The US; Ready for Depression?

  • Discuss The US; Ready for Depression? in the Politics and World Issues forum in area BMX-Forum Community - more stuff; Yea... 700 billion dollar bail out. Are you ready for the new depression? Discuss! ...
A

ant1h3ro

Guest
The US; Ready for Depression? post #1
Yea... 700 billion dollar bail out.

Are you ready for the new depression?

Discuss!
 
Samirol

Samirol

New Member
The US; Ready for Depression? post #2
Depression is unlikely, recession is definite. The middle class will be taxed to cover the debt, and the plutocracy will continue.
 
Zero Cool

Zero Cool

New Member
The US; Ready for Depression? post #3
If you read some books that take place during the Great Depression, you'll see that the economic status of the time is strikingly similar to that of the one today.

Look around you, it's obvious that we are already in a recession.
 
Bettley1

Bettley1

New Member
The US; Ready for Depression? post #4
i do not understand.

Someone tell me whats going on please.
 
Samirol

Samirol

New Member
The US; Ready for Depression? post #5
i do not understand.

Someone tell me whats going on please.
We had an artificially low interest rate, Republicans deregulated the market, the brokers and banks gave a lot of bad loans to people so they could make a lot of money, and the bad loans didn't work out, so now a bunch of banks are failing/getting bought out, and the economy isn't looking pretty.
 
mack_turtle

mack_turtle

New Member
The US; Ready for Depression? post #6
this must be another part of the "No Bank Left Behind" program.

rich people losing money? the humanity!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

ant1h3ro

Guest
The US; Ready for Depression? post #7
this must be another part of the "No Bank Left Behind" program.

rich people losing money? the humanity!
exactly. so now, we're trying to fix it... we must get the rich richer while the middle man continues to pay them for ****ing up the economy.

altho, obama says if we do this... the tax payers should get all their money back and it shouldn't reward the idiots that got us into this mess!
 
Samirol

Samirol

New Member
The US; Ready for Depression? post #8
The Bernie Sanders plan owns

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ve...9/23/sanders_surtax_on_wealthy_draws_support/

WASHINGTON, Vt.—Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., says his proposal for a new surtax on the wealthy to pay for a bailout of the financial services industry is drawing support.

Sanders says he posted a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson about the proposal on his Web site, and that it drew more than 8,000 citizen co-signers in the first 24 hours.

The Vermont independent says the bailout should be paid for with a surcharge on taxes paid by individuals making more than $500,000 a year or couples earning more than $1 million a year.

The senator says he doesn't want the costs of the bailout to be borne by the middle class
 
T

TrevorH

Guest
The US; Ready for Depression? post #9
they should tax everyone equal
wether they be rich,middleclass, or poor.
i dont understand why people think a rich person should be taxed higher, than someone with an average salary.
Because most of the time those rich people earn what they make.
 
Samirol

Samirol

New Member
The US; Ready for Depression? post #10
they should tax everyone equal
wether they be rich,middleclass, or poor.
i dont understand why people think a rich person should be taxed higher, than someone with an average salary.
Because most of the time those rich people earn what they make.
I found this great essay a couple weeks ago, give it a read if you are interested, or you can read it on their website since it is easier on the eyes than a forum(http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/progressive-taxation-some-hidden-truths.html). It is a bit long, but it is written extremely well, and lays out the argument for progressive taxation very well.

At this time of year it seems there are only two things certain in life, taxes and anxiety about taxes. Instead of the perennial talk of a simplified tax form, how about a simplified understanding of the progressive values that underlie our tradition of progressive taxation?

Such an understanding won't move the tax deadline. But it might eliminate some of the anxiety. Understanding the hidden truths behind progressive taxation might also lead to more coherent—and more just—tax policies.

Progressive taxation—taxing the wealthy at higher rates than the poor—is a moral issue. Like many moral issues, it sparks heated debate. The debate is borne of conflicting worldviews, values, and understandings of values. But as we at the Rockridge Institute have written, when progressives understand the values and ideas that underlie their positions on issues, they can articulate arguments authentically and with greater persuasive force. These arguments will appeal to those whom we call biconceptuals—the great majority of Americans whose worldviews borrow in various ways from both progressive and conservative values.

