HOORAY for Obama!! Talking of capping salaries!

[hiitdogs]

Yes. I do not think the government should be bailing out any industry. Let the market place work the way it was intended. If businesses fail, then they fail. If banks lend money out in a risky manner - then they assume that risk and deal with the consequences. The market place should determine the value of a worker - not a union and not the government. The people should decide how to spend their money - the government should not be taxing the heck of us and then telling us where that money will be spent. More money in the hands of the people - and I don't discriminate based on wealth - the more money will find its way back into the economy. The slippery slope I am referring to is socialism.

Yeah, we saw how well that worked in the 1920 when the government decided to let the problem "work itself out", it lead right into the Great Depression.

What is socialist about making sure that our economy and financial markets stay afloat in a crisis like that? Although I am having a hard time understanding why supposed socialism is painted as the boogie man if capitalism in its extreme is what got us into trouble in the first place. How many times do we have to bang our heads against the wall to realize that it hurts?

ETA: I totally agree with you hottiescientist. Well said!!!

 

[LauraMax]

Yes. I do not think the government should be bailing out any industry. Let the market place work the way it was intended. If businesses fail, then they fail. If banks lend money out in a risky manner - then they assume that risk and deal with the consequences. The market place should determine the value of a worker - not a union and not the government. The people should decide how to spend their money - the government should not be taxing the heck of us and then telling us where that money will be spent. More money in the hands of the people - and I don't discriminate based on wealth - the more money will find its way back into the economy. The slippery slope I am referring to is socialism.

*GASP* OMG! It's the "S" word! LOL!

Just so I have this straight: you would be OK with the hundreds of thousands of bank clerks, middle management, & all the associated lower level employees losing their jobs b/c of the incompetence of the upper level employees? And you think the economy would just work itself out?

Yep, Carola is correct--this is exactly the kind of thinking that got us into the Great Depression.

I guess we should all start doing extra calve raises so we're physically conditioned to stand in bread lines.

 

[hiitdogs]

I guess we should all start doing extra calve raises so we're physically conditioned to stand in bread lines.

Thank God for Cathe workout. I knew they would come in handy eventually

 

[dss62467]

They didn't mind taking our tax dollars and re-decorating their offices with $1,500 trash cans(!)

About the tax cheats, ask yourself this: Why is it that when ordinary blue-collar Americans cheat on THEIR taxes the IRS is all over them like flies on sh*t. However, when high-earners, like (very public) politicians, bankers and corporate CEOs cheat on THEIR taxes, the IRS doesn't react until the cheating comes to light all on its' own?

Actually, I believe the office remodel was done BEFORE the bail-out, but is a good example of the excesses that got them into the mess that is ruining us all. I wonder if, had the politicians known about this, they would have given money to that company. These rich boys (and girls) have such a warped sense of entitlement. If you listen to the Joe Scarborough show, he talks about how they all live in their own world, so detached from reality, they just honestly do not get it. I really hope the current administration crams a big old dose of reality right down their throats.

Like that jerk Madoff....he's complaining that he's trapped in his penthouse and can't go anywhere. Can't wait until he's in a tiny cell for the rest of his life.

 

[baylian]

Yes. I do not think the government should be bailing out any industry. Let the market place work the way it was intended. If businesses fail, then they fail. If banks lend money out in a risky manner - then they assume that risk and deal with the consequences. The market place should determine the value of a worker - not a union and not the government. The people should decide how to spend their money - the government should not be taxing the heck of us and then telling us where that money will be spent. More money in the hands of the people - and I don't discriminate based on wealth - the more money will find its way back into the economy. The slippery slope I am referring to is socialism.

Agreed ~ and if somone wants to live in a socialist society there are plenty of them in this world so have at it. Keep America capitalist thank you.

 

[hiitdogs]

Agreed ~ and if somone wants to live in a socialist society there are plenty of them in this world so have at it. Keep America capitalist thank you.

Not that I proclaiming that socialism is the way to go but extreme capitalism and hands-off approach of the government have gotten us into this mess. Why would anyone have to move? This is my country as much as it is yours!!! Thank you very much!

 

[carres1973]

Which all of this bodes the question - why was Geitner allowed to become the Sec. of the Treasury when he didn't pay $34000 in back taxes from 2001-2004? He should have taken a powder just like Daschle.

Does ANYONE vet these people?????????????

I don't understand why two of the three people withdrew who had tax problems and he didn't...and he is Secretary of the Treasury!!!

Carrie

 

[LauraMax]

There is inherent socialism in capitalist America whether you want to admit it or not. I mentioned subsidies before--there are corporate subsidies, farm subsidies, energy subsidies.......all a form of socialism.

