Urolagnia is not my cup of tea, but what John Boehner does with consenting adults in privacy is not my concern. I must say Mr. Boehner must have an extensive estate.
Device(s): Droid Razr Maxx HD (ICS 4.1.2), Motorola XOOM (ICS 4.1.1), HP TouchPad (CM 9), ASUS Infinity (JB 4.2
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 1,860
Thanked 3,927 Times in 2,380 Posts
Personally I think this one says it all...
In hindsight it seems to be the other side of the coin...
__________________ Yea though I walk through the Valley of Google I shall fear no Apple...
Advice provided comes from fellow Android enthusiasts. We're not tech support. Please do your due dilligence before implementing! And if someone helped you, please share the love with the button...
The Following User Says Thank You to Martimus For This Useful Post:
Device(s): HTC One,
Nexus 4,
HTC One S,
iToy (iPhone)
Carrier: AT&T
Thanks: 27
Thanked 213 Times in 142 Posts
Having grown up during reaganomics.... I saw things get worse, not better.
It's been established that giving rich people more money does not mean they will spend it.
What did happen was the opposite... they got more money and they saved it because they knew the next administration would take some of it back.
Giving money to anyone is really "unfair" as a whole. Your rewarding failure.
With that said, I do understand some people are in bad situations and either made mistakes.. or they just never had the opportunity that other people had.
I am not against helping out people who want to do better in life. I am against helping people who only want a free hand out.. and it isn't always so easy to tell the two apart..
The problem with all of these ideologies is that they take from tax payers who are earning money.. and they are giving the money to either
A. companies that are failing.. Which screws up our whole economy because businesses are rewarded for failing.
B. People who may or may not be trying to do something with their lives.
Also.. I believe we need to do something about our college system.. What other business is drilled into your head from age 5 in kindergarden?
I believe college is a great thing.. I've learned a lot from it.. Hell more than you can put down on a piece of paper that I may not get (degree.)
A lot of the degrees however, are out right pointless.. Sure it is nice to have the paper so a company can hire you.. but, you don't walk out any better because of it..
EX: general studies degrees..
Or my favorite.. "business management"..
__________________
Sent form my Xarmor U9BL using My Fingers!
I always think that its far better provide people with free or cheap services rather then handouts of money. Healthcare, childcare, education etcetera.
Mind you I was never for foodstamps, seem kind of demeaning, but thats just me.
__________________
Sign up for Minus online storage and get 10 GB of Free Space today! Sign up Here!
Giving money to anyone is really "unfair" as a whole. Your rewarding failure.
With that said, I do understand some people are in bad situations and either made mistakes.. or they just never had the opportunity that other people had.
I am not against helping out people who want to do better in life. I am against helping people who only want a free hand out.. and it isn't always so easy to tell the two apart..
The problem with all of these ideologies is that they take from tax payers who are earning money.. and they are giving the money to either
A. companies that are failing.. Which screws up our whole economy because businesses are rewarded for failing.
B. People who may or may not be trying to do something with their lives.
Also.. I believe we need to do something about our college system.. What other business is drilled into your head from age 5 in kindergarden?
I believe college is a great thing.. I've learned a lot from it.. Hell more than you can put down on a piece of paper that I may not get (degree.)
A lot of the degrees however, are out right pointless.. Sure it is nice to have the paper so a company can hire you.. but, you don't walk out any better because of it..
EX: general studies degrees..
Or my favorite.. "business management"..
"New research published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests reasons why the richest should pay more tax; why rewarding the top performers leads to recurrent crises and scandals; and why we should resist the temptation to learn from and imitate the most successful."
Beginning over 30 years ago, Big Business and the Right Wing decided to go for it, to see if they could actually destroy the middle class so that they could become richer themselves.
Reagan had been backed by Wall Street in his run for the White House and they, along with right-wing Christians, wanted to restructure America and turn back the tide that President Franklin D. Roosevelt started, a tide that was intended to make life better for the average working person. The rich hated paying better wages and providing benefits. They hated paying taxes even more. And they despised unions. The right-wing Christians hated anything that sounded like socialism or holding out a helping hand to minorities or women.
The days of everyone having a comfortable middle class life were over. America, from now on, would be run this way: The super-rich will make more, much much more, and the rest of you will scramble for the crumbs that are left.
