Under Bush US's 400 richest doubled their wealth

[sealybobo]

that's all they have left

When asked a simple question about the stimulus and how it does not actually contain all that great infrastructure spending that is supposed to return $1.58 for every dollar spent, and which is one of the main reasons they support the bill, they resort to personal attacks and try to tell me who I voted for.

It's sad really.

We told you for 8 years you were a fucking moron and we ended up being correct.

So now you are suggesting that we don't know what we are doing? Why don't you just watch and see.

We told you this crash was going to occur and you mocked us. I even have emails from co-workers who remind me of you and they said, "sealybobo, you always think the sky is falling". Well guess what? It did fall.

ThomHartmann.com - How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?

since i haven't been posting here for 8 years, you obviously have me confused with someone else.

and I have been reading about the mortgage bubble for a long time and i knew the bubble would eventually pop but unlike you I will put the blame on government meddling in the economy and the government waste of taxpayer money in that scam of a bail out.

That you think more and more of your money should go to the same corrupt government that is the cause of this mess makes you a fucking moron not me.

The government that caused this was voted out in the 06 and 08 elections.

Not one Democratic encumbant lost their seat in 08. Isn't that something? That means people all over the country realized that their GOP representatives were voting with GW 90% of the time. Fuck that, 100% of the time. Because Delay got what he wanted and Bush got what he wanted.

Also, explain how Bush didn't veto one bill in the 6 years the GOP were in control. That's when the treasury was looted, you fucking treasonist, stupid lying traitors. You fucked over the country. And you aren't even benefitting from it. Chances are, it cost you. Fucking morons, still defending Bush.

I don't need to know you 8 years ago. You are the same liar/idiot you are now. Maybe now you are even dumber. I feel dumber after 8 years of GW Bush.

And did you see it is true? 1 million iraqi's murdered, 4 million widows/orphans, millions displaced, GW is a murderer. You defended murder. We told you. Like good little nazi's. Nationalism/Feudalism/Fascism.

Remember we were hurting the war effort when we were practicing our freedom of speech? You hate freedom.

PS. Weren't you the one that said suicides of soldiers wasn't high?

Weren't you the one that argued in favor of global warming, gas gouging, wmd's, letting bin ladin get away, scooter libby, leaking a cia agents name for political gains, politicizing the justice dept, tax breaks to the rich.

Have you been right about anything?

 

[sealybobo]

I don't think the argument is against the bail out in general as you are assuming. The argument is against what measures are being used to specify where the funds are going. If we put money into schools, state level grants and so forth then the economy would see a prosperous effect. But the truth of the matter is the bail out is not regulated and the money is being handed out to places where it is more personal than economically beneficial for the parties involved. So while the sugar coated version of this proposal you have posted about is acceptable in theory it fails to state the reality of the situation.

As per the use of welfare, we have to look at the possibility of states becoming dependent upon this welfare. If this becomes the case a bail out would in turn become necessary federal funding. A slippery slope indeed! The proposition needs to be an immediate boost to the affected regions in a way that will coincide with the ability to function without further government assistance. It is my belief that we are finding it all to easy to rely on the welfare option in America because that is an area where America knows the government will spend to maintain.

So a revision of the qualifications to get welfare as well as government grants for care providing centers for the working class is necessary before granting the money; otherwise we will be in the same situation in another 20 years. Monitoring school spending is also an important measure. I have seen schools spend more on a football field in one year than three years of educational materiel. This spending is counterproductive to stimulation of the United States economy and actually detrimental in three major ways. One, the providers of new educational resources are seeing a decrease in consumers. Two, students are being taught less adequate subject material than is available thus less prepared for the college arena. Three, a High School diploma holds less importance because the standard level of education that was once a high school diploma is not reached until an associates degree is acquired.

So the money issue is not one of just where to put the money but how to regulate the use of funds in order to ensure that the stimulus regenerates the economy but also causes it to run in a self sufficient manner where a future bail out will not be necessary. Once this happens I will agree with a government stimulus package but until then it is sugar coated privatized funding.

