• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

how about trickle UP???

Magyar

Graduate Poster
M
Joined
Oct 16, 2004
Messages
1,906
so for the last 25+/- years we've been subjected to;

cut taxes on the rich
less regulation on business
open markets
voodoo economics


yet, over and over again and again not only has this "plan" failed but tax payers are left holding the bag and told that it's for our OWN good.

From good old Ronnie's Chrystler's bail out, to uncle Mcseniles Keating 5 to the current $700B and rising stick up the taxpayers behind we're all told that it's for our own good and just like 9/11 we're hearing "what will happen to YOU, if we don't"


Yet, today's market had the ba**s to be jittery because congress wasn't willing to bend over on command and hand over a $700 Billion blank check.

If this is to protect all of us "little" guys so that we can keep our business' and do all the things we need to.

Why not just give US the $700 billion and let the big guys, who were walking around calling themselves the "masters of the universe" yet were too stupid to know or too corrupt to care about what is happening, sink into the pit where they belong?

Wouldn't this allow the free market to re-develop in a FAR more natural, healthy and controllable way then to throw more bad money to either totally incompetent or totally dishonest people/system?
 
Magyar said:
who were walking around calling themselves the "masters of the universe" yet were too stupid to know or too corrupt to care about what is happening, sink into the pit where they belong?
Click to expand...

I believe that was He Man.


I don't know, I'm not particularly well versed in economics, but I believe giving everyone in the US 2 billion dollars would probably just make everything really expensive and not help anything at all.
 
Or we could just re-set the rules to 1940 and make the corporations pay m,ost of the taxes and make them pay a living wage and everything will be fine, unless some fool decides we HAVE TO have another war.

The minimum wage actually enabled working people to hope, realisticly, of someday moving up to middle-class status.

Money in the hands of working people has always done more good on its way to the hands of the robber barons than it has the other way around.
 
Why is it better to bailout the lending institutions than to giving the money to the homeowners so they can pay their mortgages, meaning the banks won't go broke?

Is foreclosure followed by corporate bailout really better than homeowner bailout? Does the country need lots of foreclosures?
 
pgwenthold said:
Why is it better to bailout the lending institutions than to giving the money to the homeowners so they can pay their mortgages, meaning the banks won't go broke?
Click to expand...

Which homeowners? Can I get on the list? Hell, if the government gets in the business of paying people's mortgages directly, I'll default on my mortgage right now!

Is foreclosure followed by corporate bailout really better than homeowner bailout?
Click to expand...

For that homeowner? No. For everyone else? Yes. I'm not happy about the bailout (it creates a moral hazard for lenders), but a direct bailout of homeowners would be worse.
 
We've had 2 rounds of tax rebates and middle-low income tax cuts. We've actually removed the federal income tax burden from many people and even given people more back than they have paid.

Aside form short term stimulus from rebates, what has demand side economics under Bush done?
 
BenBurch said:
A free market for goods and services is very different from fair labor laws and a fair means of funding the services of government that make commerce possible. The two are not mutually exclusive whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but it was the general tone of lefty's post, the use of loaded terms like Robber Baron that irritated me.
And although I am not against repealing a lot of the tax breaks of recent years, I am not sure going back to a 90% top tax rate is the ticket in this day and age.
 
pgwenthold said:
Why?

Why are corporations immune from their bad decisions but homeowners aren't?
Click to expand...

Because if coporattions go down the tubes they take a LOT of jobs and people with them.
I have problems with the bailout, but it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.
 
dudalb said:
Because if coporattions go down the tubes they take a LOT of jobs and people with them.
I have problems with the bailout, but it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...

AIG and Lehman DID go down the tubes and they got all the de-regulation and tax cuts they asked (lobby) for. The problem is that while the corporation and its employees go down the tubes, management made its millions and can retire.

There is no incentive for management to run an ethical long-term viable company. They'll run it to the ground in two years if they can get their bonuses.

I like the trickle up concept.
 
dudalb said:
Because if coporattions go down the tubes they take a LOT of jobs and people with them.
I have problems with the bailout, but it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...

But bailing out the homeowners ALSO protects the corps!!!

How is "give the huge corporations a ton of money but leave the homeowners out on the street" less "evil" than "keep the huge corps afloat WITHOUT throwing homeowners out on their arses"?

If you are going to do a bailout, why not save people in addition to corporations?
 
pgwenthold said:
Why?

Why are corporations immune from their bad decisions but homeowners aren't?
Click to expand...

They shouldn't be. My point (which you seemed to miss) is that as big as a corporate bailout is, a direct bailout of homeowners would be much larger. Furthermore, it would be unmanageable from a purely practical standpoint. Seriously, who do you bail out? Any homeowner who defaults? Or is there some criteria? Who sets up the criteria, what are they, and who manages it? It's a big enough mess already, and I'm not happy about the existing bailout, but a direct homeowner bailout would quickly spiral into complete disaster. Corporations are not more deserving than individuals, but they are far more transparent than individuals, and government is far more capable of dealing with the bailout of a handful of corporations than of millions of individuals. Recognizing those realities isn't corporate favoratism.
 
corplinx said:
Aside form short term stimulus from rebates, what has demand side economics under Bush done?
Click to expand...

Can't say for certain, but it might have actually done some good if the supply hadn't all moved overseas. Which means that all the rebate money went overseas too.
 
fishbob said:
Can't say for certain, but it might have actually done some good if the supply hadn't all moved overseas. Which means that all the rebate money went overseas too.
Click to expand...

So, does demand side economics require economic isolationism to work right?
 
Do the Math

An email was just sent to me, and it made me think of this thread ---

This was an article from the St. Petersburg Times Newspaper on Sunday. The Business Section asked readers for ideas on "How Would You Fix the Economy?" I thought this was the BEST idea. I think this guy nailed it!

Dear Mr.President,

Patriotic retirement:

There's about 40 million people over 50 in the work force; pay them $1 million apiece severance with these 3 stipulations:

1) They leave their jobs. Forty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.

2) They buy NEW American cars. Forty million cars ordered - Auto Industry fixed.

3) They either buy a house or pay off their mortgage - Housing Crisis fixed.
 
webfusion said:
An email was just sent to me, and it made me think of this thread ---

This was an article from the St. Petersburg Times Newspaper on Sunday. The Business Section asked readers for ideas on "How Would You Fix the Economy?" I thought this was the BEST idea. I think this guy nailed it!

Dear Mr.President,

Patriotic retirement:

There's about 40 million people over 50 in the work force; pay them $1 million apiece severance with these 3 stipulations:

1) They leave their jobs. Forty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.

2) They buy NEW American cars. Forty million cars ordered - Auto Industry fixed.

3) They either buy a house or pay off their mortgage - Housing Crisis fixed.
Click to expand...
Why not just give every man, woman, and child $100,000? It'd even be cheaper!

But all this would be likely to do is spur inflation and create a bubble which would burst soon enough and then we'd be right back where we started from, or worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom