The Perfect Bailout Plan

[Tempest]

Quote:
Was the burger guy a sweat and toil millionaire or some guy/gal part of a wealth parking enterprise? Please answer!

And you do not want to answer my questions.

It makes no differece how the rich person got their money, but they are wealthy and it takes wealthy people to start businesses. You have offered NO evidence to the contrary. You have done your level best to distract the converstation into "deserve", "productive money" and other side tracks, but it does nothing to support your idea that bottom up works.
It cannot since poorer people cannot invest to start a business. Business, not government (at least for now) are what employ people and create a job base. No job base, no economy.
SO, the more you tax the wealthy, the less capital and incentive there is to create jobs. Detroit, Chicago, DC, California, and nearly every other inner city area is a clear example of this.

Quote:
Prove this, please. How do we know that he benefited anyone other than himself.

I already did in my post.

And I will ask again:
Do you consider allowing him to keep more of what he earns a government subsidy?

 

[Gary Allan]

Slanted question. It assumes that "more of what he "earns" " is any different for anyone else. You seem to exclude everyone else from that distinction.


In reciprocity: Do you consider being let off the hook for a bill that you owe a windfall? Sauce for the goose, my friend

Quote:
Quote:
Prove this, please. How do we know that he benefited anyone other than himself.

I already did in my post.


I'm sorry ...but you have not. You've only asserted why you feel that wealth needs help and why you want them to have it as easy as possible and have the lower dwellers struggle as much as humanly possible to provide the go juice for them to do so.

I, otoh, have showed how any commercial entity ..large or small ..benefits from money thrown in the street ...without one government influence ...not one tax advantage ..nothing other then introducing food at the bottom of the food chain.


As I assert:

In a rational competitive model, the acquisition and amassing of wealth should contour something like achieving the speed of light. The more you amass ..the effort exerted to acquire more should increase. What we have now are certain threshold barriers that basically lock out access below a certain ante. Once you breach it, you're applying a different set of physics.

You appear to want a "tiered" society instead of a seamless progression to the top. The tiered society is one of sequestered privilege that installs its own barriers to entrance - the ante, while the seamless progression is limited only by performance of the mass of participants.


The "sequestered privilege" mentality has no defensible philosophical position. Not even in your "Natural Law" model.

 

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: Tempest


And who is "handing" money to the rich?


The US government. 700 billion.

 

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: Tempest

How many poor people own businesses? How many poor people have employees that support an economy?


How many businesses or economy's would survive without poor people? How many businesses throughout the economic ladder don't have poor people that support said businesses and the economy (you know, buy the stupid [censored] they produce and the [censored] services they render)? There's a lot of PHD janitors and truck drivers out there you know.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: Tempest

How many poor people own businesses? How many poor people have employees that support an economy?


How many businesses or economy's would survive without poor people? How many businesses throughout the economic ladder don't have poor people that support said businesses and the economy (you know, buy the stupid [censored] they produce and the [censored] services they render)? There's a lot of PHD janitors and truck drivers out there you know.

There's a distinct lack of acknowledgment of the symbiosis that exists there.

I'd really like to see anyone except a noble justify the position that they're there for the benefit of the rabble ..and deserve "tribute" for the selflessness that the station demands.

It's much more genuine to just say "I'm me and you're not. Sucks to be you"

 

[Drew99GT]

One economic fundamental has existed throughout the history of mankind, and it's brought down every empire: if you don't pay the people who make your products enough to buy them (without printing money and having to redistribute wealth), then everyone loses.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
One economic fundamental has existed throughout the history of mankind, and it's brought down every empire: if you don't pay the people who make your products enough to buy them (without printing money and having to redistribute wealth), then everyone loses.


That's why a service based economy has no bottom.

 

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
One economic fundamental has existed throughout the history of mankind, and it's brought down every empire: if you don't pay the people who make your products enough to buy them (without printing money and having to redistribute wealth), then everyone loses.


That's why a service based economy has no bottom.


But the world does!

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Slanted question.

Can you answer a simple question with a straight answer? It is not slanted, it is simple.

Quote:
Do you consider being let off the hook for a bill that you owe a windfall?

I don't believe in letting people off the hook for bills that they owe. This has nothing to do with what we are talking about. A windfall? That is a very vague term.
See a simple answer to a simple question. Really not that hard.
Quote:
I'm sorry ...but you have not.

Yes, I have. I clearly laid out why and who. If the person is not employed, how does he make a living? Government hand outs taken from working people is the answer to that. Having people dependant on government is the opposite of self reliance, self actualization, and producing "better people". THAT is the road to serfdom that you often apply to evil CEO's (that actually employ people...).
Quote:
I, otoh, have showed how any commercial entity ..large or small ..benefits from money thrown in the street ...without one government influence ...not one tax advantage ..nothing other then introducing food at the bottom of the food chain.

You have not shown how those businesses got started in order to benefit from that money. THIS IS MY ORIGINAL SIMPLE QUESTION THAT YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER. You are dancing every where else but that one simple question.
RICH people started those companies, gov help or not.
If poor people owned the companies, they wouldn't be poor.

Quote:
In a rational competitive model, the acquisition and amassing of wealth should contour something like achieving the speed of light. The more you amass ..the effort exerted to acquire more should increase. What we have now are certain threshold barriers that basically lock out access below a certain ante. Once you breach it, you're applying a different set of physics.

That was a VERY communal view of things.
Quote:
You appear to want a "tiered" society

Quite the opposite. In fact, your policies are directly tiered by the IRS and create categories strictly at the whim of government. Your "physics" analogy above directly shows this.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
One economic fundamental has existed throughout the history of mankind, and it's brought down every empire: if you don't pay the people who make your products enough to buy them (without printing money and having to redistribute wealth), then everyone loses.

And if there is nothing buy, you are in the same boat. Yes, there is a symbiosis as in most things, but poor people do not employ themselves, rich people employ them. This fact is still perfectly viable if Big G is doing the financing, it's just that the money has stolen by gun point (just as the mob operates).
On the other end of the spectrum, there has to be rich people to steal from in order hand free money to those that have done nothing to deserve (as in working) for it.

The more you take from the rich, the less capital is out there to increase the job base. This fact is something that is not being delt with here.

 

[Al]

This should make you happy Gary Why bother paying your mortgage . At least the evil businesses won't get this money.

I predicted this.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: Al
This should make you happy Gary Why bother paying your mortgage . At least the evil businesses won't get this money.

I predicted this.


Why should that make me happy? Who profited off of the sale of that house? Are they going to give it back? Why not? How about the bumper dividend that all the suppliers that profited off of home starts? How about this and that.

You all want to blame idiots. This was obviously a constructed scam that was designed to mask a hollow economy in the light of "prevailing" extra-national "enterprises". You have to keep the sheep grazing while you're spending funny money fattening your pals.

The main distinctions that I see here is who you want to blame. Some look at some stage being set ..yet appear ignorant of the players ..the band leader ..and the orchestra ...and who ultimately guides them.

This was a race to enslave us. It worked. You could hear the stress and anxiety in the verbalization ..just to keep us keeping on until it was too late.

Well, now it's too late.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
Quote:
Slanted question.

Can you answer a simple question with a straight answer? It is not slanted, it is simple.


Sure it's simple ..and so is "Do you still beat your wife?". That's not slanted, is it? You construct the question to get the answer you desire. It's not necessarily germane to the topic or anything that I've asserted.

Quote:
Quote:
Do you consider being let off the hook for a bill that you owe a windfall?

I don't believe in letting people off the hook for bills that they owe. This has nothing to do with what we are talking about. A windfall? That is a very vague term.
See a simple answer to a simple question. Really not that hard.


So, you'll send your borrowed money tax cut back since it's letting you off the hook for the bill you owe to run the nation? Good!

Windfall: I pick up your fuel bill for the year. You have that cash that you wouldn't have before. A windfall in avoided costs. How hard is that to see. Not that hard for anyone who can add, I suspect.

Quote:
Quote:
I, otoh, have showed how any commercial entity ..large or small ..benefits from money thrown in the street ...without one government influence ...not one tax advantage ..nothing other then introducing food at the bottom of the food chain.

