AIG

[sugarpop]

I have a lot of change so far by Obama. I just hope he continues on that path. I am really upset about this AIG thing though. It's not like they didn't know this was going to happen. And as I posted earlier, this is only the beginning. There are ultimately a billion dollars in bonus payouts that are owed. You think this is bad? Just wait...

I think Bill Maher's idea was pretty good. Let's hang a few of these tools on the big board at the stock exchange with their balls in their mouth.

[sugarpop]

gotta go. c u.

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I am sickened about Chris Dodd. i think he should step down, but of course he won't. Unless he does something to really make up for it, he might not be reelected his next term. I think we need term limits anyway.

Dodd is in serious trouble in 2010...if you believe the polls.

He is trailing a Republican Congressman...but he can still beat Larry Kudlow from CNBC if he were to win the Repub nomination!
http://www.pollster.com/polls/ct/10-ct-sen-ge.php

[classicman]

Dodd defeated in 2010 - Now there is some change we can cheer about.

I saw the same stats in a number of other pieces today. I don't think it'll happen, but I'll maintain hope.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Because they can afford to pay more. And they don't actually pay that much anyway. I heard somewhere (in the Warren Buffet interview maybe?) that the newest results from the IRS indicated that the top 2% were only paying 17% in federal taxes. That is more than most people in the middle and at the bottom. How is that fair, exactly?

Your definition of fair is that someone who earns more than you should pay a significantly higher percentage of their taxes even though they will probably benefit less from government programs than you? How did we ever come to define that as progressive or fair?

Originally Posted by lookout123

Your definition of fair is that someone who earns more than you should pay a significantly higher percentage of their taxes even though they will probably benefit less from government programs than you? How did we ever come to define that as progressive or fair?

I think it started with Adam Smith in the "Wealth of Nations"

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion...

Teddy Roosevelt was the next big proponent of a progressive income tax, with basically the same argument.....the lower one's income, the greater that income is needed for basic necessities....thus, they should be taxed at a lower rate than those with greater disposal income.

The progressive income tax has been around for 80+ years and supported by Democrats and Republicans presidents alike...the issue has been the rate at which the tax rates should rise with income.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Redux

I think it started with Adam Smith in the "Wealth of Nations"

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion...

Teddy Roosevelt was the next big proponent of a progressive income tax, with basically the same argument.....the lower one's income, the greater that income is needed for basic necessities....thus, they should be taxed at a lower rate than those with greater disposal income.

The progressive income tax has been around for 80+ years and supported by Democrats and Republicans presidents alike...the issue has been the rate at which the tax rates should rise with income.

In addition there are three other arguments in favor of progressive taxation.

1. Whether by accident of birth or hard work, the rich benefit more from the system as a whole. Ergo, they should pay more into it.

2. In the glory days of the Roman Empire, being a taxpayer was considered a badge of honor. "On my shoulders rests the state." When that attitude faded, so did the empire, as aristocracy faded to oligarchy, and duty faded to privilege.

3. That's where the money is.

[TheMercenary]

It was pretty funny tonight watching CNN's interviews with Dodd back to back from the two days, day one, he had nothing to do with it. Day two, oh yea well I did have something to do with it after I clearly said I did not. I guess he forgot about it in that 24 hour period. Funny as hell.

[classicman]

Then you missed the third interview where he said he was directed to do so by "the administration." Follow that up with the Geithner interview in which all he did was admit that unnamed "Staffers" had conversation regarding the verbage with Dodd's congressional "Staffers."
What load of crap. They both passed the buck onto no named staffers.
Where is the transparency & more importantly, accountability?

Originally Posted by classicman

Where is the transparency & more importantly, accountability?

deja vu all over again.

[xoxoxoBruce]

When did Dodd promise transparency and/or accountability?

[classicman]

Who said he did?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Then why did you write it in post 234, after talking about Dodd? You sound like FOX news.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

Then you missed the third interview where he said he was directed to do so by "the administration." Follow that up with the Geithner interview in which all he did was admit that unnamed "Staffers" had conversation regarding the verbage with Dodd's congressional "Staffers."
What load of crap. They both passed the buck onto no named staffers.
Where is the transparency & more importantly, accountability?

I did miss that. But hey when you have guys appointed to the job who were previous insiders it is like the fox watching the hen house. I was impressed by the 60 Minutes interview.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by classicman

Then you missed the third interview where he said he was directed to do so by "the administration." Follow that up with the Geithner interview in which all he did was admit that unnamed "Staffers" had conversation regarding the verbage with Dodd's congressional "Staffers."
What load of crap. They both passed the buck onto no named staffers.
Where is the transparency & more importantly, accountability?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

When did Dodd promise transparency and/or accountability?

As you can clearly see, I was talking about Geithner, Dodd AND the administration. All of them. You read what you want into it.

Or is it that the congress and senate don't need to have that same transparency and accountability?