Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Dad2three]

Dude, we've LONG ago established that you don't grasp a fucking thing that you post. You cut & paste from the hate sites, with no idea what the shit you post even means.

You're just a feral baboon.

Do you have to be so mean? What have baboons ever done to you?

This is true, 3dad cuts and pastes as if he's the only one who can cut and paste. UMB is for debate, not cut and paste. I guess he has no choice given that he cant debate. Oh well.

And I blow your OPINIONS away with ACTUAL FACTS AND DATA TO BACK UP MY CUT AND PASTE, you?

You CLAIM Rushblo follows Uncle Milties economic theory, though Uncle Miltie doesn't claim tax cuts create more revenues (nor ANY credible economists).. Go figure you are ALWAYS wrong

 

[boedicca]

Sure, IF you don't use reason and logic I am

Carter INCREASE OF 9,041,000 Total private IN 4 YEARS
Reagan 14,717,00 Total private IN 8 YEARS

WOW, IF TAX CUTS CREATED JOBS, WHY DID CARTER CREATE A HIGHER PERCENTAGE THAN RONNIE, WHO TRIPLED THE DEBT?

Monkey boi, isn't it true that in 1978, the Department of Labor amended labor reporting to include part-time workers under 32 hours a week in reporting? Isn't it true that this instantly and artificially added 6 million people to the employed category?

Oh, your handlers at the hate sites didn't tell you this? Well, why would they?

Should be in the data then right? lol



Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

GOT A LINK FOR YOUR LIE BUBBA?

You are an historic ignoramous. Carter was President when women started entering the workforce in large number (many families needed two incomes to deal with double digit inflation, and boomer women who went to college started careers).

The Labor Force Participation rate, as a result, increased from 61.6% in January 1977, to 63.9% four years later..a gain of 3.3%. By the end of Reagan's two terms, it had increased to 66.5%...a gain of 2.6%. Population growth and demographic shifts benefited them both, but Carter got the bigger hit of women flowing into the workforce.

Btw, under Obama, the Labor Force Participation rate is back down to 62.8%.

 

[alan1]

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

How about if we make everybody pay the exact same tax rate (percentage) and see what happens.
Or do you think some people should be fucked over simply because they make more money than you?

It's called PROGRESSIVE TAXATION!!!


Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent

Total U.S. taxes are barely progressive, as shown in this table and chart from Citizens for Tax Justice. The bottom 99 percent pays a 27.5 percent total tax rate on average, while the top 1 percent pays an average 29 percent tax rate, according to 2011 data from Citizens for Tax Justice.


The share of total taxes paid by each income group is similar to that group’s share of total income.

• The share of total taxes paid by the richest one percent (21.6 percent) is almost identical to that group’s share of total income (21.0 percent).

• The total effective tax rate for the richest one percent (29.0 percent) is only about four percentage points higher than the total effective tax rate for the middle fifth of taxpayers (25.2 percent)



"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson

Like I said, make everybody pay the exact same tax rate, that is fair.
No write offs, no exclusions. If somebody makes 5 hundred dollars or 5 million dollars, pay the same percentage. I don't care if you have kids, a mortgage or a disease, pay the same rate. I don't care if your income is from blue collar work, white collar work or investments, pay the same rate.
I'm being fair.

 

[boedicca]

Right On Brothah!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You CLAIM Rushblo follows Uncle Milties economic theory, though Uncle Miltie doesn't claim tax cuts create more revenues (nor ANY credible economists).. Go figure you are ALWAYS wrong

total illiterate!!! they are both huge advocates of free markets and both are/were for cuting taxes all the time and for any reason!


The most recent supply-side proposal, riding a boomlet of popu-
]arity, is a fiat rate income tax.6 Properly termed a degressive tax, it
would apply a fiat rate to all income above some exemption level.
The virtue of this scheme, ]ong advocated by Milton Friedman, is
that it could raise revenue in amounts comparahle to the present
system yet with a rate below 15 percent. This would drastically
reduce marginal tax rates, simplify the tax system, eliminate the tax
shelter game, and improve resource allocation

 

[Dad2three]

What the left wing extremists refuse to admit is, wealth is not a zero sum game. Yes, as you stated at any specific point in time there is a specific amount of wealth. But in the very next moment wealth can go up, or down. The point is, over time wealth can be increased by increased production or decreased by reductions of productions. It is asinine to contend that the rich are taking from the less wealthy. Their investments pay off more, and it does not detract from lessor earning people. It is one of the most basic economic principles. Production causes wealth. It is as simple as that.

One other thing that our current left wing extremist will not admit, it is easy to prove that under the proper conditions supply side economics does improve the economy. It is very difficult to prove that demand side economics improves the economy.

If the government choses to engage in Keynesian economics, they would do better concerning themselves only about government spending which directly increased demand across the board. Effectively like following Eisenhower's example and put the $500 billion Obama threw at the poor and spend it on true shovel ready infrastructure projects.

FDR tried for 8 years to buy our way out of the great depression by hiring people for the CCW and the WPA for minimum wages and giving to the poor. None of it worked. It took a war time mobilization, huge sums of money spent to buy war machinery, which got us out of the depression.

Indeed, while wealth creation is potentially limitless given the discovery and application of new technologies, especially, the level of wealth creation does rise and fall as a result of the rise and fall in the level of production. That's axiomatic. Good eye. Some might mistake my observation to preclude the ups and downs of the economic cycle.

I'm a Lockean, so I'm not keen on the historical concerns of socialist societies.

The Swedish model is indeed all you say it is and more, though as a Christian I can't abide the encroachments on the individual's natural rights and the moral compromises that go along with it. Notwithstanding, it works not only because the benefits are universally distributed in Sweden, but because the work ethic is strong there, its economy is competitive, its government is tolerant of educational choice and other partially privatized services, and the composition of Sweden's population is among the most homogenous on Earth. (Yes, I know there are those who argue that the latter is exaggerated, but Sweden is more racially and, more importantly, ideologically homogenous than America, and has, shall we say, a more selective immigration policy.) It would never work here, but, as you suggest, significant, "across the board" investments in genuinely durable infrastructure serve to promote the factors of production to the benefit of all the people. That's the way to go here sans punitive and insanely complicated income and corporate tax structures.

As for the barking madness that the higher returns of investment enjoyed by the wealthy somehow cheat the less wealthy out of their portion of the pie, that finite pie in the sky as if the production of wealth were a zero-sum game . . . what can a fella do but reiterate the obvious. As you say:



Just curious, what precisely in your mind constitutes right-wing extremism to the detriment of the economy?

Right wing extremism to me is, if you didn't earn it yourself you can't have. That would mean in the RWer mind that education should be paid for by the individual, there should be no government involvement in providing medical care, or assistance given to the helpless no matter how disabled, and the tendency to be racist and against the equality of women. In my mind, those are extremist RW. Many main stream conservatives believe in some of the same things the basic liberal of today believe, but just like the basic liberal, I cannot condone some of the LWer preferences of taking from the rich just to help those who are simply less wealth. What the LWer will not understand is, there are always poor people, even in a welfare state in which their basic needs are met. LWers tend to see ALL conservatives, or moderates, and basic liberals with the same lens. IE if we are extreme left we are wrong. We could probably converse on the subject for hours, but I think you have my drift.

I'm not looking for a fight, mind you, and we might even agree depending on what you have in mind. You strike me as a reasonable fella.

I'm one of those mad-dog conservatives, you know . . . according to left-wing extremists. A fascist. LOL!

Another thing LWers refuse to recognize is, FASCISM is nothing but a form of socialism. Instead of owning the production and distribution, the government controls it. The racist implications of FASCISM as we have observed it is an aberration, and there are many models of socialism which were not racist in basic intent, but they have still failed. There has never been a successful socialist state and in every case of true socialism the government has become autocratic or dictatorial.

What I am is a liberal, of course. The term conservative is a cultural label, referring, for the most part, to an American who holds to the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism on which this nation was founded, whether all self-identifying conservatives fully embrace or be fully aware of the foundational doctrines of that tradition, concerning natural law and the state of human nature, or not. Of course, the conservative label does refer to a different kind of political species in other parts of the world. Leftist extremists in American don't seem to grasp these subtleties, more at the term's broader connotations. Contemporary American conservatives generally agree on Locke's labor theory of property at the very least, which is as solid as a rock in my opinion. Give me some of that old time rugged individualism: the preservation of private property, the foundation of liberty.

As you have stated so well, the classic liberal was our original economic intention in the US. I will also state that one of the major point of government is to provide for the national defense, law and order, and the protection of personal property - safe from exploitation by the "TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY."

I believe in all of the basic and important parts of liberalism to include racial and sex equality, good public education, universal medical care, assistance to those who cannot earn their lively hood on their own, and other typical liberal points of view.

Of the things the dyed in the wool left wing extremists believe that I abhor, is the willingness to follow the propaganda of other extremists instead of thinking for themselves. One example of that is the ignorant contention that JFKs Supply Side reduction in the top marginal tax bracket by 21% and the reduction of corporate taxation are demand side. Nothing can be further from the truth, yet when they bring up exactly the same kind of tax reduction by Reagan or Bush they are terrible SUPPLY SIDE tax reductions. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Neither is their absolute hard headed attitude that it was Bush (whom I was not fond of) who caused the housing balloon and subsequent crash. They stick to government sources or semi government sources to claim, "it was all Bush and the CRA had no part in it." That in spite of the fact that more recent studies on the matter, which show their methods of research, in fact conclude that CRA did have a part and that government entities pushed low interest, bad credit and no down payment rules until the bubble broke.

Basically, being liberal DOES NOT MEAN WE HAVE TO BE BLIND TO REALITY, and their blind partisanship keeps the locked into erroneous economic assertions.

"Neither is their absolute hard headed attitude that it was Bush (whom I was not fond of) who caused the housing balloon and subsequent crash. They stick to government sources or semi government sources to claim, "it was all Bush and the CRA had no part in it." That in spite of the fact that more recent studies on the matter, which show their methods of research, in fact conclude that CRA did have a part and that government entities pushed low interest, bad credit and no down payment rules until the bubble broke."



The Republi-CON Zombie Myth That the Government Forced the Banks to Make Bad Loans



Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

A THIRTY YEAR OLD LAW CAUSED THIS 2004-2007

March 4, 2013

The latest failed effort to blame the Community Reinvestment Act for Accounting Control Fraud


heir title is “Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending?” Their abstract answers: “Yes, it did.” They claim that their econometric study proves causality – which is impossible given their methodology. The authors were taught from their freshman years that an econometric study of this nature could not prove causality. Errors this basic and embarrassing demonstrate the crippling grip of the authors’ biases.


The latest failed effort to blame the Community Reinvestment Act for Accounting Control Fraud - New Economic PerspectivesNew Economic Perspectives

NEWER STUDY DEBUNKING AEI TALKLING POINTS



January 2013
Debunking the CRA Myth – Again




Since its enactment in 1977, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) has been the subject of extensive debate, which has intensified in the wake of the subprime crisis. One of the pernicious myths surrounding CRA is that it encouraged banks to make risky loans to low‐ and moderate‐income borrowers.

This argument has been made primarily by conservative think tanks, like American Enterprise Institute, who find it convenient to include CRA in their general position against governmental intervention in the private market.

But efforts to blame CRA for the most recent crisis reflect a deep misunderstanding of the scope and scale of CRA and its implementation. Indeed, the “blame the CRA” story has been refuted by industry leaders and researchers time and time again. Unfortunately, this narrative refuses to go away


In this paper, center researchers review the research evidence on CRA and show that there is no credible research to support the assertion that CRA contributed to an increase in risky lending during the subprime boom.


UNC Center for Community Capital


YES, DUBYA REGULATOR FAILURE OF A BANKSTER WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST


MORE HERE

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

 

[Dad2three]

I think the left's explaination would ultimately depend on their compassion for those who absolutely cant support themselves. As a conservative I don't mind supporting those folks as long as its done in a way that doesn't produce more and more of them.

The utter destruction of the black family and black culture is a case in point wherein liberal compassion turns into near-genocide.

I think it's worse than slavery. The slaves were aware of their oppression and would try and escape.

When a black person tries to escape dependency, they're demonized and reviled and not only by the masters, but by their former peers as well.

yes I agree. Reagan said, "isn't welfare a form of slavery." Notice how when you say these things the liberals suddenly fall silent. I don't think I"ve heard one step forward to defend how they destroyed the black family. It appears they are not proud of their handy work, but they remain sure they will get it right next time!

Defend what? False premises distortions and lies from right wingers? lol

Keep up the good work cons, I'm sure black people LOVE to hear how dumb they are from the GOPers

 

[Dad2three]

Welfare is a form of slavery for those who are dependent upon the government.

And DEBT is a slavery for those who have to work for a living...especially high interest credit card debt for which the debtor only makes minimum payments.

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households


Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.


Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Defend what? False premises distortions and lies from right wingers? lol

dear if liberals did not attack and destroy the black family who did? Are you afriad to say??

 

[boedicca]

D23:

Thanks for the non sequitur, bub.

 

[Dad2three]

I think it's worse than slavery. The slaves were aware of their oppression and would try and escape.

