http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... s=1m5bpbm3

Avoiding Clinton tax levels, and focusing on cutting spending (especially spending money on terrorising and pulverising villages in Afghanistan where you're not even wanted), supported by the Obama tax plans. And there you go.

Also, how can you NOT mark the bank tax box? I would understand that it wouldn't be needed if the government had put SOME regulation for the banks as it promised. But it had done NOTHING. In other words, you had an economic collapse, you know what caused it, and you didn't even bother goddamn fixing it. WTF is wrong with you people? Look at Canada for inspiration in keeping banks and mortgages under control.


Corporate tax should be lowered. Income tax should be increased for high income households.


It's the American dream, and it's good.
But hey, in games when you play the Campaign, or the story mode, the game tends to get MORE difficult as you go along. You're also getting better and more powerful, just enough to cope with each new obstacle. I find it silly that in the US the richer you get the easier it is to get even richer than that.


The "pull-the-blame game" is old and stupid, man,


I rotfled at you mentioning the cowboy poetry subsidies. You're so hypocritical man. Just before you said "ohh, taxing the rich would add a $0.5T and the deficit is 3x that, so what's the point of doing it?" and yet, now, you jump on a subsidy that wastes... how much money exactly? $200 billion?
Hey, to be fair, I'd cut that poetry subsidy at the moment. It's an ok program but you gotto know what you can afford. There are people not having homes or health insurance, and others worry about poetry. So yeah, I'd cut it still, but look what a silly bunch of arguments you made.


WTF argument?

btw, ever heard a story of a stupid spoiled brat who inherits a fortune after a rich daddy?

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

I strongly disagree with the carbon tax. CO2 is NOT a dangerous gas. It's a byproduct of human breathing, and it is naturally regulated by plants to be around 1.5% at sea level, which is not dangerous. I don't understand the argument behind calling it a dangerous gas. There are medical problems associated with too much CO2, but if you live in any kind of verdant area, that level is regulated. They want to improve air quality? Plant more trees. And if you want to discourage coal power or other "unclean" sources of energy, put legislation against those byproducts such as sulfur-dioxide or carbon monoxide.

So I disagree with the CO2 emission tax. To me it seems like pure bullshit.

Banks, huh? No regulation, right. They only have the FDIC to answer to, with all their regulations. And the Federal Reserve, with all of theirs. And the OCC (Office of Controller of the Currency). And the OTS (Office of Thrift Supervision). There are literally hundreds of regulations the banks have to follow. Now, if they violate one of those regulations and we find out about it, those responsible should be held accountable and, if necessary, fined or jailed. Either way they should lose their jobs.

Banks themselves did not cause the problems. There were a large number of problems that stemmed from banks to be sure, but that was not what caused the economic collapse.

Once you become rich, you have more money to work with and can invest it in more than just one way. How is that silly?

Not sure if you had more to say in this one, but... I agree, I was serious in my offer, but at the same time I don't think he's gonna go do it.

How exactly is it silly to want to live within your means? And the Cowboy Poetry thing was an ACTUAL topic brought up in one of the Senate hearings on cutting spending. Harry Reid actually named the Cowboy Poetry Festival by name (not sure now if it that was its actual name but you get the idea) and said we should not cut funding to it.

Yes.

...your point being? If someone wants to bequeath their fortune to their son, what's wrong with that? Assuming the kid wants to keep himself rich, he has to invest that money. Usually a profitable investment will involve the creation of jobs.

Is there something wrong with a man who's worked his whole life and got rich passing it on to his living relatives at his death?

_________________

_________________
Dan Wheldon 1978-2011

I'm showing that to Jorge.

Mineral water isn't dangerous. Yet a man who drank 8 litres of it died due to de-ionisation of his blood cells. Truth is, everything is bad or dangerous when not moderated. Some things don't need to be moderated. And you're right that nature attempts to keep CO2 at a given level. Problem is that, those trees, remember them? They are like, totally cut, all over the world. Ever read he forestation trends over the last century? So no, CO2 can be dangerous because it holds heat within the globe. We know this through studying Venus which has a perfectly global-warming-ish atmosphere, but otherwise is very similar to Earth.


1) God knows how quickly US would collapse if banks weren't regulated at all.
2) I didn't mean that they aren't regulated, I meant that they are still not regulated enough.
3) Several simple examples, packaging mortgages and selling them off? That makes bankers give crap mortgages that cannot be repaid just cause it's not their problem cause they're gonna sell them anyway.
4) Your bank has $50 in the vault. In America with that you can make risky investments with the amount of $400. In a properly regulated country you can invest $50, cause that's what you have. The very idea of allowing banks to spend this much more money than they move around, let alone have stocked, is a recipe for disaster.
5) Banks and companies are made primarily for one thing, which so many people tend to forget. They are made to make MONEY, to make PROFIT. If you let them make more profit by legally screwing over their customers, they WILL do it. Cause that's what they do.
6) They should lose their jobs, yet they leave taking millions as one time grants for a "well done job". What does that tell you about how well they are regulated in how they use their money?
The rule is simple, if it's too big to fail, it no longer has the right to freely use its funds. Because if they fail by making extra money for CEOs, the government will have to bail them out anyway. It's win-win for them.


So you don't need any more banking regulations? So none of these scenarios came true? Are you having a laugh or what?


It is silly when you think about it. If getting rich is a snowball effect, then everybody should be getting rich easily. But there's one problem. The total amount of wealth to be divided on the society is LIMITED. So you can only assume that at some point rich people only start getting richer by making poorer people ever more poor. The amount of money and wealth can increase through various means, but none can compete with the power of a snowball effect like that. It's like you saying that the universe could still work if the faster you moved the easier it was to accelerate. This way nearly everything in the universe would be moving with the speed of light. But the energy is limited, so it's not stable or sustainable.


What I meant there was that, it's a "moving the goal post" kind of a challenge. If I were to find you a guy who got fired cause his boss wanted a new car and decided to cut costs, you'd just say that it's because the government taxed the boss too much, and so he had no choice, and that it's the government's fault, etc.


Nothing wrong at all. It just kind of breaks up your idea of "people get rich through hard work only".

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

capitalism promotes individual competition which means that there have to be losers, and since the division between success and failure is so distinct, if someone promotes capitalism, they are at some point, promoting the idea that someone should be poor, because someone has to lose in capitalism.

Now, I know the response to that: favor nature vs nurture and all that, sure, survival of the fittest, alright, technically that makes sense, except that we have technology to help minimize bad outcomes for the successful. It is pretty cruel then, to say that such technology shouldn't be allowed to be used for the poor, and is an exercise in holding onto your power.

Most philosophies and belief systems, ancient and modern, generally imply that because you will die, striving to hold onto what you have in this world, even to help those you care about after you're gone, is detrimental in the long run, and that you do the most good for those you care about by caring about everyone and using all of your power to better the lives OF everyone.

Capitalism runs opposed to that: There are no terms outside of generating wealth for the sake of generating wealth. I understand that terms can and will and are and have been applied, but they are divided from the system: the system operates purely mechanically in many systems that are not.

I understand that there is value to a few tenets of capitalism, too, I knew that before any of these threads began, and I've had constant reminders through other people's posts and their rebuttals to my posts, but I will continue to emphasize my central point: We have the technology to make people suffer less as a whole, and that using the technology in that way as an act of government policy is socialism, but it is also a charitable act. To not make people suffer less is cruelty. Notice I'm not saying not make them suffer at all: I'm not saying socialist policies are a magical cure all to society's ails. I'm saying that we can stop poor Haitians from eating dirt cookies to live by giving them a portion of what the rich have.

Did no one notice my link earlier? A political group of "Patriotic Millionaires" who want their personal taxes raised. Anyone want to explain how they're anti-themselves?

_________________
Bleedcomics Staff Writer/Editor, , and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.

@BR: If these guys want to pay more in taxes, they can write a check to the government. This is not proof that taxes should be raised. I don't care what label you put on them, I still call them "ignorant."

If you're going to tell me that Capitalism = unfair and the Marxism = fair, can you explain who the winners are in Marxism? Doesn't seem like anyone can possibly be a winner because no one owns anything and there is no "wealth" to speak of. In other words, with Capitalism you have a lot of winners and a lot of losers. In Marxism, you have no winners, and an infinite number of losers. Unless this Marxism has a central ruling body (or Government), in which case, only those that belong to this ruling party are the winners and everyone else who isn't is a loser. Unless you want to say that the people "in power" have equal standing with those "in office." In which case any group of citizens can summarily dismiss any ruling by the ruling body, which equals revolt. If the ruling body wishes to enforce its "power" they need to have control of the police or military. If a revolt occurs and the police or military become involved and the people still wish to fight, this becomes a VIOLENT revolt.

The problem here is that you want to talk about theory. And my "theoretical" outcome is not just a theoretical outcome. It has happened. The more a society feels outraged because of the misuse of power in a ruling body, they more likely they are to revolt.

@ Q.U.: I only have time right now for this little paragraph. I'll get to your misconceptions in a moment.

_________________

sounds like a pessimist's view to me to say that when the disparity between winners and losers is diminished, the result is losers instead of winners.

But hey, check it out: any authority given even in CURRENT government is supposed to be derived from the population. Socialism and subsequent movements only make that power more direct and visible. Literally the opposite of totalitarianism, which is what you insist on describing by claiming that there would be the potential for an abusive central authority.

the goal of communist theory is to diminish the loss so that more people 'win', when described under the previous system of competition, see? notice that the idea is not to remove entirely, or to 'win' forever. once again, you are following a premise that the theory contains the ideal that it will remove suffering and loss. this is not accurate: people would still do jobs, there would still be labor, etc. It's just that they would do it based on their decisions to participate. every single decision that affects the community in a significant way is voted on, including the individual authority any one person has in any one subject, field, or project. Like a corporation now, only everyone is on the board of directors and given the fairest representation they can be given.

I understand the potential for an unregulated form of this type of procedure to be abusive, which is why the socially progressive countries in the world have plenty of regulations on this form of community-building. To just abandon the potential of this idea though? There are not many reasons as to justify such a position without using simple terms to describe an emotional or mental state.

So there is no real want or need to have a permanent central ruling body, and no significant want to revolt, given that the only aims of an individual are their personal goals, which the entire community does its best to accomodate, on a local level.

That's the theory. Your theoretical outcome is, as I have said, is not relevant, because it was merely an unsuccessful plan of implementation, not the fault of the theory behind it. *shrug* Marxist theory has not been in any way implemented successfully--so understanding the transition is what the goal of socialist aims in the modern age, successfully

The more a society feels no outrage because there is no central ruling body nor any significant social problem that does not have the immediate attention of the whole community, the less likely they are to revolt, and the more likely they are to be happy.

_________________
Bleedcomics Staff Writer/Editor, , and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.

You didn't even notice what a dumb thing this is to say? I might as well say that in Marxism you have only winners, and no losers. Arguing whether the glass is half empty, or half full is stupid in principle.


Because those guys realise how their country's economy works.

Here's a short explanation why it is bad for money to be going from poor and average wealth people to the rich without regulation:
One rich person will only use up one person's worth of basic goods. Like food, water, and whatever else that the country's economy produces the most. On the other hand, rich people don't really spend on consumption as much of their money as the poorer ones, because through being rich they can afford to invest. Most money they spend is on luxuries. The poorer, on the other hand, spend most of their income on basic needs, spending what is left on luxuries and sometimes investments. It's good to have some rich people, but it's bad when there's too many of them and when they are too rich compared to the rest of the society.
See, currently the poor are still getting poorer, reducing their consumption. The rich are getting richer, but that doesn't make them consume more bread and such. Now due to reduced consumption of the majority of the poor people, the companies producing those basic goods have to drop their production below their capacity, since they cannot sell it all. At the same time, the rich invest more, thanks to which the companies can buy new better machines that can perhaps allow them to increase maximum production capacity by some factor. Problem is, there is no need, cause even without the investments they still easily meet the market's demand. Investments are only helpful when the production can still rely on high demand. With poor people getting poorer the demand falls, and the companies start starving and losing money.
Now the companies have to lower wages and fire employees to stay profitable, because not enough people buys from them. Thus their workers, who count as the poorer 80% of society will lose money. It's a self-propagating mechanism, which simply needs some regulation of the flow of wealth. Investing in companies and bailing them out is not going to fix the problem. The fastest and best way to get out of that vicious circle is to increase the wealth share of the bottom 80% of society as compared to the upper quantile. Then the spending will increase, and consumption and demand will rise, which leaves space for companies to develop and expand, and the economy to grow.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

I don't think I can change your perspective on Marxism any more than you're going to change mine... I think I'll drop this one.

@ Valhallen: Got anything to add to the current chain of discussion? I haven't forgotten about that last long post I was going to pull up for debate, I just never really got around to pulling it back up. However, I kinda feel out of ammo right now. Spent, as it were. Did you want me to address anything specific?

_________________

Quite a bit, actually. I usually try to catch up to the point at which I post a response so things don't get skipped in ongoing discussion, but the fast pace has caused some delay as I catch up. I'm fairly close now, so if you're looking for something to respond to, I can post something in the next day or so, even if it's not as comprehensive as I'd like.

Ever had the feeling you're putting too much thought and effort into something as meaningless as an online dispute?

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

Hey, it's fun. Why do you do it?

Here's a misleading excerpt from my upcoming response: "replace X with vouchers" is Republican code for "destroy X"

Flame on!

It's weird that they continued to call the alien ALF when Gordon Shumway was actually a pretty normal name.

_________________
Dave keep your damn near racist ignorant logic as far from the other sections of the site as humanly possible because it hurts my face just thinking about it.
MG mal your just sick
Wizard Mal...you're kind of a loser. / Mal was, is, and always will be a cunt / I used to hate Mal, but I've since come to pity him.
Tazuren Mal, please, do the world a BIG FUCKING FAVOR, and drop DEAD!
Cybella YOU EGOCENTRIC IDIOT!
Kathleen mal you are the people i hate the most here...and that is saying something
Hana you misogynist fuckwad.
Sakura I hate you.
Relick not many people would really care if you left without a word.
Cali Mal's an elitist cunt that glowers in getting peopel to dislike him. He can stay the fuck out of the RP forums forever and I'll be happy and he could leave Snafu altogehter and I'd probably not even notice..and if I did, I'd be nothing but happy. Shit, he's nothing special. Just another internet troll that happens to wear a different mask.

ugh politics there's never a right or wrong.......... hurts my brain

_________________
Ah, Sarcasm......

／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ CONTRACT?

No, but one option is best, and people argue which that is. It's important because the world is a complicated place; if you ignore even the smallest detail, you can end up running your government into the ground. That's pretty dramatic, though; usually bad ideas present themselves as bad ideas long before they have permanent effects. Also, your own personal feelings will determine which ideas sound utopian and which sound like checking for syphilis.

But people find it rewarding when others go, "Ah, you're right, that makes so much sense now," so people will strangle one another to hear it.

_________________
Dave keep your damn near racist ignorant logic as far from the other sections of the site as humanly possible because it hurts my face just thinking about it.
MG mal your just sick
Wizard Mal...you're kind of a loser. / Mal was, is, and always will be a cunt / I used to hate Mal, but I've since come to pity him.
Tazuren Mal, please, do the world a BIG FUCKING FAVOR, and drop DEAD!
Cybella YOU EGOCENTRIC IDIOT!
Kathleen mal you are the people i hate the most here...and that is saying something
Hana you misogynist fuckwad.
Sakura I hate you.
Relick not many people would really care if you left without a word.
Cali Mal's an elitist cunt that glowers in getting peopel to dislike him. He can stay the fuck out of the RP forums forever and I'll be happy and he could leave Snafu altogehter and I'd probably not even notice..and if I did, I'd be nothing but happy. Shit, he's nothing special. Just another internet troll that happens to wear a different mask.

I read something and if it strikes me as false or biased I open a response and type it up in a couple of minutes to add my own view on the matter. But I do that fully leisurely, not putting my best effort into being clear and responding to every single aspect of each quote.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

Also, Q.U. while I have a bit of time, I'd like to put something to you:

If someone who is rich opens a business selling ONLY food, and does it at prices that are competitive while still allowing him to make between 5 and 10% overall profit, and the money HE makes is taxed at a 35% rate, and he does not try to gouge the customer and only changes his prices based on supply and demand (while still maintaining the above profit margin), and his income after taxes is still right around $10 million per year, what is your opinion of this person?

Next if I may, I would like you to compare that person to someone who DOES try to gouge the customer and ignores supply and demand and has a profit margin of around 25%; he's basically the opposite of the person above. And let's say that he also takes in around $10 million after taxes. What is your opinion of this person? Does this in any way change your opinion of the first person?

Now consider the IN DEPTH implications of my examples. Their incomes are the same but their profit margins are different. Which means that one of them has a lot more customers than the other; one of them has a much larger workforce; one of them actually seems to care that the consumer can afford his merchandise. But according to the logic you presented above, both of them are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer, which only makes sense if all rich business owners were like my latter example. Assuming the poor have jobs and aren't wasting their money on frivolous things like two car loans, a mortgage for a house they can't in a million years afford, and/or excessive quantities of lottery tickets (or some other gambling activity), the "poor" could easily save up their money and pull themselves out of poverty.

Just because there aren't a lot of people who are smart enough to do that is no reason to blame the rich. Now, if you have a legitimate reason to blame the rich for something--and I'm talking specifics, such as "this guy/gal/corporation fired a couple hundred employees but gave all their executives million dollar payoffs," then I can definitely see the problem you have with that. However, you also have to realize that this is NOT ALL OF THE RICH PEOPLE. A couple dozen millionaires making each other wealthy at the expense of a few thousand is not something you blame on everyone, because the rest of them are not necessarily like that.

In regards to consuming, we are Legion. We have the power. The People can sway just as well as a corporation. It just takes time and perseverance and cooperation. If a corporation wants to put a law into place, even ONE person can take this bill to court for its Constitutionality, because in the United States of America, regardless of what the Many want to do, it still has to be Constitutional and not infringe on the rights of the Few.

I know it seems like I'm just spouting this kind of Power To The People bullshit, but in reality there's nothing wrong with what I'm saying. It's just not sympathetic, especially to those who lost everything because of a defaulted loan. But in that sense, I have no sympathy. You do NOT enter into a loan agreement without understanding the rules and abiding by them. You do NOT take on debt if you have no way of paying it back. These are simple legal and economic guidelines. People who don't want to follow them have no business complaining when shit happens.

And I apologize for nothing.

_________________

Okay... Your point went moot again, or I'm just too blind to see a connection.


I read the situation given. The question you ask is irrelevant and makes no sense. I don't have an opinion of this person since I do not know them. And even if I did, this has nothing to do with the workings of the economy.


Again, no opinion on somebody I do not know as in personality. How their company is ran is not substantial to shaping an opinion on their personalities.
Admittedly, the second case seems, as you wished for me to notice, leaning towards exploiting people. I don't see a point in saying "the CEO is an evil man", that's what the republicans do all the time. I will only say that if the company has poor service it will lose customers. Simple as that. Again, it has little to do with the place of rich people in the economy.


You brought down the argument to how kind or mean is the rich person running the company. I will not start claiming that rich people are evil, nor do I remember having done this here. Neither will I say that every rich person consciously tries to exploit the system. Have you read my post from Wed May 04, 2011 9:24 am? It explains why too many too rich people are not healthy for a county's economy. It has nothing to do with how good they are or how much they care about their company.


Blame the man dying on desert for seeing a mirage of an oasis. I will not say those people who TOOK the mortgages are not to blame, but blaming anybody doesn't get us anywhere. When the cops are trying to make young people stop smoking pot they crack down on the dealers. Chasing the customers is a waste of time, the police knows that. You should too. I'm asking here not who to blame, but how to fix the situation so that the scenario doesn't repeat. And here it's obvious, regulate the mortgages given, if you give mortgage, you cannot package it up and sell it. Easy and simple.

But here you seem to have this skewed viewpoint that you cannot regulate the banks more because that will screw over the rich, and it's bad. As I said, the rich will still be rich, even if you force them to earn a bit less. Secondly, the economy doesn't live on the rich, it lives and works mainly on the middle class consumers, so no, regulating the rich would not bring down the system. And finally, the rich will be fine, these solutions are in place in other countries, and they work fine, the rich are still rich, they still donate to charity, etc.


Glad we agree there. Because every company (and bank) is made to make money (profit). We know that, in fact the few that aren't there to make profit have special names, like charities or non-profit organisations. If you leave the people running the company with a choice to make more profit at higher risk, they will ponder whether to do it or not. But if you remind them that they are too big to fail, and even if they fail they will get bailed out back on their feet by the country, there is no need for them to worry any more, and so they go off making extra profit by causing extra damage. CEOs being able to decide who will take what payoffs are where the danger lies. Giving a person the power to decide on their own wage is a completely irresponsible thing to do. And those are some of the things that need fixing.


Again, it's not about being "like that". The rich invest most, the poor spend most. It is how it works, and has NOTHING to do with their personalities and anything like it. Read my post again for reference. In reference to my older posts, yes, few rich people are as greedy as to steal from the country or use fake charities, but every loophole is still a loophole, even if nobody exploits it. I'm not calling for hating the rich, I'm calling for regulating the companies and fixing loopholes. There's a big difference there.


As true as it may be, I don't see how it relates to the point we're discussing. When I said "the rich can lobby and buy the politicians to get bills passed that favour their money gains" I never said any of those were or had to be unconstitutional.


Yes, you do not. I agree completely that they shouldn't have. But note, as I mentioned, that:
1) Telling a hobo investing the $10 he just got is better than spending it on food right now seems stupid. However true it may be, the less people have the more they have to strive with today, and the less they care about tomorrow. So again, I won't take the blame off of those people for getting into trouble, but I want you to admit that it was PREDICTABLE that they would go for it, if given the chance.
2) I don't want to play the blame game. Imho both the giver and the consumer is to blame for causing trouble. It is the bank's job to make sure they don't give mortgages to people who cannot pay them off. Banks simply didn't do their job, or didn't have to. Wherever the blame may lie, I want you to say how you think the problem can be FIXED so that it doesn't happen again. And I think trying to educate the masses not to get loans would be quite a lot harder than ordering the banks to make sure they don't give too risky loans to begin with.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

Right? And Gordon Shumway was like...a perfectly acceptable human name!

_________________
Dave keep your damn near racist ignorant logic as far from the other sections of the site as humanly possible because it hurts my face just thinking about it.
MG mal your just sick
Wizard Mal...you're kind of a loser. / Mal was, is, and always will be a cunt / I used to hate Mal, but I've since come to pity him.
Tazuren Mal, please, do the world a BIG FUCKING FAVOR, and drop DEAD!
Cybella YOU EGOCENTRIC IDIOT!
Kathleen mal you are the people i hate the most here...and that is saying something
Hana you misogynist fuckwad.
Sakura I hate you.
Relick not many people would really care if you left without a word.
Cali Mal's an elitist cunt that glowers in getting peopel to dislike him. He can stay the fuck out of the RP forums forever and I'll be happy and he could leave Snafu altogehter and I'd probably not even notice..and if I did, I'd be nothing but happy. Shit, he's nothing special. Just another internet troll that happens to wear a different mask.

RD, are you reading and legitimately considering our arguments at this point?

You keep saying that only a few rich people are doing this, RD: THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT.

I have constantly been saying that regulating rich people is important because one bad rich person can do a lot of bad very quickly in the same way a lot of good rich people can do a lot of good.

It is the same argument for anything that can be dangerous: you apply some form of regulation.

Here is an easy to understand metaphor. Alcohol while driving is bad. It is illegal to drink alcohol and drive. But I like to drink and drive, why are you stepping on my personal freedom, law? Oh, I see, because even though I am just one person, I can hurt other people if I decide to drink and drive.

So: the fact that we have such big economic downturns that are the result of a small number of people's mismanagement of money; and RD, surely you don't deny hat this big financial crisis/recession was caused at least in significant part by both the people who made the bad debt AND the financiers who dealt with the debt.

As much damage as you insist the federal government did with all the terrible spending that started with the bi-partisan two-party-approved bail-out approved by Bush and added onto immensely by Obama (both republican and democratic parties were involved), surely you're not going to actually say that the major downturn did not begin with private citizens and the capital they possessed.

The fact that they are still able to make such singularly bad business decisions that don't impact just their world, but the rest of the entire world, to me suggests that we do not have enough and so need more regulation for the rich.

If not taxes, to stop them from getting so wealthy that even a crisis like this won't significantly change their lifestyle, then what would you suggest would be a reasonable limit for the wealthy so as to limit their impact on other people's lives?

You won't deny that at a certain point, an independently wealthy person becomes insulated from financial damage if they are intelligent with their investments, will you?

_________________
Bleedcomics Staff Writer/Editor, , and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.

If a poor man has a job and no investments, he has little to lose if something goes bad at his job. He can get a new job. Hell, he might find one that pays better. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that he loses money due to loss of job hours. What? $400, $500 lost? For the time he was unemployed before finding a new job? Under relatively normal circumstances, with a man who has a very good skill set? Hard times.

On the other hand, if a millionaire's entire fortune is invested in a company and something goes bad, he has HIS ENTIRE FORTUNE to lose if something catastrophic happens in the company. Let's say that he sells an expensive product that kills a couple hundred people before he can recall it (like a car, as a practical example). He now has to refund the purchase price of the product as well as pay damanges for every person his product has harmed. Best-case scenario, he keeps his company but he's down thousands, if not millions, of dollars.

Shall we compare $500 to $500,000? No, of course not that would be utterly stupid.

"Insulated from financial damage..." In other words, it's better for a rich person to lose money than it is for a poor person. Bullshit.

_________________

Find me one case study example of a millionaire who has all his fortune in his own company only.

Secondly, just a moment ago you bashed poor people for getting loans they knew they wouldn't be able to pay. But when a smart intelligent millionaire invests ALL of his money into one risky venture, then it's okay, it's not stupid of him, right? They are not responsible for it themselves, right?


Nope. Best case scenario is: he gets bailed out.


Of course it would be stupid. After all the one that lost 500.000 still has enough left to put food on his table. The one that lost 500 might not be that lucky.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

Is that last graph supposed to be proof that people cannot obtain new jobs? I can be selective with data too. Watch:



Maybe you'd like to use more recent data, or more reliable data to disprove what I'm saying? You apparently just laughed at me in a drunken stupor and cited a graph showing unemployment trends more than three years ago to prove that unemployment rates prevent people from becoming employed. Why is it relevant to my example, and how does it prove what you intend it to prove?

_________________

This graph fails. No y axis.

_________________
Escape will make me God.