Medicare--health benefits for seniors--is a form of socialism. Should we eliminate that so that we can remain a pure capitalist society?

Student loans & student grants are a form of socialism. Should we eliminate them so we can remain a pure capitalist society?

I could go on but the bottom line is, there are lots of folks who oppose socialism in the US--except when it benefits them.

 

[hottiescientist]

I just find it a bit flabbergasted when people want the US to be purely capitalistic. Laissez faire capitalism has never existed in this country, the closest being 19th century America (while monopolies were still allowed to thrive btw which in turns kills competition). We saw our best economic successes in a mixed economy (20th century). It's because of this country's willingness to adapt to changing environments to why we we can continue to move forward. Sometimes we will go more towards capitalism and sometimes we reign it back with more regulation (or aka to some as socialism). Since we can evolve with changing times, we ensure our own survival. It's when countries are stubborn and stagnant in their response that their society will fall.

 

[carres1973]

Yes. I do not think the government should be bailing out any industry. Let the market place work the way it was intended. If businesses fail, then they fail. If banks lend money out in a risky manner - then they assume that risk and deal with the consequences. The market place should determine the value of a worker - not a union and not the government. The people should decide how to spend their money - the government should not be taxing the heck of us and then telling us where that money will be spent. More money in the hands of the people - and I don't discriminate based on wealth - the more money will find its way back into the economy. The slippery slope I am referring to is socialism.

This socialism of which you refer, could you define that for me? I see a lot of people throwing that word around when I think they are referring to communism as opposed to socialism. Socialist countries include most of Europe. One could argue that those countries have all of the same, and many more, personal freedoms as we do. I think throwing the word socialsim out there to scare people is unfair.

With that off my chest, I will agree that the bailout as originally designed, with very few checks and balances, was NOT a good idea. I think the government had to step in and do something but just to throw money at anyone who asked, as the original bailout seemed to do...not a good idea!

You say you want more money in the hands of the people. Where is this money supposed to come from? Do you want the government to give more "stimulus checks" to the public? Yep, that worked out so well the first TWO times!

Carrie

 

[LauraMax]

This socialism of which you refer, could you define that for me? I see a lot of people throwing that word around when I think they are referring to communism as opposed to socialism. Socialist countries include most of Europe. One could argue that those countries have all of the same, and many more, personal freedoms as we do. I think throwing the word socialsim out there to scare people is unfair.

With that off my chest, I will agree that the bailout as originally designed, with very few checks and balances, was NOT a good idea. I think the government had to step in and do something but just to throw money at anyone who asked, as the original bailout seemed to do...not a good idea!

You say you want more money in the hands of the people. Where is this money supposed to come from? Do you want the government to give more "stimulus checks" to the public? Yep, that worked out so well the first TWO times!

Carrie

That's a great point Carrie. The whole argument is counterintuitive. How can more money be in the hands of the people when the people are unemployed?

Stimulus checks don't make sense. I really hate the idea. The $300 or so that goes to individuals doesn't make enough of a difference to justify it, when in the meantime it creates even more of a deficit in the fed. budget.

See, this is another problem w/the naysayers. You cannot stimulate the economy and create an even larger deficit at the same time. But when it comes down to brass tacks, those who criticize government spending would go bat$hit if any program that benefits their own self was cut.

 

[dss62467]

This is another good point. Obama is talking about a tax cut for the middle class. I think it was something like $500 a year for individuals? Big whoop! Is that $10 a week supposed to make any sort of impact? I appreciate the sentiment, but if you're going to give me a tax break, give me a real one, and give it to me when we aren't already really in debt.

I'd much rather donate that $10 a week to fixing some infrastructure.

 

[carres1973]

This is another good point. Obama is talking about a tax cut for the middle class. I think it was something like $500 a year for individuals? Big whoop! Is that $10 a week supposed to make any sort of impact? I appreciate the sentiment, but if you're going to give me a tax break, give me a real one, and give it to me when we aren't already really in debt.

I'd much rather donate that $10 a week to fixing some infrastructure.

YES!! I don't want a tax cut that is either not offset by program cost cutting or that would result in a higher deficit.

Carrie

 

[kathryn]

I see a lot of people throwing that word around when I think they are referring to communism as opposed to socialism.

...I think throwing the word socialsim out there to scare people is unfair.

ITA

Some people (we probably all know which political persuasion) like to throw out the specter of 'socialism' (which most people don't understand anyway) to scare people (one of their MO's) into voting for their candidates.

I'm personally looking forward to a more 'socialist' medical system.