When a black person tries to escape dependency, they're demonized and reviled and not only by the masters, but by their former peers as well.

yes I agree. Reagan said, "isn't welfare a form of slavery." Notice how when you say these things the liberals suddenly fall silent. I don't think I"ve heard one step forward to defend how they destroyed the black family. It appears they are not proud of their handy work, but they remain sure they will get it right next time!

The research paper I did for my Ed.S dissertation was solely about the South East Alabama area. I got data from all the rehab counselors in the state service, the high schools in Houston County, AL, and from questionnaires submitted by all of my disabled clients in the county. The questions submitted included those about prior family assistance, current family assistance, the number of workers in the household, whether or not the client was planning to train for a job after completion of the request of assistance from the rehab service plus many more which we don't have the time or space to discuss here. (all in all over 130 survey questions from all of the clients, counselors, school administrations et al. Welfare is absolutely habituating. Yet I don't believe we should simply cut them off. We need to work with recipients and gradually reduce the assistance for all physically, mentally and emotionally capable of working. My null hypothesis was that assistance was NOT habituating, but when subjecting the questions to a Chi Square statistical analysis, it was VERY statistically significantly positive for habituation.

5 year LIFETIME limit on welfare

Among the 254 counties where food stamp recipients doubled between 2007 and 2011, Republican Mitt Romney won 213 of them in last year’s presidential election, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data compiled by Bloomberg. Kentucky’s Owsley County, which backed Romney with 81 percent of its vote, has the largest proportion of food stamp recipients among those that he carried.



Food Stamp Cut Backed by Republicans With Voters on Rolls - Bloomberg



Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation



In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.


Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala | New Republic

 

[Immanuel]

You CLAIM Rushblo follows Uncle Milties economic theory, though Uncle Miltie doesn't claim tax cuts create more revenues (nor ANY credible economists).. Go figure you are ALWAYS wrong

total illiterate!!! they are both huge advocates of free markets and both are/were for cuting taxes all the time and for any reason!


The most recent supply-side proposal, riding a boomlet of popu-
]arity, is a fiat rate income tax.6 Properly termed a degressive tax, it
would apply a fiat rate to all income above some exemption level.
The virtue of this scheme, ]ong advocated by Milton Friedman, is
that it could raise revenue in amounts comparahle to the present
system yet with a rate below 15 percent. This would drastically
reduce marginal tax rates, simplify the tax system, eliminate the tax
shelter game, and improve resource allocation

Which is why congress will never allow it to become reality. As long as our tax code exists as it is, Congress can manipulate the people. Congress wields uncontrollable power due to their control of tax policy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Welfare is a form of slavery for those who are dependent upon the government.

And DEBT is a slavery for those who have to work for a living...especially high interest credit card debt for which the debtor only makes minimum payments.

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households


Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.


Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Here’s what Haskins reported: From 1980 to 2011, annual spending on these programs grew from $126 billion to $626 billion (all figures in inflation-adjusted “2011 dollars”); dividing this by the number of people below the government poverty line, spending went from $4,300 per poor person in 1980 to $13,000 in 2011. In 1962, spending per person in poverty was $516.


Haskins’s list includes Medicaid, food stamps (now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP), the earned-income tax credit (a wage subsidy for some low-income workers), and Pell Grants. There are other, smaller programs dedicated to the poor. A report from the Congressional Research Service estimated the total number at 83; Haskins puts the additional spending on programs below the 10 largest at about $210 billion. The total of all programs for the poor exceeds $800 billion.

To be sure, some spending reflects the effects of the Great Recession. But most doesn’t. As Haskins shows, spending on the poor has increased steadily for decades. Consider food stamps. There are now about 45 million Americans receiving an average of $287 a month in food stamps, up from 26 million in 2007, according to a new Congressional Budget Office report. But the number in 2007, when the economy was healthy, was roughly 50 percent higher than in 2001.

And programs for the poor pale beside middle-class transfers. The giants here are Social Security at $725 billion in 2011 and Medicare at $560 billion. Combine all this spending -- programs for the poor, Social Security and Medicare — and the total is nearly $2.1 trillion. That was about 60 percent of 2011 non-interest federal spending of $3.4 trillion.

 

[Dad2three]

Defend what? False premises distortions and lies from right wingers? lol

dear if liberals did not attack and destroy the black family who did? Are you afriad to say??

Let me guess? LBJ the guy who gave them the civil rights movement that conservatives (not GOPers of yester year), conservatives hated then and now


PLEASE give me ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Let me guess? LBJ the guy who gave them the civil rights movement that conservatives (not GOPers of yester year), conservatives hated then and now?

dear if liberals did not attack and destroy the black family who did? Are you afraid to say??

 

[Dad2three]

Welfare is a form of slavery for those who are dependent upon the government.

And DEBT is a slavery for those who have to work for a living...especially high interest credit card debt for which the debtor only makes minimum payments.

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households


Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.


Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Here’s what Haskins reported: From 1980 to 2011, annual spending on these programs grew from $126 billion to $626 billion (all figures in inflation-adjusted “2011 dollars”); dividing this by the number of people below the government poverty line, spending went from $4,300 per poor person in 1980 to $13,000 in 2011. In 1962, spending per person in poverty was $516.


Haskins’s list includes Medicaid, food stamps (now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP), the earned-income tax credit (a wage subsidy for some low-income workers), and Pell Grants. There are other, smaller programs dedicated to the poor. A report from the Congressional Research Service estimated the total number at 83; Haskins puts the additional spending on programs below the 10 largest at about $210 billion. The total of all programs for the poor exceeds $800 billion.

To be sure, some spending reflects the effects of the Great Recession. But most doesn’t. As Haskins shows, spending on the poor has increased steadily for decades. Consider food stamps. There are now about 45 million Americans receiving an average of $287 a month in food stamps, up from 26 million in 2007, according to a new Congressional Budget Office report. But the number in 2007, when the economy was healthy, was roughly 50 percent higher than in 2001.

And programs for the poor pale beside middle-class transfers. The giants here are Social Security at $725 billion in 2011 and Medicare at $560 billion. Combine all this spending -- programs for the poor, Social Security and Medicare — and the total is nearly $2.1 trillion. That was about 60 percent of 2011 non-interest federal spending of $3.4 trillion.

Right wing garbage. SS/Medicare are FUNDED by taxes directed to those things, YOU KNOW THE 3.6+ TRILLION 'BORROWED' TO HIDE THE COSTS OF REAGAN/BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH?

Yes, people in red states need help. Look around, 1/3rd of southern states are in poverty today!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

PLEASE give me ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on

that is way beyond dumb of course!! Conservatives like Aristotle and our Founders are/were for freedom from govt. Liberals are 100% opposed and so spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb. Now they have elected Obama, a guy with 3 communist parents who voted to left of Bernie Sanders, the only open lib commie in Congress!!!

Wrong side of history?? Do you understand now?

 

[Dad2three]

You got that right. Overregulation caused the credit meltdown. No one disputes this!

Yeah, except those with a functioning brain

can dumbto3 tell us how the massive liberal interference designed to get folks into homes the free market said they could not afford did not cause the crisis?? Afraid to try?

PRIVATE SECTOR CAUSED THE WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. DUBYA'S REGULATOR FAILURE 2004-2007 ALLOWED THE US SUBPRIME BUBBLE TO INFLATE AND BUST. Simple really


The historical "originate and hold" mortgage model was replaced with the "originate and distribute" model. Incentives were such that you could get paid just to originate and sell the mortgages down the pipeline, passing the risk along.

MORE HERE


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

 

[alan1]

I'm pretty sure that how much I earn is in no way related to the morals of my adult offspring.

Just saying.

That part is true. But how about the third question, which you've ignored.

Considering how you earned your living, and/or how your father earned his. How does one go about "earning" fifty billion dollars?

When we consider the emergence of the 1% vs the 99% within the past three decades of "Reaganomics," would you argue the concept of morality does not arise?

For one thing, consider one's motivation to acquire that much money. How would you define it?

I would argue that simply amassing large amounts of wealth or income do not indicate anything immoral has occurred. Your approach from that angle seems more like jealousy than honesty.

In reality, there has always been a 1% richest and and a 99% poorer. There has also always existed a 1% healthiest and 99% less healthy. It is even factual that there has always existed a 1% smartest and a 99% less intelligent. That's just the way math and percentages work. That doesn't make it evil, it just is.

 

[boedicca]

Yeah, except those with a functioning brain

can dumbto3 tell us how the massive liberal interference designed to get folks into homes the free market said they could not afford did not cause the crisis?? Afraid to try?

PRIVATE SECTOR CAUSED THE WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. DUBYA'S REGULATOR FAILURE 2004-2007 ALLOWED THE US SUBPRIME BUBBLE TO INFLATE AND BUST. Simple really




The historical "originate and hold" mortgage model was replaced with the "originate and distribute" model. Incentives were such that you could get paid just to originate and sell the mortgages down the pipeline, passing the risk along.

MORE HERE


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

Typing it in all caps doesn't make it true, bub.