kapkomet Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 24, 2010 -> 04:17 PM) So, your argument is that once those companies went bankrupt without the Fed/Congressional intervention, they'd have kept their gigantic salaries from the defunct company? So, kap says X, it therefore must be Y. You all want a good reason why these companies SHOULD have gone bankrupt, here's one of them, altough most of the time, salary contracts stay intact - but the law would allow dissolution of these contracts. It just depends. They don't have to legally - except for unions, of course. You can thank your almighty president for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 So, you're so angry about those bonuses that you want to go dissolve a few union contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 24, 2010 -> 05:21 PM) So, you're so angry about those bonuses that you want to go dissolve a few union contracts. SO, like, SO, like, SO... it's ridiculous. Yea. Dissolve them all. Twist, SO, twist some more, twist, SO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 Anyway, it's fun to watch you to bash union contracts as so impossible to dissolve when they keep being broken and dissolved. And I still like your solution to the financial crisis...people should earn less. Damn those unions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 Except CEO's. The top 1% needs more than the 55% of income they currently control. If we give them enough, perhaps there will be some crumbs and scraps left over! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 Yup, redistribution of wealth is helping out everyone... whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 Our current system does a fantastic job of redistributing wealth to a very small number of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 24, 2010 -> 06:37 PM) Yup, redistribution of wealth is helping out everyone... whatever. I agree. The redistribution of wealth upwards that we've seen since 1980 was a key part of the economic collapse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 24, 2010 -> 05:45 PM) I agree. The redistribution of wealth upwards that we've seen since 1980 was a key part of the economic collapse. So W saw the biggest dip in that curve. Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 I know, our country f***ing sucks. SUCKS! We better knock us down a peg or trillion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 24, 2010 -> 08:56 PM) So W saw the biggest dip in that curve. Interesting. Yeah. It was called the 2001 stock bubble bursting. Nice to know you now blame that on W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 Clearly you're all misreading this chart. Who was President in 1979? Jimmy Carter. Mr. Peanut, j'accuse! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 I've seen most of these "the Middle Class has lost the class war" stats before but this one caught me by surprise. Part of me is amazed that it could possibly be that concentrated. Then I go back to the inequality graphs, and yeah, it makes sense. 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 26, 2010 -> 09:08 AM) I've seen most of these "the Middle Class has lost the class war" stats before but this one caught me by surprise. Part of me is amazed that it could possibly be that concentrated. Then I go back to the inequality graphs, and yeah, it makes sense. i read that article the other day. the US is really in s***ty shape. these jobs lost are never coming back. if anything, millions more will be lost in the next 5-10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 This chart ran in the WSJ today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 so, the typical family making $150,000 will still be paying less, but the $300,000 family will pay more. Given Obama's $250k "no new taxes" thing, I'm surprised they didn't go for that level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 26, 2010 -> 04:13 PM) This chart ran in the WSJ today. You know what's f***ed up? The exact same data ran in the WSJ a month ago and it said the opposite. I read this cover to cover every day... and that one stuck, so which is it? And Balta, that's not against you, but something is messed up here somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 26, 2010 -> 09:40 PM) You know what's f***ed up? The exact same data ran in the WSJ a month ago and it said the opposite. I read this cover to cover every day... and that one stuck, so which is it? And Balta, that's not against you, but something is messed up here somewhere. (Excuse here: I don't have a subscription so I'm behind a subscriber wall and I can only see what others excerpt). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 27, 2010 -> 08:33 AM) (Excuse here: I don't have a subscription so I'm behind a subscriber wall and I can only see what others excerpt). Booo. I'll look it up - because the data is wildly inconsistent from what I just read... but I'm a week behind on my papers, so I'll get there in a day or two... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 Just going to excerpt, probably a useful way to think about these numbers. In a new paper, the economists argue that without the Wall Street bailout, the bank stress tests, the emergency lending and asset purchases by the Federal Reserve, and the Obama administration’s fiscal stimulus program, the nation’s gross domestic product would be about 6.5 percent lower this year. In addition, there would be about 8.5 million fewer jobs, on top of the more than 8 million already lost; and the economy would be experiencing deflation, instead of low inflation. The paper, by Alan S. Blinder, a Princeton professor and former vice chairman of the Fed, and Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, represents a first stab at comprehensively estimating the effects of the economic policy responses of the last few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 29, 2010 -> 09:03 AM) Just going to excerpt, probably a useful way to think about these numbers. Most of the responses that were done by Obama, and at the back end of BushCo as well, to the crisis, were necessary evils, and ended up being pretty effective. They could have been done better, no doubt, but they did their job in the overall sense. That said, what needed to happen after, was more significant changes to rules, regulations and enforcement, and so far, those parts have been sorely lacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 26, 2010 -> 08:40 PM) You know what's f***ed up? The exact same data ran in the WSJ a month ago and it said the opposite. I read this cover to cover every day... and that one stuck, so which is it? And Balta, that's not against you, but something is messed up here somewhere. QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 27, 2010 -> 10:43 PM) Booo. I'll look it up - because the data is wildly inconsistent from what I just read... but I'm a week behind on my papers, so I'll get there in a day or two... Here is a link that could help: http://mytaxburden.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 All I know is that my personal tax bill is going to go up $3,000+ next year. And I am NOT "rich", in fact, far from it as I look at my bank account going down to almost nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 29, 2010 -> 07:54 PM) All I know is that my personal tax bill is going to go up $3,000+ next year. And I am NOT "rich", in fact, far from it as I look at my bank account going down to almost nothing. Aren't you happy that half the country doesn't have to pay ANY income tax? Don't you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? You're such a giver! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 29, 2010 -> 11:16 PM) Aren't you happy that half the country doesn't have to pay ANY income tax? Don't you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? You're such a giver! This is of course totally untrue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts