On Oct 17, 6:30*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
*"Robert Green" wrote:

We've finally reached a point where the blame is being assigned to the right
people. *The destructive credit-swap and subprime mortgage games created the
financial crisis. *There's a clear trail of blood that leads back to the
early deregulation of the 1980s when the middle class started taking the
hits that have led to their stagnant economic position and to the OWS.

* You mean when the Dems were in charge of Congress? (Although in the
interests of fairness, I should point out that all of the Nastiness
pointed to in the laws were passed by large bipartisan majorities. As
has much deviltry over the years.

It's funny how the resident lib knows only one place
to place all the blame.
He's as clueless about economics and the real world as those
smelly skunks stinking up the park at Wall Street. Booms and
busts have occured in free markets throughout history without
much regard to how much regulation there was or wasn't.
The list of those responsible for the current one includes some
on Wall Street. But it also includes pleny on main street too.
Those were the people all too willing to buy houses with little
or nothing down. Houses that had gone up drastically in
price in the last decade. If Wall Street is guilty, so too are
all the people who thought house prices only go up and
they were the perfect invesment.
That includes all those who bought them on flimsy
financing. And how about all those greedy real estate
agents? lawyers, are they not to blame too?

How about Congress? Barney Frank was proclaiming
FNMA, Freddie to still be OK only a couple monts
before they failed. And isn't it the govt that subsidizes
buying houses by making mortgage interest and
taxes deductible? Are they not responsible for creating
artificial demand?

And why is it that libs want more regulation, more
laws from Congress, when Congress has an approval
rating of 13%? How have they shown themselves to
be capable of running Wall Street? They can't even
pass a budget. Where was the #1 govt creation
with regard to this bubble, ie the FED? Why they
had interest rates very low, feeding that housing
bubble and ignoring it. In other words, the regulators
failed as much or more than anyone else.







Finally, we're beginning to see economists and upcoming politicos like
Elizabeth Warren decimate Republican arguments that rebalancing the tax
burden means class warfare. *

Sure. That's why Scott Brown took Ted Kennedy's district.
Why the Dems lost the House in the best ass whooping in 75 years.
Why they just lost Anthony SeeMy Weiner's district in NYC, where
it had been in Democrat hands like Geraldine Ferraro and Chucky
Schumer for 90 years. Keep that decimation coming baby!




The uber-wealthy didn't get rich entirely by
themselves. *They benefited from roads, courts, public safety agencies, the
military and an education system paid for by taxes.

Does a rich guy use the roads more than Joe Six Pack?
The military? The police? I think not. In fact, they are
more likely to have less kids and those might be in
private school. Now, those on welfare, puking out
5 kids with no father to support them, that's an
example of abusing resources.


*Those who have
benefited the most should give back more than they have.

Which they do, but of course the lib can't get that right
either. The top 1% of incomes in this country carry
40% of the income tax burden. I've seen libs asked
many times the following:

A rich guy makes $100. How much of that should
go to the govt? I've yet to hear one give an answer.



*Instead, they
continue to whine that "the rich paying less is good for everyone."

No, because per the above, the rich pay MORE, fool.




*The
trickle down BS of the 80's may finally be put to rest as people realize
that Wall Street's game is to privatize profits

Of course Wall Street is there to privatize profits.


and socialize losses

That's Obama and the libs plan.


and the
only thing that trickles down is economic sewage.

What a crock. Like the 80s and 90s were decades
of despair? I just need to look around the neighborhood
to see vast numbers of middle class people living better
today than they ever did.





* *And they pay for them. The top 20% (actually) pay a greater %age of
the income taxes than their %age of income.

Damn right they do. The top 20% pay 86% of all income
tax, but the shrill voices of the libs pretend it just isn't so.

I was listening to one particularly stupid lib on the radio
this afternoon. Claiming how awful Google and Apple
were because they are shipping jobs and money overseas
to avoid paying any taxes. I mean good grief, how stupid
can you be? They are classic American success stories
offering hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs right
here.

And had she been capable of
using Google to pull a 10K, she'd have learned that
google earned $10.8bil in profit and paid taxes of $2.3bil
on it. That's about 21%. Apple paid about 25%. Those
rates are typical. How much more do you libs want?

And the libs just never get the other part of it. If
the price of corn goes up for General Foods, what
does economics 101 tell us they will do? Like
all their competitors, they will raise the price of
corn flakes and a new higher equilibrium price
in the market will result. Now, I ask the libs,
if you raise the taxes on GF, what do you think will
be the result? This is an easy economics
101 question. Think about it.




--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

I think what you're engaging in here is mental
masturbation actually.