* Everyone must work! Mom, Dad, the teenagers in the house! Dad, you work a second job! Kids, here's your latch-key! Your parents might be home in time to put you to bed.
* 50 million of you must go without health insurance! And health insurance companies: you go ahead and decide who you want to help or not.
* Unions are evil! You will not belong to a union! You do not need an advocate! Shut up and get back to work! No, you can't leave now, we're not done. Your kids can make their own dinner.
* You want to go to college? No problem, just sign here and be in hock to a bank for the next 20 years!
* What's "a raise"? Get back to work and shut up!
...
* Unions are evil! You will not belong to a union! You do not need an advocate! Shut up and get back to work! No, you can't leave now, we're not done. Your kids can make their own dinner. ...
Can't have the serfs attempting to counter crony capitalism.
Bain & Company established a subsidiary called Bain Capital that was seeded with millions of dollars
But, Romney was afraid, (yes, afraid!) he might fail, so he got Bain & Company to agree in advance to take him back if he failed, and with all the salary increases he might have received had he remained at the parent company.
That is, Romney took no risks, he could not lose, and he would not take the job unless Bain agreed to his terms
When Romney says he knows how the system works, I guess he means TARP, bailing out his buddies just as he was guaranteed a bail out.
But, that is not all. Romney was concerned that, if he failed, it would damage his reputation. (One is tempted to ask, "what reputation?", but that is another story). So, Bain agreed that if Romney failed at Bain Capital, it would announce that Romney was returning to the parent because the parent company "needed him."
But, when it comes to himself -- no risk, no consequences for failure, all reward, happy to have prearranged a lie to preserve his "reputation."
Is this Romney's model of capitalism?
Romney is now running for President. We are entitled to know: Does Romney think everyone should have guaranteed "no-cut" contracts with their employers?
"Regardless of the reason, Canadians truly believe that our social democracy-lite is fundamentally better than the man-bites-dog-Superpac-devours-man market democracy of the US.
And now, it seems it's also more profitable. It wasn't too long ago that Canada was being routinely denounced by US politicos as "Soviet Canuckistan", and held up as a frightful example of what the US would look like if liberalism were allowed to run amok. We haven't heard much of that since 2008. The triumph of the Canadian system over America's spelled out in the cold truth of dollar signs picks up where the war of 1812 left off. After 200 years of graceful acrimony, the Canadian standard has at last proven to be the superior of the two systems."
Canada's veered to the right of late, their environmental policy is shameful and they are heavily lobbying authorities over here. I really doubt you could describe it as very social-democratic, but sure what harm.
Canada has the advantage of high resource prices and a strong currency too, so its not surprising. But whatever about net worth, far more importantly, the Canadians have had a better standard of living even while they were "poorer", because their economy is fairer and better managed.
Last edited by ElasticNinja; July 18th, 2012 at 04:29 PM.
You mean Canada is not paradise. It does appear it has a less corrupt government, so maybe different views will be considered concerning the externalities of the extraction industry.
Bain & Company established a subsidiary called Bain Capital that was seeded with millions of dollars
But, Romney was afraid, (yes, afraid!) he might fail, so he got Bain & Company to agree in advance to take him back if he failed, and with all the salary increases he might have received had he remained at the parent company.
That is, Romney took no risks, he could not lose, and he would not take the job unless Bain agreed to his terms
When Romney says he knows how the system works, I guess he means TARP, bailing out his buddies just as he was guaranteed a bail out.
But, that is not all. Romney was concerned that, if he failed, it would damage his reputation. (One is tempted to ask, "what reputation?", but that is another story). So, Bain agreed that if Romney failed at Bain Capital, it would announce that Romney was returning to the parent because the parent company "needed him."
But, when it comes to himself -- no risk, no consequences for failure, all reward, happy to have prearranged a lie to preserve his "reputation."
Is this Romney's model of capitalism?
Romney is now running for President. We are entitled to know: Does Romney think everyone should have guaranteed "no-cut" contracts with their employers?
You guys should post this stuff in the Romney v Obama thread, I feel like a lot of discussion about the same central topic has spilled into a lot of different places.
__________________ These teeth are razor sharp... ROM: JDX 13.3 Kernel: leanKernel v6.3.1
... Reagan had been backed by Wall Street in his run for the White House and they, along with right-wing Christians, wanted to restructure America and turn back the tide that President Franklin D. Roosevelt started, a tide that was intended to make life better for the average working person. The rich hated paying better wages and providing benefits. They hated paying taxes even more. And they despised unions. The right-wing Christians hated anything that sounded like socialism or holding out a helping hand to minorities or women. ...
It's interesting Reagan ran with the slogan, "Government is not the solution, but the problem." Our government, in theory, is a government of "We the People", so Reagan sold us that "We" are the problem. The plutocrats then took over, which led to our current state.
Sorry, the laws that made this activity legal was enacted way before Obama's time, like starting in the Reagan era. It was called deregulation.
Deregulation didn't start in the Reagan era. Besides, the deregulation most cited for leading up to the 2008 banking crisis was the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 that did away with Glass-Steagall, etc.
Deregulation didn't start in the Reagan era. Besides, the deregulation most cited for leading up to the 2008 banking crisis was the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 that did away with Glass-Steagall, etc.
The financial deregulation by Congress started with Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. This is the time frame when the financial unregulated unfettered free markets con was bought by the country. The gamblers received the payout for their winning bets and the taxpayers paid the marker for the losses.
The financial deregulation by Congress started with Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. This is the time frame when the financial unregulated unfettered free markets con was bought by the country. The gamblers received the payout for their winning bets and the taxpayers paid the marker for the losses.
Think of this: despite taking office in the midst of a massive financial meltdown, Obama’s administration has not prosecuted a single heavy-hitter among those responsible for the financial crisis. To the contrary, he’s staffed his team with big bankers and their allies. Under the Bush-Obama bailouts the big financial institutions have feasted like pigs at the trough, with the six largest banks borrowing almost a half trillion dollars from uncle Ben Bernanke’s printing press. In 2013 the top four banks controlled more than 40 percent of the credit markets in the top 10 states—up by 10 percentage points from 2009 and roughly twice their share in 2000. Meantime, small banks, usually the ones serving Main Street businesses, have taken the hit along with the rest of us with more than 300 folding since the passage of Dodd-Frank, the industry-approved bill to “reform” the industry.
Yet past the occasional election-year bout of symbolic class warfare, the oligarchs have little to fear from an Obama victory.
.
.
.
In a sane world, one would expect Republicans to run against this consolidation of power, that has taxpayers propping up banks that invest vast amounts in backing the campaigns of the lawmakers who levy those taxes. The party would appeal to grassroots capitalists, investors, small banks and their customers who feel excluded from the Washington-sanctioned insiders' game. The popular appeal is there. The Tea Party, of course, began as a response against TARP.
Instead, the party nominated a Wall Street patrician, Mitt Romney, whose idea of populism seems to be donning a well-pressed pair of jeans and a work shirt.
Romney himself is so clueless as to be touting his strong fund-raising with big finance. His top contributors list reads something like a rogue’s gallery from the 2008 crash: Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, Citicorp, and Barclays. If Obama’s Hollywood friends wanted to find a perfect candidate to play the role of out-of-touch-Wall Street grandee, they could do worse than casting Mitt.
Fair enough, but it also undermines the notion of deregulation "starting in the Reagan era."
The 1980 Act allowed S&L's to make ADC (acquisition, development, construction), i.e. commercial loans, the Tax Reform Act of 1981 gave huge tax incentives for real-estate investment, thus the boom and bust with the taxpayer picking up the tab, as these riskier loan weren't segregated from FDIC insurance.
The Glass Steagall Act was gutted way before the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act .
Fair enough, but it also undermines the notion of deregulation "starting in the Reagan era."
To be fair to out of date, his reference to deregulation seemed to be with regard to the financial system. Cutting regulation is often to be commended, I guess carter as a medium sized business owner had first hand experiences.
Given the choice between one or the other, which party has a better chance of being forced to change this status-quo ?
That's a good question. Honestly I think Romney being a wall street type guy is better positioned to be able to make a change in a Nixon goes to China sort of way. But so far I don't see any daylight between him and Obama when it comes to coddling the big banks so I wouldn't bet on it.
That's a good question. Honestly I think Romney being a wall street type guy is better positioned to be able to make a change in a Nixon goes to China sort of way. But so far I don't see any daylight between him and Obama when it comes to coddling the big banks so I wouldn't bet on it.
Well the Democrats are supporting the approval of the Volcker Rule and the Republicans are attempting roll-back Dodd-Frank, so I see some daylight between the two.
The capital markets are not populated by fools. When the council has declared that a firm is "systemically important"—that its failure poses a threat to U.S. financial stability—the U.S. government is effectively saying that it will do whatever it takes to prevent the firm from failing. This means that a loan to a "systemically important" institution is going to be safer than a loan to a smaller competitor without that designation.
This is not speculation. The banking industry is already made up of a host of smaller banks and a few huge banks that are widely considered too big to fail—and the biggest banks have a lower cost of funds than their small competitors, as Thomas Hoenig (then of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank, now of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) and others have shown. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, thanks to their government backing, also had advantageous funding, so much so that they drove even the biggest banks from much of mortgage market.
In testimony last week to a House subcommittee, MetLife executive William Wheeler put it clearly: "A SIFI designation would be the federal government's signal that we are indeed 'too big to fail,' and that if we got into financial trouble, federal funds would be used to rescue the firm. The implicit backing of the federal government could strengthen perceptions of our creditworthiness and may give us a significantly cheaper cost of funds than our peers."
I don't subscribe to the WSJ, so couldn't read the full article. I take it you believe Dodd-Frank didn't go far enough, such as breaking up the big banks ?
One way to correct TBTF is to break-up these systemically risky institutions, but don't see it happening as TBTF institutions have too much political/money clout.
Reaganomics actually works but it takes much longer. By stimulating the supply side (companies), by either lowering the fed rate, buying of bonds, or lowering the required ratio you allow banks to have more money to loan out. But the whole 90s boom was really just awful for this country; everywhere you want it was virtually no unemployment.
Yet unemployed people want to start their new job tomorrow but still need to reelect the same people that overturned the very acts that put us in this situation.
By stimulating the supply side (companies), by either lowering the fed rate, buying of bonds, or lowering the required ratio you allow banks to have more money to loan out. But the whole 90s boom was really just awful for this country; everywhere you want it was virtually no unemployment.
You can have a credit fueled boom while keeping a GINI coefficient of 25. Trickle down did little more than zero for growth while slashing future economic prospects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TJGoSurf
But the whole 90s boom was really just awful for this country; everywhere you want it was virtually no unemployment.
Yet unemployed people want to start their new job tomorrow but still need to reelect the same people that overturned the very acts that put us in this situation.
... But the whole 90s boom was really just awful for this country; everywhere you want it was virtually no unemployment.
Yet unemployed people want to start their new job tomorrow but still need to reelect the same people that overturned the very acts that put us in this situation.
Yep those government surpluses and low unemployment just ruined the country, good thing the country or I mean Supreme Court put Bush in.
Don't bogart that joint.
Last edited by OutofDate1980; August 17th, 2012 at 12:01 AM.
The wealthiest individuals in the country went from paying about 70% in taxes to approximately 28% in taxes.
However tax rates for people in lower income taxes rose, suggesting that the little guy and poorer people were not benefiting from Reaganomics. With fewer government programs, fewer resources were available to the poor.
Reaganomics removed safeguards from industries which increased corporate greed.
Now I understand. You have the philosophy you make more money than me so you should pay more in taxes. Quite the silly way to look at things. I looked up what tax bracket I would have been in right after the Reagan era tax cuts. Screw the poor if I have to give up half my income that I worked so hard to get. I make six figures but that was only after getting shot for five years as an infantryman, then spending the next few years in a engineering college barely getting by on my GI Bill (that I paid for to receive), and then getting sent back to the same awful countries to show them how to extract their oil. I deserve everything I get.
You may find this hard to believe but no corporation pays income tax. Yes, you will say the corporate income tax is XX% but that doesn't matter as a corporation will merely raise their prices to make up the difference.
With a third of the country on some form of welfare now I think cutting government programs might be the best idea. If people are no longer being taken care of they find other means to support themselves.
Did you volunteer for the military or were you drafted? If you volunteered, then you shouldn't be complaining.
Corporations are taxed differently than other business structures: A corporation is the only type of business that must pay its own income taxes on profits.
By the wealthy paying more in taxes was healthy for the country as a whole. It seems to have changed during the Reagan years.
Maybe we shouldn't cut programs but sort out the deadbeats from it.
Now I understand. You have the philosophy you make more money than me so you should pay more in taxes. Quite the silly way to look at things. I looked up what tax bracket I would have been in right after the Reagan era tax cuts. Screw the poor if I have to give up half my income that I worked so hard to get. I make six figures but that was only after getting shot for five years as an infantryman, then spending the next few years in a engineering college barely getting by on my GI Bill (that I paid for to receive), and then getting sent back to the same awful countries to show them how to extract their oil. I deserve everything I get.
You may find this hard to believe but no corporation pays income tax. Yes, you will say the corporate income tax is XX% but that doesn't matter as a corporation will merely raise their prices to make up the difference.
With a third of the country on some form of welfare now I think cutting government programs might be the best idea. If people are no longer being taken care of they find other means to support themselves.
I served in an earlier period, pay was lower, but if you survived, benefits were better. You might want to look into price elasticity and product substitution. The last President that served in the regular military was Carter.
As the funding levels increased, the numbers of veterans entering higher education rose correspondingly. In 1976, ten years after the first veterans became eligible, the highest number of Vietnam-era veterans were enrolled in colleges and universities. By the end of the program, proportionally more Vietnam-era veterans (6.8 million out of 10.3 million eligible) had used their benefits for higher education than any previous generation of veterans.[citation needed]
Contrary to some stereotypes of Vietnam veterans, most who served in Vietnam used their benefits to construct productive and successful lives after service.[citation needed] Education benefits during the Vietnam era did not have the same impact on higher education as the original 1944 Bill because higher education had become much more commonplace in America.[citation needed] But the G.I. Bills of this period did have a similarly positive impact on the lives of the beneficiaries.[citation needed]
Device(s): Transform Ultra rooted running Ultrarom and BobzHome oc kernal.
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 99
Thanked 70 Times in 49 Posts
You really should call it Republicanomics. They've been following a pretty consistent game plan since Nixon opened China. Maximize their profits by moving their companies to the 3rd world.
The result is most of us now have service jobs and vey few Americans make a product any more. Pay has hardly went up and Corporations are raking in Billions.
The banks are doing their best to unreg
++ulatedly take what little we get.
Our Olympic Athlete were wearing uniforms made in China.
Reagan personally destroyed my city. It was on his watch we lost the industrial base of our country to the Chinese.
Not to mention he personally went after hemp and was the guy behind a lot of the miss information. And now we spend Billions of $$$ every year to keep people from growing a crop with wide industrial uses. Just the Pot trade alone is a $7,000,000,000 a year industry that already exists in our country. We are getting screwed out of the Tax money from it.
Thank you Mr. Reagan. I wish I believed in hell so I could mean it when I say I hope you rot there.
Last edited by PH8AL; August 17th, 2012 at 08:29 PM.
You really should call it Republicanomics. They've been following a pretty consistent game plan since Nixon opened China. Maximize their profits by moving their companies to the 3rd world.
The result is most of us now have service jobs and vey few Americans make a product any more. Pay has hardly went up and Corporations are raking in Billions.
The banks are doing their best to unreg
++ulatedly take what little we get.
Our Olympic Athlete were wearing uniforms made in China.
Reagan personally destroyed my city. It was on his watch we lost the industrial base of our country to the Chinese.
Thank you Mr. Reagan. I wish I believed in hell so I could mean it when I say I hope you rot there.
I'm sorry but none of this has anything to do with Republicans or Reagan.
I'm sorry but none of this has anything to do with Republicans or Reagan.
I disagree. Poster is giving views of the results of Reaganomics, even if poster prefers the term "Republicanomics", which is a valid point as the Republican party claims they adhere to this alleged "philosophy".
I disagree. Poster is giving views of the results of Reaganomics, even if poster prefers the term "Republicanomics", which is a valid point as the Republican party claims they adhere to this alleged "philosophy".
Well protectionism used to be a Republican policy, although now its their opposites who are somewhat more so,, never worked too well for anyone.
Without foreign competition the quality of stuff in America would be crap. Your food doesnt seem to be effected though (corn lawl).
2Likes
Reaganomics
button...
It does appear it has a less corrupt government, so maybe different views will be considered concerning the externalities of the extraction industry.
