ownership of media and the manipulation of emotions though talk radio and such?
Or is there a more rational reason for this political shift?
Quote from: Shawn B on December 15, 2010, 02:08:53 PM
Ben Franklin a socialist...... ??? ???
From a letter by Ben Franklin to Robert Morris in 1793 (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s12.html):
Quote
All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.
Sounds like socialism to me.
Quote from: John Raabe on December 15, 2010, 03:36:42 PM
Ben Franklin was a consummate politician, social commentator and statesman with a wicked sense of humor. As such he can be claimed by just about any political persuasion.
The Rational Optimist (http://goo.gl/WnhtM) by Matt Ridley. A great book that points out that (almost) all boats are rising even though the percentage of income flowing to the most wealthy is rising the fastest. At some point the wealthy will be forced to more equitably share their income. Some of the most wealthy (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet) are already asking for this.
We live in unusual times however. In the early 1930's the poor or stalled lower middle income folks where demanding social solutions from government and actions that would benefit their economic sector with a greater share of the country's wealth.
Now, at least part of the lower and middle income classes have been captured by a Tea Party mentality that seeks to reduce the role of government and end support of the very programs that improve their economic well-being.
It's like the working class folks who have not participated in any of the wealth increases of the last 40 years are saying "We want the wealthy to keep more for themselves and quit having to share with us".
I don't quite understand how we got in this position.??? I thought self-interest was a basic fact of how modern economies and political systems work... doesn't seem to be true now. Is this just the natural result of wealthy corporate ownership of media and the manipulation of emotions though talk radio and such?
Or is there a more rational reason for this political shift?
I agree John.
The talk radio majority is educated from the opinion of a bias Idea instead of FACTS.
Here's a result of how the economy works in Greece...
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/12/video-fire-bombs-stones-fly-in-greek.html
How long before it becomes this way here?
Quote from: cbc58 on December 16, 2010, 10:07:47 AM
Here's a result of how the economy works in Greece...
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/12/video-fire-bombs-stones-fly-in-greek.html
How long before it becomes this way here?
Hard to say.... how long would it take for YOU to run out of ammo? ;)
Sorry all I was off working out of town most of last week.
I used Treasury statistics on the debt to point out who spent what. While that does not account for inflation it does point to the spending habits of Congress (and the administration) of various years.
The latest is out of this world.
The TSA is an abomination and I was very unhappy with it's creation -- we're definitely on the same page :)
Franklin a socialist? I think you're rather confused Pox. It was Franklin who said this most unsocialist of statements:
Quote"I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
Today Ben Franklin would abolish ALL programs that 'help' the poor -- EVERY ONE OF THEM.
Doesn't sound like a socialist Pox, but I'm sure modern progressives teach otherwise.
As for the whole Noecon thing, I think most of that was made up to confuse people. Bush was/is a progressive. There are however Progressives who lean towards fasism and neo-conism as well as those who lean towards communism/socialism. They are all birds of a feather however and all of them are not good for the nation.
Quote from: OlJarhead on December 18, 2010, 12:30:55 PMFranklin a socialist? I think you're rather confused Pox.
So you are OK with Franklin's position that everything you earn beyond basic necesssities it the property of the public? He also was not very libertarian in his tax policy:
Quote
The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.
If he wasn't socialist, he certainly was a lefty in favor of big government.
Quote"All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."
Somehow that quote just didn't pass the sniff test – it was likely missing qualifying context or simply not a real quote at all.
Here is the quote from the letter to Robert Morris:
"All Property indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of publick Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents & all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity & the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man for the Conservation of the Individual & the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right which none can justly deprive him of:
But all Property of the Publick, who by their Laws have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire & live among Savages.—He can have no right to the Benefits of Society who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."
The actual quote seems to convey the idea that property which was not privately owned was merely a legal creation held for the benefit of the public at large. When the "need" arose, such as keeping Franklin occupied in his European entertainments, or paying off debts he contracted without authorization, said public property could be sold to raise funds.
Nowhere in the actual quote do I find that the "Publick" created "superfluous"property as claimed in the ersatz quote; indeed the very notion is absurd. Nor is the word "Superfluous" found anywhere in the letter. It seems the false quote was made to order for those seeking a soundbite supportive of a particular ideology.
Franklin was whining about not being kept up in the manner in which he wished to be accustomed; not only did he have difficulty in separating his private expenditures from public funds, he was suggesting that merely because he created a debt that the public must pay up, either in taxes or by selling land.
Obviously he was way off base. Besides the obvious self serving logical flaws contained within his argument, nowhere in the Constitution is there any requirement laid upon citizens.
I suggest a reading of the Franklin letter to gain a more thorough understanding.
Source:
http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedNames.jsp
Quote from: MikeC on December 18, 2010, 07:16:43 PM
Franklin was whining about not being kept up in the manner in which he wished to be accustomed; not only did he have difficulty in separating his private expenditures from public funds, he was suggesting that merely because he created a debt that the public must pay up, either in taxes or by selling land.
Obviously he was way off base. Besides the obvious self serving logical flaws contained within his argument, nowhere in the Constitution is there any requirement laid upon citizens.
This is why I found it curious that a libertarian like
OlJarhead would think Ben had it right.
