Not a Troll: Tell me why the rich should have higher taxes.

[Elennsar]

Some people don't care what someone meant, as long as they get to claim the person said they wanted.

I don't believe that pumping money into the corporations is going to lead to either reform or slowing the fall by enough to make a difference.

Now, if it was say (making up numbers) 5 years (of problems) with this, 10 without, then fine.

If it's "wait two years in which things won't get better and the problem of how we got the money makes things worse in other ways", and 8 years either way...

Then let's get this over with.

Reform tomorrow is better than reform never, but reform ever is not looking likely to happen at this rate, short of burning the system to ashes (which is not desirable. Possibly, and I use that word with extreme care, necessary, but not at all desirable. Even if it does wind up making those I want to see suffer do so.).

[AndyJames]

Some people don't care what someone meant, as long as they get to claim the person said they wanted.

I don't believe that pumping money into the corporations is going to lead to either reform or slowing the fall by enough to make a difference.

Now, if it was say (making up numbers) 5 years (of problems) with this, 10 without, then fine.

If it's "wait two years in which things won't get better and the problem of how we got the money makes things worse in other ways", and 8 years either way...

Then let's get this over with.

Reform tomorrow is better than reform never, but reform ever is not looking likely to happen at this rate, short of burning the system to ashes (which is not desirable. Possibly, and I use that word with extreme care, necessary, but not at all desirable. Even if it does wind up making those I want to see suffer do so.).

And that doesn't hurt people? Please. Your own words damn you. From your silly conspiracy theory to your "burn everything down and screw the consequences" attitude

[Elennsar]

Conspiracy theory?

It's a "conspiracy theory" to point out that the rich abuse the system and that the system is both inherently flawed and made even more so by their dominance of the government?

If that's a conspiracy theory, then the term is used...far too loosely.

As for consequences: As stated, I don't like the idea of burning the system to ashes. I don't like the system, either.

[AndyJames]

Nevermind. I am following PI's lead. You obviously don't read what you yourself wrote. Either that or you are trying to fast talk your way out of it. Either way, it is obvious:

1. You have no idea how bad things can get if the US economic system collapses. Not just for the US, but the whole world.
2. You don't give a crap about anyone's quality of life, rich or poor.
3. You are blinded by your lust for vengeance.
4. You hate the rich with a passion, possibily because you yourself aren't rich.

I pity you.

[Elennsar]

1) Wrong. I simply don't consider continuing the existing system to be such an amazing thing that we should do everything possible to preserve it as is.

2) Wrong.

3) Wrong.

4) Wrong.

All that you do is misread, misinterpet, and misunderstand.

In detail:

If the choices are "give the people who abuse the system for all its worth more money, borrowing and sending the government even further into debt with all the unpleasant consequences of running off of the Spanisih Loan Policy  (taking a loan to pay the interest on a loan that you took to pay interest on a loan that you took to pay interest on a loan that you took because you need money.) without fundementally improving or reforming, or having the system crash and be rebuilt as something that works, I am extremely reluctant to support "the system' just because the time of crash would hurt.

So does the time of "the dishonest rich" rule. Keeping the system intact by patching holes in one place by making holes somewhere else doesn't do any good for the people who are being overburdened by the system.

As for quality of life: I'm in favor of everyone being roughly equivalant to middle class. Neither especially luxurous or especially austere.

As for vengeance and hate: Now we're just getting silly. The only thing I hate is the system being set up to favor the rich (not the hard working, not the intelligent, not the talented...those who have money will make even more money, those without will have an increasingly hard time climbing no matter how hard they work) and set up so that the dishonest can abuse it still further...without consequence, because the laws are set up so that their dishonesty is minimally punished even when caught.

[X-Codes]

Elennsar, AndyJames... please just SHUT THE FUCK UUUUuuuuuppp...

AndyJames, don't yell at me for telling you to SHUT THE FUCK UUUUuuuuuppp...  I put your name second, you should be honored, especially after spamming facepalm pics (seriously, grow up, those never contribute at all to serious threads).

Elennsar, you're, at best, kinda right, but you're very wrong, too.  The proposed bill unleashing $810B onto the markets is excessive to the point of being obscene.  That said, we can't leave these assholes hanging.  If they go down, we go down harder.  The fact is, we just need a much smaller provision to put about $50B-$100B into the markets.  The way the banking system works, they are really capable of doing a lot with a little, and this will stop the most critical banks from crashing and dragging the rest down a number of notches.  Beyond that, there needs to be more regulation, higher taxes on the rich, and more tax credits shipped to the lower classes to juice the economy.  From there problems are fixed as they're found and the damage done by the Bushies is eventually reversed.  In this situation, you just can't jump straight to the long-term solution.  When you get knocked down, you need to get back up before you can move on.

[Elennsar]

I can accept that (if with very bad grace).

But not without making -damn- sure that it will be used to make things better and not just feed those who messed this up.

So, unless reform is made mandatory as soon as humanly possible (not "when desired". When it can be done.), then ultimately, we're continuing a terrible thing, and not helping the economy.

Bad combination.

I still stand by the Spanish Loan policy comment. At some point in the near future, we need to get out of that maze.

[Tshern]

Talk to the World Bank about that. Not like they and the IMF weren't screwing over the entire third world with their extortion.

[Elennsar]

Can't/won't argue with you there.

There's a line between a good profit and a profit just this side of theft.

It has been crossed by plenty of people.

[Tshern]

So I've heard...

[Sunic_Flames]

Needs more facepalm.

[Runestar]

So what will it be? Everyone loses (just that they lose more), or everyone wins (but others win more)? 

[Elennsar]

Option C:

Everyone wins.

As stated, Bill Gates is not more important than a million janitors.

[Blade2718]

Option C:

Everyone wins.

As stated, Bill Gates is not more important than a million janitors.

If by C you mean "Everyone wins equally", that is literally impossible in a capitalist society.  Some people have more at stake in the game than others.  Don't bother to respond, I don't have any more to contribute to this thread.

[PhoenixInferno]

Option C:

Everyone wins.

As stated, Bill Gates is not more important than a million janitors.

I disagree.  Especially now in his new role @ the Foundation.

[X-Codes]

So what will it be? Everyone loses (just that they lose more), or everyone wins (but others win more)? 

Capitalism is supposed to be everyone wins, and the people making/doing the stuff that other people want to buy at a particular period of time win more.  If a capitalist society isn't working out that way, then taxes need to be adjusted (if the gulf between the classes expands to where you've got working poor, they need to go up on the rich people and down on everyone else, or if it's getting closer to the point where there's not a lot of reason to excel then it needs to go the other way).

[JaronK]

The bailout won't help the economy, it'll just delay the problem.  The problems arose from horrible underregulation and the Reaganomics theory that if we let rich people do whatever they want and tax as little as possible, they'll naturally do what's best for the country.  Instead, they did whatever they wanted and earned more money for themselves without foresight of any kind, going for what they wanted now as opposed to what would be good in the future.  This concept lead to the California Energy Crisis and now Wall Street's meltdown.  Throwing money at the problem is simply not going to work... you need to put back the "big government" regulations that were designed to make sure this wouldn't happen, and accept that fact that yes, 20 years of irresponsible financial behavior does lead to consequences.  It's going to hurt.  It's going to hurt bad.  But giving money to the people who caused the problem just isn't going to solve anything, it's like giving heroine to an addict to prevent withdrawl symptoms.

Andy, you can facepalm all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that the proposed solution simply doesn't work.

Personally, I think that the government can buy up large chunks of the debts, hoping a good amount will still be repaid.  But a lot of the people who got us into this mess need to go down with it, and be made responsible for a lot of the debts... having the government buy up the debts at 50% market value should do the trick nicely, I think.  There needs to be consequences, or it will happen again and again and again.  And the regulation that was supposed to deaden the boom and bust cycle needs to be brought back, because it worked, and the small government crusaders who removed that regulation need to stop acting so surprised that when they removed it, we got a boom and then a bust.

JaronK

[Callix]

The bailout won't help the economy, it'll just delay the problem.  The problems arose from horrible underregulation and the Reaganomics theory that if we let rich people do whatever they want and tax as little as possible, they'll naturally do what's best for the country.  Instead, they did whatever they wanted and earned more money for themselves without foresight of any kind, going for what they wanted now as opposed to what would be good in the future.  This concept lead to the California Energy Crisis and now Wall Street's meltdown.  Throwing money at the problem is simply not going to work... you need to put back the "big government" regulations that were designed to make sure this wouldn't happen, and accept that fact that yes, 20 years of irresponsible financial behavior does lead to consequences.  It's going to hurt.  It's going to hurt bad.  But giving money to the people who caused the problem just isn't going to solve anything, it's like giving heroine to an addict to prevent withdrawl symptoms.

Andy, you can facepalm all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that the proposed solution simply doesn't work.

Personally, I think that the government can buy up large chunks of the debts, hoping a good amount will still be repaid.  But a lot of the people who got us into this mess need to go down with it, and be made responsible for a lot of the debts... having the government buy up the debts at 50% market value should do the trick nicely, I think.  There needs to be consequences, or it will happen again and again and again.  And the regulation that was supposed to deaden the boom and bust cycle needs to be brought back, because it worked, and the small government crusaders who removed that regulation need to stop acting so surprised that when they removed it, we got a boom and then a bust.

JaronK

On one level, I agree. The bailout will not fix the economy. But it will soften the landing, and that's critically important to just about everyone in the world. We can't afford an extended global depression, so we'll spend some money to avoid that. Then, in the ensuing downturn (not crash), we can make a case for the regulation we need.

Yes, it's like giving drugs to a junkie. But cold turkey seldom works, and the regulations we're after can help to wean them off it.

[Elennsar]

As to "that's not how a capitalist society works": If anyone has mistaken me for supporting a capitalism system, there future will involve lolcats.

As for the Foundation: He's still not worth a million janitors.

As for the landing:

Here's my problem.

In the system (corrupted capitalism, and I mean that in both senses of corrupt), there is an incentive for the corporations to gouge the customers and to get money from the government.

So take the oil industry. The reason we have gas prices well beyond anything reasonable?

1) Those who control the supply are abusing that.
2) Those who control the government are abusing that.
3) They're the same damn people.

I'd rather deal with a disaster now, watch the system break into little pieces, and rebuild from the rubble, then watch the system land smoothly, have a few nice words about regulation that don't mean anything, and ten years later watch it all happen again.

As stated, there's making a good profit, and then there's stealing. We need to make sure that the line is protected by barbed wire.

So, unless the money is used where it is needed as an economic equivalant of feather fall, all it is doing is providing one more method of bankrupting the government and fattening the korps (intentionally using cyberpunk spelling).

[Callix]

As to "that's not how a capitalist society works": If anyone has mistaken me for supporting a capitalism system, there future will involve lolcats.

As for the Foundation: He's still not worth a million janitors.

As for the landing:

Here's my problem.

In the system (corrupted capitalism, and I mean that in both senses of corrupt), there is an incentive for the corporations to gouge the customers and to get money from the government.

So take the oil industry. The reason we have gas prices well beyond anything reasonable?

1) Those who control the supply are abusing that.
2) Those who control the government are abusing that.
3) They're the same damn people.

I'd rather deal with a disaster now, watch the system break into little pieces, and rebuild from the rubble, then watch the system land smoothly, have a few nice words about regulation that don't mean anything, and ten years later watch it all happen again.

As stated, there's making a good profit, and then there's stealing. We need to make sure that the line is protected by barbed wire.

So, unless the money is used where it is needed as an economic equivalant of feather fall, all it is doing is providing one more method of bankrupting the government and fattening the korps (intentionally using cyberpunk spelling).

The economic feather fall is the reason used to justify this to a couple hundred elected officials, so if it isn't used that way there ought to be hell to pay. And if the system gets broken into little pieces, so do a lot of the people. The reason you have recieved such a hostile response form people like AJ is that the human cost of what you are suggesting is immense. It might be the quickest way to get what needs to be done to happen, but it simply can't be the best. The only idea that I've seen that is less considerate to the poor and downtrodden is violent revolution.

Yes, corporate fat cats need more limits to their power. Yes, their salaries are outrageous and need to be curbed. Yes, the oil companies are ruining our planet for profit by suppressing research into alternatives to petroleum products: BP holds at least half a dozen different patents for hydrogen or electric cars that it will do its daredest to stop from seeing the light of day. But if you bring the system crashing down, people get hit by the pieces. So while it might be slow, and difficult, and discouraging to be fighting against so much money and power, all of the alternatives mean screwing the little guy in the name of the little guy. And that's hypocrisy, which is what AJ has been screaming about this whole time.