When you are right you are right. MSNBC commentator has a meltdown

[Archangel M]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/video-msnbc-dylan-ratigan-meltdown-over-meltdown-031046281.html

MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan is mad as hell about the U.S. financial crisis--and he's not gonna take it anymore!
While convening a roundtable discussion on the market meltdown on his eponymous MSNBC show on Tuesday, Ratigan exploded.

Go to the link and watch the video. Do it now.

 

[Makalakumu]

Yeah, I got my damn pitchfork!

 

[billc]

Interesting video, but there is one thing that he neglected to say, the democrats don't want to deal with the problem, the establishment republicans don't want to burn it to the ground, they just want to go along to get along. Members of the conservative and tea party part of the republican party did not want to burn it to the ground but want to resposibly deal with the problem. The conservatives submitted two plans, the Paul Ryan plan, which saved progams, as is for 55 year olds and begant the process of changing them for younger people, finally, and the tea party, who didn't want a debt deal with out real action on dealing with the overall financial problem. They didn't want to "burn it all down" they wanted 2 dollars in cuts, as one example, for every dollar in debt level increas, and they also submitted the "Cut, Cap and Balance" plan to try to fix the economic problem. The tea party did not get what they wanted, the debt deal was done, but no significant cuts were made, it was kicked down the road to a "special" committee to make "recomendations" on "future" "plans" to address the fiscal problem. All those word in quotes caused the stock market drop. You can't fool the real people who are paying attention. they got the debt ceiling raised with no real cuts to the budget. This trick has been done on the watch of just about every President out there and this president's watch is no different. So please, the republicans didn't want to "burn it to the ground" but the democrats do not care about the economy other than its impact on 2012.

A different view:

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/no...t-wasnt-tea-partywe-would-have-been-rated-bbb

 

[MaxiMe]

"special" "recomendations" on "future" "plans" to address the problem please "burn it to the ground"

We may rise like a pheonix if we do.

 

[Archangel M]

Dem v Rep plans aside..I think the underlying message of our representatives being bought and paid for and the flaws in the banking system are things to be addressed.

 

[billc]

Oh, yeah, I agree, unfortunately, the guys who would make the reforms are the ones who screwed it up in the first place. Look up Barney Frank and the sub prime mortgage disaster. Barney Frank is still free as a bird when he should probably be in jail. Not to mention all the other crooks who have been voted into office. I have to think term limits wouldn't be a complete cure, but it would keep politicians from digging into the system for 20 twenty years and insulating themselves from consequences.

 

[MaxiMe]

but it would keep politicians from digging into the system for 20 twenty years and insulating themselves from consequences.

I agree with you that term limits would help, but they make laws and treaties that last longer than even they live so it may not help as much as we'd like.

 

[elder999]

Members of the conservative and tea party part of the republican party did not want to burn it to the ground but want to resposibly deal with the problem.

No-unless they "want" to increase revenues-that is to say, raise taxes-they don't "want" to deal with it responsibly, they want someone else to......

 

[billc]

Raising taxes isn't the answer. It would kil the economy even more and giving more money to the same people who wasted it to begin with makes no sense at all. To give them more money in taxes is to assume that they would use that money to responsibly pay down the debts. What, in all the years that people have observed these politicians makes anyone think that they will use that money to fix the problem. How many people think that if they were given more tax money, that they would take that new money, and use it to do the same things they always do, regardless of the consequences for the future. They have made no move, right now, looking at the financial mess, to act on the problem, they created the "super committee" to pretend to come up with solutions. New taxes are not the answer, it's like giving crack to an addict expecting them to take that last hit, and then turn their lives around. It won't work for the crack addict and it won't work for the politicians. Cut off the money, it's the only way to grow the economy and starve the beast.

Here is George Will's plan to save the economy:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/10/george-wills-economic-recovery-plan-drop-corporate-estate-taxes-to-zero/

From the article:

And Will named specific taxes he would target immediately.
“Even stagnant Japan has lowered its corporate tax rate,” Will said. “Ours should be radically lower … would lower it to zero because I don’t believe corporations pay taxes: They collect taxes. They have to pass taxation on as a cost of doing business.
“I would eliminate the death tax. I don’t know why death is a taxable event in this country. No more estate taxes. Eliminate — go back to the classic — no taxation without respiration, that’s right. Go back to the classic Bill Bradley/Ronald Reagan tax reform of 1986. Lower the rates by eliminating loopholes and exceptions.”

You have to cut the politicians out of the equation. The only way to do that is to cut off their money supply. At least then you aren't increasing the problem.

 

[elder999]

Cut off the money, it's the only way to grow the economy and starve the beast.

Oh yeah-we've had tax cuts since 2001, with the largest cuts going to "job creators" to "grow the economy." Couple this with spending for two wars, free-market ideology, the sub-prime mortgage crisis and huge (fascist!) economic bailouts from the Bush administration, and-well, we haven't done much "job creation," and our economy certainly hasn't grown.While Bush era budgets maintained U.S. expenditures at about 20% of GDP, they lowered revenue from that 20% to around 17%, which, naturally, can only lead to increases-especially with added, extra budget expenses like two wars......

