CONSCIENCE, SOUL, & TRUST?

[Slogger]

This month’s discussion among F&F (Family and Friends) was:

1.  Do you have a conscience?

2.  Do you have a soul?

3.  What do you trust?

The first question didn’t present a problem; most answered fairly quickly.  The second question caused religious discussion.  The third promoted more vigorous discussion—political, philosophical, religious.

What are your answers/opinions and how do those answers impact political views? 

[WhiskeyGirl]

Yes, these questions affect my political views.

Why do folks in Washington seem to lack a conscious?  What happened to moral values?  We have a president who told Americans during a press conference that the 2008 financial meltdown may have been caused my moral decay, but was not necessarily illegal.  Huh?

TRILLIONS of dollars in derivative contracts, bogus/bad/fraud mortgages and they can't find anyone guilty of a crime?  Fraud?  Exactly how does that failure happen?

We have a DOJ that can slice and dice data from Coca-Cola and find a small slice of time in which they were 'guilty' of statistical racism, forced to pay a fine and hire/payoff people the DOJ thought were victims of statistics.  They can't look into the financial meltdown and TRILLIONS of dollars via the paper trail?

The meltdown may have been caused by immoral actions and not necessarily illegal?  Did they even ask for data?  Proof there was really a loss?  Or, just another case of taking the financial industries 'word' that there was a meltdown in progress?

Why isn't Washington focusing on the moral decal in politics?

Solyndra, business a usual?  Maybe morally wrong, but not necessarily illegal?

Just stop giving away the money!!!

just my  humble opinions.

[Slogger]

That failure happens when no one is looking for the facts, the truth.  Fewer care about right/wrong; they care more for what they want.  Conscience is salved by justification.  It’s okay to do this because the end result is “a good thing.”

“The ends justify the means.”

I believe that most people feel they have a conscience; however, some are walling it into a sturdy, impenetrable “safe room.” 

Justify has become more important than Justice.

[Slogger]

WhiskeyGirl,

There might as well be conscience lockers at all entrances to DC.  There is no fee to dump your conscience and lock it up; but, there is a heavy cost when you try to retrieve it.

[Gypsy DD]

This all started long ago before our current president took office.

I do believe he has tried to make an impact and clean things up..but he is one person against the rest of our elected officals.  Many of them are honest and try to vote on topics that would be the way their constituents would vote.  However..most don't understand the common man and the common problems..because all of them are extremely wealthy..they have lost touch with the middle class.

I do believe in the jobs bill.  I do believe that the rich need to be taxed at the same rate as the middle class..right now the tax breaks for millionaires are much much abundant then for the middle class.

Even Warren Buffett who is very wealthy, and has been wealthy throught the last several presidenies  asserts that we are not taxing the multi millionaires the same as the middle class..and he is all for higher taxes and less tax breaks on the milionaire plus contingent.  The logic of the Republican's has always been if you tax the rich then they will not invest as much..even Buffet says ..huh?  He has pointed out in articles and papers that even if you tax them at a 33 percent rate they are still making 67 percent..and that is not going to cause jpeople who are making money to stop investing..not even at 50 percent would they..they are still getting huge profits on their personal investments..while the middle class..which is slowly disappearing... is carrying the tax burden.

The wealthy Republican's want you to believe that if we taxed the rich at the same rate we tax the middle class they would not invest and therefore there would be less jobs..nothing is further from the truth.  Tax the rich as well as the middle class..then the government can support itself.  Create jobs, like they did  in the late 30's by setting up goverment loans to get the damn infrasruce in this country up to par...do you know how old most natural gas lines to homes are...over half a century..bridges are falling apart, roads have potholes and sinkholes.. school systems are lacking in resources and are not at the educational level they were 50 years ago...but God help us ..let's not tax the rich who have reaped the benefits of living in the greatest country on Earth..lets run ourselves downhill..like every communist country has by making the poor and middle class support the country and the rich.

If we are capitialist lets start acting like we are and paying our fair share....I paid my 33 percent last year in taxes for my business..I have friends who made much more and took so many breaks offered by our government they got money back..yes ..millionaires getting taxes back ..while the middle class supports their businesses and the government..what is wrong with this picture?

