Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've noticed a trend on the RI board, you guys like to use the term "right wingers" "right wing extremist" etc. Maybe some of us are nothing more than constitutionalists who don't believe in big government, but do believe in freedom and liberty and personal responsibility.
Haven't you heard? That makes you a teabagger right wing militia nut job! Selfish, greedy, and not smart at all.
Quote:
There is a role for government, but it's limited. What we have today are jackpot jobs where people can't be laid off, cake walk positions, above average pay, benefits galore and golden parachute pensions that are unsustainable.
But then we can't redistribute the wealth of the "super rich". You know, anyone with a job that pays above minimum wage.
Quote:
It's out of balance and needs to be corrected. That's all. I hardly find that "right wing extremism"...if anything I'd call it Yankee Frugality.
You've obviously been watching too much Fox News (you really have to say it with disdain in your voice to be really effective) and listening to talk radio. Report to a facility for re-education, please.
quote:"Sooo when the rest of us lose money in an investment, we lick our wounds and move on...but when it happens to government, the are still guaranteed the same return via heavier taxation?"
[COLOR="rgb(139, 0, 0)"]Now you're beginning to get it.[/color]
"I have an idea, how about public sector workers invest in their own retirement just like the private sector. "
[COLOR="rgb(139, 0, 0)"]There are many who are now in 403Bs and 401ks- there has been some reform. [/color]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollytree
Private enterprise is very much affecting taxation, especially when certain entities go untaxed like churches or get big tax breaks.
Running out of options and going for the easy punch? Churches? Really? Yea, all those rogue churches out there are the problem and cause of high taxation. ROFL.
[COLOR="rgb(139, 0, 0)"]reductio ad absurdum. Many corps and private companies have been offered big tax breaks to come here. Also higher ed gets big breaks [/color]
quote:Sooo when the rest of us lose money in an investment, we lick our wounds and move on...but when it happens to government, the are still guaranteed the same return via heavier taxation?
NOW YOU'RE BEGINNING TO GET IT.
I have an idea, how about public sector workers invest in their own retirement just like the private sector.
THERE ARE MANY IN 401KS AND 403BS NOW- THERE HAS BEEN SOME REFORM.
Quote:
"Private enterprise is very much affecting taxation, especially when certain entities go untaxed like churches or get big tax breaks.
Running out of options and going for the easy punch? Churches? Really? Yea, all those rogue churches out there are the problem and cause of high taxation. ROFL. "
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM. Many corps and private companies have been offered big tax breaks to come here. Also higher ed gets big breaks.
Sooo when the rest of us lose money in an investment, we lick our wounds and move on...but when it happens to government, the are still guaranteed the same return via heavier taxation? Must be nice. I can tell, you've never been served with a tax warrant or had a tax levy. It's eye opening the power and authority the IRS and DRS has over you. They will RUIN you and not think twice or show remorse worse than a mafia gangster. Ask me how I know.
I don't seem to remember the Banks licking any wounds. I seem to remember my and your tax payer dollars being funneled into them to prop them up. (And that was under Bush Jr. by the way, Republicans.)
Wouldn't you call that corporate socialism?
Now the banks are sitting on huge windfalls of ca$h, so I guess socialism is OK for them!
I agree, government is the problem....when they do their corporate masters bidding.
Sooo when the rest of us lose money in an investment, we lick our wounds and move on...but when it happens to government, the are still guaranteed the same return via heavier taxation? Must be nice. I can tell, you've never been served with a tax warrant or had a tax levy. It's eye opening the power and authority the IRS and DRS has over you. They will RUIN you and not think twice or show remorse worse than a mafia gangster. Ask me how I know.
I don't seem to remember the Banks licking any wounds. I seem to remember my and your tax payer dollars being funneled into them to prop them up. (And that was under Bush Jr. by the way, Republicans.)
Wouldn't you call that corporate socialism?
Now the banks are sitting on huge windfalls of ca$h, so I guess socialism is OK for them!
I agree, government is the problem....when they do their corporate masters bidding.
I'm gonna side with the right winger here. He was against the bailout, just like me. The banks should have been allowed to fail. While Bush gave some of the bailouts, Obama did as well. Both of them were in the wrong for any type of corporate bailout.
I never said Obama wasn't wrong, what I said was we should treat banks the same way we treat Unions. You seem to agree with me, I was only pointing out the disconnect that not enough rightwingers go after the Banks while plenty go after the Unions - there is no denying that.
For the record I personally have no problem witht he Bailouts, but they should have had teeth that guaranteed payback with interest, there should have been prosecutions, and the "too big to fail" financial entities should have been broken up.
I never said Obama wasn't wrong, what I said was we should treat banks the same way we treat Unions. You seem to agree with me, I was only pointing out the disconnect that not enough rightwingers go after the Banks while plenty go after the Unions - there is no denying that.
For the record I personally have no problem witht he Bailouts, but they should have had teeth that guaranteed payback with interest, there should have been prosecutions, and the "too big to fail" financial entities should have been broken up.
Do you not see his point though? The banks aren't knocking on his door looking for money? The government is because they have to meet union demands.
Personally, I think unions in the public sector is a bad bad bad bad idea. In the case of a private company, if the union puts such a chokehold on the company, the company can go bankrupt. The government has 3 choices: mass layoffs (which usually result in the higher paid people keeping their jobs no matter how good of an employee they are), cuts to services (many of which are already underfunded and lacking in quality), or increase taxes (usually inevitable). Generally, it's a combination of the 3 that happens. In the case of Providence, layoffs and terminations are already occurring. They're going to close schools (a cut in services, more schools means fewer students in a class, which is better for the student). And we're likely to see a tax increase (Taveras says no, but it'll happen, just wait).
I'm not sure how you don't have a problem with the bailouts. Do you realize that money you pay in taxes went straight to some corporate execs pocket? Teeth or no teeth, those bailouts should not have happened. There is already a process in place for when a corporation has a problem like that... bankruptcy. A condition of declaring bankruptcy is that you have to go through a re-organization. Those behemoth corporations would have had to broken up divisions and split them off. Instead, it created bigger corporations as banks bought up other banks.
Now... you have a problem with the banks, but what about the auto industry? They're not banks and they also pocketed your money. They should have been allowed to go bankrupt too.
Do you not see his point though? The banks aren't knocking on his door looking for money? The government is because they have to meet union demands.
Personally, I think unions in the public sector is a bad bad bad bad idea. In the case of a private company, if the union puts such a chokehold on the company, the company can go bankrupt. The government has 3 choices: mass layoffs (which usually result in the higher paid people keeping their jobs no matter how good of an employee they are), cuts to services (many of which are already underfunded and lacking in quality), or increase taxes (usually inevitable). Generally, it's a combination of the 3 that happens. In the case of Providence, layoffs and terminations are already occurring. They're going to close schools (a cut in services, more schools means fewer students in a class, which is better for the student). And we're likely to see a tax increase (Taveras says no, but it'll happen, just wait).
I'm not sure how you don't have a problem with the bailouts. Do you realize that money you pay in taxes went straight to some corporate execs pocket? Teeth or no teeth, those bailouts should not have happened. There is already a process in place for when a corporation has a problem like that... bankruptcy. A condition of declaring bankruptcy is that you have to go through a re-organization. Those behemoth corporations would have had to broken up divisions and split them off. Instead, it created bigger corporations as banks bought up other banks.
Now... you have a problem with the banks, but what about the auto industry? They're not banks and they also pocketed your money. They should have been allowed to go bankrupt too.
The banks arent knocking my door down, they already got my money through the bailouts. I'm not here to debate about Unions, only point out the glaring absence in every fiscal Libertarian's (IE actually uber-conservative who happens to believe in civil rights) argument I see. If you honestly think simply letting the Banks crash and taking the entire economy with it (including the middle class) would be the best outcome, then you haven't learned enough about the Great Depression. The bank bailouts, according to just about every respectable economist out there, prevented the Great Recession from becoming the Great Depression.
If the bailouts had had true strings attached, we would have recouped the funds (as we have for a large part of the GM bailout), and the bigger banks would have been broken up. Enron-style prosecutions would have further dissuaded any further financial malfeasance on the part of the "players."
To say we should have just let the economy tank to live up to some Libertarian utopian ideal of no government intervention (which has never been borne out anywhere in any society in any way, shape or form) is utter madness.
I think there's a lot of reform that has to happen in Providence first before we see tax increases on the individual. Property tax increases are unsustainable what with fuel costs rapidly increasing, just gas going to $5 a gallon is going to be extremely punative for most families.
Reform needs to happen in city pensions, health costs, unfounded disability benefits, and so on...
The banks arent knocking my door down, they already got my money through the bailouts. I'm not here to debate about Unions, only point out the glaring absence in every fiscal Libertarian's (IE actually uber-conservative who happens to believe in civil rights) argument I see. If you honestly think simply letting the Banks crash and taking the entire economy with it (including the middle class) would be the best outcome, then you haven't learned enough about the Great Depression. The bank bailouts, according to just about every respectable economist out there, prevented the Great Recession from becoming the Great Depression.
If the bailouts had had true strings attached, we would have recouped the funds (as we have for a large part of the GM bailout), and the bigger banks would have been broken up. Enron-style prosecutions would have further dissuaded any further financial malfeasance on the part of the "players."
To say we should have just let the economy tank to live up to some Libertarian utopian ideal of no government intervention (which has never been borne out anywhere in any society in any way, shape or form) is utter madness.
Sorry, but that's the truth.
The economy, in order to properly correct itself and keep the market working properly, needs to tank on occasion. It's unfortunate, but true. Most people would not have been overly affected (I was not all that affected by the recession, nor were most people I know).
But yes, I believe the economy needs to tank to put those execs who made it tank, but still make millions of dollars, in their place. Let their companies go out of business. Let the market fix itself. Every time we do something like throw money into the market and artificially fix it, it just gives them more reason to screw over people who can't afford it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
