On February 01 2011 16:57 LyRa wrote: If they were optional and people had the choice not to pay - they probably wouldn't.
Yep, because people in general are stupid.
Those taxes are not just for your future, they are for those who already need the money. You are giving the money to the community, so those that are retired already can use it, people that are ill can get medical care, etc.
In turn for paying those taxes you can expect people to pay for you when you get old or require medical care.
I don't know the correct english term, but in germany we call it a "generation contract". This generation pays for the previous, so the next will pay for us, knowing that those after them will pay for them.
Of course this doesn't work in the selfish USA, where everyone only cares about himself.
I pay my taxes and would pay them if they were voluntary, i don't even care about getting any tax refunds because in the end, the money will be used for the community and i trust in the government to use it to it's best ability for the good of everyone.
User was temp banned for this post.
Was he banned cause he said selfish america? Look at the poll results. Banners been riduclous lately. I got banned for "being a douche" in the swearing/opinion thread when the guy specifically asked if he sounded stupid. wtf tl.
Edit: to be on topic. Yes, I like Canada's tax system and our social security programs. I'm glad I live here.
So people who don't want to pay a bankrupt government to fund a bankrupt program are either selfish or stupid?
You can't really compare Canada or any other country's social programs to the USA, you aren't wasting your money on half the world's military budget. If US wasn't, it could afford all sorts of social programs and still have lower taxes than it has right now.
Wish I was born there, I would be glad too.
Have you ever looked at the budget. Our defense budget, appropriations for wars, and military contracts aren't even close to what we spent on our social programs already. Even if you reduced all our military spending to 0 we'd have trouble coming up even. Keep in mind that military is the ONLY reason gov't exists. It's why people made gov'ts in the first place, it's the only power that the founding fathers wanted the federal gov't to truly have, and it's why we have the power system we do.
We might spend a ton of money compared to the rest of the world, but for a nation with our economy and GDP it's not actually that much. In the end, we could take on the entire world's armed forces if we had to. That kind of security is what we pay for. If you don't value security, don't have gov't.
Canada would be conquered by the Japanese or Russians or someone else by now if it wasn't for the US. Think about that one.
Forming a military is the only reason for governments to exist?
You can't seriously believe that, can you?
It's not a belief, it's a fact. All societies are built around the idea of protection, that in groups you're safer from outside threats than individually. Ever since the stone age, mankind has been grouping together so that they could hunt large prey safely. When farming replaced foraging, people had to bind together in communities to protect their work, their crops, from outside threats, such as raids from other tribes. In feudal england, nobles pledged loyalty to the king to protect their lands by paying a tax to the king so that he would use his army to defend them.
Name one reason why gov't should exist beyond defense.
Collective defense and a standing military aren't the same thing.
Humans are jerks, plain and simple. We're petty, arrogant, jealous, and greedy. We need just as much protection from each other than we do from a "scary foreign enemy". A government serves to support and enforce the structured society that we've created for ourselves. The structured society that keeps your shit from getting stolen, keeps me from getting raped on the way home from work, and generally maintains that we don't start killing each other over various disagreements.
Or should we just trust in genuine human kindness to treat everyone else as we'd like to be treated ourselves? Our track record with such a system isn't great.
You replied before my correction, so I assume you'd probably say different after reading my addendum. You'll find it on the same page as this post I'm quoting for your reference.
In any case, I totally agree, if humans can exploit others, it's in our nature to do so. The only reason we don't is loyalty to societal stability ingrained in us from birth, especially from family connections and loyalties resulting from a stable and structured home life.
I certainly do not believe that humans are any more moral than a shark is moral. Everything about morality is learned behavior, but at some point long long ago the people who stuck together under the concept of loyalty and structure in a rudimentary society did better than those who didn't, and their cultural values were imparted on the next generation and so forth.
I forgot who said it, but there's a famous quote "If men were angels we would not need government" or something along those lines.
In any case, the ultimate goal of gov't is to protect people from people, whether they be outsiders or citizens.
On February 02 2011 09:50 c0rn1 wrote: It's very interesting to see the different mindsets in this thread.
Just to bring some additional topics:
Did you know that the US spends 8-9 % of their yearly spending just for interest of the credits? That's about $250,000,000,000 (250 bn). The military budget is @ ~500bn. $1000 per head in the US. And after the past few years that number absolutely and relatively will increase.
I see alot of people saying that saving for bad times is a private matter. Then I ask you do you support the bailout for the banks? Shouldn't they have saved for bad times rather spending trillions in casino style? And what do you think would happen if the bailout wouldn't have been there. Alot of people who invested their savings into banks would be bankrupt now because the bank would've had to declare bankrupcy. Why does the society have to pay for this? (the bailout was nothing else than a social security program).
Some people say others are stupid. How would you see someone who bought a house and couldnt pay the interest anymore because he lost his job due to the crisis?
Does not have everyone the same right on resources, ground, etc. with his birth? Isn't that the basic element of capitalism? you start equal and personal quality decides the path you can go and the money you make? How can it be that in capitalism where everyone can go from dishwasher to president only 10% own 60%-70% of the total wealth? And the "amazing" thing is that the community of those 10% almost never gains members rather loses some. If those 10% would spend 2% tax on their TOTAL possesion for the next 10 years the US would be debtfree (almost the same with germany nowadays). BUT those rich who have everything they need million times over just got an additional tax cut?!
WE have a system where money is printed -not backed up by anything- but the total amount in circulation is LESS than the total amount of debt. Now let's think. 10% own 60-70% and the total amount is less than the debt? Are maybe the rest of those people in debt? 90%?
NO, you say! because you are debtfree. Wrong I say because after the principle of governmental society the debt of the US is your debt too.
=> 178k per citizen right now. So if you got less than $ 178k somewhere you are _not_ debtfree and live on social security. Because the society guarantees your security of freedom to do what you do.
a bank is allowed to give out 10 times the number of money it loaned. so no, the amount of money circulating is getting bigger and bigger everytime a bank loans money. debt creates money, paradox? no. read my posts before!
On February 02 2011 09:50 c0rn1 wrote: It's very interesting to see the different mindsets in this thread.
Just to bring some additional topics:
Did you know that the US spends 8-9 % of their yearly spending just for interest of the credits? That's about $250,000,000,000 (250 bn). The military budget is @ ~500bn. $1000 per head in the US. And after the past few years that number absolutely and relatively will increase.
I see alot of people saying that saving for bad times is a private matter. Then I ask you do you support the bailout for the banks? Shouldn't they have saved for bad times rather spending trillions in casino style? And what do you think would happen if the bailout wouldn't have been there. Alot of people who invested their savings into banks would be bankrupt now because the bank would've had to declare bankrupcy. Why does the society have to pay for this? (the bailout was nothing else than a social security program).
Some people say others are stupid. How would you see someone who bought a house and couldnt pay the interest anymore because he lost his job due to the crisis?
Does not have everyone the same right on resources, ground, etc. with his birth? Isn't that the basic element of capitalism? you start equal and personal quality decides the path you can go and the money you make? How can it be that in capitalism where everyone can go from dishwasher to president only 10% own 60%-70% of the total wealth? And the "amazing" thing is that the community of those 10% almost never gains members rather loses some. If those 10% would spend 2% tax on their TOTAL possesion for the next 10 years the US would be debtfree (almost the same with germany nowadays). BUT those rich who have everything they need million times over just got an additional tax cut?!
WE have a system where money is printed -not backed up by anything- but the total amount in circulation is LESS than the total amount of debt. Now let's think. 10% own 60-70% and the total amount is less than the debt? Are maybe the rest of those people in debt? 90%?
NO, you say! because you are debtfree. Wrong I say because after the principle of governmental society the debt of the US is your debt too.
=> 178k per citizen right now. So if you got less than $ 178k somewhere you are _not_ debtfree and live on social security. Because the society guarantees your security of freedom to do what you do.
No. If the banks failed and people's accounts were closed the banks would've defaulted but the FDIC would've covered the people's savings. The point of the FDIC was to let banks who take stupid risks fail without endangering people's life savings.
The fact is, letting the banks fail was absolutely 100% the right choice, and the bailouts were a massive massive mistake and a huge disaster. The banks should've failed and people would've been compensated by the gov't, which while it would've cost the gov't money, would've been a 1 time deal, and capitalism would've run its course. Bad business models would've been punished and more sensible competitors would take up the reigns. Expansion from competitors would've filled the gap in the banking industry and the growth in the sector into that gap would've generated lots of revenue back for the gov't, stabilized the industry, and people would end up paying much much less overall. Not to mention the bailout was simply amoral and anticapitalism.
i have the feeling this is going away from insight talk back to people who not follow the thread at all and just have the feeling to take part in because they can.
we were so far ahead already. humanity deserves it.
On February 02 2011 09:50 c0rn1 wrote: It's very interesting to see the different mindsets in this thread.
Just to bring some additional topics:
Did you know that the US spends 8-9 % of their yearly spending just for interest of the credits? That's about $250,000,000,000 (250 bn). The military budget is @ ~500bn. $1000 per head in the US. And after the past few years that number absolutely and relatively will increase.
I see alot of people saying that saving for bad times is a private matter. Then I ask you do you support the bailout for the banks? Shouldn't they have saved for bad times rather spending trillions in casino style? And what do you think would happen if the bailout wouldn't have been there. Alot of people who invested their savings into banks would be bankrupt now because the bank would've had to declare bankrupcy. Why does the society have to pay for this? (the bailout was nothing else than a social security program).
Some people say others are stupid. How would you see someone who bought a house and couldnt pay the interest anymore because he lost his job due to the crisis?
Does not have everyone the same right on resources, ground, etc. with his birth? Isn't that the basic element of capitalism? you start equal and personal quality decides the path you can go and the money you make? How can it be that in capitalism where everyone can go from dishwasher to president only 10% own 60%-70% of the total wealth? And the "amazing" thing is that the community of those 10% almost never gains members rather loses some. If those 10% would spend 2% tax on their TOTAL possesion for the next 10 years the US would be debtfree (almost the same with germany nowadays). BUT those rich who have everything they need million times over just got an additional tax cut?!
WE have a system where money is printed -not backed up by anything- but the total amount in circulation is LESS than the total amount of debt. Now let's think. 10% own 60-70% and the total amount is less than the debt? Are maybe the rest of those people in debt? 90%?
NO, you say! because you are debtfree. Wrong I say because after the principle of governmental society the debt of the US is your debt too.
=> 178k per citizen right now. So if you got less than $ 178k somewhere you are _not_ debtfree and live on social security. Because the society guarantees your security of freedom to do what you do.
No. If the banks failed and people's accounts were closed the banks would've defaulted but the FDIC would've covered the people's savings. The point of the FDIC was to let banks who take stupid risks fail without endangering people's life savings.
The fact is, letting the banks fail was absolutely 100% the right choice, and the bailouts were a massive massive mistake and a huge disaster. The banks should've failed and people would've been compensated by the gov't, which while it would've cost the gov't money, would've been a 1 time deal, and capitalism would've run its course. Bad business models would've been punished and more sensible competitors would take up the reigns. Expansion from competitors would've filled the gap in the banking industry and the growth in the sector into that gap would've generated lots of revenue back for the gov't, stabilized the industry, and people would end up paying much much less overall. Not to mention the bailout was simply amoral and anticapitalism.
The money would have been spent either way. Into the hands of the people, or straight towards the institutions, isn't really much of a difference. What difference was made, was maintaining tons and tons of jobs, and prevention of a massive collapse of the financial system when the public's doubt, fear and panic start running rampant and pulling money out of investments in all directions.
At least this way, we're making a profit. Only half of the bailout money has been paid back, but about $50 B has been earned in interest off those bailout loans.
And if the people want to punish bad business models, then they're completely free to take their money out of their bank and put it elsewhere.
Anti-capitalist or not, it very much fucking saved our asses from an even worse situation.
It depends on the tax of course. I wouldn't pay CPP(Canadian pension plan [I.E. retirement fund]) because I feel I can manage my own money, just like the OP. I haven't really decided about other taxes though, I would have to analyze the pros and cons to paying them first, because currently I don't really know too much about anything other than CPP.
The fact is, letting the banks fail was absolutely 100% the right choice, and the bailouts were a massive massive mistake and a huge disaster.
There might be a problem with moral hazard in the future, but for now, it makes no sense to call the bank-side of the bailout a "huge disaster." In fact, the balance has been repaid and the U.S. is now making a profit off of them.
And you are not considering all of the facets of this complicated by issue by claiming it would be "absolutely 100% the right choice" to let them fail. There are reasonable arguments on both sides. In fact, there's a fairly strong argument that without the bailouts, the liquidity issue would have been far, far worse, and we would probably have gotten actual deflation as everyone scrambled to hold on to those dollars. You might not be convinced, but neither can you simply dismiss this event as impossible.
For a person earning a decent income, if given the choice it'd be better for that person to deposit that money into an IRA CD rather than pay Social Security. The "interest" is higher. Not to mention your IRA is FDIC ensured whereas SS might not be around in a few decades. Hence the argument for privatizing social security.
Yeah I'm a troll like galileo was a troll, it's what happens when you go against the established lies and ignorance.
The difference between Galileo and you is the proof, not the conjecture.
Then dispute what I have said. Where do US dollars come from?
You are making too much fuss, so here : they are (as all other currencies in the world) printed/minted. So now that we have this trivial question answered was there a point ?
I think the point went over your head.
No I think my mocking you went over your head. Why are you asking that question, it has nothing to do with the reason why I think he disagrees with you, I don't think anyone disputes some of what you are saying about debt(and things about who decides when and how much to print, which I suppose is the answer to your question). On the other hand you adding the government conspiracy that tries to make us into sheep through use of education system is what at least I find kind of irrational(to use this polite word). There is no reason to assume malice when ignorance/incompetence is sufficient. And then you even compare yourself to Galileo .
Yeah I'm a troll like galileo was a troll, it's what happens when you go against the established lies and ignorance.
The difference between Galileo and you is the proof, not the conjecture.
Then dispute what I have said. Where do US dollars come from?
You are making too much fuss, so here : they are (as all other currencies in the world) printed/minted. So now that we have this trivial question answered was there a point ?
printed hm? do you know the worth printed money? exactly the amount of production. even the most money is not printed at all, just numbers in a computer. thats close to zero of worth.
this close to zero real worth money is lent by a private organisation to states. to banks. with the full worth it was printed on or typed in. it gets even funnier. all this money comes with full interest. like you produce a paper, write a number on it, give it to someone, and because he uses it, you already want something back. all countrys who run a debt based money system are in debt just because they use the money. thats all. if they would have a backed up money system produced by a states bank, they would not even be in debt at all. if this is not crazy...
My reply had different goal then to actually state my opinion on current state of world currencies, see my reply above. As for your post, this is not news to probably anyone in the general sense. Unlike you I think that money still is worth reasonably close to what value people assign to it(to restate, I think there still is not too big of a bubble). And I am not talking about those creative ways you describe that bank use to "create" money, those are often worthless. But in general sense all big world currencies are still reasonably trustworthy for the time being. Also I have no idea how state banks prevent debt accumulation. Most European countries have central banks unlike US who has bunch of private bankers and they are still in debt. Yes central bank seems much better solution, than US model, by mostly not being so easily manipulated and bought, but in the end they still have to listen at least somewhat to the politicians and are still human.
On February 02 2011 09:50 c0rn1 wrote: It's very interesting to see the different mindsets in this thread.
Just to bring some additional topics:
Did you know that the US spends 8-9 % of their yearly spending just for interest of the credits? That's about $250,000,000,000 (250 bn). The military budget is @ ~500bn. $1000 per head in the US. And after the past few years that number absolutely and relatively will increase.
I see alot of people saying that saving for bad times is a private matter. Then I ask you do you support the bailout for the banks? Shouldn't they have saved for bad times rather spending trillions in casino style? And what do you think would happen if the bailout wouldn't have been there. Alot of people who invested their savings into banks would be bankrupt now because the bank would've had to declare bankrupcy. Why does the society have to pay for this? (the bailout was nothing else than a social security program).
Some people say others are stupid. How would you see someone who bought a house and couldnt pay the interest anymore because he lost his job due to the crisis?
Does not have everyone the same right on resources, ground, etc. with his birth? Isn't that the basic element of capitalism? you start equal and personal quality decides the path you can go and the money you make? How can it be that in capitalism where everyone can go from dishwasher to president only 10% own 60%-70% of the total wealth? And the "amazing" thing is that the community of those 10% almost never gains members rather loses some. If those 10% would spend 2% tax on their TOTAL possesion for the next 10 years the US would be debtfree (almost the same with germany nowadays). BUT those rich who have everything they need million times over just got an additional tax cut?!
WE have a system where money is printed -not backed up by anything- but the total amount in circulation is LESS than the total amount of debt. Now let's think. 10% own 60-70% and the total amount is less than the debt? Are maybe the rest of those people in debt? 90%?