End of Rant..most middle class Republicans don't actually know how much they are losing for their kids and community by supporting the rich fat cats that promise to not raise taxes..most middle class citizens haven't seen a tax raise in eons..not so for the rich..they keep getting their taxes cut..by the Republican's ..don't you feel sorry for them now...yeah..anybody with Sarah Pallin as your cheerleader needs a break in the nearest mental health facility..talk about an ill equiped nut job...I will say no more.

[Slogger]

A great economics lesson..........

THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all
ten comes to $100...If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes,
it would go something like this..
.
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since
you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the
cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost
just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So
the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they
divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man
would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's
bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of
the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the
amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four
continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began
to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man, " but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar
too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back,
when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get
anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine
sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay
the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough
money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how
our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes
will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too
much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up
anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the
atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible

[Slogger]

This all started long ago before our current president took office.

I do believe he has tried to make an impact and clean things up..but he is one person against the rest of our elected officals. Many of them are honest and try to vote on topics that would be the way their constituents would vote. However..most don't understand the common man and the common problems..because all of them are extremely wealthy..they have lost touch with the middle class.

I agree.  This started long ago; but, the crunch of 2008 and subsequent actions have put us in a much more dangerous position.  It has never been wise to owe more money than you can repay  and then make payments with credit cards at high interest rates--compounded.  It isn’t smart to mortgage your property with someone who wants to own it; and, it’s not good to borrow to pay the debts of others when you can’t pay your own debts—and, obviously, they can’t pay theirs.  We can’t get out from under if we continue to do this.

The President and his policies have made an impact; but, it’s not cleaning things up . . . it’s making them worse.  He’s not one person against the rest.  He has hundreds of appointees in agencies where he appoints the heads of those agencies.  He has supporters in Congress.  If he fails to make progress, he can compose an Executive Order.  He’s not cleaning things up the way history dictates will maintain individual freedom.

Some of the elected officials are honest.  If all in the Senate had been honestly voting the way their constituents would vote, more than half of the States wouldn’t be fighting the Health Care Bill.  If there had been honesty, we would have known what was in the Bill; and not been told we wouldn’t know what was in the Bill until after it passed. 

[Slogger]

I do believe in the jobs bill. I do believe that the rich need to be taxed at the same rate as the middle class..right now the tax breaks for millionaires are much much abundant then for the middle class.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/186635-democrats-scramble-to-save-face-on-jobs-bill

(snip)***Some senators, such as Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), oppose the bill, but are willing to side with the president on the procedural vote in order to “allow discussion.”

Lieberman opposes the bill because the 5.6 percent surtax on millionaires is being used for new spending instead of reducing the deficit, and will vote against the measure on final passage, his office said. Yet that vote is highly unlikely to occur because the bill is not expected to clear procedural hurdles.

(snip)

The office of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said Monday that he is undecided. “He wants to see the whole thing — including amendments — before he decides whether he’ll vote for it,” an aide said.

(snip)

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) is now leaning toward voting for the bill. Landrieu had opposed eliminating oil and gas tax breaks in order to pay for Obama’s bill. She has touted the removal of these provisions.

I don’t know exactly what is in the bill.  While trying to find the text of the Bill, Thomas.gov was down for service.  So, I haven't read it.  What’s in it?  Just because it says “Jobs Bill” doesn’t mean it will promote the number of jobs we need without wasting funds. 

Have you read it?

[Slogger]

My remarks are intended to be read in a conversational tone—just expressing my views.

Even Warren Buffett who is very wealthy, and has been wealthy throught the last several presidenies asserts that we are not taxing the multi millionaires the same as the middle class..and he is all for higher taxes and less tax breaks on the milionaire plus contingent. The logic of the Republican's has always been if you tax the rich then they will not invest as much..even Buffet says ..huh? He has pointed out in articles and papers that even if you tax them at a 33 percent rate they are still making 67 percent..and that is not going to cause jpeople who are making money to stop investing..not even at 50 percent would they..they are still getting huge profits on their personal investments..while the middle class..which is slowly disappearing... is carrying the tax burden.

If Warren Buffet earned his wealth legally and honestly I don’t have a problem with it.  Where I have a problem is that Warren Buffet is now trying to make law and policy for others who have created wealth.  “Do as I say, not as I do.”  Buffet wants the others to do as he says, but he didn’t do it, either.

Buffet may have taken enormous risks to get where he is, I know others have risked much.  Many of the Middle Class are risk averse—not willing to gambling all to get to the top.  I don’t begrudge him success, and don’t want to penalize him for seeing opportunity and taking advantage of it.  I don’t understand why Buffet would want to penalize someone else.

If we want to be equal, a 10% federal income tax might be the answer.  Make as much as you want, pay 10%, and you get 90% for your success.  The Federal Government needs operating funds, but they need to be every bit as careful as the citizens who give them their funds. 

[Slogger]

The wealthy Republican's want you to believe that if we taxed the rich at the same rate we tax the middle class they would not invest and therefore there would be less jobs..nothing is further from the truth. Tax the rich as well as the middle class..then the government can support itself. Create jobs, like they did in the late 30's by setting up goverment loans to get the damn infrasruce in this country up to par...do you know how old most natural gas lines to homes are...over half a century..bridges are falling apart, roads have potholes and sinkholes.. school systems are lacking in resources and are not at the educational level they were 50 years ago...but God help us ..let's not tax the rich who have reaped the benefits of living in the greatest country on Earth..lets run ourselves downhill..like every communist country has by making the poor and middle class support the country and the rich.

If a person has $10K of savings and a choice of putting it with a bank @ 1% (for lower risk) or placing it with an offshore business @ 10% (for medium risk) which choice would be made?  The difference would be between a profit of $100 and a profit of $1,000.  If a rich person has $200K to invest, the difference would be between $1,000 and $20,000.  I believe the rich person would prefer the offshore investment for the $20,000.

If we are capitialist lets start acting like we are and paying our fair share....I paid my 33 percent last year in taxes for my business..I have friends who made much more and took so many breaks offered by our government they got money back..yes ..millionaires getting taxes back ..while the middle class supports their businesses and the government..what is wrong with this picture?

A Capitalist would say I risked my Capital and worked very hard, the money is mine; but, the Government needs money to operate and I will pay X dollars to support it.  It isn’t getting taxes back; it all belongs to the Capitalist.  If it all belonged to the Government, we’d be called Russia.  Didn’t you earn it all, or did you feel the Government did the work and earned the money and is allowing you some of it?



Thanks for posting your opinions, GypsyDD.  I don’t believe this is a Republican/Democrat issue so much as an American issue.  Our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren could be paying for our decisions now.  We are spending their futures, and giving them the bills for our shortcomings.

[Gypsy DD]

The wealthy Republican's want you to believe that if we taxed the rich at the same rate we tax the middle class they would not invest and therefore there would be less jobs..nothing is further from the truth. Tax the rich as well as the middle class..then the government can support itself. Create jobs, like they did in the late 30's by setting up goverment loans to get the damn infrasruce in this country up to par...do you know how old most natural gas lines to homes are...over half a century..bridges are falling apart, roads have potholes and sinkholes.. school systems are lacking in resources and are not at the educational level they were 50 years ago...but God help us ..let's not tax the rich who have reaped the benefits of living in the greatest country on Earth..lets run ourselves downhill..like every communist country has by making the poor and middle class support the country and the rich.

If a person has $10K of savings and a choice of putting it with a bank @ 1% (for lower risk) or placing it with an offshore business @ 10% (for medium risk) which choice would be made?  The difference would be between a profit of $100 and a profit of $1,000.  If a rich person has $200K to invest, the difference would be between $1,000 and $20,000.  I believe the rich person would prefer the offshore investment for the $20,000.

If we are capitialist lets start acting like we are and paying our fair share....I paid my 33 percent last year in taxes for my business..I have friends who made much more and took so many breaks offered by our government they got money back..yes ..millionaires getting taxes back ..while the middle class supports their businesses and the government..what is wrong with this picture?

A Capitalist would say I risked my Capital and worked very hard, the money is mine; but, the Government needs money to operate and I will pay X dollars to support it.  It isn’t getting taxes back; it all belongs to the Capitalist.  If it all belonged to the Government, we’d be called Russia.  Didn’t you earn it all, or did you feel the Government did the work and earned the money and is allowing you some of it?



Thanks for posting your opinions, GypsyDD.  I don’t believe this is a Republican/Democrat issue so much as an American issue.  Our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren could be paying for our decisions now.  We are spending their futures, and giving them the bills for our shortcomings.

I understand what you are saying works in theory ..but not in practice.  The rich and anyone who wants can put money in offshore accounts..however..those are becoming fewer and limited.

As someone with money to invest..I will always go for the profit..and that is my point.  And that was Warren's..the rich are not going to stop investing because you tax them at a higher rate..they'll still invest and still make money.  The Republican leaders have the public believing the wealty in America will not invest in American stocks and securities if the tax rate goes up..and that is not true..they are practical, that's why they are rich..as long as they still reap profits  more so then taxes..they will continue to invest.  This is a sham ..and it was started during the Bush admin and continues.  The rich have not lost dollars in this whole repression/depression depending where you stand.  Infact..the upper echelon has become richer..

Do they want to pay higher taxes ..hell to the no..do they know if push doesn't come to shove with the econamy..that they like the rest of us are sunk..yes.  If you do business here you need buyers of your product..yes there is a global market..but the European economy isn't any better then ours.  So..if as a business person I want to keep my business corpoeration going..I need American citizens with US dollars to not only buy product but buy stock.

I do have an American business..that very much depends on the economy..and depends on all Americans being able to purchase..not just the wealthy..it's called the housing market.  The wealthy are not buying and neither are the middle class at the rate they did before 2007.  It started to decline well before that..the housing market that is..but unless you are in that market daily then it is up to the newspapers to tell you when it declines.  Once we went to war with Iraq the housing market started declining..not 911..but once we went to war.  That took so many resources..and people's hopes..and people did not invest..  war is not always good for eveyone  in the market place..guns and butter maybe..families looking for homes and security ..not so much.

[Slogger]

As someone with money to invest..I will always go for the profit..and that is my point. 

(Wait.  I think you just supported my point.) 

Where the money goes, the jobs go and prosperity goes.  The rich “go for the profit,” too.  Agreed that the rich are not going to stop investing, they are just going to stop investing here.  They’ll go for the profit, possibly in China.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Median_and_Average_Sales_Prices_of_New_Homes_Sold_in_United_States_1963-2008_annual.png

According to this chart, housing sales increased 2003-2007, which shows it wasn’t declining.  New home sales increased through 9/11, through the war; it was growing until 2007.
 

We need JOBS.  The government can’t provide the jobs with taxpayer dollars because the more jobs they create the more money they need from the taxpayers.  The government hires Joe for $100, government gets $10 back in taxes; but, they lose $90.  The more they hire, the more they lose, the more they have to tax.  When the private sector hires Joe, the private sector pays.  The government collects taxes from Joe and pays bills.  Joe didn’t cost the government anything, didn’t cost the taxpayers anything, and it helps to pay the bills.

[Gypsy DD]

As someone with money to invest..I will always go for the profit..and that is my point. 

(Wait.  I think you just supported my point.) 

Where the money goes, the jobs go and prosperity goes.  The rich “go for the profit,” too.  Agreed that the rich are not going to stop investing, they are just going to stop investing here.  They’ll go for the profit, possibly in China.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Median_and_Average_Sales_Prices_of_New_Homes_Sold_in_United_States_1963-2008_annual.png

According to this chart, housing sales increased 2003-2007, which shows it wasn’t declining.  New home sales increased through 9/11, through the war; it was growing until 2007.
 

We need JOBS.  The government can’t provide the jobs with taxpayer dollars because the more jobs they create the more money they need from the taxpayers.  The government hires Joe for $100, government gets $10 back in taxes; but, they lose $90.  The more they hire, the more they lose, the more they have to tax.  When the private sector hires Joe, the private sector pays.  The government collects taxes from Joe and pays bills.  Joe didn’t cost the government anything, didn’t cost the taxpayers anything, and it helps to pay the bills.

The wealthy will continue to make sound investments in American business and trading on the stock exchange....they may or may not invest in other countries..right now few other countries are doing any better then us. 

However, if you are talking American companies going overseas due to taxes in some respects that is true...they still are American countries but when GE moves plants to Europe..yes Europe..and the sells what they produce there to  European market consumers then they avert having to pay taxes on those dollars here..they pay them there..at a little bit lower rate..however they still are reaping the rewards of increased profit for their shareholders.

When the war in Iraq started the housing market started to crumble for two reasons..it couldn't continue to rise with the inflated prices in the market place..something had to give.....and the national econamy started a nose dive on the next several years because after 9/11 we were not in a position to fund a war..we simply did not have the $$$$..and we still don't.  Each day we get further in debt...taxing the wealthy won't solve the problem but it certainly will put more money in the till..and that is what we need..more money as well as less spending.   Read Warren Buffetts oped peice and you will see that the wealthy paying on 17% now is worth looking into.  They will still invest..as long as there is a profit..and Mr Buffett will tell you out of all the people he employs he paid the lowest percentage..he feels that isn't good business practice on the part of the US government and I don't either.  It needs to be fair and equitable..not so scewed because of fears that only exist in the mouths of Republican politicians and their fatcat special interest groups.  Hell..they won't even let a job bill pass that will put people back to work and improve our infrastructure...ask them why ...

[Slogger]

The wealthy are going to go for the profits.  If the U.S. can’t compete, the wealthy will go elsewhere.  Higher taxes are a negative factor.

China is doing better than we are.  Look on the store shelves, compare the number of U.S products with the number of China products.  Our manufacturing is down 32%.  You can’t export if you have no product.  The only thing we’re exporting is wealth.  You can’t invest U.S. if there is nothing left. 


GE moves plants out of the U.S.  We lose the opportunity for construction jobs for plants here; we lose real estate taxes here; we lose plant jobs and the associated revenue of the workers.  For this, we get increased profit for their shareholders.  The increase profit of GE shareholders is a drop in the ocean compared to the benefits of an “American” company building, producing, and supporting America.

The war didn’t cause overpriced housing in an oversaturated market.  The war didn’t cause poor people to buy houses they could never afford, and others to obtain balloon mortgages.

As you say, “. . .taxing the wealthy won’t solve the problem. . .” and no “ifs, ands, or buts” will change that.  Warren Buffet said his tax bill was $7M.  Chase Buffet and the others out of America and we can’t make up the difference we will lose.  If you want it to be “fair and equitable” treat everyone the same under the tax law and have a flat tax where you cannot promise tax freebies for votes.
 
 

[Gypsy DD]

The wealthy are going to go for the profits.  If the U.S. can’t compete, the wealthy will go elsewhere.  Higher taxes are a negative factor.

China is doing better than we are.  Look on the store shelves, compare the number of U.S products with the number of China products.  Our manufacturing is down 32%.  You can’t export if you have no product.  The only thing we’re exporting is wealth.  You can’t invest U.S. if there is nothing left. 


GE moves plants out of the U.S.  We lose the opportunity for construction jobs for plants here; we lose real estate taxes here; we lose plant jobs and the associated revenue of the workers.  For this, we get increased profit for their shareholders.  The increase profit of GE shareholders is a drop in the ocean compared to the benefits of an “American” company building, producing, and supporting America.

The war didn’t cause overpriced housing in an oversaturated market.  The war didn’t cause poor people to buy houses they could never afford, and others to obtain balloon mortgages.

As you say, “. . .taxing the wealthy won’t solve the problem. . .” and no “ifs, ands, or buts” will change that.  Warren Buffet said his tax bill was $7M.  Chase Buffet and the others out of America and we can’t make up the difference we will lose.  If you want it to be “fair and equitable” treat everyone the same under the tax law and have a flat tax where you cannot promise tax freebies for votes.
 
 

What in the world are you saying..you do realize that it is Buffett and many of the wealthy who are saying to raise taxes on himself and other wealthy individuals  and close some of the loopholes.  He wrote letters to the Supercommittee in Congress suggesting just that and why.

Banks were greedy and decided to lend people money to buy homes that they knew they would foreclose on eventually..yes they knew..because they required those same people to purchase and pay each month on mortgage insurance that was just for that situation.  So the banks foreclosed, they got 100% of their money back due to this new type of mortgage insurance and then went on to resell the houses..whatever amount they resold them for was profit..plain and simple.  Most banks refused to keep the properties up, or even winterize them once foreclosed on..then resold propertites as is...that is the gospel truth. Many of these houses were in great shape when the banks foreclosed now are in disrepair.

 You may not like it ..you may refuse to believe it..but the banks gave the people the loans..knowing they had a safety net in the type of mortgage insurance they were forcing them to buy.

Plain and simple the wealthy pay less portion of their income in taxes then the middle class and the middle class supports this country..not vice versa.  Also ..if you quote me..please have the courtesy to quote my whole statement..not just the parts that suit you.  I didn't say that it wouldn't resolve the problem at all..I said it won't completely resolve the problem...there is a big difference...and the fact is it is going to take more then just cuts in federal spending to get this country back on par again..it is going to take a mixture of raising taxes on the wealthy, making program cuts and fiscal responsibility not only now but in the future....we got in this mess because we allowed a one eyed jack to lead us into a war against someone he persoanally didn't like but had nothing to do with 9/11 ..and by the way..where are those WMD's at..we never found them because they didn't exist.  We should have let the UN do it's job and stayed the heck out of the Iraqi situation...but no..Bush and his cohorts wanted a war and they got a war..and he sunk the nation's economy in the toilet when he did that..We were not then, nor are we now in a financial position to be the World Police through our military....we weren't in harms way from Iraq..and once again we became the ugly Americans when we attacked Iraq

Plain and simple Bush and his cohorts left America in the toilet and they are too far removed from everyday life to understand or care how that effected the country....other then they have a legacy now of destroying the economy at the start of the 21st century..that's Bush's legacy.

[Slogger]

Buffet has been promoting his point for years.  If Buffet wanted to do it he would have done it.  He would have raised his own contribution to the government and claimed to have been leading by example.  No, he wants all the wealthy to do what he says and he wants to have it made law—force others to do his will.  Don’t chatter on, Warren. . . just do it.

BTW, Bill Clinton (on David Letterman) mentioned it wasn’t a good idea to tax anyone, right now.  Maybe later.

 
The banks were against mortgages for people who couldn’t afford it; they refused to do it.  They had to be regulated/persuaded into it.  Once they figured out how to profit and pass on the risk, they became greedy; but, not before they were forced by government and intimidated by “community goons” who stormed banks and broke into board meetings.  It was a smaller version of the "Occupy Wall Street" activity--but less stinky.  Some of the community people “helped” the poor to get mortgages, and to refinance.  I’d bet they got a benefit for doing so.  Sales personnel, brokers, bank personnel, banks, bundlers, and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac (partnered with the Government) backed the risk.  We are the government . . . we paid; then government provided their bailout, and we paid again.  Everybody collected the bucks all the way up the line, except the taxpayers--we owe the bills.  Check Frank ‘n Dodd for any benefits.  What a scam!
 

Plain and simple the wealthy pay less portion of their income in taxes then the middle class and the middle class supports this country..not vice versa. Also ..if you quote me..please have the courtesy to quote my whole statement..not just the parts that suit you. I didn't say that it wouldn't resolve the problem at all..I said it won't completely resolve the problem...there is a big difference...and the fact is it is going to take more then just cuts in federal spending to get this country back on par again..it is going to take a mixture of raising taxes on the wealthy, making program cuts and fiscal responsibility not only now but in the future....we got in this mess because we allowed a one eyed jack to lead us into a war against someone he persoanally didn't like but had nothing to do with 9/11 ..and by the way..where are those WMD's at..we never found them because they didn't exist. We should have let the UN do it's job and stayed the heck out of the Iraqi situation...but no..Bush and his cohorts wanted a war and they got a war..and he sunk the nation's economy in the toilet when he did that..We were not then, nor are we now in a financial position to be the World Police through our military....we weren't in harms way from Iraq..and once again we became the ugly Americans when we attacked Iraq 

Preoccupied with fair share, then 10% tax for everyone is a cure.  If you want the wealthy to pay a larger portion, claw your way to the top and see how you feel about sharing the results of your hard work with a new “make a serial killer’s life more pleasant” program, or a failed Solyndra, or a Mexican Sunpower plant.  Don't give them another dime to waste.

If you’re preoccupied with Iraq/Bush, you’ll love the funding of Egypt while they are burning churches, trying to kill Christians; the funding of the Libyan problem; and, a few minutes ago Jake Tapper revealed that 2 days ago Obama sent troops to Uganda.

http://www.brianbrown.net/obama-is-sending-100-american-troops-to-central-africa/

Sorry, since we can’t edit, here is the full paragraph:
(bold by me)

When the war in Iraq started the housing market started to crumble for two reasons..it couldn't continue to rise with the inflated prices in the market place..something had to give.....and the national econamy started a nose dive on the next several years because after 9/11 we were not in a position to fund a war..we simply did not have the $$$$..and we still don't. Each day we get further in debt...taxing the wealthy won't solve the problem but it certainly will put more money in the till..and that is what we need..more money as well as less spending. Read Warren Buffetts oped peice and you will see that the wealthy paying on 17% now is worth looking into. They will still invest..as long as there is a profit..and Mr Buffett will tell you out of all the people he employs he paid the lowest percentage..he feels that isn't good business practice on the part of the US government and I don't either. It needs to be fair and equitable..not so scewed because of fears that only exist in the mouths of Republican politicians and their fatcat special interest groups. Hell..they won't even let a job bill pass that will put people back to work and improve our infrastructure...ask them why ... 

[Slogger]

What do you trust?

I had no immediate answer; I mulled it over for hours . . . nothing.  The question was nagging because I didn’t have an answer. 

I asked others during a family dinner.  Most answered with a who, not a what. 

Today, someone had one answer.  GREED, the trust that there will always be greed; those wanting MORE; those yelling “GIMME.”  The attitude that you have what I want and I’ll take it from you.

Not a pleasant answer; BUT, if there is GREED, there is generosity.  There is HONOR, and HONESTY.  There is genuine PARENTAL LOVE, all over this country.  There is TRUTH.

There is JUSTICE.  Not Social Justice that excuses you if Mommy slapped you, or you didn’t go to the right school.  JUSTICE, which determines whether or not you did the deed, first.  Guilt or Innocence, not Johnny was drunk or on drugs; so, he’s not responsible. 

One person said, “SOCIAL SECURITY.” 

[Slogger]

Compound Constitutional Republic vs. Democracy:

In a Constitutional Republic, you have a voice; but, there are checks and balances to prevent wrong directions.  In a Democracy, the people could vote to give themselves anything they wanted—regardless of the consequences, or the danger.

In a Democracy, the voters could decide that you don’t own your house, that blacks can be slaves, that Jews can be gassed, and that you can vote away all your rights, too.  It’s hazardous to your health.  Voters can decide there will be no more candy, cigarettes, ice cream, fries, booze, religion, or farmland.  Get enough people together and you can do anything regardless of the impact on others.  You could abolish individual rights, because majority rules.

I trust the original intent of the Constitution—that we have individual rights, not given by the government; rights which cannot be taken away.   Officials of the government acknowledge these rights when they take the Oath of Office.  All citizens of the United States of America are guaranteed these rights.

All humans on the Planet may have these rights; but, other countries do not vow to preserve, protect, and defend the rights.  We the People, the citizens of the United States,  have the protection of the Constitution—as long as We preserve, protect, and defend.  In a Democracy, we could vote away our very own well-being if 1 more than 50% consent to vote it away.

I trust the original intent of the Constitution. 


http://www.ushistory.org/documents/amendments.htm

Original Ten Amendments: The Bill of Rights
Passed by Congress September 25, 1789.
Ratified December 15, 1791.

Amendment I
Freedoms, Petitions, Assembly
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
Right to bear arms
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
Quartering of soldiers
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
Search and arrest
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
Rights in criminal cases
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI

Right to a fair trial
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII
Rights in civil cases
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Bail, fines, punishment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
Rights retained by the People
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
States' rights
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Slogger]

I trust wisdom handed down through the centuries:

“Awaken” by Lawrence Tribble, c1750s:


One man awake, awakens another.
The second awakens his next door brother.
The three awake can rouse a town,
By turning the whole place upside down.
The many awake can make such a fuss,
It finally awakens the rest of us.
One man up with dawn in his eyes,
Surely then multiplies.


http://www.federalobserver.com/print.php?aid=12212

[Slogger]

A great economics lesson..........

THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all
ten comes to $100...If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes,
it would go something like this..
.
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since
you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the
cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost
just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So
the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they
divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man
would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's
bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of
the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the
amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four
continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began
to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man, " but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar
too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back,
when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get
anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine
sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay
the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough
money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how
our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes
will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too
much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up
anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the
atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible