The Greatest Redistribution of Income in History

[MikeK]

Why are those bankers getting so rich? It's because the vast majority of the less that bright American public can't wait to run out and get the latest flat screen, i-pad, cell phone or other gadget we can't live without and putting it on that credit card. Someone gets to collect all that interest. Oh, life's so unfair.

I don't know about that. Consumption drives the economy.

The reason the bankers are effectively resurrecting the Robber Baron era is they are permitted by our corrupt government to perpetrate usury.


American Express
301 N. Walnut St, #1002, Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Apex Credit Cards
1000 N. West St, Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Bank of America
1100 N. French St, Wilmington, Delaware 19884

Chase Manhattan Bank
500 White Clay Center Dr, Newark, Delaware 19711

Discover Card Services
P.O. Box 15251, Wilmington, DE 19886


Note the corporate address of some of the biggest usurers: Who was the Senator of that state for decades? (Now) vice-President Joe Biden.

It is no surprise to me that I've never heard President "Change" addressing the problem of credit card interest.

 

[Gadawg73]

Why are those bankers getting so rich? It's because the vast majority of the less that bright American public can't wait to run out and get the latest flat screen, i-pad, cell phone or other gadget we can't live without and putting it on that credit card. Someone gets to collect all that interest. Oh, life's so unfair.

I don't know about that. Consumption drives the economy.

The reason the bankers are effectively resurrecting the Robber Baron era is they are permitted by our corrupt government to perpetrate usury.


American Express
301 N. Walnut St, #1002, Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Apex Credit Cards
1000 N. West St, Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Bank of America
1100 N. French St, Wilmington, Delaware 19884

Chase Manhattan Bank
500 White Clay Center Dr, Newark, Delaware 19711

Discover Card Services
P.O. Box 15251, Wilmington, DE 19886


Note the corporate address of some of the biggest usurers: Who was the Senator of that state for decades? (Now) vice-President Joe Biden.

It is no surprise to me that I've never heard President "Change" addressing the problem of credit card interest.

Biden is a dumbass and your claim is on par with that.
Biden was US Senator and has nothing to do with Delaware legislation. Biden was on the Judiciary committee in the Senate, NOT banking in any way.
Dupont led the charge to get banks to Delaware starting in the late 70s.
HE WAS REPUBLICAN.
Main reason: LOWER TAXES and free market for credit.
Low taxes and free market for credit a Democratic platform?

 

[daveman]

Nobody is telling anyone to do anything. My view of a poor or middle class republican voter is much like the unpopular kid trying to join a frat. They're going to paddle him and he's going to say "please Sir, Can I have another". But they won't let him join.

You don't actually know any conservatives in real life, do you?

We used to steal, TAKE the frat boy's beer, laugh at their dates and call their first born ugly.
Wasn't very popular but we were never thirsty.

 

[MikeK]

Corporations answer to their stock share holders.
Stock holders are majority ordinary US citizens, teachers, widows, union members, grocery workers, etc.
Corporations never pay taxes. PEOPLE pay taxes. All corporations do is COLLECT $ from their customers and pass it on to the government as taxes.
Corporations leave this country because consumers DEMAND a lower price for goods and services.
The WAL MART society. Check the shoes you are wearing. YOU support companies going over seas. Quit demanding it and it goes away. Lower the capital gains tax and corporate tax and ALL of the over seas $$ comes back lickity split.

I don't think so.

Lowering the corporate tax, which already lowers itself via the most brazenly imaginative loopholes in the history of the tax-law craft, cannot compete with Indian and Mexican workers who are paid $1 an hour rather than the $10 - $15 an hour an American worker would rightfully demand. What we are seeing today is exactly what Ross Perot warned us about -- ". . .a Giant Sucking Sound!" He was right.

What is needed is authoritative federal action, import tariffs and forceful reversal of all the things Reagan, Clinton and Bush did to sabotage what was a well-oiled economic system until that corporatist puppet/movie actor got elected in 1980.

Would I advocate a step in the direction of isolationism? Yes. Why not? It's either that or eventually being swallowed by China.