Quote from: Pox Eclipse on December 19, 2010, 11:32:33 AM
Quote from: MikeC on December 18, 2010, 07:16:43 PM
Franklin was whining about not being kept up in the manner in which he wished to be accustomed; not only did he have difficulty in separating his private expenditures from public funds, he was suggesting that merely because he created a debt that the public must pay up, either in taxes or by selling land.
Obviously he was way off base. Besides the obvious self serving logical flaws contained within his argument, nowhere in the Constitution is there any requirement laid upon citizens.
This is why I found it curious that a libertarian like OlJarhead would think Ben had it right.
Pox I'm completely confused here -- just because Ben was self serving doesn't mean he was a socialist (though the two do seem to correlate). However, the statement on the poor does absolutely show that he was not a socialist -- after all a socialist would have wanted to make it easy on the poor and keep them there rather then making it hard on them or leading them out of it....
So what did I have wrong?
As for being a Libertarian I'm not entirely certain what your point is...as a Libertarian I just think you ought to be able to do whatever it is your heart desires as long as it does not infringe on my rights (Natural or otherwise).
Quote from: OlJarhead on December 21, 2010, 08:48:27 PMAs for being a Libertarian I'm not entirely certain what your point is...as a Libertarian I just think you ought to be able to do whatever it is your heart desires as long as it does not infringe on my rights (Natural or otherwise).
Do you agree with Franklin's position on taxation?
you guys.
there is no right and left. there is no liberal and conservative. those are political terms. there is only crony government. It applies today as much as it did in the days of Franklin or for that matter the days of the Pharaoh.
As for what the founding fathers intended, they laid it out right in the constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause
Quote
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
Thus the thuggery is established. Next come the excuses:
Quote
to pay the Debts
Its debts. Not yours. TARP was not a new idea. S&L bailout was not a new idea.
Quote
...and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare...
...which it, and it alone shall interpret in its interests.
Quote
of the United States...
"United States" being the government's preciously clever title for itself -- it's not referring to you, you peon who shall be squeezed in perpetuity to cover the Hamilton Aristocracy's bad investments. Or the investments of any other politician since then for that matter.
It is what it is, and it's the the the world works. It specifically is the way the economy works. It always has been. How do you think we got railroads in this country? How do you think Ford financed those cars? How do you think GE grew to it's size? How do you think Haliburton is what it is? How do you think we paid for the internet expansion? Or the real estate boom. The fact is that is how the world works, and thus consequently that is how the economy works.
Quote from: muldoon on December 22, 2010, 01:14:46 AM
you guys.
there is no right and left. there is no liberal and conservative. those are political terms. there is only crony government. It applies today as much as it did in the days of Franklin or for that matter the days of the Pharaoh.
As for what the founding fathers intended, they laid it out right in the constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause
Quote
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
Thus the thuggery is established. Next come the excuses:
Quote
to pay the Debts
Its debts. Not yours. TARP was not a new idea. S&L bailout was not a new idea.
Quote
...and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare...
...which it, and it alone shall interpret in its interests.
Quote
of the United States...
"United States" being the government's preciously clever title for itself -- it's not referring to you, you peon who shall be squeezed in perpetuity to cover the Hamilton Aristocracy's bad investments. Or the investments of any other politician since then for that matter.
It is what it is, and it's the the the world works. It specifically is the way the economy works. It always has been. How do you think we got railroads in this country? How do you think Ford financed those cars? How do you think GE grew to it's size? How do you think Haliburton is what it is? How do you think we paid for the internet expansion? Or the real estate boom. The fact is that is how the world works, and thus consequently that is how the economy works.
Actually the railroads were being built by private money but the Government decided to get involved, government funded railroads were a disaster, as usual, and private money bailed them out in the end....much much later when a railroad was going bankrupt the government bailed them out and today we have the screwed up and corrupt and losing money 'Amtrak'.
Bailouts aren't new though, I agree...
Quote from: Pox Eclipse on December 21, 2010, 10:06:42 PM
Quote from: OlJarhead on December 21, 2010, 08:48:27 PMAs for being a Libertarian I'm not entirely certain what your point is...as a Libertarian I just think you ought to be able to do whatever it is your heart desires as long as it does not infringe on my rights (Natural or otherwise).
Do you agree with Franklin's position on taxation?
QuoteIt would be thought a hard Government that should tax its People one-tenth Part of their Time, to be employed in its Service.
Benjamin Franklin, Preface to Poor Richard Improved, 1758
In truth I cannot find any good reference to Benjamin Franklin on taxes beyond a few snippets here and there so I cannot say I agree or disagree with his tax position.
On one hand he claims that he does not want to use taxes to help the poor and I agree with him there. On the other hand he seems to think taxes are ok to pay for his exuberance which I do not agree with.
His comment about a government being hard that taxes 1/10th of the peoples time seems to suggest that maybe he doesn't like taxation, on the other he seems to be using that to emphasize that laziness and sloth is the real problem.
He testified against the stamp act so it would seem clear that he didn't support all taxes or just any, but on the other hand he seemed to be saying that it was un-enforceable.
So I can't say either way.
Goldman Sachs. big surprise.
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/12/totally-busted-truth-about-goldmans.html