Edit: I see that Del Slow deleted his post...dunno why.

how many banks merged/were aquired in 08? 7 banks bought 7 other banks. 7 more were bought out in 07.

jp morgan bought two. lets start talking about redistribution of wealth again so he tries to overthrow the govt once more... oh snap.

Trafik Jamz;258742 wrote:
I'm against the bill (actually more against the pork inside the bill) as it is written. If it is for infrastructure, energy grid, etc... then I am ok with it generally speaking. What I am not ok with is the crap that is getting tied into it...some by the dems for stupid shit, some as incentives to bring the republicans on board.

Things I like that have been proposed:

*Tax cuts/rebates for businesses.
*Energy Grid upgrades
*Roads/Bridges/Etc... repairs
*Stimulus checks....even for those who didn't necessarily pay in huge amounts or got everything they paid in to income tax back...remember, they still paid in to social security and various other taxes and they made enough to have to file in the first place. I don't think they should get the full amount that higher wage earners did, but I think they would be the ones most likely to spend it which is what we want.
*Anything that can create/save a job long term. I don't necessarily want more federal gov't employees (which I'll admit will likely happen) I'm hoping that a good share of these jobs will be in the private sector.

I find it hard to believe that some people think it is patriotic to send billions and billions of dollars to Iraq every month to stabilize their country/economy/infrastructure, yet somehow think it is unpatriotic/socialist to invest that money at home. Maybe it is socialism, but I'd rather see Zach Brown/Parker Skolness/Chris Karpesh/Chuck Schwan/Dave Henry/Matt Faul/Bill Olander get some of their tax money back (either directly or through improvements in their communities) than see Abdul Jihad-Amakickurazi get another fucking penny. If we can do without government intervention, so can they. Pull out, let them deal with it the democratic way. If they can't, fuck 'em, let them stimulate their own economy.

Continuing with the rant...I've gone on record saying I think a flat tax (flat percentage) is fair. I still believe that. But what I'm having a hard time swallowing is the "Bush tax cut" for the wealthiest Americans and how it was supposed to create jobs. I just didn't see that happen. I saw tax cuts create wealthier people (this is a good thing), but not more jobs (this is a not so good thing). So I ask this...where did it go wrong? The tax rates were lower than they were during the Reagan years, so why didn't Reaganomics work this time? Please don't read this as me bashing Reagan/tax cuts, I'm asking a serious question that I'd appreciate a serious answer on (IOW, thrash...please respond).

Reganomics didn't work because this time around because the extra money saved on taxes by big business didn't go back into their businesses. They didn't use the money to expand and grow, they used it to pad their bank account, and then after that sent even more jobs overseas. Its going to be impossible for us to grow as an economic entity if we keep buying overseas and shipping the jobs from our country overseas to save money.
Id say, if Joe Blow CEO makes a couple million dollars less a year by not outsourcing some tech support jobs, well then thats more help than Joe making more money. Obviously my opinion is not shared by most companies and CEO's today.
The little man will either save, or not save this economy, and the government can throw as much money at the economy as they want, if we the people don't want to spend our money, or of we cannot make money to spend, then it will fall.

Trafik Jamz;258742 wrote:
Continuing with the rant...I've gone on record saying I think a flat tax (flat percentage) is fair. I still believe that. But what I'm having a hard time swallowing is the "Bush tax cut" for the wealthiest Americans and how it was supposed to create jobs. I just didn't see that happen. I saw tax cuts create wealthier people (this is a good thing), but not more jobs (this is a not so good thing). So I ask this...where did it go wrong? The tax rates were lower than they were during the Reagan years, so why didn't Reaganomics work this time? Please don't read this as me bashing Reagan/tax cuts, I'm asking a serious question that I'd appreciate a serious answer on (IOW, thrash...please respond).

There is the old saying, figures lie and liars figure. You can take any years job gain/loss numbers and make them look the way you want. The repubs will say that lots of jobs were created, the libs will say jobs were lost. Both will be looking at the same numbers.

So I have to go with what makes sense... if people keep more of their money they are probably going to spend it (a few might just put it in savings I spose) and spending it on products and services means there is a need for people to create those products and services.

The alternative is giving more to the Govt, and IMO they already spend waaaaay too much....

Things I like that have been proposed:

*Tax cuts/rebates for businesses.
*Energy Grid upgrades
*Roads/Bridges/Etc... repairs
*Stimulus checks....even for those who didn't necessarily pay in huge amounts or got everything they paid in to income tax back...remember, they still paid in to social security and various other taxes and they made enough to have to file in the first place. I don't think they should get the full amount that higher wage earners did, but I think they would be the ones most likely to spend it which is what we want.
*Anything that can create/save a job long term. I don't necessarily want more federal gov't employees (which I'll admit will likely happen) I'm hoping that a good share of these jobs will be in the private sector.

I find it hard to believe that some people think it is patriotic to send billions and billions of dollars to Iraq every month to stabilize their country/economy/infrastructure, yet somehow think it is unpatriotic/socialist to invest that money at home. Maybe it is socialism, but I'd rather see Zach Brown/Parker Skolness/Chris Karpesh/Chuck Schwan/Dave Henry/Matt Faul/Bill Olander get some of their tax money back (either directly or through improvements in their communities) than see Abdul Jihad-Amakickurazi get another fucking penny. If we can do without government intervention, so can they. Pull out, let them deal with it the democratic way. If they can't, fuck 'em, let them stimulate their own economy.

Continuing with the rant...I've gone on record saying I think a flat tax (flat percentage) is fair. I still believe that. But what I'm having a hard time swallowing is the "Bush tax cut" for the wealthiest Americans and how it was supposed to create jobs. I just didn't see that happen. I saw tax cuts create wealthier people (this is a good thing), but not more jobs (this is a not so good thing). So I ask this...where did it go wrong? The tax rates were lower than they were during the Reagan years, so why didn't Reaganomics work this time? Please don't read this as me bashing Reagan/tax cuts, I'm asking a serious question that I'd appreciate a serious answer on (IOW, thrash...please respond).

Parker;258728 wrote:
you need to watch the fuckin news or read a paper....:icon_rr:

agreed.

im 103% sure i miss understood every part of your post, and still fail to see if you are being sarcastic or not.

Oh well. Carry on.

no_slow_clap;258727 wrote:
I said "maybe" and "eventually"

not like i voted for this guy.

you need to watch the fuckin news or read a paper....:icon_rr:

Parker;258724 wrote:
im sure he will get things straightened out.... i mean, look at all the great decisions he is making... like Tom Daschle, who he picked to be secretary of health and human services.... and lets not forget Nancy Killefer, Obama’s choice to be the government's first “chief performance officer"... with great decisions like that, how could we go wrong with Obama!!!!

I said "maybe" and "eventually"

not like i voted for this guy.

PSiedTSi;258726 wrote:
Uncle Sam is sure stimulating my pocket this tax season :). $600 stimulus ftw.

Im going to bet that good ol' Uncle Sam is going to give me the bro treatment gr1p style this year...again.

doesnt look like bush was in a huge hurry then. who know's, maybe obama can get shit straightened out eventually.

integra_gsr98;258719 wrote:
I look forward to putting my future children and their children in to debt. I think it's fantastic.

comon, it is not even a trillion yet

MisterCMK;258717 wrote:
No. I am serious, I am glad that we finally have a president who isn't going to sit there with blinders on and pretend things are all hunky dory.

just to make the situation worse +1

SPANISH-RICE;258713 wrote:
You guys being sarcastic?

No. I am serious, I am glad that we finally have a president who isn't going to sit there with blinders on and pretend things are all hunky dory.