 

[Gadawg73]

Corporations answer to their stock share holders.
Stock holders are majority ordinary US citizens, teachers, widows, union members, grocery workers, etc.
Corporations never pay taxes. PEOPLE pay taxes. All corporations do is COLLECT $ from their customers and pass it on to the government as taxes.
Corporations leave this country because consumers DEMAND a lower price for goods and services.
The WAL MART society. Check the shoes you are wearing. YOU support companies going over seas. Quit demanding it and it goes away. Lower the capital gains tax and corporate tax and ALL of the over seas $$ comes back lickity split.

I don't think so.

Lowering the corporate tax, which already lowers itself via the most brazenly imaginative loopholes in the history of the tax-law craft, cannot compete with Indian and Mexican workers who are paid $1 an hour rather than the $10 - $15 an hour an American worker would rightfully demand. What we are seeing today is exactly what Ross Perot warned us about -- ". . .a Giant Sucking Sound!" He was right.

What is needed is authoritative federal action, import tariffs and forceful reversal of all the things Reagan, Clinton and Bush did to sabotage what was a well-oiled economic system until that corporatist puppet/movie actor got elected in 1980.

Would I advocate a step in the direction of isolationism? Yes. Why not? It's either that or eventually being swallowed by China.

Your version is a liberal's dream.
Corporations pay NO taxes ever.
PEOPLE PAY TAXES.
All corporations do is add on to the COGS for taxes and collect it and pass it on.

 

[gekaap]

So you want to prevent damage to the economy by forcing companies to stay in country? What if they can't compete and decide to go out of business? Are you going to force them to stay open?

Take your time. I can tell you haven't given this any thought.

Someone's read Atlas Shrugged too many times.

 

[rhodescholar]

Or maybe your hatred is reserved for Arabs only?

Fuck the Gipper on February 6th.

Not only are you fucking stupid, but historically clueless, if you think FDRs policies were in any way economically helpful. Go check the rate of unemployment from the 1920 through the early 1940s to see how the New Deal impacted them, I dare you. Assuming you have the brains to track them on the web.

As for the crybaby whiners complaining about how other people make more money than they do - get off your fucking ass and get a job that pays more, you lazy fucking turds.

I'd be surprised if a lazy, not-so-bright fool like you isn't working in a public union in some city pushing paper back and forth waiting for your pension at age 50...

 

[rhodescholar]

Very few have made more bad choices than I have; however, I've also been working full time since the mid 60s, so I've experienced personally the redistribution of wealth that's taken place in this country since Japan and Germany rebuilt their economies after WWII. My own laziness and poor choices don't change the fact that since the mid 70s it has become impossible for a middle class family to live on one income.

Fucking hilarious, how an idiot on the Far Left is whining about how the middle class has fallen behind.

Well fuckbrain, maybe you and your fellow leftist asshole maybe should not have been so sympathetic to the hordes of illegal and legal immigrants flowing into this country by the millions, eh?

Or how about the massive taxes and fees that the middle class is paying to their local governments to ensure public workers' benefits and pensions are protected no matter what the larger economy is doing?

Tell me again why the Leftists like you keep defending these leeches?

"In 1967, the middle 60 percent of households received over 52 per cent of all income. In 1998, it was down to 47 per cent. The share going to the poor has also fallen, with the top 20 per cent seeing their share rise." Those of you with children need to think about what this economy is likely to be like 30-40 years from now if it doesn't change trajectory.

No doubt, the country is stratifying into a large mass of poor and a tiny group of wealthy, but it has been leftists' policies that have helped to accelerate this issue. Huge hordes of illegal aliens with their health care and housing needs, along with their children's public school costs covered by the tax dollars of everyone else, living in the country for free, nah that hasn't harmed the middle class

 

[rhodescholar]

Are you drinking?

Weren't income tax rates around 90% during Ike's Administration?

Should we compare corporate tax rates then and now?

Idiot, the 90% rate was only on income OVER a certain amount, NOT all income for those earning over, say $4 MM -just like the system today, but if you had a brain you'd know that.

As for combined income taxes, sales taxes, fees, property taxes, etc., combined, the amount of money being transferred from the public to the state is at its peak. Ever hear of Tax Freedom day?

 

[daveman]

So you want to prevent damage to the economy by forcing companies to stay in country? What if they can't compete and decide to go out of business? Are you going to force them to stay open?

Take your time. I can tell you haven't given this any thought.

Someone's read Atlas Shrugged too many times.

Never have, actually. I just don't believe the bullshit that says the government is the answer to every problem.

 

[snjmom]

So you want to prevent damage to the economy by forcing companies to stay in country? What if they can't compete and decide to go out of business? Are you going to force them to stay open?

Take your time. I can tell you haven't given this any thought.

Someone's read Atlas Shrugged too many times.

Never have, actually. I just don't believe the bullshit that says the government is the answer to every problem.

Don't tell that to the mega-wealthy. Without government, true competition would ruin them.

 

[rhodescholar]

The reason such relative successes are possible is the vastness of America's resources, which are not self-sustaining.

Uh, it was the RESOURCEFULNESS of the individuals EARNING that money that made it.

Something you need to understand is this is America, not Saudi Arabia where the wealthy get to keep all their money and the poor and the sick are left to beg and die in the streets of their slums.

Uh, where in the US Constitution does it mention I must support and feed someone who is lazy and made bad decisions?

I can do out of altruism, but how liberals, who seem to prefer taking other people's money who have worked harder than they, or chose more years of schooling then they did. That is a system called socialism, and is designed to fail.

That's essentially how FDR's New Deal managed to pull America out of its economic pit and bring about the most prosperous four decades in our history.

You do not have a fucking clue what you are talking about.

Why is that far leftists cling to the myth that the New Deal reduced unemployment and improved the economy?

 

[rhodescholar]

"How can 250 workers, no matter how wise and talented, produce as much real worth speculating on stuff as 35,000 Apple employees can make inventing, manufacturing and marketing useful products?

More proof of your stupidity. Please enlighten us as to exactly WHAT products Apple Computer "manufactures". Thanks for sharing.

 

[gekaap]

Nor do I. But then again, that was never suggested. You are painting a very difficult scenario, and presenting a false dilemma. Some amount of government regulation or involvement does not imply nor necessitate an eventual or attempted supreme and total control by the government.

In order to maintain a functional economy, the US needs to have jobs available in the country. And the government is right to attempt to retain jobs inside the country. If every and all jobs were outsourced somehow (wouldn't actually be possible, but for argument's sake), the economy would not survive because nobody would have a job with which to purchase the goods and services that American companies are offering. If a company cannot compete because they are "forced" to rely on American labor, then the company fails. It's a pretty piss poor excuse. Find a way to be competitive, or you accept that you didn't have what it takes. That's the American way, isn't it? Plenty of companies are able to compete by using American labor. As a matter of fact, there are foreign companies, like Toyota, who are able to be competitive in the US by relying on American labor and paying workers well more than would be the norm for a comparable company based in the US and outsourcing the labor.

The real problem with companies' ability to "compete" is that American business practices of the modern times favor gluttonously high compensation at the highest levels of the corporate world, with the people who sign their own paychecks eagerly engaging in irresponsible business for the sake of protecting their increasingly gluttonous wages and bonuses.

 

[daveman]

Someone's read Atlas Shrugged too many times.

Never have, actually. I just don't believe the bullshit that says the government is the answer to every problem.

Don't tell that to the mega-wealthy. Without government, true competition would ruin them.

Yeah, kinda doubt it.

 

[rhodescholar]

The trouble with those people who are on the right and are making average wages is they lack class consciousness, which is why they vote against their interests.
.

Wrong dipshit. It is because those people actually believe in STRIVING for something, working hard to earn it, and achieving their goals. A notion that lazy, unintelligent, unskilled, and unwilling leftists cannot comprehend. They'd prefer to just leech off of those who do succeed like the parasites they are.

 

[daveman]

Nor do I. But then again, that was never suggested. You are painting a very difficult scenario, and presenting a false dilemma. Some amount of government regulation or involvement does not imply nor necessitate an eventual or attempted supreme and total control by the government.

