lol...no kidding, huh...

This describes the problem with income taxes right here. The government has no right to money we earned, none. They effectively mooch off of the working class.

Very true ... and irresponsible.

But wouldn't it have made more sense to invest the $800+Billion in bailout dollars in the families ... how would things look different if instead of bailing out Freddie and Fanny ... they bailed out the families.

Families would still be in their homes ... Freddie and Fannie would have stayed in business because people would have been able to pay their mortgages...

Call me simplistic ... but it makes sense to me ...

See how easy it is to come up with a simple and humane solution to these problems? Do you know why Freddy and Fanny were kept afloat, but the home owners were screwed? The government created Freddy and Fanny and treat them like babies. Close down Freddy and Fanny and start over, no reason to keep around two organizations that nearly bankrupted the country.

But the 16th amendment says they can!

(it was sold to the American people by saying it would only apply to the rich)

Governments seem to enjoy overly complicating things don't they? I guess it justifies their existence...

Finally...

Great job, as always Artsy. You beat me to it, sorta.

--

Fairy Tales and lies.

I'll get to you later, until then...

So why don't you stop being so immoral and go work in one yourself?

Your position is like that of Jeb Bush's saying he was a 'self-mnade' man when he ran for Governor in Florida-- yours and his political theories come straight from the tale of the Emperor's Clothes.


-Kerry O.

But you're ignoring history-- the same people who had the biggest hands in creating (and profiting from) this mess were the people who pretty much bought the bovernment and forced it to get out of the business of regulating the very activity that caused it.

Do some research-- you'll find that one of the biggest problems in the foreclosure mess has been caused by 'house flippers' walking away from loans on properties that are no 'under water'. You'll find that what these rich folks did was perfectly legal, because they got the bankruptcy laws changed to favor themselves back in the early 2000s.

-Kerry O.

well, our government has no RIGHTS to anything but 'we the people' did give them the POWER to levy taxes against our income.

actually, no, as i see it anyway. bailing out families so irresponsible as to get themselves in such a fix, most families weren't so stupid, would have two negative effects. one, it would do nothing to save the mortgage banking system that those of us still need who did NOT succumb to the greed of a 'cheap home' that we could not afford in the first place; and two, it would have fostered the same risky behavior in the future. when people see the government as their savior from stupidity they become as guilty as the financial institutions for risking it all knowing they are 'too big for the government to allow them to fail.'

In many cases, these were unsophisticated people who were being lied to be 'experts', who told them 'Don't worry about the reset rate, property values will keep growing really fast, you'll be making more money and you'll be able to finance in 2 years at a lower rate'.

If you're going to be fair, how about commenting on the rich people who bought into the same scheme hoping to get even richer without risk or effort, but who just 'turned in the keys' when they couldn't make the payments from the cash flow on their speculation properties and there was no one with the means to pay the rents they would have needed to do so? These were the same kind of people who are fond of saying 'My word is my bond' in better times, but who caved into the same 'let the government clean up the mess' when their investments cratered.

See, it's always easier to pick on people who are not those you wish to emulate-- and it's easier to look the other way when they are. Face it-- in this country, money can buy a lot of repentance, And cheaply, too.

-Kerry O.

Such pathetic attempts at logic are committed in these forums. It's sad.

I never said it was "moral" to work in a sweatshop, I said it's moral to build and run them there. It is a very great boon to 3rd world citizen who gets to work in a sweatshop. Sweatshops are moral in 3rd world countries, because it offers the citizens a better alternative than their country can allow. It also creates more jobs than the country already has. It also gives the employees job experience that will come in very useful as the economy grows.

Maybe the reason you don't believe in what Jeb Bush has said is because you are incapable of understanding what he said? I'm not saying that you have a mental deficiency, but rather an emotional one. You are clearly intelligent, but you allow your emotions to blind your reason. You should calm down and look at the facts rationally. I didn't always believe sweatshops were good, I educated myself. If someone says something you don't agree with, you don't have to lash out at them from pure emotion, you can research the subject and come to an informed decision.

KerryO and jrbogie,

You are both ignoring the actual problem with the housing crisis. It wasn't "evil lenders" and it wasn't "evil house flippers" and it wasn't "irresponsible home buyers", it was the Government.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/18/fannie-freddie-regulation-oped-cx_yb_0718brook.html

The problem is more complex than house flippers ... in fact, that is not cited as the big 'cause' in anything I've read. I have done some research thank you.

And who said anything about 'illegal' ...

It is easy to speculate what might have happened but it didn't, so we'll never know ...

I wonder how many of those 'stupid families' ended up living in a tent. It is still a devastating time for a lot of people.

You see, Businesses pay off their bank loans out of their revenues. They even get a tax deduction on the interest. No different whether it is a small business or a huge corpration. If the owners have looted the business treasury for the sake of life-style spending, then they are likely to face high personal income taxes. If they have left more money in their business, they are likely to face much lower lifestyle taxes. This is a good way to keep their money away from the Government.
QUOTE:

I am afraid that this is simply not true. Unless you are fortunate enough to Invest in an IPO, the shares you are trading are already in circulation, like trading baseball cards.the fleer bubble gum company doesn't get any money from it. The only financial benefit to the company is the higher value of the shares that it itself holds. That's the way the stock market works.


And how is that not positive to the economy? It is good for individuals who should be saving money, and that is a good thing, but the American economy is 70% consumer driven. Money in savings and not spent is unavailable to the aggregate demand that feeds the economy. The point here was to debunk the common myth that by investing in the stock market, people are sending money to the companies. You were just wrong about that.

QUOTE:

Those dollars largely go to American Corporations who manufacture their goods overseas. Creates jobs, but not in America. The point of this was to demonstrate that These dollars do not create jobs in America. You left that part out


this is a complex paragraph. You are raising issues that weren't a part of the original exchange, but we can talk about this, too.
1) There is a vast difference between published corporate income tax rates and taxes actually paid. the figure I have heard is around 13%
2) I hardly think the contributions from unions (which comprise under 9% of the private work force) even begin to compare with contributions from contributors like the Koch Brothers.
3) Workers are also in business to make a living. Not to make business owners richer. Workers do not volunteer to take jobs as unpaid volunteers. History has shown us that when top income rates are high and Unionization rates are high, everybody gets richer. I have read where you think sweatshops are a good thing. Good for poor workers in countries that have failed to manage their economies for the good of their populace. Certainly good for exploiters. I personally don't want to see America gets to the point where sweatshops would be considered a great thing for American workers. However, I applaud your altruism for the workers of foreign countries.

It is true that there are American companies that that wield great power in America Koch Industries, for instance. That really isn't the question. It is also true that as American wages more closely approach third world wages, some few employers are finding it more cost effective to operate in America.Keep 'em coming.

Money is God.

My mind is waxed...

We have an individual who scoffs at anything that can be remotely attached to communism in his mind, yet claims that the working conditions in communist China are moral.

We now base what is moral upon comparison to nothing.

Slavery is moral. Mother goose grim supports this. Slave wages are better than no wages.

That sums it up nicely.

Let the reader decide.