29 Sep 08
My question is simple:
Assuming that Brian Mae, Freddie Mercury and AIG had continued paying Tax at the same rate as their returns for 2006-2007, then how many years would it have taken them combined to "repay" the $700 billion stolen from the taxpayers?
I have searched in vain for their tax contributions.
Can anyone indicate how much corporation tax they have paid recently?
29 Sep 08
"Capitalists can buy themselves out of any crisis, so long as they make the workers pay," said Lenin. It is rarely regarded as common sense to quote him in polite company. Yet as a description of what is taking place right now, it is the most sense I've heard in a long time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/29/uselections2008.useconomy1
That certainly sums it all up.
People keep talking about Communism in the US, but this is baloney. Communism is not about taking from the poor and propping up failed, greedy corporations.
29 Sep 08
Originally posted by howardgeeRidiculous article.
"Capitalists can buy themselves out of any crisis, so long as they make the workers pay," said Lenin. It is rarely regarded as common sense to quote him in polite company. Yet as a description of what is taking place right now, it is the most sense I've heard in a long time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/29/uselections2008.useconomy1 ...[text shortened]... ey. Communism is not about taking from the poor and propping up failed, greedy corporations.
29 Sep 08
3 edits
Originally posted by uzlessIt fails to address any issues of real substance regarding the bail-out itself, why is it needed or not, his implicit claim that America is collapsing, the fact that the author is clearly a Marxist-Leninist and therefore still "beats his head against the wall". The author has clearly no idea why the US is in its current predicament so uses purely emotional argumentation to attack the Quixotian windmill people that like him call "globalization".
Care to give, you know, even just one reason why the entire article is "ridiculous"?
Hell, if you get adventurous, maybe you could give us 2 or 3 even!
The only good thing in that webpage was the link to Roubini's article.
Edit - The link isn't there any more, I meant this one:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/29/wallstreet.useconomy
29 Sep 08
2 edits
Originally posted by shavixmirTune into C-SPAN right now and listen. The true capitalists are the house republicans who are railing against this bailout.
Gotta love the right wing capitalist scum silence on all these issues...
Neither this bailout nor the damned Community Reinvestment Act which helped paved the way here, have anything to do with capitalism. True capitalism would not have forced banks to make unsound loans, nor would it reward the idiots with a bailout for having done so.
Edit: Not that the CRA is the only reason we got here, nor that the banks are blameless. Obviously they took stupid risks, and true capitalism would have them pay for it.
29 Sep 08
Originally posted by SleepyguySure, the banks would have to pay in "true capitalism". But the banks wouldn't be the only ones who would end up "paying". What do you think will happen if the banks were allowed to fail? How do you think this would affect your average american?
Tune into C-SPAN right now and listen. The true capitalists are the house republicans who are railing against this bailout.
Neither this bailout nor the damned Community Reinvestment Act which helped paved the way here, have anything to do with capitalism. True capitalism would not have forced banks to make unsound loans, nor would it reward the idiot ...[text shortened]... re blameless. Obviously they took stupid risks, and true capitalism would have them pay for it.
Hint: Take a look at the stock market and interest rates being charged by banks for a clue.
29 Sep 08
Originally posted by uzlessI don't need any hints and I'm under no illusions. It would be very very bad for everyone. If I were a house republican today I'd probably have to hold my nose and vote for the damned thing. But this isn't capitalism, nor was the implicit federal guarantee of the GSE's, nor was the CRA. If we had been behaving as capitalists all along we wouldn't be here now. That's my point. The left is now claiming that unbridled capitalism has brought us here, but that is not true at all.
Sure, the banks would have to pay in "true capitalism". But the banks wouldn't be the only ones who would end up "paying". What do you think will happen if the banks were allowed to fail? How do you think this would affect your average american?
Hint: Take a look at the stock market and interest rates being charged by banks for a clue.
29 Sep 08
Originally posted by SleepyguySuch a well thought through and weighed response.
I don't need any hints and I'm under no illusions. It would be very very bad for everyone. If I were a house republican today I'd probably have to hold my nose and vote for the damned thing. But this isn't capitalism, nor was the implicit federal guarantee of the GSE's, nor was the CRA. If we had been behaving as capitalists all along we wouldn't be he ...[text shortened]... now claiming that unbridled capitalism has brought us here, but that is not true at all.
Did you, at the time, give communism the same respect?
29 Sep 08
Originally posted by SleepyguyI believe my last post has been removed as it was too insulting to you.
You are an idiot.
I don't know. Maybe I referred to the size of your brain. Or your penis. I don't know.
However... let's hear your testicles respond to the non-bail-out of 700 billion by hard working American producers.
Yeah... it's probably more of a sound than an actual squirt.
Oh well. Gotta enjoy it...
29 Sep 08
Originally posted by shavixmirGee, I'm sorry I missed it. If this reply is any indication it must have been idiotic indeed, not to mention disgusting. It wasn't me who wanted it removed, I assure you. Post away bud, you only prove the point.
I believe my last post has been removed as it was too insulting to you. blah blah blah..