In order to maintain a functional economy, the US needs to have jobs available in the country. And the government is right to attempt to retain jobs inside the country. If every and all jobs were outsourced somehow (wouldn't actually be possible, but for argument's sake), the economy would not survive because nobody would have a job with which to purchase the goods and services that American companies are offering. If a company cannot compete because they are "forced" to rely on American labor, then the company fails. It's a pretty piss poor excuse. Find a way to be competitive, or you accept that you didn't have what it takes. That's the American way, isn't it? Plenty of companies are able to compete by using American labor. As a matter of fact, there are foreign companies, like Toyota, who are able to be competitive in the US by relying on American labor and paying workers well more than would be the norm for a comparable company based in the US and outsourcing the labor.

The real problem with companies' ability to "compete" is that American business practices of the modern times favor gluttonously high compensation at the highest levels of the corporate world, with the people who sign their own paychecks eagerly engaging in irresponsible business for the sake of protecting their increasingly gluttonous wages and bonuses.

Your scenario only involves a relatively small number of companies. Government intrusion affects all companies, large and small...and small companies, I believe, employ more people than large ones. They're also less protected against overbearing government. Where a large company might move overseas, a small company will simply shut its doors and put people out of work.

Get government out of the way.

 

[gekaap]

Your own explanation contradicts your premises. If indeed small businesses provide the majority of our jobs (I once heard the figure was somewhere around 90% of people worked for a small business, but that seems a bit high), then there must not be any significant issue of an overbearing government forcing small business to shut its doors. Most people are employed, even if unemployment rates remain high, so any complications caused by the government must not be so substantial, and most small businesses must apparently be able to be successful in the environment.

Also, your explanation deviates from what you said in the first place. You argued that not being able to outsource jobs could force companies to fold because they can't compete. Based on your most recent comment, this would mean that we're looking at large companies, but you also say that these very same companies are not only better suited to deal with government intrusion, but they also represent a smaller portion of the jobs market. Thus, the concern is exponentially less where the overall economy is concerned.

Of course, through all of that, the scenario you paint is that a company must either be able to outsource jobs to remain competitive, or will be forced to shut its doors if it must keep jobs here in the US. Assuming for a moment the company does go under. The only people losing their jobs would be the people who didn't have jobs in the first place, because those jobs were outsourced.

 

[rhodescholar]

That is saying if a corporate entity doesn't like the tax rate it's okay to move its activities to another country in spite of the damage it will cause to the economy of the Nation and the People that hosted and facilitated its growth. Corporations that engage in such betrayal are not motivated by survival but by greed.

I believe one of the U.S. economy's most serious problems today is such treacherous abandonment is tolerated without penalty or a hint of retaliation.

Are you mentally retarded? Or 3 years old? WTF makes you think that the people who run these corporations somehow "owe" something to the workers who are there BY CHOICE? The only people these companies "owe" anything to is their shareholders, the OWNERS of the companies, and the executives fundamental role is to maximize profits for the shareholders.

That's called basic economics, you might want to try studying it one day.

 

[rhodescholar]

Lowering the corporate tax, which already lowers itself via the most brazenly imaginative loopholes in the history of the tax-law craft, cannot compete with Indian and Mexican workers who are paid $1 an hour rather than the $10 - $15 an hour an American worker would rightfully demand. What we are seeing today is exactly what Ross Perot warned us about -- ". . .a Giant Sucking Sound!" He was right.

What is needed is authoritative federal action, import tariffs and forceful reversal of all the things Reagan, Clinton and Bush did to sabotage what was a well-oiled economic system until that corporatist puppet/movie actor got elected in 1980.

Would I advocate a step in the direction of isolationism? Yes. Why not? It's either that or eventually being swallowed by China.

So leftist asshole, are you willing to accept the consequences of doing this:

1-will devastate the economies of mexico and china, and lead to those countries potentially initiating wars against the US, let alone driving millions more illegals into the US for jobs.

2-reduced standard of living in the US as items become far less affordable; that microwave made in china costs $100, if made in the US with US labor, now costs $500 - still want to buy it? How about those new pants for work, affordable at $50 imported from Thailand, but suddenly unaffordable at $200 if made in the US....get the picture?

Again, there are posters here who need serious economics remedial study...