Paying more taxes is patriotic!

[BostonWu]

(Um ... you all do know that the GOP has been in power for 8 years, right?)

Do you have a point?

If there is, it's not valid.

Define "in power".

I believe Congress (who actually controls the purse strings) is run by Democrats.

Like the republican congress that deregulated the financial markets and got the ball rolling for the mess we're in now.

The fiscal policies in the mid to late 1990’s are, in large part, to blame for the troubles on Wall Street. As others have pointed out, the executive branch at that time (I trust you can figure out what party was in power) together with certain members of Congress decided, in their infinite wisdom, that everyone should have a home. That “home ownership” = the “American Dream”.

That resulted in banks being encouraged issue mortgages even if the people receiving them were unable to place 20% down, had few assets and had poor credit. In fact, in some cases the people didn’t even have to show proof of income.

Thereafter, banks were happy to pass on these loans to an entity like Fannie Mae, which was happy to purchase them. Those loans were converted to securities and bundled together with good loans and then sold to Wall Street investors. Wall Street was more than happy to purchases these securities from Fannie Mae because of its quasi-governmental status, i.e. it was assumed, correctly, that the Fed would ultimately back Fannie.

The current crisis stems directly from the fact that people who should not have been buying a home, or who had bought more home than they could afford – now can’t pay their bills. And these loans are mixed up with the good mortgages thereby reducing the value of everything.

There were attempts by, gasp, the Bush Administration and even by, gasp, McCain to address this problem years ago; however, those efforts were blocked by, gasp, certain members of the Democratic Party in Congress.

The intention of this policy was inherently good; however, the end result was obviously poor. But having good intentions – that is all that matters, right?

A Republican Congress that “deregulated the financial markets” is not to blame in this case.

Here endeth the lesson.

Man you nailed it Maggie. Here's further proof:

As Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank "sits at the center of power".[24] Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, was quoted as saying, "He is one of the giants of Congress, a real legislator," in his new role.[24]

In 2003, Frank rejected Bush administration and Congressional Republican efforts for the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis. [25] Under the plan a new agency would have been created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.[26] "These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis," Frank said. He added, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."[27]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Frank#Chair_of_the_House_Financial_Services_Committee

[RoyalShock]

A certain Texas congressman and former Republican presidential candidate saw this coming at least five years ago.

http://www.minnpost.com/craigwestover/2008/09/18/3559/ron_paul_saw_this_financial_mess_coming

[ABC]

That's fine, but do you support these higher taxes b/c the Federal Govt needs the revenue or b/c you want to redistribute wealth?

This is a semantic argument, but to me "redistribute" to me says "taking what you have and giving it to someone else." I do not support that.

I want all Americans to shoulder future tax burdens in a way that is fair and appropriate. I don't care if we're raising $700 billion or $70. I support a graduated tax, because it's clear to me that if I have $10 and you have $100, a 10 percent tax has very different consequences in our real life economics. A flat tax does not result in an equal burden.

I am a capitalist. I do not begrudge people reaping financial rewards for taking risk. One of my biggest problems with Wichitans in general is that they tend to frown on big ideas because somebody might make a dollar on the project. However, I do have problems with people reaping financial rewards in a fixed game, where performance and compensation have no relationship, where risk is unnaturally supressed, and where special interests and lobbyists set the agenda before the public good.

I would include in that fixed game exploding corporate salaries, all manner of corporate welfare and mindless deregulation, which is clearly the root cause of the crisis right now.

I also believe that closing the income gap between the rich and poor would be a positive move for our economy. I don't buy that a reasonable tax increase (tax break rollback) will have any chilling effect on the spending habits of those making more than $250,000 a year.

It's time for the pendulum to swing back the other way.

Why can't you just say you are in favor of government redistributing wealth?

As Maggie points out, "mindless deregulation" is not the cause of today's financial mess.

[BostonWu]

That's fine, but do you support these higher taxes b/c the Federal Govt needs the revenue or b/c you want to redistribute wealth?

This is a semantic argument, but to me "redistribute" to me says "taking what you have and giving it to someone else." I do not support that.

Since it's widely estimated that 41% of all American taxpayers pay no taxes then it would be impossible to provide them a tax cut. Any “tax relief” by further taxing the rich and giving it to the non-taxpaying public would come in the form of a government check, which is welfare subsidies or wealth redistribution in my book. You might term it something different in your eyes but let’s call if for what it really is. You might find some noble reasons for wealth redistribution (ala Robin Hood society) and as long as someone holds that opinion and doesn’t hide from it then I’ll come to respect different viewpoints. It’s when someone distorts the picture that gets under my skin.

[Maggie]

A certain Texas congressman and former Republican presidential candidate saw this coming at least five years ago.

http://www.minnpost.com/craigwestove...al_mess_coming

He was not alone. You had to be willfully blind not to see it coming – that is what makes me angry.

[Wuzee]

That's fine, but do you support these higher taxes b/c the Federal Govt needs the revenue or b/c you want to redistribute wealth?

This is a semantic argument, but to me "redistribute" to me says "taking what you have and giving it to someone else." I do not support that.

I want all Americans to shoulder future tax burdens in a way that is fair and appropriate. I don't care if we're raising $700 billion or $70. I support a graduated tax, because it's clear to me that if I have $10 and you have $100, a 10 percent tax has very different consequences in our real life economics. A flat tax does not result in an equal burden.

I am a capitalist. I do not begrudge people reaping financial rewards for taking risk. One of my biggest problems with Wichitans in general is that they tend to frown on big ideas because somebody might make a dollar on the project. However, I do have problems with people reaping financial rewards in a fixed game, where performance and compensation have no relationship, where risk is unnaturally supressed, and where special interests and lobbyists set the agenda before the public good.

I would include in that fixed game exploding corporate salaries, all manner of corporate welfare and mindless deregulation, which is clearly the root cause of the crisis right now.

I also believe that closing the income gap between the rich and poor would be a positive move for our economy. I don't buy that a reasonable tax increase (tax break rollback) will have any chilling effect on the spending habits of those making more than $250,000 a year.

It's time for the pendulum to swing back the other way.

Why can't you just say you are in favor of government redistributing wealth?

As Maggie points out, "mindless deregulation" is not the cause of today's financial mess.

Deregulation is almost certainly a major factor in making the subprime mortgage industry possible and Republicans, namely Gramm are responsible. And if it's not, why is Mr. Deregulation John McCain now talking about increasing regulation on the financial industry? Is he crazy? A flip-flopper? Which of these?

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclosure-phil.html

oh ... and I guess to prove I'm right I need to say something inane.

"Now the schooling endeth! Go unto your homes and weep at your inadequacies!"

[RoyalShock]

A certain Texas congressman and former Republican presidential candidate saw this coming at least five years ago.

http://www.minnpost.com/craigwestove...al_mess_coming

He was not alone. You had to be willfully blind not to see it coming – that is what makes me angry.

So the big question is, if so many people knew, and they could do something to stop it, why didn't they? And yet, "we" continue to vote them all right back into office. :wacko:

This is the type of stuff that fuels conspiracy theories, and actually gives them merit.

[Maggie]

A certain Texas congressman and former Republican presidential candidate saw this coming at least five years ago.

http://www.minnpost.com/craigwestove...al_mess_coming

He was not alone. You had to be willfully blind not to see it coming – that is what makes me angry.

So the big question is, if so many people knew, and they could do something to stop it, why didn't they? And yet, "we" continue to vote them all right back into office. :wacko:

This is the type of stuff that fuels conspiracy theories, and actually gives them merit.

What do you want me to write? I meant those actually paying attention to the markets – those that actually have a vested direct interest – and yet they “ignored” the problem – why? Because they were making $$$. The “greed” on Wall Street was enabled by Washington.

Besides do you really think that the individuals voting for these people focus on these issues? I can’t control, nor do I presume to control, the constituencies that vote these individuals back into office. They voted for simplistic reasons (a feel good philosophy – i.e. amoung other things..home ownership is for everyone) without a clear understanding of the implications of those actions. I see it on this forum…..

No offence but are your own representatives in KS much better (God knows mine are not) – your own governor? Ron Paul has some good ideas – but he needs to work, if he is to have an affect, within the political structure – not outside of it.

[RoyalShock]

I agree with your reasons, Maggie.

As for Ron Paul, he is trying to work within the political structure. It's why he stays in the Republican party, is running for re-election in his congressional district, created a PAC (or something similar) to bring like-minded people together, and is trying to get more visibility for 3rd-party candidates.

[Maggie]

I agree with your reasons, Maggie.

As for Ron Paul, he is trying to work within the political structure. It's why he stays in the Republican party, is running for re-election in his congressional district, created a PAC (or something similar) to bring like-minded people together, and is trying to get more visibility for 3rd-party candidates.

I have to apologize because this is personal to me -- my brother-in-law worked for Lehman. Heck I used to work for AIG.

I think, by and large, your political thoughts/opinions are valid and have merit – but your advocacy of a third party does not. Work within the party you think serves your interests best --- there are people who will listen…..and agree.

IF and that is a big IF – down the road – I don’t see any real change I might be open to the suggestion of a third party (or I might move and divest myself of this mess) – but until then I focus my efforts on the party which I believe stands for most, not all --- all will never be achieved, – of what I believe is right.

[RoyalShock]

Work within the party you think serves your interests best --- there are people who will listen…..and agree.

It continues to get harder to tell the two parties apart. I think there is room for at least one more party to represent political ideals that the Republicrats do not. And I'm talking about actions, not rhetoric.

IF and that is a big IF – down the road – I don’t see any real change I might be open to the suggestion of a third party

I'm already at the point of seeing no real hope for positive change.

[Maggie]

Work within the party you think serves your interests best --- there are people who will listen…..and agree.

It continues to get harder to tell the two parties apart. I think there is room for at least one more party to represent political ideals that the Republicrats do not. And I'm talking about actions, not rhetoric.

IF and that is a big IF – down the road – I don’t see any real change I might be open to the suggestion of a third party

I'm already at the point of seeing no real hope for positive change.

As am I. However, that is where you are wrong. I was not writing about either party’s wider rhetorical stance.

I understand your frustration – I am at my wits end. Where are your views most accepted I ask? Does a 3rd Party actually serve your purpose?

[Maggie]

That's fine, but do you support these higher taxes b/c the Federal Govt needs the revenue or b/c you want to redistribute wealth?

This is a semantic argument, but to me "redistribute" to me says "taking what you have and giving it to someone else." I do not support that.

I want all Americans to shoulder future tax burdens in a way that is fair and appropriate. I don't care if we're raising $700 billion or $70. I support a graduated tax, because it's clear to me that if I have $10 and you have $100, a 10 percent tax has very different consequences in our real life economics. A flat tax does not result in an equal burden.

I am a capitalist. I do not begrudge people reaping financial rewards for taking risk. One of my biggest problems with Wichitans in general is that they tend to frown on big ideas because somebody might make a dollar on the project. However, I do have problems with people reaping financial rewards in a fixed game, where performance and compensation have no relationship, where risk is unnaturally supressed, and where special interests and lobbyists set the agenda before the public good.

I would include in that fixed game exploding corporate salaries, all manner of corporate welfare and mindless deregulation, which is clearly the root cause of the crisis right now.

I also believe that closing the income gap between the rich and poor would be a positive move for our economy. I don't buy that a reasonable tax increase (tax break rollback) will have any chilling effect on the spending habits of those making more than $250,000 a year.

It's time for the pendulum to swing back the other way.

Why can't you just say you are in favor of government redistributing wealth?

As Maggie points out, "mindless deregulation" is not the cause of today's financial mess.

Deregulation is almost certainly a major factor in making the subprime mortgage industry possible and Republicans, namely Gramm are responsible. And if it's not, why is Mr. Deregulation John McCain now talking about increasing regulation on the financial industry? Is he crazy? A flip-flopper? Which of these?

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclosure-phil.html

oh ... and I guess to prove I'm right I need to say something inane.

"Now the schooling endeth! Go unto your homes and weep at your inadequacies!"

Still here, yet ignored by you.....don’t write of lessons……

I have often said and believe that in having discussions with those with whom I disagree..– I might learn something……you; however have proven of little value of late…

Am I wrong..?

[C0|dB|00ded]

"“We want to take money..." -Biden

The cornerstone of a democrat's modus operandi.


"...and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people" -Biden

This sounds like a man from a bygone era... the era of the Soviet Union.

We should run Biden out of the country and any others who dare to make statements like that. *insert Michael Savage tantrum here*


T


...8)

[Wuzee]

That's fine, but do you support these higher taxes b/c the Federal Govt needs the revenue or b/c you want to redistribute wealth?

This is a semantic argument, but to me "redistribute" to me says "taking what you have and giving it to someone else." I do not support that.

I want all Americans to shoulder future tax burdens in a way that is fair and appropriate. I don't care if we're raising $700 billion or $70. I support a graduated tax, because it's clear to me that if I have $10 and you have $100, a 10 percent tax has very different consequences in our real life economics. A flat tax does not result in an equal burden.

I am a capitalist. I do not begrudge people reaping financial rewards for taking risk. One of my biggest problems with Wichitans in general is that they tend to frown on big ideas because somebody might make a dollar on the project. However, I do have problems with people reaping financial rewards in a fixed game, where performance and compensation have no relationship, where risk is unnaturally supressed, and where special interests and lobbyists set the agenda before the public good.

I would include in that fixed game exploding corporate salaries, all manner of corporate welfare and mindless deregulation, which is clearly the root cause of the crisis right now.

I also believe that closing the income gap between the rich and poor would be a positive move for our economy. I don't buy that a reasonable tax increase (tax break rollback) will have any chilling effect on the spending habits of those making more than $250,000 a year.

It's time for the pendulum to swing back the other way.

Why can't you just say you are in favor of government redistributing wealth?

As Maggie points out, "mindless deregulation" is not the cause of today's financial mess.

Deregulation is almost certainly a major factor in making the subprime mortgage industry possible and Republicans, namely Gramm are responsible. And if it's not, why is Mr. Deregulation John McCain now talking about increasing regulation on the financial industry? Is he crazy? A flip-flopper? Which of these?

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclosure-phil.html

oh ... and I guess to prove I'm right I need to say something inane.

"Now the schooling endeth! Go unto your homes and weep at your inadequacies!"

Still here, yet ignored by you.....don’t write of lessons……

I apologize for that. I was attempting to make fun of Maggie.

As for the rest: I've stated my position. You're not ignored, you just don't accept the answer.