We could have a combination of cuts and a return to sensible taxation.
We could have work for welfare, and that's fine, but unless they reverse the Nafta gift to the rich (slave labor overseas, where there is not environmental legislation, either), then it's not fair to cut the nuts off the poor man,
Make decent work in the manufacturing space available once again, in the USA.
Yes, I did credit Clinton with signing Nafta, in my opinion, the major factor in the housing crisis. So, not partisan here....I think they're all putting the screws to us.
Brunt does not equal fair share. Too many loopholes. The 40% capital gains tax maximum of the late 90's did not prevent people from becoming filthy rich. The resulting bull market, a genuine bull market, more than offset the taxes they had to pay.
That bull was better than this latest one. We had deflation in commodities and cost of living and an inflation of asset values. And decent jobs in every sector, including manufacturing......anyone wanting to work could find something decent pre-Nafta.
What I wouldn't give to live those days again.
I've given you several thumbs up in this thread, not because I agree with you 100%, but for bringing a good topic front and center.
I think we should go back to that tax structure from the 90's that involved the balanced budget act, that eventually got past the gatekeeper Clinton.
And those tax rates were less favorable to the rich than what we have now, in one sense, but look at the economy we had......it was worth it to the rich.
Slow but steady wins the race, a concept the greedy to get "everything now" don't understand.
Which "Rich" are we talking about that pay taxes.
Buffet admits that he pays less taxes than the people working low level jobs in his businesses.
Many of our richest corporations dodge taxes by having their headquarters overseas, in addition to exploiting slave wages in places like China. Apple is an example of this.
How about the bankers that get free money via QE? So what if they pay taxes on their "profits", their "profits" are growing our debt!
If you're referring to the upper middle class when you say "rich", then I can somewhat agree with you there.
But as far as the truly rich are concerned, they've had it easy for the past fifteen years.
Before GW. Bush, they paid 40% capital gains, and managed to prosper just fine. No one was #$%$ during the Clinton years. But those policies that ran a balanced budget (with surplus), and were bringing down the debt, were abandoned forever.
Then again Clinton signed NAFTA......something no one talks about, but was just as instrumental in setting up the crisis as the loose banking regulations and tax reform from Bush.
Actually, it's not the "rich". Those people don't pay taxes either. It all goes on the debt, along with the cost of defense.....the two biggest expenses we have, are welfare and defense. And every day, the debt grows.
Also, there are two forms of welfare......one for the top 5% and another for the poorest Citizens.
I think the "rich" should be grateful.....and chip in their fair share...the middle class is shrinking and can't do it all by themselves.
Good to see you here Mr. Campbell, it's been a while.
When I play max pain, I always look at which strike has the most open interest. You have to keep an eye on it the day of expiration, because it can change during the course of trading, and there can be more than one opportunity on any given Friday.
There are those rare times when the MM's can't overcome the crowds, but they have a tendency to prevail.
Agreed, so long as when they assemble, they do not plan acts of violence against anyone else, in which case, there's infringement elsewhere in the law.
Don't be ridiculous. How many terrorists would delay getting a slice of pizza in order to mess with Vegie?
There's a guy in my neighborhood that gets shot by the police every year. And it's always on the same day, too.
That makes one that I know of.
Unfortunately, politicians can "separate" the two issues, drawing attention to one and hiding the other. The consequences may be inseparable, but not the visibility of the issues.
If the slave labor countries were sanctioned (left out of the free trade global party), for violating both human rights and the environment, we could possibly get somewhere.
How neither major party, nor other political party, has picked up on this yet blows my mind.
A landslide would be likely in 2016 for that party that caught on now.
Those FTA's would more accurately be described as "SLA's", (Slave Labor Agreements). That's all they ever really were.
There's that other issue of exploiting slave labor in other countries. But I suppose environmental issues get more attention than human rights.
If there were fair labor laws in every country, the playing field would be level, and the big corporations would be better off manufacturing in their own countries, and relying on competitive products to "win" rather than "winning" by cutting the bottom line as close to zero as possible.
Exactly. All this and they destroyed our economy forever. Everyone seems to be unaware of the role this had in the 2008 collapse.
You hear about how banks loaned money to all kinds of deadbeats, but you don't hear about the millions of people who lost their jobs in manufacturing, and eventually were unable to make their mortgage payments due to the lack of living wage employment available.
Yet no candidate will beat the drums of bringing back good jobs to the U.S., and no one seems concerned about it. Any candidate that would dare point out the pollution coming from manufacturing companies overseas, and the lack of regulation, and proposes bringing those jobs back here (or encouraging such), could probably win in a landslide.
What I don't understand, is why the same people who preach global warming, and support this type of research,
are the same ones who favored free trade agreements back in the 90's, which allowed companies to move their
manufacturing to countries such as China, where there are little or no environmental laws preventing pollution?