NO, you say! because you are debtfree. Wrong I say because after the principle of governmental society the debt of the US is your debt too.
=> 178k per citizen right now. So if you got less than $ 178k somewhere you are _not_ debtfree and live on social security. Because the society guarantees your security of freedom to do what you do.
No. If the banks failed and people's accounts were closed the banks would've defaulted but the FDIC would've covered the people's savings. The point of the FDIC was to let banks who take stupid risks fail without endangering people's life savings.
The fact is, letting the banks fail was absolutely 100% the right choice, and the bailouts were a massive massive mistake and a huge disaster. The banks should've failed and people would've been compensated by the gov't, which while it would've cost the gov't money, would've been a 1 time deal, and capitalism would've run its course. Bad business models would've been punished and more sensible competitors would take up the reigns. Expansion from competitors would've filled the gap in the banking industry and the growth in the sector into that gap would've generated lots of revenue back for the gov't, stabilized the industry, and people would end up paying much much less overall. Not to mention the bailout was simply amoral and anticapitalism.
Experienced economists from both the left and right side all said universally that not bailing out the banks would have led to an economic depression. The issue is simply not as simple as you're pretending. This was not about "punishing bad business models." Yes, the banks were completely at fault. Yes, the government had to bail them out, or else the rest of the economy would tank.
"Expansion from competitors"? Are you serious? Nothing was able to fill that hole, and those "competitors" were probably also going to fail from the fallout of the larger banks. There would have been absolutely no growth from letting the banks fail. Other companies depending on those banks would have also tanked. There would have been no stablization. It would have spiraled downward.
The problem with a voluntary social security system is that all the rich people who can afford to pay the tax would opt out because they can fund their own retirement plans. On the other side all the poorer people wouldn't be able to pay the tax because they couldn't afford it.
So who would actually end up joining?
Most tax systems have a sliding scale so that the richer people pay extra and subsidize the poorer people. A voluntary tax would stop this from happening.
On February 02 2011 09:50 c0rn1 wrote: It's very interesting to see the different mindsets in this thread.
Just to bring some additional topics:
Did you know that the US spends 8-9 % of their yearly spending just for interest of the credits? That's about $250,000,000,000 (250 bn). The military budget is @ ~500bn. $1000 per head in the US. And after the past few years that number absolutely and relatively will increase.
I see alot of people saying that saving for bad times is a private matter. Then I ask you do you support the bailout for the banks? Shouldn't they have saved for bad times rather spending trillions in casino style? And what do you think would happen if the bailout wouldn't have been there. Alot of people who invested their savings into banks would be bankrupt now because the bank would've had to declare bankrupcy. Why does the society have to pay for this? (the bailout was nothing else than a social security program).
Some people say others are stupid. How would you see someone who bought a house and couldnt pay the interest anymore because he lost his job due to the crisis?
Does not have everyone the same right on resources, ground, etc. with his birth? Isn't that the basic element of capitalism? you start equal and personal quality decides the path you can go and the money you make? How can it be that in capitalism where everyone can go from dishwasher to president only 10% own 60%-70% of the total wealth? And the "amazing" thing is that the community of those 10% almost never gains members rather loses some. If those 10% would spend 2% tax on their TOTAL possesion for the next 10 years the US would be debtfree (almost the same with germany nowadays). BUT those rich who have everything they need million times over just got an additional tax cut?!
WE have a system where money is printed -not backed up by anything- but the total amount in circulation is LESS than the total amount of debt. Now let's think. 10% own 60-70% and the total amount is less than the debt? Are maybe the rest of those people in debt? 90%?
NO, you say! because you are debtfree. Wrong I say because after the principle of governmental society the debt of the US is your debt too.
=> 178k per citizen right now. So if you got less than $ 178k somewhere you are _not_ debtfree and live on social security. Because the society guarantees your security of freedom to do what you do.
No. If the banks failed and people's accounts were closed the banks would've defaulted but the FDIC would've covered the people's savings. The point of the FDIC was to let banks who take stupid risks fail without endangering people's life savings.
The fact is, letting the banks fail was absolutely 100% the right choice, and the bailouts were a massive massive mistake and a huge disaster. The banks should've failed and people would've been compensated by the gov't, which while it would've cost the gov't money, would've been a 1 time deal, and capitalism would've run its course. Bad business models would've been punished and more sensible competitors would take up the reigns. Expansion from competitors would've filled the gap in the banking industry and the growth in the sector into that gap would've generated lots of revenue back for the gov't, stabilized the industry, and people would end up paying much much less overall. Not to mention the bailout was simply amoral and anticapitalism.