Of course, you're somewhat right about expenditures, and they do need to be cut-let's start with military expenditures, though, as well as a few other things, and make the virtually inevitable tax increases dedicated to bringing down the deficit by an act of Congress.

Fiscal responsibility=paying your bills. Everyone knows that when you don't do that, your credit rating gets downgraded......

 

[Makalakumu]

How about we start by ending our empire overseas and save over a trillion dollars a year in spending? I realize this thread is about banking, however, you cannot have sound money and an empire. Those two things are incompatible. The guns and butter state and debt devalued currency are Siamese twins.

 

[Sukerkin]

Just what I've been saying for months, Elder :tup:.

I've said it before but it bears repeating here that what started the slide towards the current desperate straights in the American economy was the tax cuts during the Reagan administration. The silliness of giving loans to those that couldn't/wouldn't pay them back was 'merely' the trigger that actually kicked off the avalanche.

As I noted in another thread recently, if you want an infrastructure (and you cannot survive as a modern nation without one) then you have to pay for it. Tax cuts are nice for putting a few more dollars in peoples back pockets but they don't spend them on roads, hospitals, police, garbage disposal etc and when those things begin to wear out and fail to serve then everyone suffers.

 

[elder999]

the tax cuts during the Reagan administration..

"Job creators":lol: "grow the economy" :lol: :lol: "trickle down" economics...:lfao: :lfao: :lfao:

Ya know what "trickles down" from the wealthiest 2% of America, dontcha? :lfao:

Urine. :lfao:

 

[Sukerkin]

I have now managed to watch the video (didn't want to load at first for some obscure Internetty reason ). Wow! Well said that man :applause:. I had to pause it occasionally as scenes where everyone shouts and no-one listens grate on my sensibilities but it was worth watching :nods:.

 

[MaxiMe]

Ya know what "trickles down" from the wealthiest 2% of America, dontcha? :lfao:

A Job. The hard luck guy on the corner has yet to hire me.
I didn't Find Stossel doing his report around here

 

[cdunn]

A Job. The hard luck guy on the corner has yet to hire me.

In the real world, the wealthy invest their money, rather than than spend it all. This is how they stay wealthy. This provides companies with capital. The poor and middle class provide demand, which provides daily cash flow. A company needs BOTH to expand and make jobs. We have spent thirty years pretending that we can grow the economy without growing the middle class and lifting the poor - it's worked because the underclasses have taken on debt - and now we can't any more, and we're crashing.

 

[Jenna]

I cannot help but post this again (not the first time) as reference is made to it in this OP piece. Horribly prophetic as ever.

[yt]WINDtlPXmmE[/yt]

 

[billc]

Madness is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Giving any more money to these guys is exactly that, madness. When they brought in the lottery in Illinois, these wonderful politicians said," let us have a lottery and the profits will all go to education," sounds wonderful doesn't it. All that money pouring in to help all those poor kids get a chance at a better life. Didn't happen, which I am sure everyone here knew before finishing the sentence. The "extra" money wasn't extra it was instead of the regular education funding. Every lottery dollar simply freed up the education money for other corrupt, or wasteful programs. Sooo...giving more tax money to the same guys who caused the problem is "madness." A special "act of congress" won't do anything. It's like the foxes coming up with an extra special protection act to protect chicken coops from predators. Starve the beast, it is the only way. Cut the taxes, and make them long term and draw business back to the states and give businesses some confidence for the future. Oh, and stop Obamacare and do something different to fix healthcare.

Can any one say that increased taxes, given to the same people who screwed things up is going to fix things?

 

[elder999]

Madness is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

So, somehow we should keep the taxes cut, or cut them more, and expect the economy to improve after a steady-at times precipitously quick-decline, and expect it to "create jobs" and "grow the economy" after a decade of just the opposite, and call that good, sound fiscal sense and government, instead of "madness."
Sounds like "irony" to me, TwinF-er, I mean, soundslik-, er, billi.....:lfao:

How positively billibanal......:lfao:

.

Can any one say that increased taxes, given to the same people who screwed things up is going to fix things?

Increased taxes are needed to alleviate the problem-I'm not sure that "things" can be "fixed" at all......in fact, I'm pretty sure they're going to get worse, regardless of what we do.

They'll get worse much faster if we continue to follow the course laid out by the tea party and hardline conservatives.

 

[billc]

So, you earn 500 dollars a week at your job. You find out that your spouse, (husband/wife you can pick one for the sake of the example) has been spending 2000 dollars a week. You realize, hmmm...there is a problem here, and you logically say, we aren't earning enough money, well, some in the viewing audience would think that was the problem.

To solve the problem here are a few scenarios:
- your spouse says, don't worry, I know we can get some more credit cards.
-you go to your boss and say, hey, you have to pay me more, I have 2000 dollars a week in expenses and you, greedy bastard that you are, are only paying me 500 dollars a week. I give at least 600 dollars a week of that 2000 to charity, so if you don't increase my salary all those starving and sick kids are going to do without because you are a greedy bastard.

Which of the above scenarios sounds fair? Let's say the boss increases the salary (taxes) does anyone think that the situation is going to change, that these people are going to pay down their debt and quit spending money they don't have?