Remember when Reagan asked...

[$tevie]

kj wrote:
[quote=$tevie]
The discussion isn't about taxes. It's about ginormous CEO pay checks. Do try to keep up.

If this is all about ginormous ceo paychecks, is rolando saying that these rich people are all christians, so it's hard to understand why they aren't more generous with their money? Or is he saying Tea Party people should be for paying more taxes because they are all christians? Either way.... kj. How do you get from Acts 4 to taxes? Why are you assuming that those passages are talking about taxation? Ever hear of "charity"? There was nothing in those passages about the government being in charge of what was going on.

[Dennis S]

Acer wrote:
Anyone notice how after a certain threshold, the justification for the super-rich to get richer begins to closely mirror the divine right of kings? As in "I don't know exactly why he's king/super-rich, but he must deserve it otherwise he wouldn't be king/super-rich."

That's one of the keys to this whole mess. A big portion of Republican voters grovel at the feet of the super-rich. "He signs my paycheck". There is something psychologically wrong with these people, yet I can't identify with them enough to formulate a reason why they are like that.

[Ted King]

btfc wrote:
"Nice work, rankandfile"

I agree!

:thumbsup: Nice analysis. To the bit about the shenanigans of under-regulated finance guys, I'd also mention the role of allowing those guys way too much leverage. Leverage is just made up money as multiples of actual money held. They can take $1 million in investments/savings and give out $10 million of credit - skimming a small percent for themselves for doing the deal (but since the total is so large, even that small percent amounts to a pretty good sized sum.) A few multiples of leverage in the right circumstances has a beneficial affect on society, but as leverage grows, it becomes more risky and has a detrimental affect on society - but the finance guys can make out like bandits. Leverage almost always has a big role in the formation of a bubble - particularly in the later and most damaging stages of the bubble.

[$tevie]

Dennis S wrote: That's one of the keys to this whole mess. A big portion of Republican voters grovel at the feet of the super-rich. "He signs my paycheck". There is something psychologically wrong with these people, yet I can't identify with them enough to formulate a reason why they are like that.

http://forums.macresource.com/read.php?2...sg-1148470

[Acer]

kj wrote:
[quote=Acer]
Anyone notice how after a certain threshold, the justification for the super-rich to get richer begins to closely mirror the divine right of kings? As in "I don't know exactly why he's king/super-rich, but he must deserve it otherwise he wouldn't be king/super-rich."

No but I notice that envy can make people completely forget about principles and logic. I've known a lot of really wealthy people, and I don't envy them at all. kj.
There's that envy meme. Whose it that? Hannity? Rush?

I'm not envying the rich. When I get upset, it's when the rich use their influence to bring about the long list of failures in rankandfile's post at MY expense, THEN proceed to tell me it's my fault because I'm jealous or want something for nothing. The finance industry certainly wasn't deregulated to allow poisoned mortgage-backed securities at my request.

[davester]

That was a great summary rankandfile. The short forum version of "Inside Job".

[kj]

$tevie wrote:
[quote=kj]
[quote=$tevie]
The discussion isn't about taxes. It's about ginormous CEO pay checks. Do try to keep up.

If this is all about ginormous ceo paychecks, is rolando saying that these rich people are all christians, so it's hard to understand why they aren't more generous with their money? Or is he saying Tea Party people should be for paying more taxes because they are all christians? Either way.... kj. How do you get from Acts 4 to taxes? Why are you assuming that those passages are talking about taxation? Ever hear of "charity"? There was nothing in those passages about the government being in charge of what was going on.
How did rolando get from big ceo paychecks to Acts 4? Why did Gute seemingly agree? Seems Roland took Acts 4 to be pro-socialism. Or or at least gov't redistribution of wealth in some form. Btw, did you notice I mentioned charity in my post? kj.

[August West]

Oxford English Dictionary wrote:
Socialism, noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.

Seems pro socialist to me.

[RgrF]

Ted King wrote:
[quote=btfc]
"Nice work, rankandfile"

I agree!

:thumbsup: Nice analysis. To the bit about the shenanigans of under-regulated finance guys, I'd also mention the role of allowing those guys way too much leverage. Leverage is just made up money as multiples of actual money held. They can take $1 million in investments/savings and give out $10 million of credit - skimming a small percent for themselves for doing the deal (but since the total is so large, even that small percent amounts to a pretty good sized sum.) A few multiples of leverage in the right circumstances has a beneficial affect on society, but as leverage grows, it becomes more risky and has a detrimental affect on society - but the finance guys can make out like bandits. Leverage almost always has a big role in the formation of a bubble - particularly in the later and most damaging stages of the bubble.
A few prosecutions might have gone a long way toward self-regulation since that seems like all we have to rely on. The one consumer protection agency with any teeth is headed by Elizabeth Warren. According to her she and the agency she heads are faced with unrelenting attack from a Republican dominated House.

The GOP couldn't win the public debate over increased regulation so they're instead using the backdoor approach of de-funding and hamstringing the Agency by any means at their disposal.

That deregulation was distorted to the point of almost destroying our economy seems to mean nothing to them or the wealthy supporters they work for and respond to. It didn't resonate with voters either else they'd not have been returned to power.

It's odd that the thing that may bring this home and cause them another Congressional loss was not the damage they did to the economy but instead the fall-out from their ill-fated attempt to dismantle Medicare.

[kj]

Acer wrote:
[quote=kj]
[quote=Acer]
Anyone notice how after a certain threshold, the justification for the super-rich to get richer begins to closely mirror the divine right of kings? As in "I don't know exactly why he's king/super-rich, but he must deserve it otherwise he wouldn't be king/super-rich."

No but I notice that envy can make people completely forget about principles and logic. I've known a lot of really wealthy people, and I don't envy them at all. kj.
There's that envy meme. Whose it that? Hannity? Rush?

I'm not envying the rich. When I get upset, it's when the rich use their influence to bring about the long list of failures in rankandfile's post at MY expense, THEN proceed to tell me it's my fault because I'm jealous or want something for nothing. The finance industry certainly wasn't deregulated to allow poisoned mortgage-backed securities at my request.
Hannity or Rush? I guess I wouldn't have the slightest idea. I think everyone agrees there is no justice in what has happened with the finance industry, but I think blaming any segment exclusively is a lot like a kid caught with his hand in the candy jar blaming his mom for not putting a padlock on it. I really think everyone who played the game deserves some of the blame. I'm channeling Johnnie Cochran here, aren't I. At any rate, what you quoted from me was referring to the idea that rich people did nothing to earn their money. I don't believe that's true the majority of the time. kj.