America's government has at least two fundamental functions, protection and empowerment. Protection includes the police, firefighters, emergency services, public health, the military, and so on. Empowerment includes the infrastructure needed for business and everyday life: roads, communications systems, water supplies, public education, the banking system for loans and economic stability, the SEC for the stock market, the courts for enforcing contracts, air traffic control, support for basic science, our national parks and public buildings, and more. We are usually aware of protection. But the empowerment infrastructure, provided by taxes, is usually taken for granted, hidden, or ignored. Yet it is absolutely crucial, a fundamental truth about America and why America provides opportunity.

This is a basic truth. That is what framing should be about: revealing truths and allowing us to reason using them.

Taxes are part of our common wealth, what we all share. Protection and empowerment serve the common good. Because of our common wealth, we are all protected and America's empowering infrastructure is available to all. That is a fundamental America value: the common wealth should serve the common good. It benefits everyone.

Citizens are financially responsible to maintain this common wealth. If we shirked this responsibility, we could not maintain our roads, fund our schools, protect ourselves from military threats, enforce our laws, and so on. Equally importantly, we could not create prosperity for ourselves, because we would have no protection of our intellectual property, no oversight of our markets, no means to enforce our contracts, no way to educate most of our children.

Several main progressive values support the idea of progressive taxation. One is the belief that the common wealth should be used for the common good. Another is responsibility, the responsibility that citizens have to pay for the benefits we receive from our common wealth. And still another is fairness. These values intertwine on the question of progressive taxation.

Few people dispute this responsibility at some level. Disagreements generally arise over the amount and the relative apportionment of the responsibility. Differing concepts of fairness drive this debate. While many progressives say it is only fair that those who earn more pay a higher percentage of their earnings as taxes compared to those who have difficulty making ends meet, conservatives respond by asserting that it is unfair to "punish" the financially successful by making them pay more.

An important point often lost in this debate is an appreciation that the common wealth, which our taxes create and sustain, empowers the wealthy in myriad ways to create their wealth. We call this compound empowerment — the compounded use of the common wealth by corporations, their investors, and other wealthy individuals.

Consider Bill Gates. He started Microsoft as a college dropout and has become the world's richest person. Though he has undoubtedly benefited from his unusual intelligence and business acumen, he could not have created or sustained his personal wealth without the common wealth. The legal system protected Microsoft's intellectual property and contracts. The tax-supported financial infrastructure enabled him to access capital markets and trade his stock in a market in which investors have confidence. He built his company with many employees educated in public schools and universities. Tax-funded research helped develop computer science and the internet. Trade laws negotiated and enforced by the government protect his ability to sell his products abroad. These are but a few of the ways in which Mr. Gates' accumulation of wealth was empowered by the common wealth and by taxation.

As Warren Buffet famously observed, he likely couldn't have achieved his financial success had he been born in Bangladesh instead of the United States, because Bangladesh had no banking system and no stock market.

Ordinary people just drive on the highways; corporations send fleets of trucks. Ordinary people may get a bank loan for their mortgage; corporations borrow money to buy whole companies. Ordinary people rarely use the courts; most of the courts are used for corporate law and contract disputes. Corporations and their investors — those who have accumulated enough money beyond basic needs so they can invest — make much more use, compound use, of the empowering infrastructure provided by everybody's tax money.

The wealthy have made greater use of the common good—they have been empowered by it in creating their wealth—and thus they have a greater moral obligation to sustain it. They are merely paying their debt to society in arrears and investing in future empowerment.

This is the fundamental truth that motivates progressive taxation.

It is a truth that undercuts conservative arguments about taxation. Taxes provide and maintain the protecting and empowering infrastructure that makes our income possible.

Our tax forms hide this truth. They do not indicate the extent to which taxes have created and sustained the common wealth so you could earn what you have. They make it look like the empowering infrastructure was just put there by magic and that the government is taking money out of your pocket. The most likely truth is that, through the common wealth, America put more money in your pocket than it took out — by far.

But this situation is threatened by conservative tax policy. Through unfair cuts in taxes paid by the wealthy, through payment for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and through borrowing abroad to pay for the tax cuts and Iraq, the common wealth is being drained and the infrastructure allowed to fall apart. We need to return to a fair tax policy that recognizes financial responsibility incurred by the compound use of America's empowering infrastructure.
 
Last edited:
Ecko

Ecko

New Member
The US; Ready for Depression? post #11
I found this great essay a couple weeks ago, give it a read if you are interested, or you can read it on their website since it is easier on the eyes than a forum(http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/progressive-taxation-some-hidden-truths.html). It is a bit long, but it is written extremely well, and lays out the argument for progressive taxation very well.

At this time of year it seems there are only two things certain in life, taxes and anxiety about taxes. Instead of the perennial talk of a simplified tax form, how about a simplified understanding of the progressive values that underlie our tradition of progressive taxation?

Such an understanding won't move the tax deadline. But it might eliminate some of the anxiety. Understanding the hidden truths behind progressive taxation might also lead to more coherent—and more just—tax policies.

Progressive taxation—taxing the wealthy at higher rates than the poor—is a moral issue. Like many moral issues, it sparks heated debate. The debate is borne of conflicting worldviews, values, and understandings of values. But as we at the Rockridge Institute have written, when progressives understand the values and ideas that underlie their positions on issues, they can articulate arguments authentically and with greater persuasive force. These arguments will appeal to those whom we call biconceptuals—the great majority of Americans whose worldviews borrow in various ways from both progressive and conservative values.

America's government has at least two fundamental functions, protection and empowerment. Protection includes the police, firefighters, emergency services, public health, the military, and so on. Empowerment includes the infrastructure needed for business and everyday life: roads, communications systems, water supplies, public education, the banking system for loans and economic stability, the SEC for the stock market, the courts for enforcing contracts, air traffic control, support for basic science, our national parks and public buildings, and more. We are usually aware of protection. But the empowerment infrastructure, provided by taxes, is usually taken for granted, hidden, or ignored. Yet it is absolutely crucial, a fundamental truth about America and why America provides opportunity.

This is a basic truth. That is what framing should be about: revealing truths and allowing us to reason using them.

Taxes are part of our common wealth, what we all share. Protection and empowerment serve the common good. Because of our common wealth, we are all protected and America's empowering infrastructure is available to all. That is a fundamental America value: the common wealth should serve the common good. It benefits everyone.

Citizens are financially responsible to maintain this common wealth. If we shirked this responsibility, we could not maintain our roads, fund our schools, protect ourselves from military threats, enforce our laws, and so on. Equally importantly, we could not create prosperity for ourselves, because we would have no protection of our intellectual property, no oversight of our markets, no means to enforce our contracts, no way to educate most of our children.

Several main progressive values support the idea of progressive taxation. One is the belief that the common wealth should be used for the common good. Another is responsibility, the responsibility that citizens have to pay for the benefits we receive from our common wealth. And still another is fairness. These values intertwine on the question of progressive taxation.

Few people dispute this responsibility at some level. Disagreements generally arise over the amount and the relative apportionment of the responsibility. Differing concepts of fairness drive this debate. While many progressives say it is only fair that those who earn more pay a higher percentage of their earnings as taxes compared to those who have difficulty making ends meet, conservatives respond by asserting that it is unfair to "punish" the financially successful by making them pay more.

An important point often lost in this debate is an appreciation that the common wealth, which our taxes create and sustain, empowers the wealthy in myriad ways to create their wealth. We call this compound empowerment — the compounded use of the common wealth by corporations, their investors, and other wealthy individuals.

Consider Bill Gates. He started Microsoft as a college dropout and has become the world's richest person. Though he has undoubtedly benefited from his unusual intelligence and business acumen, he could not have created or sustained his personal wealth without the common wealth. The legal system protected Microsoft's intellectual property and contracts. The tax-supported financial infrastructure enabled him to access capital markets and trade his stock in a market in which investors have confidence. He built his company with many employees educated in public schools and universities. Tax-funded research helped develop computer science and the internet. Trade laws negotiated and enforced by the government protect his ability to sell his products abroad. These are but a few of the ways in which Mr. Gates' accumulation of wealth was empowered by the common wealth and by taxation.

As Warren Buffet famously observed, he likely couldn't have achieved his financial success had he been born in Bangladesh instead of the United States, because Bangladesh had no banking system and no stock market.

Ordinary people just drive on the highways; corporations send fleets of trucks. Ordinary people may get a bank loan for their mortgage; corporations borrow money to buy whole companies. Ordinary people rarely use the courts; most of the courts are used for corporate law and contract disputes. Corporations and their investors — those who have accumulated enough money beyond basic needs so they can invest — make much more use, compound use, of the empowering infrastructure provided by everybody's tax money.

The wealthy have made greater use of the common good—they have been empowered by it in creating their wealth—and thus they have a greater moral obligation to sustain it. They are merely paying their debt to society in arrears and investing in future empowerment.

This is the fundamental truth that motivates progressive taxation.

It is a truth that undercuts conservative arguments about taxation. Taxes provide and maintain the protecting and empowering infrastructure that makes our income possible.

Our tax forms hide this truth. They do not indicate the extent to which taxes have created and sustained the common wealth so you could earn what you have. They make it look like the empowering infrastructure was just put there by magic and that the government is taking money out of your pocket. The most likely truth is that, through the common wealth, America put more money in your pocket than it took out — by far.

But this situation is threatened by conservative tax policy. Through unfair cuts in taxes paid by the wealthy, through payment for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and through borrowing abroad to pay for the tax cuts and Iraq, the common wealth is being drained and the infrastructure allowed to fall apart. We need to return to a fair tax policy that recognizes financial responsibility incurred by the compound use of America's empowering infrastructure.
 
Samirol

Samirol

New Member
The US; Ready for Depression? post #12
it is a really good essay, definitely worth reading if you are interested in the argument presented in a very well constructed way
 
T

Trimix

Guest
The US; Ready for Depression? post #13
We had an artificially low interest rate, Republicans deregulated the market, the brokers and banks gave a lot of bad loans to people so they could make a lot of money, and the bad loans didn't work out, so now a bunch of banks are failing/getting bought out, and the economy isn't looking pretty.
You should definitely be handling money, finances, or corporate fiscal forecasting. :clap:. Seriously man, you understand more than most 17's. You'd be a good investor.
There will be a great correction, but not a depression. Country's too diverse now.

What's crazy is, while the delay in "reaching a deal" (in my snootiest voice) goes on, more hands get into the "deal" that is supposed to be a "fresh bailout".
People close to it all will MAKE MONEY during the process. That's what's criminal!
 
mack_turtle

mack_turtle

New Member
The US; Ready for Depression? post #14
i am under the impression that the bailout was voted down. what now?
 
Samirol

Samirol

New Member
The US; Ready for Depression? post #15
posted this in the other thread:

what happened is that those up for reelection saw the poll results for the bailout, and didn't vote for it. The polls were actually worded biased though, because bailout has a negative connotation.

As for what Congress should do, nobody really knows. Some think that the bailout will only delay a depression or extend the recession, others think that the bailout won't help at all, it is really all guesswork at this point.

Talking with some friends, one guy who knows much more about economics than I do is saying that we have around 50 trillion of bad loans out there that need to be paid, which means that instead of investing in stocks, you should be investing in canned goods and shotgun ammo.
My feelings are that Bernanke knows what he is doing, we probably won't hit 20-25% unemployment, seeing 10% unemployment wouldn't surprise me.
 
Last edited:
Penn kalgh

Penn kalgh

New Member
The US; Ready for Depression? post #16
UK is pretty bad right now, Although i don't completely understand what's going on. All i want to know is, why is Alistair Darlings eyebrows black when he has grey hair? That's something we should consider.
 
G

goldendragon

Guest
The US; Ready for Depression? post #17
Well now the Senate is working on it since it was voted down in the House of Rep. and it seems that it'll get voted through there at least and I think I heard something on the news this morning on the bill not affecting the working class?
 
Samirol

Samirol

New Member
The US; Ready for Depression? post #18
Well now the Senate is working on it since it was voted down in the House of Rep. and it seems that it'll get voted through there at least and I think I heard something on the news this morning on the bill not affecting the working class?
It may up the FDIC limit among other things, but the main advantage will be that loans will be theoretically easier to get. The poor will get screwed either way, because they don't usually take out loans from banks, because banks refuse to put branches in poor areas.
 
Kassa

Kassa

New Member
The US; Ready for Depression? post #19
Who wants to move to Aussie land with me?
 
G

goldendragon

Guest
The US; Ready for Depression? post #20
I do but I don't think I could to afford to keep flying back here to see family every year for X-mas.^
 

New Topics

Top