Times are tough all over

[dar512]

Originally Posted by barefoot serpent

Just 3 months ago.

I bet they'd be different now.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Busterb, I fully appreciate what you are saying. As I pointed out earlier there is exactly zero chance of our politicians setting aside their own interests long enough to consider this idea. So let me just put this out there - if you were given a 2% increase across the board would it kill you to pay 1% in tax along with the rest of the country?

Why all the smoke and mirrors? Why have the government give you 2% with one hand and take away 1% with the other? It seems to me all the paperwork would end up costing extra, too. If the government in its divine generosity wants to give my elderly neighbor a social security pension of $700.00/month, then take back $50 (or whatever) a month, why not just send her $650.00 and be done with it?

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Why all the smoke and mirrors? Why have the government give you 2% with one hand and take away 1% with the other? It seems to me all the paperwork would end up costing extra, too. If the government in its divine generosity wants to give my elderly neighbor a social security pension of $700.00/month, then take back $50 (or whatever) a month, why not just send her $650.00 and be done with it?

But...if it was taxed at source, then there would be no need to send out one amount and have another amount come back in.

[DanaC]

I respect your view but we come at this from two completely different angles. Me: There are few things government actually does well, so why should I trust them to do more? You: Government if properly funded (whatever that means) can and should provide much for the people.

*Chuckles* I think that fairly accurately sets out our stalls aye :P

In truth I wasn't trying to persuade you m'dear...but you raised the spectre of class war and I'm never going to be able to stay out of that now, am I?

Actually, I am quite proud of myself for sticking to basic ideas about how I feel a modern (post marxist and post laissez-faire) society can enrich the lives of its citizens and not going off on a massive tangential leap into a discussion about the nexus points of class and gender construction in matters of taxation and benefits...'cause that's where my head's at right now...

[Cicero]

I just cashed in my change at the machine. Went to get a free coffee with my bulit up coffee accrual. And now I have to come here and work on Sunday as a counter-person. I just wanted coffee.

Due to real lack of interest in my resume, sparse job offerings in occupations other than the medical field, I am so fuc***. My husband laughs and says I don't have to do it. But I am broke. I just can't seem to kick back and spend my husband's hard earned money. Where in the hell did this pride thing come from? It's annoying at best.

Why can't people quit saying over-qualified at the wrong moment, instead of not even looking, and saying come in on Sunday?

You may think I'm an ass, but refilling ketchup bottles, and wiping them down is really going to chap my ass. Let's not forget the post wipe-down scrutiny of said, ketchup bottles. Even if it ends up being met with approval I think I'm going to go put my head in the toilet. And flush.

[kerosene]

Cicero, I have a perfectly good job for you here in Colorado And I won't make you wipe any ketchup bottles. "Overqualified" is not in my dictionary.

[Cicero]

Well it's a good thing I already started packing then, isn't it?

[kerosene]

Yes it is. Be here by Monday and I will show you the ropes. Oh, btw, since you are also the sales dept for our new furniture company, I hope you are bringing your nice dress clothes, too.

[Cicero]

See, that's how it should be. Case is right on!!

That's the attitude. And the know-how.

I'm so happy with that, I am not even going to make any wood jokes.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Cicero

See, that's how it should be. Case is right on!!

That's the attitude. And the know-how.

I'm so happy with that, I am not even going to make any wood jokes.

Oh Go on.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by DanaC

[Y]ou do realise, of course, that from my perspective the 'flat tax' system is a weapon of class war. . . Class conflict is an inherent part of a class based society. You guys may define class differently, but it is there. And the conflict exists when the needs of those classes collide and conflict.

I think the entire point of the American republic's (or republics') existence, economics-wise, is that at bottom "the needs of the classes" don't conflict. Everyone has to make a living, and that isn't open to dispute. Any differences of detail are usually differences of scale.

[Undertoad]

I asked tw,

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Can you point to the specific deregulation that made that possible.

He couldn't, because there wasn't any.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122403045717834693.html

While there has been significant deregulation in the U.S. economy during the last 30 years, none of it has occurred in the financial sector. Indeed, the only significant legislation with any effect on financial risk-taking was the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, adopted during the first Bush administration in the wake of the collapse of the savings and loans (S&Ls). FDICIA, however, substantially tightened commercial bank and S&L regulations, including prompt corrective action when a bank's capital declines below adequate levels and severe personal fines if management violates laws or regulations.

[classicman]

Who was in charge of regulation?

[TheMercenary]

In the summer of 2005, a bill emerged from the Senate Banking Committee that considerably tightened regulations on Fannie and Freddie, including controls over their capital and their ability to hold portfolios of mortgages or mortgage-backed securities. All the Republicans voted for the bill in committee; all the Democrats voted against it. To get the bill to a vote in the Senate, a few Democratic votes were necessary to limit debate. This was a time for the leadership Sen. Obama says he can offer, but neither he nor any other Democrat stepped forward.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122403045717834693.html

[classicman]

Stop it with the facts already Merc - Geez! I already voted and you know it just pisses people off.

Indeed, the only significant legislation with any effect on financial risk-taking was the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, adopted during the first Bush administration in the wake of the collapse of the savings and loans (S&Ls). FDICIA, however, substantially tightened commercial bank and S&L regulations, including prompt corrective action when a bank's capital declines below adequate levels and severe personal fines if management violates laws or regulations.

~snip! look back to 1998, when the Clinton administration ruled that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could satisfy their affordable housing obligations by purchasing subprime mortgages. This ultimately made it possible for Fannie and Freddie to add a trillion dollars in junk loans to their balance sheets. This led to their collapse, and to the development of a market in these mortgages that is the source of the financial crisis we are wrestling with today.