Pure, unrestrained capitalism seems to create such a huge divide between the very rich and the very poor, which is not conducive to a healthy society.

 

[kathryn]

Stimulus checks don't make sense. I really hate the idea. The $300 or so that goes to individuals doesn't make enough of a difference to justify it, when in the meantime it creates even more of a deficit in the fed. budget.

I agree.

Unfortunately, it sounds good to the public (I'll get money!). And I'll admit it does sound nice to get money back from the government, but that money is often used to pay off debts and to put in savings, which doesn't stimulate the economy.

Even tax breaks for purchase of some items (I just heard that a tax break near the equivalent of $15,000 for home buyers has been proposed) would be more stimulative than the checks.

 

[ldy_solana]

I agree.

Unfortunately, it sounds good to the public (I'll get money!). And I'll admit it does sound nice to get money back from the government, but that money is often used to pay off debts and to put in savings, which doesn't stimulate the economy.

Even tax breaks for purchase of some items (I just heard that a tax break near the equivalent of $15,000 for home buyers has been proposed) would be more stimulative than the checks.

we took advantage of the first time homebuyer credit. RIGHT NOW its only $7500 cap off. had this 15,000 passed sooner i would have gotten a little more b/c its 10% of the purchase price or the cap. it does have to be paid back through my refunds for the next 15 years but i figure i WILL pay off debts but with the money i save from those debts i am sure it will be equally divided into play money and savings account. saving money is nice but we also want to live life,we work hard to earn the money we should be alotted to play a bit. we don't make a ton but i think we make enough to live and have a little extra if we are smart with the money. but good god dh is never allowed anymore credit cards in his possession until he learns to be a good boy with them LOL. thankfully its not as bad as others out there.

kassia

 

[ladubose]

Once the private capitalist business agreed, sorry begged,to be bailed out by the people, with tax payers money, didn't we become more of a socialist society?
Socialism defined as below:
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.

So they are desperate to take money from desperate people for luxuries to continue along a unsustainable lifestyle but don't want any accountability for it? And some people are o.k. with them doing this. It is so unethical it sets my blood to a boil.

That being said I don't know if the bailout was the best idea, especially if this is the way people are using the money. I don't want the whole economy to collapse, but isn't the whole idea of capitalism is to let the weak die out? Not for the middle class to subsidize the Royalty so to speak.

If capitalism is defined as Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than publicly or state-owned and controlled.[1] In capitalism, the land, labor, and capital are owned, operated, and traded by private individuals or corporations,[2][3] and investments, distribution, income, production, pricing and supply of goods, commodities and services are primarily determined by voluntary private decision in a market economy largely free of government intervention.[4][

then surely we can't say we are that anymore some grey and scary place between the two I guess

 

[carres1973]

Once the private capitalist business agreed, sorry begged,to be bailed out by the people, with tax payers money, didn't we become more of a socialist society?
Socialism defined as below:
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.

So they are desperate to take money from desperate people for luxuries to continue along a unsustainable lifestyle but don't want any accountability for it? And some people are o.k. with them doing this. It is so unethical it sets my blood to a boil.

That being said I don't know if the bailout was the best idea, especially if this is the way people are using the money. I don't want the whole economy to collapse, but isn't the whole idea of capitalism is to let the weak die out? Not for the middle class to subsidize the Royalty so to speak.

If capitalism is defined as Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than publicly or state-owned and controlled.[1] In capitalism, the land, labor, and capital are owned, operated, and traded by private individuals or corporations,[2][3] and investments, distribution, income, production, pricing and supply of goods, commodities and services are primarily determined by voluntary private decision in a market economy largely free of government intervention.[4][

then surely we can't say we are that anymore some grey and scary place between the two I guess

Thank you for the definitions! This just goes to show that we are NOT a socialist society. One line from the definition is "and a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation." I would also argue that many of the European countries that are characterized as "socialist" aren't in this sense. This is more of the socialist society that the USSR was purported to be (though in reality wasn't).

I also do not think we are/were a totally capitalistic society. If that was the case, there wouldn't be farming subsidies, government tuition grants, social security, welfare, etc. Also, the government already "owns" several of the biggest employers in the country - the USPS. You can even argue that many of the military off-shoots such as AAFES, the commissaries, etc. wouldn't be here if not for government "owned" employees (aka military members).

I personally think we have always been somewhere in between the two and that is ok with me!

Carrie

 

[baylian]

Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement and the intellectual movement of that period which criticized the effects of industrialization and private ownership on society. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution and would represent the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

That last part kind of give me the heebiegeebies ~

 

[kathryn]

a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.

Yay, socialism!