You have not shown how those businesses got started in order to benefit from that money. THIS IS MY ORIGINAL SIMPLE QUESTION THAT YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER. You are dancing every where else but that one simple question.
RICH people started those companies, gov help or not.


Well, by your projected impression, they do it with sweat and toil ..as it should be.

How easy is it to make a dollar? Making $1M should be a million times as hard.

Quote:
Quote:
In a rational competitive model, the acquisition and amassing of wealth should contour something like achieving the speed of light. The more you amass ..the effort exerted to acquire more should increase. What we have now are certain threshold barriers that basically lock out access below a certain ante. Once you breach it, you're applying a different set of physics.

That was a VERY communal view of things.


How so? Do you mean that you prefer to have a tiered society that locks out participation at certain levels. That is, you can't manage to work in a 100% fair competitive field and "need help" to assure your success.

If 300 million people are competing for the pie ..would you not agree that the finest should rise to the top based on individual ability and achievement? Why do they need to "pre-qualify" to have access to the benefits and perks? They should be 100% commensurate with individual progression within the available environment ...not having to "pre-qualify" to the door marked "You've made it to an easier street".

What you suggest sounds very feudal or aristocratic. What I suggest is 100% social ..and not at all socialistic.

Quote:
Quote:
You appear to want a "tiered" society

Quite the opposite. In fact, your policies are directly tiered by the IRS and create categories strictly at the whim of government. Your "physics" analogy above directly shows this.


Not at all. Now, AGAIN, if you want to dismantle government ..make it cheaper ...fine. Dismantle the IRS ..put in a flat income tax on all compensation (no deferred exemptions) ..get rid of all the deductions and exemptions and just tax the money as it comes off the payroll ...fine.

..but I doubt that you would support this either since it will cost higher earners EVEN MORE.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
who you want to blame.

This was a race to enslave us.

I blame the lender, the dummy who borrowed the money, and the government for bailing out the dummy.

And those three are the ones who are enslaving me in a mountain of debt and a future of these same 3 buffoons taking all available money..mine.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Al
This should make you happy Gary Why bother paying your mortgage . At least the evil businesses won't get this money.

I predicted this.


I remember that.

"Aussie Homeloans" were one of the first non-bank lenders in the market, borrowing cheap money from the US, and flogging it to Australians at lower than bank rates, offering holidays, 100% finance etc.

When the property bubble dropped, their front man was on TV offering financial advice that it was better to sell your property at a loss, than to go bankrupt.

Could see the bloke sweating on it.

 

[Shannow]

Is the Govt bailing out the dummy, or only the lender ?

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
It's not necessarily germane to the topic or anything that I've asserted.

Yes, it is. You have said that someone is handing the rich money. I have asked who these people are, and you have not answered.
You are saying that taxing the wealthy at a much higher rate is a good and just thing and to do otherwise is subsidising the rich.
So my question is a very valid one and perfectly appropriate.
Quote:
So, you'll send your borrowed money tax cut back since it's letting you off the hook for the bill you owe to run the nation? Good!

If the government gives me a tax break, I will take it. You have made it clear in the past that you take advantage of every tax advantage that you can, so we are in agreement...and equally as guilty (depending on tax bracket) of receiving a "borrowed tax break". Will you send yours back?
Quote:
I pick up your fuel bill for the year.

That is not happening anywhere here unless you are talking about the money given to people in entitlements that are taken from the taxes on the rich. Don't see ANYONE handing money to the rich.
Quote:
Well, by your projected impression, they do it with sweat and toil ..as it should be.

So you are saying that rich people start businesses and that they don't exist without them?
Quote:
Why do they need to "pre-qualify" to have access to the benefits and perks?

?????
Quote:
What you suggest sounds very feudal or aristocratic. What I suggest is 100% social ..and not at all socialistic.

I am suggesting getting Big G out of it. That means that society makes the decisions, not a small select group able to take money out of your pay check every month and give it to someone else for no work.
Having government decide who is able to keep what is feudal and aristocratic by definition.
Quote:
I doubt that you would support this either since it will cost higher earners EVEN MORE.

I have advocated the elimination of the IRS on numerous occasions. A consumption tax is the only just tax.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

Quote:
It's not necessarily germane to the topic or anything that I've asserted.

Yes, it is. You have said that someone is handing the rich money.


Well, as you would surely say "rich is a relative term". I would say that money is handed to those of higher station in avoided costs and exemptions/deductions and loopholes.

It's much like the 3rd world where the affluent merely bribe the tax collector ..except we have enough (or did) wealth to employ a government to do all of that for them. It is, as you state, very inefficient in comparison.

Quote:
I have asked who these people are, and you have not answered.


Name all the poor people. I expect an answer.

Quote:
You are saying that taxing the wealthy at a much higher rate is a good and just thing and to do otherwise is subsidising the rich.


I don't think I worded it that way. I, more or less, asserted that with deductions and tax breaks ..exemptions ..a higher wage earner pays less tax. This is real easy. You can literally make millions and pay no tax. Tell me this is news to you ..please ..let's do what the Godzilla movies did with the toy trains and whatnot and "let themselves out early for being taken seriously".

Quote:
Quote:
So, you'll send your borrowed money tax cut back since it's letting you off the hook for the bill you owe to run the nation? Good!

If the government gives me a tax break, I will take it. You have made it clear in the past that you take advantage of every tax advantage that you can, so we are in agreement...and equally as guilty (depending on tax bracket) of receiving a "borrowed tax break". Will you send yours back?


The difference is that I see the ultimate foolishness of putting money on a credit card to stimulate today's economy. It's stupid and way DUMB. Would you support yourself today with borrowed money ..knowing you had to eventually pay it back ..with interest?? Only a fool would run his finances in that manner.

As far as me spending my borrowed national debt money? Sure. However, if there was an option to send it back and FOREVER exempt myself or my descendants from the debt service that it would require in the future ..that thing would require FedEx overnight delivery to get there fast enough. Fools bought with trinkets and selling themselves into slavery to debt...applauding along the way. Only those thinking that they'll be exempt from the bill could possibly support it.

I take my deductions and exemptions ..but I'll gladly sacrifice them for a "fair tax" that neutralizes all deductions/exemptions/loopholes ..but it will never happen

We are by no means in agreement.

Quote:
Quote:
I pick up your fuel bill for the year.

That is not happening anywhere here unless you are talking about the money given to people in entitlements that are taken from the taxes on the rich. Don't see ANYONE handing money to the rich.


..and parking your wealth at a 35% discount on taxation isn't an avoided cost?

Why can't you speak about this reality??
Quote:
Quote:
Well, by your projected impression, they do it with sweat and toil ..as it should be.

So you are saying that rich people start businesses and that they don't exist without them?


No. I said what I said. You can attempt to spin it up any way you please

Quote:
ay check every month and give it to someone else for no work.


DUDE!! You've bought into this class warfare thing hook line and sinker. Look at the numbers!!! Just erase all of the "useless eaters" that you can possibly find within our borders. Send them to the gas chambers if you want. Deport them ..whatever.

..and you'll still be in the same boat with marginal differences in costs. The biggest expense we have now is SENIOR CITIZENS. They're taking FAR more out of the system than they ever put in ..and will continue to do so for some time.

I ACCEPT THIS COST AS AN OBLIGATION TO MY SOCIETY.

Give you an example and I can't cite the year ..but it was when Medicare wasn't billed out separately in the paycheck as a new tax.

The total Food Stamp program was something like $12B ..the the INCREASE in Medicare for the same budget was $345B.

You've really got your cross hairs set on the wrong criminals. You can't even employ the entire population and have a good economy.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan


The total Food Stamp program was something like $12B ..the the INCREASE in Medicare for the same budget was $345B.

What about Medicaid? (Handouts for the "Poor")

 

[Gary Allan]

No ..you're right. Bad joke. No....... really, my bad.

Hey ...I don't like it any more than anyone else ..and if you can manage to get 9 months open season on anyone you consider an undesirable through the two houses and signed ...seal up the borders and make them a free fire zone with $30 bounty per head...executions for discovered illegals (more jobs for useless eating citizens) .....go through Appalachia ...and a tour through Maine ...more power to you.

Until then ..what's your suggestion(s) ..seeing that you're stuck with them anyway??