Experienced economists from both the left and right side all said universally that not bailing out the banks would have led to an economic depression. The issue is simply not as simple as you're pretending. This was not about "punishing bad business models." Yes, the banks were completely at fault. Yes, the government had to bail them out, or else the rest of the economy would tank.
"Expansion from competitors"? Are you serious? Nothing was able to fill that hole, and those "competitors" were probably also going to fail from the fallout of the larger banks. There would have been absolutely no growth from letting the banks fail. Other companies depending on those banks would have also tanked. There would have been no stablization. It would have spiraled downward.
There is an alternate option. Have the government takeover the part of the banks that are healthy and let the bad parts fail as already suggested.
You can actually be in debt of 10x the amount of the current debt ( 9- as that money is owed to the banks by a system that allows them to loan out more than they have. The expenses are covered by others who also borrow from them, but they'll pay it back quickly. One "buys" a house or make monthly payments+usury
You can buy a 800, 000 USD house now and make a down payment of 150, 000 USD, but you'll be paying for it over 10-30 years with usury. This 800, 000 USD house ends up being 1, 500, 000 - 2, 000, 000 USD after a long time.
That 150, 000 USD down payment allows that same bank to loan to another entity ( someone who can pay for it in a short time ) for 1, 500, 000 USD.
Goldman Sachs naked short the metals market every now and then... They have over 90 Trillion USD in derivatives.
The money that Obama gave to the corporations were never kept in check, and no one really knows where the money went.
No, I absolutely would not. All the projections show social security going bankrupt, and Medicare spiraling out of control to the point where it consumes 30% of gdp. They are unsustainable and failing programs. I can take care of my own finances and I have a fundamental right to do so. The sheer audacity of someone taking my wealth from me, saying they're going to manage it for me because I'm just too fucking stupid to do it myself, and that I will rot in prison if I don't allow it to happen, just sickens me to the core. Some people do not save for retirement, thats true, and they will pay the price for their ineptitude. But the fact of the matter is they have a RIGHT to manage their own affairs, and to the product of their labor. It comes down to humility. I cannot tell someone I know whats best for them, because I acknowledge that I don't know many things.
Yeah I'm a troll like galileo was a troll, it's what happens when you go against the established lies and ignorance.
The difference between Galileo and you is the proof, not the conjecture.
Then dispute what I have said. Where do US dollars come from?
You are making too much fuss, so here : they are (as all other currencies in the world) printed/minted. So now that we have this trivial question answered was there a point ?
I think the point went over your head.
No I think my mocking you went over your head. Why are you asking that question, it has nothing to do with the reason why I think he disagrees with you, I don't think anyone disputes some of what you are saying about debt(and things about who decides when and how much to print, which I suppose is the answer to your question). On the other hand you adding the government conspiracy that tries to make us into sheep through use of education system is what at least I find kind of irrational(to use this polite word). There is no reason to assume malice when ignorance/incompetence is sufficient. And then you even compare yourself to Galileo .
You are mocking yourself far more than you are mocking me, you really think the creation of money is a trivial matter? It is one of the biggest cons in history, possibly the biggest ever. Enjoy your mockery and ignorance, you are completely clueless as to how it works, as you mock someone who is trying to tell you.
On February 02 2011 12:11 nalgene wrote: You can actually be in debt of 10x the amount of the current debt ( 9- as that money is owed to the banks by a system that allows them to loan out more than they have. The expenses are covered by others who also borrow from them, but they'll pay it back quickly. One "buys" a house or make monthly payments+usury
You can buy a 800, 000 USD house now and make a down payment of 150, 000 USD, but you'll be paying for it over 10-30 years with usury. This 800, 000 USD house ends up being 1, 500, 000 - 2, 000, 000 USD after a long time.
That 150, 000 USD down payment allows that same bank to loan to another entity ( someone who can pay for it in a short time ) for 1, 500, 000 USD.
Goldman Sachs naked short the metals market every now and then... They have over 90 Trillion USD in derivatives.
The money that Obama gave to the corporations were never kept in check, and no one really knows where the money went.
Last I checked the majority of the money wasn't even "spent". People act like the bailout was so important and it saved the US, but if most of the money wasn't actually spent yet, why did we put it towards the bailout. If we narrowly avoided disaster by appropriating trillions in bailout money, why was most of that money not even used to recover the economy.
A poster above me said that right and left wing economists both said a bailout was necessary. However, that doesn't mean they're right. It could easily mean that a lot of people were very very wrong.
Nobody will ever admit the bailout was a failure, even if we still have economic problems that aren't resolved (which of course we do) because they can just claim it "could be worse". That's like saying that, because you danced around in circles shouting wooba wooba and banging on your head like a retarded chimpanzee in the middle of a hurricane, only 500 people were killed instead of 2000.
The fact is, the bailout is at best a temporary patch job to keep faith in the banks in order to avoid panic and mass withdrawal from the market. It traded long term stability for short term security. The problem is, we already were on a downward spiral in long term financial stability, and our economy doesn't have the leeway to make these kinds of bargains. I don't even know how much money was added to the deficit to pay for bailouts, but $2 trillion sounds somewhat in the ballpark. That's 3 Iraq Wars.
Then on top of that we have this ridiculous healthcare bill that democrats conjured up which was outright unaffordable. We have almost every state nearing bankruptcy because of all the unfunded mandates, untenable programs, and poor economic growth, putting pressure on the federal gov't to bail out states, eating up even more deficit.
The fact is, maybe we would've ended up in a "Depression." Maybe not. Perhaps it would've hurt, and people might have lost some jobs and some ability to take loans for a while. However, would those damages really number $2 trillion? Can we justify that amount of spending on speculation? Did the bailout really help anything or just delay or shift the problem elsewhere?
Lets assume that you're totally right and the bailouts saved us from an economic meltdown. What do we have looming in our future anyways? Another economic meltdown, arguably far more dangerous since it affects our entire monetary system and global economics on a vastly grander scale.
Alas, what's done is done, and the only thing we can do now is act in the present. We have to cut spending. We have to end entitlements in the US. The bloated state needs to be broken apart. Power should be diverted back to the states, and back to the people. We also need massive reforms to the way mandates, commerce regulation, and federal to state transactions work.
What we really need is the return of federalism, the way our forefathers wanted it to be. There was supposed to be a fear of gov't that drove America. A fear of power. At some point power began seeping further and further away from where it should be according to the constitution. The executive never was supposed to be such a force for legislation. The courts were never meant to be political tools.
Lastly, the commerce clause has to go. The reasons for this are complex, but the bottom line is that all of the "corruption" and "bending over backwards for big business" is a result of the commerce clause being overextended. The only reason business lobbies so hard and why congress is so heavily influenced by business ties is because congress has the power to do almost anything for any business, and they can justify it with the commerce clause.
I'm kinda ranting at this point but this is a good stopping point. I'm tired and going to sleep now -_-
On February 02 2011 15:59 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote: What we really need is the return of federalism, the way our forefathers wanted it to be. There was supposed to be a fear of gov't that drove America. A fear of power. At some point power began seeping further and further away from where it should be according to the constitution. The executive never was supposed to be such a force for legislation. The courts were never meant to be political tools.
Unfortunately, what we have is a government with no incentive to do this, media that has no incentive to inform outside the two party system, an education system where curriculum is handpicked by the government, and a minority voting public the votes between the lesser of two evils and/or along party lines.
It is a classic case of divide and conquer, they have whoever still care about politics so busy hating democrats or hating republicans, that they are too blinded to realize that it isn't one party screwing them, it is the government screwing them, and always has been.
The on top of that we have all sorts of internet control and general surveillance on the horizon, they will do everything they can to keep this shit locked down tight. Eventually the information available on the internet will be just as limited as what is available on TV.
The fear is long gone, generations past. Instead of fear, people desperately look towards the government at the first sign of crisis, and the media leads this on.
I feel like smart people would pay certain voluntary taxes
I never understood the people who always wanted "LOWER TAXES LOWER TAXES GADAOHIUGHDUHAF" etc. etc. but then turned around and said they want Socialized Medicine, and better school systems, and better crime prevention etc. etc.
I do remember seeing a movement of people who wanted to raise taxes though, and people thought that was out of this world, but really those people just understood what the government does (or should >.>) with the money, spreads it out evenly back to the consumers and the less fortunate.
EPT
.