Yes, that is what we knew would happen if we gave Bush/Paulson the money. Especially when we saw this in their original proposal:

Dirty Secret Of The Bailout: Thirty-Two Words That None Dare Utter

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

But we were forced to give Bush the $ or be blamed for the crashing of the economy. After all, we controlled congress, right? So we gave Bush the $350 billion and he stole it just like we knew he would. But what else could we do? Do you know what an October Surprise is? The GOP tried 2 times. First they tried to make an issue out of Georgia/Russia and then finally ripped us off of $350 billion.

Let's go after that money!!!! Or do you think they should be able to keep it. Or take ownership of the banks they bought. We didn't give them the money to buy other banks. So lets own them.

They got you people brainwashed that you think your government is the enemy. Its your government. And we just elected a man of the people. Tell him what you want!!!

Don't think it will matter? That's your first mistake. I get emails every day/week asking me how I want my reps to vote on each bill. Do you fill that out? Then don't complain.

 

[Bern80]

I have never understood what some people have against the rich. I'll probably never be super rich but I hope to do ok and I sure don't want some helpful wealth redistribution plan to punish me for being successful by giving what I worked for to someone that didn't.

Damn, are you that innocent? When an industry makes a profit, that money can be used to increase the efficiency of the industry. It can be used to start new industries. It can be used to increase the standard of living for the people working in that industry. Or it can be funneled all to the top. And it has been almost all funneled to the top for the last 40 years.

Prove 1) that the above happens at all and 2) if so, that it is the general rule under which the majority (or hell, even a little less than half) operate under.

 

[Bern80]

Why in the hell should you care. I mean like the fellow I work with that has put the max in his 401-k for the whole time that he has worked, creating a nice retirement fund in the upper six figures. Now 67% of that is gone. Or the young man with a wife and two kids. Bought a fixer upper, 30% down, and reasonable payments. Except that he no longer has a job, and little prospect of getting another one in this economy. Oh yes, his wife has developed a medical condition, and once his medical lapses, the medical on the next job will not cover the prior existing condition.

We realize that you people don't care. It is an accepted fact. We just have to keep people like you from ever having the kind of say in our government that you have had for the last eight years.

Another stupid sentiment. Are you familiar at all with the concept of risk? Where on your 401k does it say you are garunteed you won't lose it in the stock market? Where does it say the value of your home won't go down? Where does it say if you were unaware or simply didn't intend for those risks that is someone else's responsibility to bail you out?

 

[Truthmatters]

which is why we need SS

 

[sealybobo]

have never understood what some people have against the rich. I'll probably never be super rich but I hope to do ok and I sure don't want some helpful wealth redistribution plan to punish me for being successful by giving what I worked for to someone that didn't.
.

This is exactly how rich people get poor people to vote with them. Exactly what you just said here is what runs through people's minds right before they vote against their own best interests.

So because one day you might possibly hopefully become wealthy, you vote against your own best interest now in hopes that one day you'll be on the other side?

I got news for you. Right now, they have redistributed the tax burden on to us. Us and future generations are going to pay for Bush's tax cuts to the rich. So we deserve to have some of that wealth re-distributed back to us.

And did anyone get rich under Bush? Why not? Don't American's work hard?

Trust me, you will never be rich enough to benefit from GOPanomics. Think about the people who brag they got an extra $1500 a year from Bush than they did with Clinton. Would you trade the $1500 a year for a strong economy? Did that guy probably put $500 of that $1500 back into his gas tank? Did his home value go down more than $1500 a year?

 

[Bern80]

which is why we need SS

Eh, on the fence on that one. Some people certainly don't 'need' it. Which is why I don't think modifying it some ways wouldn't hurt. At least allow the option to invest it in the private sector for example.

 

[Shogun]

Another stupid sentiment. Are you familiar at all with the concept of risk? Where on your 401k does it say you are garunteed you won't lose it in the stock market? Where does it say the value of your home won't go down? Where does it say if you were unaware or simply didn't intend for those risks that is someone else's responsibility to bail you out?

which is pretty much why we don't hear capitalistas crying about how they could invest their money for retirement into the market on their own these days, eh? Funny how that hindsight always kicks the shit out of your standard issue WSJ economic opinions, eh?

hey, lets GAMBLE with some retirement funds! THATS probably not a crazy emergency just waiting to blossom!

You silly bastards don't need vegas because your monkey is the stock exchange. And, like junkies, you are CONVINCED that everyone can win with just another quarter invested into your slot machine.

 

[auditor0007]

When the rich or white collar workers take from the poor this is okay though?

Come on guys when you use and abuse someone elses labor you are in effect a thief for the rich or the upper middleclass with investments.

When you use a poor man's lower credit score to justify higher insurance rates you effectively robbed from the poor to give to the rich. Low credit scores are not necessarily from non payment of bills. If you have not borrowed money you may have a lower credit score and therefore be charged extra by the rigged system that is now in place.

When credit companies make loans to people they now do not have enough to actually make timely payments and charge that extra 45 bucks a month for a ten dollar two day late payment you have basically allowed and assisted the rich to steal from the poor.

A poor family with two parents working 40 and 50 hour weeks are considered lazy by a few of the posters because they work at jobs that produce a product via a service industry that creates paper debt using other peoples money. And people wonder why this countries economy is in the shitter.

ok--how can a family with two regular incomes be considered poor ?

He works 50 hours a week at a brick factory grosses approx. $1,760.00 a month.
He drives 31 miles one way to work.
Her gross income is $1,120.00 she works at Sears in phone bank collections. Her job is 18 miles one way to work.

Take home after taxes between the two of them $2,554.00

They have two children. Live in a home with $68,000.00 in loans on it. The second was taken out to fix the leaky roof. ( actually the house is a dump)

House payments total per month $680.00
Child care per month $720.00
Utilties, elect, gas 12mo averaged $136.00 if payment is late there is an extra charge
Garbage $ 25.00
Water/sewer $ 34.00
Car payments for his used pickup $187.00 needs vehicle to get to work
Car payments her used mini van $268.00 needs vehicle to get to work
Car Ins $138.00 a legal requirement of course it has to be f/c since they have car loans.

Living cost monthly total without food, clothes, medical or medical ins w/ copay, fuel, vehicle breakdowns, etc... $1,948.00.

She was out of work and they still have those credit card bills/expenses from that time she was off work for 6 months.


Edited to include. The woman is on meds for depression so that is an extra cost. Does anyone wonder why?

They are both working what amounts to minimum wage jobs. No doubt, it's tough to live on minimum wage. A little education can go a long way to changing that. Unfortunately, once you've started a family, it's not easy to go back to square one.

 

[editec]

I don't think the argument is against the bail out in general as you are assuming. The argument is against what measures are being used to specify where the funds are going.

I think you might be right in most cases, Mr. P.

If we put money into schools, state level grants and so forth then the economy would see a prosperous effect.

Probably...it will certainly get some money into circulation.

But the truth of the matter is the bail out is not regulated and the money is being handed out to places where it is more personal than economically beneficial for the parties involved.

Okay...specifically which money aimed at what programs are you talking about?

I'm not disagreeing, I'm just wondering which you think are pork and which do you think make sense?

As per the use of welfare, we have to look at the possibility of states becoming dependent upon this welfare. If this becomes the case a bail out would in turn become necessary federal funding. A slippery slope indeed!

States are already getting "this welfare" from the FEDS. They've been calling "this welfare" REVENUE SHARING for at least thirty years that I know of.

For example, the states actually oversee day to day operations of FEDERAL Medicare. The government pays for it and outlines the rules of it.

So again, specifically which programs in this bailout are you talking about?

The proposition needs to be an immediate boost to the affected regions in a way that will coincide with the ability to function without further government assistance.

Yeah, that is the goal, I quite agree. And also the goal is to prevent such hardship (while the economy is going down) that people like me don't storm the barricades of the wealthy, gun in hand and TAKE THEIR STUFF.

It is my belief that we are finding it all to easy to rely on the welfare option in America because that is an area where America knows the government will spend to maintain.

Do you remember how WELFARE used to work before the "reform"? If anything we are less a welfare state than we were in the early 1990s.

You haven't noticed?

So a revision of the qualifications to get welfare as well as government grants for care providing centers for the working class is necessary before granting the money; otherwise we will be in the same situation in another 20 years.

What qualifiactions specifically would you change?

Monitoring school spending is also an important measure. I have seen schools spend more on a football field in one year than three years of educational materiel.

Well of course. OTOH, one might be able to cobble together an argument that the football field was a better investment than a classroom, too.

I wouldn't make it because I don't think football is worth a damn, but I could see how somebody could show us that the football stadium would generate more jobs and make that school system more economically viable than some real edcuational investment.

This spending is counterproductive to stimulation of the United States economy and actually detrimental in three major ways. One, the providers of new educational resources are seeing a decrease in consumers. Two, students are being taught less adequate subject material than is available thus less prepared for the college arena. Three, a High School diploma holds less importance because the standard level of education that was once a high school diploma is not reached until an associates degree is acquired.

No, argument from me on those points.

So the money issue is not one of just where to put the money but how to regulate the use of funds in order to ensure that the stimulus regenerates the economy but also causes it to run in a self sufficient manner where a future bail out will not be necessary. Once this happens I will agree with a government stimulus package but until then it is sugar coated privatized funding.

Yup.

Easy to describe generally, damned hard to do in reality.


.

 

[Chris]

90% of Americans control 4% of the wealth.

That's the bottom line.

Most of us are just slaves.

 

[Amanda]

90% of Americans control 4% of the wealth.

That's the bottom line.

Most of us are just slaves.

When I read stuff like this I have to wonder if you think it's so bad why don't you just remove yourself form the system? It's perfectly possible to just live off the land, people have done it for 1000s of years.

No one I hear complaining about the evils of capitalism, etc ever want to just disconnect and I have to wonder why that is. Can you provide any answers?

 

[Truthmatters]

90% of Americans control 4% of the wealth.

That's the bottom line.

Most of us are just slaves.

When I read stuff like this I have to wonder if you think it's so bad why don't you just remove yourself form the system? It's perfectly possible to just live off the land, people have done it for 1000s of years.

No one I hear complaining about the evils of capitalism, etc ever want to just disconnect and I have to wonder why that is. Can you provide any answers?

Maybe because hes a partiot who wants to save his country and democracy from these people who want to BUY it out from underneath the people?

 

[RodISHI]

They are both working what amounts to minimum wage jobs. No doubt, it's tough to live on minimum wage. A little education can go a long way to changing that. Unfortunately, once you've started a family, it's not easy to go back to square one.

You are only assuming that neither one has an education auditor.

She has a college education. Truth is many people select the type of work they do based on what they have to do to make that paycheck. I always did. Some people are unwilling to go into a job that requires screwing someone else out of a buck or taking advantage of someone else.

See that is the problem here to many people are willing to sell themselves into non productive jobs for the buck and stuff their own wallets regardless of how they get it full.

You are claiming it is a matter of education when that is not all of the truth.

Sales can pay well too. No education here I did it back in 1980 for a week. First two days made $600.00 on two telephone ad sales. That is almost thirty years ago. Fact is I did not feel good about it at the end of the day so I did not keep the job.

Saying just get that education to get a decent job is crap. I had several employees that work for me as janitors verses working in jobs they could get with their college degree in the 80's and 90's because they made more money working for me than those jobs they could get with their degrees.

Heck with no education in 1973 my ex made $6.50 an hour at simple labor. That is forty years back. Heck you get rent a fairly decent place for $75.00 a month. Our house payments for a nice 3 bedroom on thee acres in ASouthern California were only a $110.00 a month.

THERE ARE NO EXCUSES FOR PAYING PEOPLE LESS THAN A LIVING WAGE.

The Republicans should have considered that when they had some say in it.

If the Democrats do not consider that they will be out on their ear too!

 

[Chris]

90% of Americans control 4% of the wealth.

That's the bottom line.

Most of us are just slaves.

When I read stuff like this I have to wonder if you think it's so bad why don't you just remove yourself form the system? It's perfectly possible to just live off the land, people have done it for 1000s of years.

No one I hear complaining about the evils of capitalism, etc ever want to just disconnect and I have to wonder why that is. Can you provide any answers?

It's not the evils of capitalism, because we don't have capitalism.

We have socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.

The greedy lying bankers get bailed out by the government, while the hard working person loses their job and their home.

 

[Amanda]

90% of Americans control 4% of the wealth.

That's the bottom line.

Most of us are just slaves.

When I read stuff like this I have to wonder if you think it's so bad why don't you just remove yourself form the system? It's perfectly possible to just live off the land, people have done it for 1000s of years.

No one I hear complaining about the evils of capitalism, etc ever want to just disconnect and I have to wonder why that is. Can you provide any answers?

It's not the evils of capitalism, because we don't have capitalism.

We have socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.

The greedy lying bankers get bailed out by the government, while the hard working person loses their job and their home.

So... why don't you disconnect? What is your goal in staying a slave as you put it?

 

[editec]

90% of Americans control 4% of the wealth.

That's the bottom line.

Most of us are just slaves.

When I read stuff like this I have to wonder if you think it's so bad why don't you just remove yourself form the system? It's perfectly possible to just live off the land, people have done it for 1000s of years.

No one I hear complaining about the evils of capitalism, etc ever want to just disconnect and I have to wonder why that is. Can you provide any answers?

You cannot live in American without being at least in some part, a participant in the capitalist system.

THe Amish have been living off the land for centuries. They make their own food, their own clothes, their own houses and so on an so on,

But nevertheless they still must sell some of what they make to the "Englishmen". A people they're rather not have to interact with at all, if they could avoid it.

You want to know why the Amish can be found selling their stuff in Lancaster Farmers Markets??

Real estate taxes.

The AmerIndians would have been more than happy to continue living off the land, too, and what happened to them?

What was the CAPITALISTS justification for killing the Indians and taking their land without paying them for it?

"They weren't doing anything useful with it"​

Capitalism will just NOT leave people alone to go their non-capitalistic ways, in this nation.

Capitalism is no more non-intrusive to non-participants than COMMUNISM was.

That isn't obvious to you?!

 

[editec]

When I read stuff like this I have to wonder if you think it's so bad why don't you just remove yourself form the system? It's perfectly possible to just live off the land, people have done it for 1000s of years.

No one I hear complaining about the evils of capitalism, etc ever want to just disconnect and I have to wonder why that is. Can you provide any answers?

It's not the evils of capitalism, because we don't have capitalism.

We have socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.

The greedy lying bankers get bailed out by the government, while the hard working person loses their job and their home.

So... why don't you disconnect? What is your goal in staying a slave as you put it?

Are you retarded, or something, Amanda?

I mean that has GOT TO BE the dumbest fucking question I have ever seen on a board.

Why do you choose to be poor. Yikes!

 

[Chris]

When I read stuff like this I have to wonder if you think it's so bad why don't you just remove yourself form the system? It's perfectly possible to just live off the land, people have done it for 1000s of years.

No one I hear complaining about the evils of capitalism, etc ever want to just disconnect and I have to wonder why that is. Can you provide any answers?

It's not the evils of capitalism, because we don't have capitalism.

We have socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.

The greedy lying bankers get bailed out by the government, while the hard working person loses their job and their home.

So... why don't you disconnect? What is your goal in staying a slave as you put it?

I have no interest in being homeless. That's silly.

No, the system can be fixed, and I think it will be fixed in the future. The answers are there. All we need is the political will.

 

[Amanda]

That isn't obvious to you?!

No, it's not.

I grew up in a rural area, it would have been easy to just wander off and find a place no one was using or cared about and made a home. I'm not saying it would be easy like Americans are used to. There would be no electricity or running water, no cable tv or internet. But it could be done and you'd be free.

If you were ever found out... go 100 miles in any direction and start over. It would be a hassle but very do-able.

I'm just saying that it's possible to get off the grid if really want to. I suspect that people don't do it because they don't want to give up modern conveniences. If that's the case then it's a choice, not slavery. And that's my point, we're all willing participants. We can say we're in because we're patriots or we can say we're in because we don't see any problems and like having TV. The point is we choose to stay part of the system.