Vote today. An election doesn't end until the last vote is counted.
I'm on the way to work at 10 to 6am and there were a LOT of people at the two schools I pass.
Never saw that before. Kind of dead around here at the moment, think I'll take a run over to the school now.
I don't live in the USA, and I don't vote anyways, but that Mc Cain guy scares me...
I voted at 7am, I got there when the polls opened and there was still at least a thirty minute wait.
We (my wife and I) were at the polls just before they opened at 6AM. The line was huge, but we moved quickly. We were done in about 50 minutes.
Glad you voted, Will.
@Mohawk - What country is your residence?
If it was an option, I'd consider leaving the planet if Mc Cain won. Luckily, the place I'm in at the moment seems completely ignorant of, and unaffected by, what's going on in the rest of the world...
I live in the Netherlands, in the middle of Europe...
Quote from: Mohawk20 on November 04, 2008, 11:09:51 AM
I don't live in the USA, and I don't vote anyways, but that Mc Cain guy scares me...
I voted.
(for Obama)
personally Sarah Palin scares me alot more from what I have heard about her so far.
If you want to know a bit more about Palin, check out the two videos posted here. (http://mafiascene.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17276&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=57)
Quote from: PG on November 04, 2008, 06:06:22 PM
If you want to know a bit more about Palin, check out the two videos posted here. (http://mafiascene.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17276&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=57)
That's funny... I like Cleese's analogy with the parrot ;D
For those less informed on such matter look here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfIVMchKd_U
Looks like it's over. Check out Google News.
Congratulations to Obama.
Whether you lean to the right or to the left, you have to admit that he gave a phenomenal acceptance speech, one that is well worth watching.
sanity has prevailed!!...Yay!
Indeed. The world has changed for the better. Let's just hope that Obama doesn't mess it up now, otherwise Palin will win the next time...
Well most of my faith in the system has been restored.
Wow! Popped a bottle last night. The nightmare is almost over, the move back across the pond has been postponed indefinitely. Both speeches were great. You just gotta hope now that the Secret Service and FBI will be on their toes. The crazies will try to get to him and not all will so inept as the ones they caught so far.
Hope restored.
If Obama actually gets what he wants. We're screwed.
@nvseal - If it was only the commercials and television blurbs I was basing my information about the candidates on, I might just generalize and say they all are a bunch of jerks. But, after watching the debates, I'm not sure how you would think that we haven't already been screwed and that you might see we need what Obama's talking about. That is, if you aren't one of the few in the U.S. who are so wealthy they don't understand that they're greedy heartless bastards.
everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I voted for Obama but I have to say if somebody like Kucinich ever got elected to the presidency we would be screwed.
Neither candidate was great. But Mcain was very much the lesser of two evils. I don't follow the reasoning that making over 250,00 dollars makes you a greedy heartless bastard (or is it $200,000, or $140,000, nobody knows anymore). I would very much like to make more than $250,000 dollars someday; heck, I would like to make way more than that. (I'm going to go out on a limb and postulate that if someone came up to any of us offering $200,000 most of us would be greedy and heartless) Does wanting to make that kind of salary make me a greedy heartless bastard, or does that make me a greedy heartless bastard only after I have achieved those goals? Besides, making more than 250,00 dollars doesn't necessarily make someone "wealthy." i.e. depending on expenses, someone making 150,000 may very well have more expendable capital than someone making 250,000 (for example, a small business owner making 250,000 may use his free money to reinvest in his own business, which might even mean employee bonuses). Why is it that an oil company CEO (who actually does something important) making $500,000 – or even 1 million – is a greedy heartless bastard while Oprah Winfrey (who makes about 139 million annually) is just a fantastic person. I honestly don't know any working person who aspires to work at a dead end job without the possibility of promotions and raises. Likewise, I don't see how seeking a job paying 50,000 is less greedy than seeking one with more. Everyone tries to maximize their potential assets. Then we have the notion that the rich and super rich have millions and billions of dollars hidden in jars in the backyard because they don't want other people getting to it. For example, imagine for moment what would happen to Microsoft if Bill Gates tried to liquidate all his substantial assets – hint: bad things. Obama will not help the situation at all. Spreading the wealth doesn't help. Why would I want to work my butt off if all I have to look forward to is being taxed more the harder I work; and having my hard earned money redistributed by those in the government who think they are better qualified to decide who can use my money than me. The honest truth is that most CEOs and rich people are not little devils; saying they are is just an intellectual copout from real examination of the problem.
Obama's America:
1) Tax those who make more than a certain arbitrary salary, regardless of someone's actual available capital and how they spend the money. After all the very fact that they have the money they do is evidence that they don't deserve it. Not to mention that 86% of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners. To use Jim Moran's words (Democrat), who wants to live in a country laboring under the "simplistic notion that people with wealth are entitled to keep it." That's what he actually said, he essentially trashed the right own and keep property.
2) Tax the coal industry because of "carbon emissions" to the point of bankruptcy. Makes sense, after we don't really need that 49% of all of American electrical power anyway.
3) Nationalize healthcare. Fantastic, then we can have free healthcare! It will suck, and if you need it you won't be able to get to it in time, but at least it will be free. Hmm, you get what you pay for I suppose.
4) The fairness doctrine. This way, Obama can force radio stations to air shows that cost more than they make (because no one listens to them) – yeah, that's fair. But I suppose we can look at it as another way to get at those greedy radio station owners (never mind the employees who are going to get laid off, after all, they probably wanted to own the station someday).
5) We can also look forward to judges appointed on the bases of their empathy toward certain social demographics. To translate, the end of the rule of law. Now days, we don't have to prove someone's guilt, we just have to hope the judge has empathy toward our social position rather than our guilt or innocence before the law.
6) Billions of US tax dollars can be sent to Africa to accomplish nothing.
7) Billions more can be spent on US public education....to accomplish nothing. This is the great irony of government. In the free market, one generally makes more money the better they are at what they do. In government, how much funding something gets goes up the more it fails.
This is of course only a spattering of the plethora of garbage Obama wants to accomplish; that's Obama's freedom. That's change all right; but I find no hope in it.
Hey, like I said to each their own.
Quote from: Will on November 05, 2008, 06:13:10 AM
Well most of my faith in the system has been restored.
I am at peace. My family is happy.
Lets turn off the "always be afraid button."
Change is good. Comments welcomed.
Yep each is entitled to his/her own view of things. NV here's the real Obama tax plan copied from his site. If you can stomach reading the truth?
Barack Obama's tax plan delivers broad-based tax relief to middle class families and cuts taxes for small businesses and companies that create jobs in America, while restoring fairness to our tax code and returning to fiscal responsibility. Coupled with Obama's commitment to invest in key areas like health, clean energy, innovation and education, his tax plan will help restore bottom-up economic growth that helps create good jobs in America and empowers all families achieve the American dream.
Obama's Comprehensive Tax Policy Plan for America will:
* Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples.
* Provide generous tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors, homeowners, the uninsured, and families sending a child to college or looking to save and accumulate wealth.
* Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation.
* Dramatically simplify taxes by consolidating existing tax credits, eliminating the need for millions of senior citizens to file tax forms, and enabling as many as 40 million middle-class Americans to do their own taxes in less than five minutes without an accountant.
Under the Obama Plan:
* Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan.
* Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
* Obama's plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit.
NVSeal, for someone who makes such bright art, you have a very grim view of the world...
Quote
Billions of US tax dollars can be sent to Africa to accomplish nothing.
Billions more can be spent on US public education....to accomplish nothing.
I'm not saying you're wrong though... I don't think man can actually 'change the world', or even one country for what it's worth, but I do think it's commendable that people try anyway.
Still, McCain scares me... ;)
NVSeal, you seem to be making the same mistake you're condemning. That is, lumping everyone of a certain demographic together. Obama isn't planning to raise taxes for those earning more than $250,000 because he doesn't like them. He's doing it to generate more revenue, and a CEO of an oil company does, in no way, fall under the same banner as Oprah Winfrey. The latter makes money from TV appearances, the former makes money from turning over massive profits at the expense of the environment and his workers.
I don't have grim view of the world, just of what Obama wants to do. We have been spending more and more money on public education to no avail. That's not grim, that's just the way it is. I don't remember the exact number but I think it was 3 billion dollars that Obama wanted to send to Africa. That's US tax payer money he wants to send to other countries. The government is not charity organization. I think that it would be a lot easier for people to keep their money then give to charity rather than having it forcibly taken. On the one hand we want to send billions of dollars to Africa but then on the other (with the help of the UN) we won't let Africans have things like DTT (much more helpful than nets) and efficient forms of electricity.
@~FIOS~ - First Barack Obama's tax plan is based around class warfare. Second, I'm not just making stuff up. Despite what his campaign website says his own words are "spread the wealth around." His running mate considers patriotism the same as paying more taxes. What happens to his tax plan when he tries to bankrupt the coal industry? When electricity prices sky rocket – which Obama himself said would happen if he gets what he wants – the poor and middle class (and for that matter everyone) is going to be hit hard. Then you consider the workers who are going to be laid off because of the rising electricity prices. Most of those layoffs are going to be the most expendable employees – the lowest income and middles class employees. Then Obama wants to raise corporate taxes. Anyone who knows anything about business knows that there is no such thing as taxing a corporation. It's just a politically convenient roundabout way to tax the people while making them think they avoided taxes. But when you get right down to it, I think it very likely Obama will forget his tax plan soon just like Clinton did. Not to mention, in the end, he'll try to raise taxes to for another reason, be it for his socialized healthcare or another program. Every now and again we get to see a little taste of the real Obama, and it's not the great unifier he portrays himself to be.
@PG: I never said he wants to raise taxes for those earning more than $250,000 because he didn't like them. I was mainly responding to calico. Also, oil company CEOs was an example, there are still a whole lot of people who fit in the $250,000 who aren't oil company CEO's. Every CEO from any Industry (and every employee) makes money when they make profits. Liberals have simply tried to demonize oil. If people will pay more for oil we cannot expect oil companies to lower prices and loose potential profits. Same for any company, it's just that oil has been the focus lately. Moreover, oil companies use those huge profits to pay off their billions of dollars of expenses for equipment, new research, business expansions, job creation, etc. As far as the environment goes I think that will be a hopeless thing to debate beyond that our oil companies are cleaner than ever and even use some of those profits to research cleaner methods.
There's cleaner methods and there's clean methods
nvseal, you sound like a very very bitter person.
Just one quote:
QuoteEvery CEO from any Industry (and every employee) makes money when they make profits.
Yeah, like the financial industry execs, with all their recent profits, eh? Or how about the American car manufacturer execs? Ever looked at a chart comparing executive compensation vs bottom earner salary ratios across different countries? Guess which country sticks out?
And on the tax plan, a progressive tax system is only fair. The more you make the more you should pay as a percentage. This should not be delimited by arbitrary amounts, but that's how government works here, unfortunately. Simplification would also help, get rid of deductions and you seal the loopholes.
And finally, $3 Billion to Africa? Well, $10 Billion a month goes to fund the occupation of Iraq, just for comparison...
My two cents is that nvseal doesn't sound bitter rather he has an opposing view, one that's less optimistic of the future than the rest of us. It isn't a bad view, and one that if you look at our (the US's) track record would seem to be pretty accurate. DO I agree with the points, no I don't but I think they hold same same amount of validity as any of ours. I mean Any one of these things could turn into a disaster despite the original intent, to me its universal healthcare that will be the most likly to get messed up.
I am not a bitter person; I am just very disappointed about what might be about to happen to this country, and hence, my future.
The current financial problems can be traced back to progressives' intrusion in the economy during the Great Depression. Liberals are trying as hard as they can to blame the free market for the current financial troubles but we can hardly call the current situation the free market. Here is a good article I would suggest (http://townhall.com/Columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/11/05/capitalism_and_the_financial_crisis). I would also recommend Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics and Economic Facts and Fallacies.
Financial Industry = large government regulation and involvement
American Car Industry = large government regulation and involvement
If Obama wants to do something useful maybe he should repeal the CAFE standards. Stocks would soar and it would give the automobile industry a huge booster shot -- without a cent of tax payer money. But of course he won't.
Finally, 3 billion in African AID and 10 billion dollars in military funding aren't comparable. The 3 billion is aid – charity – pure and simple. I don't know about you, but I expect my tax money toward things that actually effect me, cause if not, I'd kinda like to have it back. The 10 billion is a military expenditure which is a national security investment. I'm not even going to get into the war so whether you agree with it or not (I'm assuming not), there it is. A closer comparison would be the social security and Medicare systems which cost more than the war – another failed progressive idea which is giving grief.
And universal healthcare will fail, it ALWAYS has everywhere it has been tried.
I think the idea behind the 'charity' money for Africa is that it is an investment in the future, and/or damage control.
The people in Africa are dealing with a lot of environmental problems that they had no part in. 'The west' had, America being the biggest part of that...
The investment in the future would be that Africa is the next Asia. A growing economy. And if you help those people as a country, they might help you back when they can. The Chinese economy has bought a few American banks, which has saved a part of the American economy. That would not have been possible if there hadn't been invested in in the past.
That might be the reason your money get's to be given as charity.
Quote from: nvseal on November 05, 2008, 08:13:34 PM
And universal healthcare will fail, it ALWAYS has everywhere it has been tried.
I suspect that's a myth, or an exaggeration at the very least. It may not be perfect in the UK, but at least even a homeless person can walk into hospital and be treated promptly just like anyone else. Believe it or not, we're actually very proud of that. There are many opinions on the National Health Service, but the reality is that, prior to its foundation here, healthcare was a nightmare for the common person and often unaffordable. Like it or not, the NHS was so popular that the Conservatives promised to keep it before the 1950 general election (they lost anyway), and even though the main objectors were doctors themselves (mainly for money reasons), 95% of the medical profession signed up to it.
It might not be perfect by any means, but at least it's not exclusive.
What I find really funny about the States is they'll bitch about taxes for universal healthcare, etc, but do nothing about the illegal federal income tax which takes away 40% of their income to pay interest on loans from a very few super-rich. Bonkers.
Quote from: nvseal on November 05, 2008, 08:13:34 PM
I am not a bitter person; I am just very disappointed about what might be about to happen to this country
You sound very young. Please take this with you and learn: getting disappointed about something that MIGHT happen, is a complete waste of time, and you would be better served putting your energy elsewhere.
Quote from: Will on November 05, 2008, 07:43:26 PM
My two cents is that nvseal doesn't sound bitter rather he has an opposing view, one that's less optimistic of the future than the rest of us. It isn't a bad view, and one that if you look at our (the US's) track record would seem to be pretty accurate. DO I agree with the points, no I don't but I think they hold same same amount of validity as any of ours. I mean Any one of these things could turn into a disaster despite the original intent, to me its universal healthcare that will be the most likly to get messed up.
Indeed, that's the whole point of democracy. And I have to agree with JimB on the healthcare issue. The NHS has only deteriorated since Thatcher turned it into a competitive "business", setting targets for hospitals and its staff. There was something in the news years ago, before New Labour came in, that a hospital in Kent was removing the wheels from trolleys and calling them beds so they could reduce the number of patients who were waiting for a bed, and having a greet nurse to just say hello to people coming into the hospital so that they would be crossed off the waiting list as "seen". In the days before Margaret Thatcher, the NHS was one of the best in the world. If we could only dispel this myth that free market philosophy works in the public sector as James Buchanan thought, and reintroduce Matrons then it would be back on top again.
@nvseal - Many of your facts about Obama have been skewed by propaganda. I'll only address 3, since I need to go to work.
1. Healthcare - Obama is pushing toward coverage universally, but it isn't necessarily socialistic (yet) as in Canada or in Great Britain. As far as the socialistic view of healthcare, it's working well in both the UK and in Canada, despite the lies we're told here in the States.
2. Taxes - The idea is that the trickle-down theory of the past is BS. Those who are making more money have obviously had a free-for-all for the last 4 to 8 years working to make sure that people who work for a living can barely afford anything. If a person makes more money, Capitalism gives them the right to be self-centered and greedy and uncaring. The problem with that is what we're experiencing right now - a crashed economy. Marxism spreads the wealth so that one working hard doesn't mean anything like it could be under Capitalism. So now what? This is a predicament and Obama is handling it in a way that leaves Capitalism in place and addresses the "haves" who are actually hurting the U.S. economy.
3. Jobs shipped overseas - I'm a programmer and have sys-admin experience (20 years total IT). But, guess what has happened to me and my job options. A non-citizen from Saudi Arabia took my job, while the same company shipped about 2/3 of the jobs in my department (about 150 positions) to India. The rest of us had to fend for our own. They let me go. I work now for almost half of what I was making before. This is the result of greedy businessmen who are unpatriotic. Plain and simple.
If you plan to make a living in IT in some way, reconsider that there are nations out there with people working for poverty wages so they can have U.S. and U.K. jobs. This policy is stealing away your and my opportunities to enjoy the Capitalistic society where we live.
Quote from: calico on November 06, 2008, 07:49:43 AM
2. Taxes - The idea is that the trickle-down theory of the past is BS. Those who are making more money have obviously had a free-for-all for the last 4 to 8 years working to make sure that people who work for a living can barely afford anything. If a person makes more money, Capitalism gives them the right to be self-centered and greedy and uncaring. The problem with that is what we're experiencing right now - a crashed economy. Marxism spreads the wealth so that one working hard doesn't mean anything like it could be under Capitalism. So now what? This is a predicament and Obama is handling it in a way that leaves Capitalism in place and addresses the "haves" who are actually hurting the U.S. economy
This is where I think Obamas economy plan is weakest. He seems to make the mistake that most politians make, that ideology works or doesn't work all the time. Trickle down theory isn't working now. Because the economy is in such a bad shape CEOs are unwilling to part with their money and so investing in workers is not in their best interests. However, when the economy recovers they will start increasing wages because it will promote a more productive workplace and it'll generate a greater turnover. Obamas plan, I fear, would not take this into account and would continue to put pressure on company bosses who, in a strong economy and left to their own devises, could actually bolster the economy. We saw it when Clinton came to office. The economy was weak, he reversed from the plans he proposed in his campaign and gave the power of the economy to the free market and the economy skyrocketed. That won't work this time, not yet. We need to build the economy, give it a stronger foundation and then let the rockets fire in the free market.
Quote from: PG on November 06, 2008, 09:32:24 AMBecause the economy is in such a bad shape CEOs are unwilling to part with their money and so investing in workers is not in their best interests. However, when the economy recovers they will start increasing wages because it will promote a more productive workplace and it'll generate a greater turnover.
I wish I had more faith in corporate policies, but sadly shareholder profits are the be-all and end-all of any corporate enterprise. It's pretty much law that they come first, and CEO's can disappear as quickly as they appear. Don't confuse a legal entity (a corporation) with a real human entity. If sending the work abroad gives larger profits then there it'll usually go.
And don't underestimate the power of bribary. Company officials labour under the misapprehension that we need them more than they need us. If the US government served them with an injunction to cease selling their products in America, which they are able to do, then that company would fall apart and there'd be a hundred more that could take their place.
Another $$ issue - http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/fuel/
This might seem to throw this thread into the sand, but isn't this the reason we're in this shape? Really?
There's just too much to respond to here and I don't have the time do it.
However, I will say that this:
1) People in the US seem to forget this but if a person needs immediate medical treatment in the US but cannot pay for it a doctor is required by law to help them. Besides, what kind of doctor is going to sit back while a person dies infront of them. There is doctor I know who saved a mans life that could not pay for the procedure. The man wanted to pay though so they worked out payment through the man cutting firewood. Second, the healthcare in the US is already saturated with government money which is already causing our current high prices in health care. When you look at medical expenditures which are not affected by this money (laser eye surgery for instance) the prices have been dropping over time with better methods and more competition.
2) "Capitalism gives them the right to be self-centered and greedy and uncaring" I'm sorry but this kind of stuff just drives me up the wall. Some of the most self-centered, greedy and uncaring people I have ever seen or heard of have been people making far less than even a hundred thousand dollars. There are so many people that blame greed for our current situation that have absolutely no hard evidence with which to justify their absolute claims. Why doesn't anybody blame the liberal politicians who wanted to artificially hold down prices -- be cause they care so much -- and have screwed over a LOT of people because of it. All these policies do is turn one problem into a bigger problem. Then, when they don't work, everyone screams greed, blames the free market, and put even more government control in place. The great irony on Obama's rebuttal of trickledown economics is that as Obama "punishes" the "haves," there will be some tightening of the belt, both personally and in their businesses. This tightening of the belt will trickle down as I have mentioned earlier. All that said, I also realize this is hopeless argument.
3) And know we have jobs sent overseas. To keep jobs in America, we need to make an environment in America that is good for business. That is not what Obama wants to do. Instead of address the reasons jobs leave the country he wants "punish" companies that do so. That kind of talk isn't going to help. I mentioned the CAFE standards earlier. Everyone knows that the US automobiles industry is doing poorly right now, much of the problem being too much government regulation and unions. Why doesn't Obama repeal the CAFE standards and stop hurting US automobile companies? Simple, he is either ignorant or he is not interested in helping US companies. Liberals keep trying to add more and more costly regulations on companies while then calling those companies unpatriotic when outsourcing is cheaper than staying the US. If a company needs to outsource but can't or needs to lay off employees it and can't, that is not healthy for the company. It may be great for the employees; at least until the company loses so much profit that it fails. Businesses exist to do two things, make a profit and expand. You can't regulate and tax a company so much that they can't make a profit and expect the top company officials to make decisions that will hurt the company – after all, it is there job to help the company. Government regulation cannot create an artificially stable economy. Forcing companies to keep jobs that are unprofitable merely treats the symptoms rather than the actual problems.
Like I said earlier, we are hardly a truly capitalistic society anymore. There is too much regulation. So I really wish people would stop blaming capitalism. This country could never have reached its current affluence without capitalism.
Not if we stop exporting jobs. And, to this theory that if we stand together as a working force that the powers that be will just hire others, hogwash. Why do I say this? Because many experienced people forced out of their jobs to be replaced by inexperienced and desperate people aren't good for a company. Do you want motivated employees who care about their work and understand it or do you just want warm bodies? M$ is a perfect example or EA, if we want to get real.
Quote from: PG on November 06, 2008, 09:52:58 AM
...and there'd be a hundred more that could take their place.
The reasons job leave the country - GREED. I have lots of high tech and good experience. The top of my class. And I've worked for major cutting edge operations. But, so have many of my other friends who are more qualified than I am and these people are willing and capable of working for a decent wage. Why again do we need to let people screw us over?
nvseal, I'm not sure what your future plans are, but if you plan to work in IT and don't have an uncle some place to shoe you in, then you should reconsider your profession. It's brutal to be in IT right now. The wealthy companies do not care about you. Get a grip, if you think they do.
Quote from: nvseal on November 06, 2008, 09:55:42 AM
3) And know we have jobs sent overseas. To keep jobs in America, we need to make an environment in America that is good for business. That is not what Obama wants to do. Instead of address the reasons jobs leave the country he wants "punish" companies that do so. That kind of talk isn't going to help. I mentioned the CAFE standards earlier. Everyone knows that the US automobiles industry is doing poorly right now, much of the problem being too much government regulation and unions. Why doesn't Obama repeal the CAFE standards and stop hurting US automobile companies? Simple, he is either ignorant or he is not interested in helping US companies. Liberals keep trying to add more and more costly regulations on companies while then calling those companies unpatriotic when outsourcing is cheaper than staying the US. If a company needs to outsource but can't or needs to lay off employees it and can't, that is not healthy for the company. It may be great for the employees; at least until the company loses so much profit that it fails. Businesses exist to do two things, make a profit and expand. You can't regulate and tax a company so much that they can't make a profit and expect the top company officials to make decisions that will hurt the company – after all, it is there job to help the company. Government regulation cannot create an artificially stable economy. Forcing companies to keep jobs that are unprofitable merely treats the symptoms rather than the actual problems.
Like I said earlier, we are hardly a truly capitalistic society anymore. There is too much regulation. So I really wish people would stop blaming capitalism. This country could never have reached its current affluence without capitalism.
Quote from: calico on November 06, 2008, 10:01:38 AM
The reasons job leave the country - GREED. I have lots of high tech and good experience. The top of my class. And I've worked for major cutting edge operations. But, so have many of my other friends who are more qualified than I am and these people are willing and capable of working for a decent wage. Why again do we need to let people screw us over?
nvseal, I'm not sure what your future plans are, but if you plan to work in IT and don't have an uncle some place to shoe you in, then you should reconsider your profession. It's brutal to be in IT right now. The wealthy companies do not care about you. Get a grip, if you think they do.
All right then, out of curiosity, how do you want to go about not letting us get screwed over?
Education - encouraged by lessening the cost of formal education and enhancing the idea of apprenticeships.
Company
work programs to make room for U.S. citizens only.
I still like the idea of slapping the overzealous companies, who are more interested in their bottom line than their countrymen, with fines. And there might be an actual need (if the above ideas are in place) for unionization of IT workers.
Quote from: nvseal on November 06, 2008, 10:10:23 AM
All right then, out of curiosity, how do you want to go about not letting us get screwed over?
Calico I was referring to companies taking the place of a shunned corperation, not more American workers replacing the fired ones. Surely common sense would've told you that's what I was talking about.
In 2002 an arms manufacturer for the British army went bankrupt after their contract renewals were rejected by parliament. The next day 4 applications for the new contract were handed in from different contracters all offering up their services. So, you have a company that wants to move their employment overseas, don't fine them, they can easily make that up in tax deductions. However having to build a new client base in Indea is a very difficult thing to recover from. Blackmail's not always a bad thing.
Quote from: calico on November 06, 2008, 10:15:17 AM
Education - encouraged by lessening the cost of formal education and enhancing the idea of apprenticeships.
Company work programs to make room for U.S. citizens only.
I still like the idea of slapping the overzealous companies, who are more interested in their bottom line than their countrymen, with fines. And there might be an actual need (if the above ideas are in place) for unionization of IT workers.
Quote from: nvseal on November 06, 2008, 10:10:23 AM
All right then, out of curiosity, how do you want to go about not letting us get screwed over?
So no doubt in your mind, if a company outsources it is because of corporate greed, period. No other factors at all; they're just greedy and unpatriotic. And since we cannot alter these corporate despots, we must fine them to curb there self-serving, uncaring carnality. Correct?
So many big words, my brain might just putrefy into a state of nidorous tallow ;D
There might be other reasons given, but when a person shoots another person dead, motive plays little part in bringing that dead person back from the dead. In the same way, shipping jobs overseas equates to cutting out countrymen from jobs. How is that good? Because it's "global thinking"? If so, then we can guarantee the U.S. will be globalized until we have nothing left but ashes.
Quote from: nvseal on November 06, 2008, 12:11:10 PM
So no doubt in your mind, if a company outsources it is because of corporate greed, period. No other factors at all; they're just greedy and unpatriotic. And since we cannot alter these corporate despots, we must fine them to curb there self-serving, uncaring carnality. Correct?
Quote from: calico on November 06, 2008, 02:21:12 PM
There might be other reasons given, but when a person shoots another person dead, motive plays little part in bringing that dead person back from the dead. In the same way, shipping jobs overseas equates to cutting out a countrymen from jobs. How is that good? Because it's "global thinking"? If so, then we can guarantee the U.S. will be globalized until we have nothing left but ashes.
I don't think anyone WANTS jobs to leave the US (except maybe policy writers). But as I have said again and again, government cannot artificially create employment. It is not efficient for a company to hire and keep employees that don't help the company. Before we can ask, how can we stop outsourcing? We first have to ask, why are companies sending jobs else were in the first place? And the reason is not greed (unless there has suddenly been a massive greed explosion in the hearts of management throughout the entire country). If it is cheaper to go elsewhere we ought to know why before we start costing companies even more money. If a company is regulated to the point of losses here and fined to point of losses elsewhere, what incentive is there to be in business at all (unless you want to fine companies from going out of business)? While it sounds nice to force a company to have X number of American workers, the problem of incoming and outgoing money is still there -- the actual problem. And if those American employees are – under government regulation – costing more than they are bringing in, the company is going to go down, in which case all of the employees lose their jobs anyway. An example of government regulation is forcing businesses with (I believe) over 50 employees to start to offer paid maternity leave (I think it was 3 weeks). Because of this, many businesses grow up to this point then stop creating new jobs because doing so would cost more than it would gain. So unless a company can hire enough new employees so as to offset the losses, this regulation is hurting the company itself, the consumers who would otherwise be able to get the product or service, and the potential employees who could be hired. Another example of government regulation which is costing comapnies millions would be accounting regulation. The automobile industry has its own problems like th CAFE standards. And the list goes on and on and on. Instead of acting like outsourcing itself is the problem, wouldn't it better to fix the problem causing outsourcing?
I believe I have an answer to that. It's the same thing as new members of the EU flooding the UK. There are at least 5 countries between here and Poland that immigrants could stay but they come here because they know our businesses will just give them a job, because they are migrant workers they're not included in the minimum wage law, but they still get a better income than back in Poland. What they fail to realise is that the cost of living is also much greater here. So while they earn more, they also have to pay out more so most of them end up on the doll queues.
Move this into the business markets, businesses can still pay them sod all but now they're not on our welfare system and therefore can't be traced for payment of taxes, which the company would have to pay. Whereas, citizens of the country that the company resides will have to have their taxes paid (which is a tax that the company has to pay AS WELL AS the tax that comes out of your paycheck). They also have to pay us a minimum wage. The cost of living means we call for higher pay. It's not greed, it's economics. With inflation, it is very difficult for businesses to increase wages above the rate of inflation which is the only thing that would make any difference. I'm having a pay review this month and I doubt that I will get an above inflation payrise.
@nvseal - I see regulation as a way of coordinating the same efforts of profit and compliance to the health of a nation; not as detriments. Without government intervention we would all be living in shacks. Or, visa versa, with nothing but government control, we would all be living in shacks.
@PG - We have the same problem in the U.S. with migratory (illegal) immigrants from Mexico and other countries. Greedy businessmen take advantage of them and to hell with our economy.
Well, not seeing the ridiculous amount of government regulation as detrimental doesn't change the fact that it IS detrimental. You may think that regulation is good for the economy but there is no evidence to support it. The fastest growing economies in the world are those moving away from a regulated economy. I've never heard of an economic system that was so free that companies failed and people lived in huts; it just doesn't make any sense. There seems to be a widespread misconception that free markets aren't regulated when in fact they are very regulated, just not by government. For example, a business which wants to make a profit and not waste money is not going to give money to customers who cannot afford it. However, when the government regulates companies to do so in the name of "home ownership," we get the kind of economic nightmares we have now – something that would never have happened in a market free of detrimental, government intervention.
Quote from: nvseal on November 06, 2008, 08:03:15 PM
For example, a business which wants to make a profit and not waste money is not going to give money to customers who cannot afford it. However, when the government regulates companies to do so in the name of "home ownership," we get the kind of economic nightmares we have now – something that would never have happened in a market free of detrimental, government intervention.
Didn't the banks give mortgages to people who, by anyone's measure of common sense, were high risk and probaby couldn't afford the repayments should things turn a bit for the worse, all based on the
STOOOOPID belief that house prices would continue to rise at the ridiculous rates they were?
Quote from: nvseal on November 06, 2008, 08:03:15 PM....However, when the government regulates companies to do so in the name of "home ownership," we get the kind of economic nightmares we have now....
Mortgages were sold to those who were believed "sub-prime", those who were rejected for mortgages and loans everywhere else. It was partly because they believed house prices would keep rising but what happened with these mortgages was they were bundled up with other subprime mortgages and then bundled up with normal fixed and tracker mortgages and loans and then sold on Wall Street under new names so no one knew what was in it, they just knew it was an appreciating asset (made money the longer it was held). So part of the stupidity was thinking that people would keep lending this thing as one package without asking how much it was worth and part of it was thinking the economy wouldn't slow down and people would be less willing to lend.
Also NVSeal, I believe that during these times we need a little regulation to get the markets back on their feet, the market "sentiment" is so frayed at the minute that the trade floor is unable to handle this mess, so for the time being I think it's logical that the governments get the economy back on track and then hand it back to the free market once we see a steady rate of growth again.
Mexico. Guatemala.
As far as regulation, deregulating is how we got into this housing mess.
Quote from: nvseal on November 06, 2008, 08:03:15 PM
I've never heard of an economic system that was so free that companies failed and people lived in huts; it just doesn't make any sense.
Regulation isn't something to be feared as many Americans do, seeing it as a communist move, but nor is it an end-all solution, regulation during a strong economy leads to stagnation of the currency and yes this has happened in both Mexico and Guatemala. Both countries are struggling to find anything that matches the value of their currency, rather similar to the way that banks are finding it hard to find anything in their assets that match the value of the mortgages they've given out.
Quote from: PG on November 07, 2008, 05:32:11 AM
Mortgages were sold to those who were believed "sub-prime", those who were rejected for mortgages and loans everywhere else. It was partly because they believed house prices would keep rising but what happened with these mortgages was they were bundled up with other subprime mortgages and then bundled up with normal fixed and tracker mortgages and loans and then sold on Wall Street under new names so no one knew what was in it, they just knew it was an appreciating asset (made money the longer it was held). So part of the stupidity was thinking that people would keep lending this thing as one package without asking how much it was worth and part of it was thinking the economy wouldn't slow down and people would be less willing to lend.
Also NVSeal, I believe that during these times we need a little regulation to get the markets back on their feet, the market "sentiment" is so frayed at the minute that the trade floor is unable to handle this mess, so for the time being I think it's logical that the governments get the economy back on track and then hand it back to the free market once we see a steady rate of growth again.
The housing bubble was most definitely part of the problem (and the people who took these mortgages are just as much to blame as the lenders who gave them away), but it is not the whole story.
Community Reinvestment Act of 1977:
This act – strengthened during the Clinton years – encourages lenders to make loans to riskier customers. Then we have Fanny Mae (started during the great depression) and Freddie Mac, government sponsored endeavors which created a government safety net for bad loans. These companies were justified on the basis of homeowners keeping their houses, attempts to circumvent the natural market currents. More and more companies are seeing that government will pay for large companies being riskier than they would in true laissez-faire capitalism. So to trying to save everything now only results in encouraging it to happen again in the future. If it wasn't for this kind of governmnet meddling in the economy this may have never happened in the first place, and if it would have, not to the same extent. The current housing crisis is not the end of the world; it is simply a market correction (or was until government intervention). We don't need to regulate companies to the point of millions of wasted dollars simply to curve the minority of companies that act irresponsibly. The market WILL punish irresponsible behavior by itself, either in the form of losses or failure (aka natural market regulation). All government needs to do is stop trying to do the markets job.
Calico, are you saying that the reason for Mexico's and Guatemalas' poor economies is the lack of regulation?
To bring some humor back into here (as is my self-imposed duty) I bring you some stumbleupon fun.
http://www.sjgames.com/illuminati/politics.html
lol. love the bureaucracy and surrealism ones.
and a bit less mature humor, though its true, it is the best gif ever.
http://megasizzle.com/funny/the-funniest-animated-gif-ever11/
Show me some hard solid evidence that a completely free market leads to a wealthier nation, where every citizen ends up wealthy? Don't come back with examples of complete government market control creating poverty.
I have an example of a completely de-regulated free market creating abject poverty and hardship for the masses, and an elite super-rich who can flout the rule of law; Russia.
A much older and surprising example is Ancient Rome, which led to a number of secessions by the masses from the city.
Ever read Dickens?
JimB has all very good points.
@nvseal - Yes, sort of. The reasons those two countries have such a divide between the poor and the rich (aka - no middle class) has to do with the government looking out only for the wealthy.
Quote from: nvseal on November 07, 2008, 04:45:58 PM
Calico, are you saying that the reason for Mexico's and Guatemalas' poor economies is the lack of regulation?
That's a misconception right there. You will never have a nation where "every citizen ends up wealthy." And for that matter you will never have a free market that doesn't have ups and downs. Good times and bad times are part of the natural fluctuation caused by rising and dropping prices. Free capitalism doesn't pretend to create absolute wealth for EVERYONE -- not everyone is going to get a million dollar pay check. But capitalism does lift everyone up with it. Free capitalism means opportunity. But because of human nature, there will always be people who don't have what other people have because they don't want to work for it – even if you lay the opportunity at their feet. If you are looking for an economic system were everyone is equally wealthy then you are looking for a fantasy. Prices (and wages) are incentives. The more you are worth the more you are paid. That is the reason CEOs are paid so much. The difference between a good CEO and bad CEO could mean billions of dollars. A good example would be Jack Welch. He became the CEO of General Electric in 1981 when the company was worth $14 billion. After 20 years of decision making he had turned the company around and GE was worth nearly $500 billion. If Jack Welch had been paid one-half of one percent of the increased value he created, his compensation would have been nearly $2.5 billion dollars. He was actually paid a couple hundred million. If we want to talk about what someone is worth, I'd say GE got a pretty good deal on that one. There is no reason to suggest the FedEx man should paid at the same level.
It is a bit difficult to find a country where the government has never been involved, but a great example would be the United States itself. I am assuming you are talking about the current Russia As far as Russia goes I would hardly the call the situation in Russia ripe for growth (corrupt power hungry government). And Calico, you just said the problem is not government under regulation but government corruption. We seem to keep arriving at this common denominator. There is a big difference between government intrusion into the economy and the lack of a just rule of law. Moreover the comparison isn't really valid. We can't take a country like Mexico which suffers under a corrupt government, lacks a well educated population, and lacks sufficient industrial infrastructure to conclude that less economic regulation will hurt the United States (not to mention the culture factors).
Quote from: nvseal on November 08, 2008, 12:03:27 PM
I am assuming you are talking about the current Russia As far as Russia goes I would hardly the call the situation in Russia ripe for growth (corrupt power hungry government). And Calico, you just said the problem is not government under regulation but government corruption. We seem to keep arriving at this common denominator. There is a big difference between government intrusion into the economy and the lack of a just rule of law. Moreover the comparison isn't really valid. We can't take a country like Mexico which suffers under a corrupt government, lacks a well educated population, and lacks sufficient industrial infrastructure to conclude that less economic regulation will hurt the United States (not to mention the culture factors).
I'm talking about the democratic Russia when national industries were distributed amongst the population in the form of corporate shares and free market economy (the Neo-Conservative idealist's dream, which they did seem to create in this event), not the current Russia with a nationalistic leadership.
@nvseal - the reason all of those things are true for Mexico and Guatemala and Haiti (see this - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7717756.stm) is the lack of government intervention in the lives of the wealthy.
Sometimes it's necessary to curtail the corrupt. The alternative is anarchy, which is what we'll have if we keep allowing the government to bail out wealthy bankers, keep allowing businesses to send our jobs overseas and keep spilling blood for oil.
It calls into question everyone who defends the less than 3% of our population who are causing many of these problems.
So...the question isn't about government, since we believe in a Free America.
...so you're saying Mexicos problems are because of a lack of government intervention and our problems are because we have government intervention? :-\
It's because the government (any government) favors the wealthy that any have problems. Watch the governments who squash the people by favoring the wealthy's interests before everyone else and you'll have what we see in many so-called 3rd world countries. It's just a fact.
Found some interesting quotes from Jefferson -
"Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government." - Thomas Jefferson
"Delay is preferable to error." - Thomas Jefferson
"Every generation needs a new revolution." - Thomas Jefferson
"Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor." - Thomas Jefferson
"Force is the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism." - Thomas Jefferson
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas Jefferson
"I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." - Thomas Jefferson
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Information is the currency of democracy." - Thomas Jefferson
"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world." - Thomas Jefferson
"It is more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law than that he should escape." - Thomas Jefferson
"It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good." - Thomas Jefferson
"Peace and friendship with all mankind is our wisest policy, and I wish we may be permitted to pursue it." - Thomas Jefferson
"That government is the strongest of which every man feels himself a part." - Thomas Jefferson
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." - Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses." - Thomas Jefferson
"We did not raise armies for glory or for conquest." - Thomas Jefferson
"Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence." - Thomas Jefferson
"One man with courage is a majority." - Thomas Jefferson
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson
Found some interesting quotes from Star Wars "with some editing of course" -
"This will be a day long remembered. It has seen the end of Bush, and will soon see the end of the rebellion."
...and on Obama - "The Force is strong with this one."
The take on Hillary - "I suggest a new strategy, R2. Let the newbee win."
Palin on her voyage back to Alaska - "You've never heard of the Millennium Falcon? ... It's the ship that made the Wassilla run in less than 12 parsecs, you betcha."
Obama to Bill Clinton - "When I left you, I was but the learner, now I am the master."
DNC to Joe Lieberman - "I find your lack of faith disturbing."
What should the US do about the economy - "Use the Force, Luke."
What should we do about the loss of freedom under the Bush administration - "You don't need to see his identification ... These aren't the droids you're looking for ... He can go about his business ... Move along."
Why Obi-won-Obama is now in charge - "Help me Obi-Won Obama. You're my only hope."
The Clinton's even threatened in private - "Watch your mouth kid, or you'll find yourself floating home."
Karl Rove to George Bush - "Evacuate in our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances."
John McCain after the election - "If this is a consular ship, where is the ambassador? — Commander, tear this ship apart until you've found those plans. And bring me the passengers, I want them alive!"
What McCain told his staff about trashing Palin's record in public - "Into the garbage chute, flyboy!"
Obama was briefed on red vs. blue states - "This is Red 5, I'm going in."
Palin, wearing a towel, gets out of the shower and says to her husband - "Boring conversation anyway. Luke, we're gonna have company!"
When asked about Africa being a continent, she replied - "I'm a member of the Imperial Senate on a diplomatic mission to Alderaan."
and finally. What the American people said to Obama -
"You're all clear, kid! Now let's blow this thing and go home!"
It's not a fact calico, it's an idea.
@PG - No, it's wisdom.
@matrix - pretty funny.
yeah right, more like marxism. There is no evidence to support that all governments support the wealthy and certainly not the case that this will lead the country into a third world state. The reason that certain governments favour the wealthy is because the believe in trickle down theory as most western economists do. What few have managed to factor in is that philosophical ideas like this only work in one set of circumstances and another method will work in another circumstance. Trickle down theory works, as I've said many times, when the ecomomy is strong. There are about a billion statistics that could prove that. Trickle theory doesn't work when the economy is weak and I've already demonstrated that. What you and many world leaders fail to grasp is that one theory doesn't work all the time. If you push for trickle theory when the economy is weak you'll just drive the economy further into the ground unless you totally free the market and even then the community costs of education and the like have to be met and a totally free market makes it nearly impossible for the government to justifiably raise taxes because it will raise inflation which the government cannot control under a free market. If you push for government regulation then you'll either stagnate the market within a decade (i.e. Russia 1998) or you'll try to structure the economy to a point where you're steering it into a brick wall. (i.e. the Soviet Union.)
Trickle down theory is all well and good, but how about trickle out to another country theory, which seems to be more and more common regardless of a strong or weak economy in both services and manufacturing?
Well it depends, I assume you mean economic aid. It's more of a political problem than an economic one, the concequences are lumped on the economy though :D
Thing is, we can take care of ourselves in these economic times but countries like Ethiopia or Eritrea can't. If we leave them to fend for themselves in an economic struggle that we put them in then there'd be a moral uproar. Personally I disagree with economic aid and charity organisations. I think it's pointless spending £200 on a well that's the size of a large dog. They waste half of it dancing in front of the cameras, celebrating the fact that they have clean water for the next 20 minutes. We could've put all the £200s together and funded research into desalination plants. We've got entire oceans that can be filtered into drinking water.
No, I mean manufacturing and services being out-sourced to other countries like China, India, etc. Good for shareholder profits, bad for the local economy.
Oh I see. Well again it does enter more in to politics. Yes it's bad for the local economy but it's actually better for the national economy. The "buy American" thing is actualy detrimental to the American economy because it causes inflation to rise.
"yeah right, more like marxism..." PG, that argument is getting so old it smells.
Simply, the same wisdom that has been true throughout history sticks its head up and waves - "He who oppresses the poor to increase his riches, and he who gives to the rich, will surely come to poverty." This is a fact.
Of course, I forgot that those who claim such great wisdom by studying nearly always forget that the one thing we have learned is that we don't learn from history.
Well that proverb comes from the same book that claims a man parted the Red Sea with a stick so I'd take its accuracy with a pinch of salt. This is philosophy, not politics nor economics, it's not a fact it's still an idea. Yes it keeps rearing its head but it also keeps getting knocked the hell back down by the mallet of logic.
Hmmm, this conversation has gone from pissing on Obama to pissing on the Bible...
Just to be clear, the red sea wasn't parted by the man with the stick, according to the book, but by God (who might just be an advanced alien for all you care), and timed to the movements of the man with the stick.
There's a difference there.
Still, the proverb does have some validity. The people who tried to dominate or just wanted to get rich, still died, and most of them are forgotten.
This isn't about religion. It's about facts. Like the fact you can't stick your hand through the earth and come out the other side or that you can't jump off of a 30 story building naked and not die on impact. Religion can be ethereal and mysterious and oftentimes lacks logic, but here are two things that you are bypassing with your "logic", PG -
1. If you oppress the masses (the poor), your power will eventually evaporate into nothingness and likely you will be much poorer than you started
2. A person who sucks up to the rich man will not be respected by anyone and will end up losing everything
Logical?
Quote from: PG on November 10, 2008, 01:49:13 PM
Well that proverb comes from the same book that claims a man parted the Red Sea with a stick so I'd take its accuracy with a pinch of salt. This is philosophy, not politics nor economics, it's not a fact it's still an idea. Yes it keeps rearing its head but it also keeps getting knocked the hell back down by the mallet of logic.
Well actually that proverb comes from the American standard bible, thus making it theological and a synchronised religious version of swan lake makes me no more inclined to believe that 12th century monks know any more about the 21st century economy than the current governments. So I stick to my judgement that you are not quoting facts.
Edit: and I'm not pissing on anything, I'm dismissing it from the debate entirely because, for the reason I stated above, it has no relevance.
I haven't read through all this thread but in my opinion the lesser evil won which is a step in the right direction.
Read through some of this thread.
There seems to a general idea by some that it's OK to be insanely wealthy. The problem is that much of that wealth is unproductive which is not good.
It's an exponential debt based economy. It's unsustainable and debt slaves everyone but that's when it crumbles since most of this whole toxic waste ponzi scheme produces less and less wealth instead of producing actual useful things that are not numbers on computers.
Health care is better handled by government. It actually ends up cheaper but there is no ideal way of doing this.
One problem is that democracy often fails because people vote for a government that gives them stuff like allowing (or it seems actually encouraging) banks to lend out insane mortgages and then people want the government to help them out again with getting mortgages when the houses they bought are worth way less than they paid since these houses were vastly overvalued due to the insane mortgage hand outs. When you live way beyond your means it comes home to roost i.e. you are owned by the people that gave you all this stuff. The people that you voted into power.
Trickle round theory would be more accurate than trickle down.
nvseal makes these points:
"This country could never have reached its current affluence without capitalism."
You could change the word capitalism to slavery. That's what capitalism always heads towards and why it has to have some regulation but actual regulation to achieve fairness not damaging interference. It heads in this direction because of psychopathically greedy and control seeking people who use money as their method but the rest of the population are complicit as well, also through greed but with short term results in their case.
Try reading this with more replaced by less:
"The more you are worth the more you are paid"
Yet it means the same and what is this worth? How much are these banking oligarchs worth to the rest of us? What about their moral worth.
If you think capitalism should be given free reign then you would would have to agree that all these soon to be unemployed excess workers in an overpopulated world who won't accept the slave wages imposed on outsourced workers should really just be exterminated. That would be the economic thing to do if you subscribe to a system that has no moral code.
Government is meant to be the top tier of control not bankers. That's why this thing termed "globalism" is no good. It is not controlled by democratic means. We have politicians actually telling us this - the problem is "global" so out of their control while at the same time they are promoting this globalism. Who are they working for?
Either people like Alan Greenspan were incredibly stupid or they knew exactly what they were doing but if they are stupid then they are just told what to do anyway.
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."
Franklin D. Roosevelt