Contributors

Friday, November 26, 2010

Raise My Taxes!

Well, Warren Buffet has gone and done it again. The Oracle of Omaha has made those right wingers foam at the mouth again with his recent comments about how he should pay more in taxes.

"If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper middle class should even probably be cut further," Buffett said. "But I think that people at the high end -- people like myself -- should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it."

No shit.

It's what I've been saying all along. Better than they've ever had it...it's a fucking clam bake right now. The folks who lost 20 trillion dollars (and begged the government for a bail out) still have all their money and none, as of yet, have seen any prison time.

And what does Buffet have to say about you supply siders?

The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on," Buffett explained.

Some like me are. Several who post here aren't. When will you? It hasn't worked and will never work because people are greedy. As many conservative Christians have assured me, man is naturally sinful. So why do they give a break to the money guys then? I don't get it. Unless they are now, as Jesus so clearly warned, worshiping the false god of money...

Right around now, of course, is when the standard line comes out. "No one is stopping Buffet from paying more in taxes." I'm not sure from where this originated but it is wrong. The IRS is actually stopping him from paying more in taxes. In the first place, you can't overpay your taxes. Anyone who has ever done this on accident knows that you get a refund. In addition, the IRS doesn't take donations. Don't take my word for it. Ask someone you know who is an accountant. I did. My wife has been one for almost 30 years.

While I'm certain that Buffet could figure out a way to donate his money to the government, that really isn't his point. Try for a moment to think outside of the box on this one and realize that the system, as it is currently set up, favors wealthy people. This is not only true of the tax system but of the private sector as well. How many average joes do you know that get a chance at an IPO?

For those of you that post here, are not in the top 2 percent, and support the Right (whether it is the current form of the GOP or libertarian views), kindly rid yourself of the fantasy that some day you will get the chance to be as wealthy as those CEOs you worship. The way the system is currently set up, IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. No amount of hard work, financial know how, or wizardry is going to assist you.

The people that are in power right now want to keep it that way. They have spent the last three decades shifting the majority of our nation's wealth to their bank accounts. They spit on the Democrats, like Bill Clinton, who think that the middle class drives this economy. They shit on President Obama who has made at least some effort to change and regulate the system so people like you can get more breaks. Basically that means they spit and shit on YOU.

I'm wondering how much longer you are going to take it.


45 comments:

juris imprudent said...

You want to raise taxes fairly - take away all the deductions. You made X dollars, you pay Y percent, period. Of course you have to forego a lot of social engineering (both liberal and conservative) to do that. See how far you get.

As many conservative Christians have assured me, man is naturally sinful.

You see, you and the right-wingers you hate so much have something in common. But not me. Not that the more intellectually challenged amongst your readership could possibly grasp that. "Ugh - him not part of our tribe, stone him".

juris imprudent said...

No amount of hard work, financial know how, or wizardry is going to assist you.

I really don't aspire to it anyway; I just am not driven by the same envy you are. But as a point and in light of your two favorite billionaires - how much did Buffett and Gates start out with versus what did they accomplish using the above 'discredited' approach? How did they take away from the poor to make themselves rich?

Contrast that with the Kennedys - where the old man made his fortune illegally during Prohibition, and every subsequent generation has been living off of that advantage.

That would be something to think about, for anyone that actually thinks and doesn't stop with cheap moralizing.

Tess said...

I don't see it as envy, juris. The fact that you notice it means that there's something in your personality that either has it or assumes it in others. Remember that post Mark put up a couple of months back about the film "Dazed and Confused?" It seems to me that he is most interested in music, girls, friends, and parties. Money is probably last on his list although I can't say for sure because I don't know him personally.

Haplo9 said...

Sounds like Mark really wants to reduce the power of government, as he seems to think it is so often used to help people he doesn't like. Oh wait, no, he wants an extremely powerful government, only run by angels. History judges that sentiment harshly, I'm afraid.

>How many average joes do you know that get a chance at an IPO?

Are IPO's some kind of pinnacle of existence? You are aware that IPO's fail, right?

>rid yourself of the fantasy that some day you will get the chance to be as wealthy as those CEOs you worship.

You seem to be under the illusion that being a CEO is the only way to get rich. How about, you know, coming up with a good idea? Or is that passe?

>The way the system is currently set up, IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. No amount of hard work, financial know how, or wizardry is going to assist you.

Funny, I actually know a number of people who have gotten quite wealthy within my lifetime, and none of them are politically connected, and none are CEO's.

Maybe you need to get out more Mark, because the only person you're speaking for is yourself. (Well, ok, maybe the rest of the envious left too.) "Gurgle! Farble! I'm not rich, but I'm such a good person compared to those scum that are! How can that be fair?"

ted r. said...

The chief concern as I say it, and Mark so eloquently states, is the state of the middle class. What's happening right now simply isn't fair. The wealthy of this nation are hungry for more and more money...more and more power...and no amount will ever be enough. Meanwhile, the middle class is slowly being sucked dry with higher living expenses by these same wealthy people. If anything, the elite of this country might want to curb their greed and take a lesson from France, late 18th century.

Why the Tea Party equates this elite with the Democrats I will never understand. Juris, the Kennedys do indeed have much wealth. So why have they continually tried to pass laws that are not in their own self interest?

Haplo9 said...

>What's happening right now simply isn't fair. The wealthy of this nation are hungry for more and more money...more and more power...and no amount will ever be enough. Meanwhile, the middle class is slowly being sucked dry with higher living expenses by these same wealthy people.

This doesn't make sense. Or, more accurately, I can only get it to make some sort of sense if I ignore economics and decide to believe that the economy consists of a fixed pile of money and when a wealthy person makes a lot of money, they are taking some of it from me. Is that what you think?

juris imprudent said...

The fact that you notice it means that there's something in your personality that either has it or assumes it in others.

Tess, dear clueless one, M has ranted more than once about his envy. He denies it is envy, but it is what it is. I'm not the big one on projecting in these parts.

Oh, and thanks for commenting on me personally and not on anything substantive I had to say. You continue to elevate the discourse here doing so. I mean, it shouldn't be hard to tell everyone about how Buffett and Gates have screwed over poor people so they could get rich. That too is a recurring theme around here. Just look at ted r.'s comment.

So why have they continually tried to pass laws that are not in their own self interest?

Because they build in exceptions for themselves. You REALLY think they ever intend to let the govt take away THEIR wealth?

Last in line said...

"Try for a moment to think outside of the box on this one and realize that the system, as it is currently set up, favors wealthy people. This is not only true of the tax system but of the private sector as well."

Has there ever been a time when this hasn't been the case? And didn't all you Obama voters vote to change this stuff 2 years ago? What happened?

Mark, if you go on my facebook picture album called Pics, in the 4th row down you'll see a pic of me holding 2 northern pike and another guy holding a largemouth bass. We go fishing with him all the time during the summer. He's worth several million dollars and he is a transmission mechanic who owned his own small garage in Illinois for 25 years. Try telling him no amount of hard work will do no good. Hard work won't necessarily get you there (whatever your definition of "there" is) but smart work sure as hell will. There are too many examples of upward mobility in this country to listen to someone say that no amount of hard work or education will help you out in life.

So I too know several people who have done quite well for themselves who are not CEO Wall Street types. You keep telling us we "worship" CEO's - if your points had validity there would be no need to misrepresent my position like that. Knock it off already.

downtown said...

The only thing Mark really cares about is his kids, his wife's ass, seeing shows at first avenue, and the sad tragedy that I am better at volleyball then him and always will be. Money is not high on his list at all, juris imprudent, so you are totally wrong on that score.

Last in line, your friend at the garage was able to get that money during a time when it was more favorable for the middle class. The Clinton Era, right? There is less of chance for someone like him to do that today, especially given the last 10 years of the greatest wealth transfer in the history of the world. Chances are much slimmer (I'd say none actually) that anyone is going to succeed like your friend did. Unless, of course, people begin to understand that President Obama and the Democrats are on their side while the Republicans seek to continue the transfer.

GuardDuck said...

the last 10 years of the greatest wealth transfer in the history of the world.

Exaggerate much? Care to back that up with some historical facts?

Haplo9 said...

>Money is not high on his list at all, juris imprudent, so you are totally wrong on that score.

So perhaps you can explain then, downtown, just why he is so focused on other people that make a lot money? Why is it any of his concern? Cause from where I sit, Mark (and a lot of lefties like him) really think it is important what rich people are doing with their money.

>The Clinton Era, right?

You mean the Republican Congress Era? Or is the political affiliation of the president the only thing that matters?

>There is less of chance for someone like him to do that today,

And you know this how? Have you tried? Started a business?

>Chances are much slimmer (I'd say none actually) that anyone is going to succeed like your friend did.

Again, you know this how? Speaking as a small business owner, the primary things that limit my ability to be successful are:

1. My own ability in terms of ideas and how I implement them.
2. The government, both in terms of taxes and in terms of regulations that inhibit either new businesses I'd like to open or how I conduct existing businesses.

The primary thing that politicians of either party do is impede my business. Democrats are somewhat worse at present. So no, Obama is not on my side. Neither was Bush.

It's funny you would talk about wealth transfers on this blog though. We were just talking about Social Security the other day..

Anonymous said...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15923.htm

oojc said...

"Why is it any of his concern?"

Because he cares. About others. Being ripped off. And Ted R is right on with his comment about the French Revolution.

All of this makes sense to me now. The rugged individualists here don't give a shit about anyone but themselves and really REALLY don't want the government doing anything to help. What a sick world you people live in. I hope to God that the Democrats are able to stick around because they are the only thing standing between you and the fucking abyss right now.

Repo Men is coming soon to a reality near you.

Haplo9 said...

>Being ripped off.

Ripped off HOW? How does someone else getting richer rip me, or you, off?

>Because he cares. About others.

As do I. Which is why I oppose well meaning but economically illiterate (well, just plain ignorant) people like Mark and you trying impose your notions of "good capitalism" on everyone else. In your attempt to "help", you'll destroy. It has happened over and over again in history, and you don't even realize that you are repeating it.

>I hope to God that the Democrats are able to stick around because they are the only thing standing between you and the fucking abyss right now.

Yes, horrors. How did we ever make it through the 90's with that R congress, or the 2000's when the R's had all three branches of govt.

>Repo Men is coming soon to a reality near you.

Oh god, you're another Mark: "omg I saw this movie guys, and it TOTALLY explained reality to me" kind of guy aren't you. Were you one of his students?

juris imprudent said...

Because he cares.

Yeah baby, keep that leftist moralizing coming.

don't want the government doing anything to help

1) You haven't even said what the problem is. That some people get rich? Why exactly is that a problem?

2) You automatically assume that whatever the govt does is going to improve the problem you can't even articulate.

3) Your partisan hack-assery leaps to front and center. Haven't you seen for the last two years that the Dems aren't any better at all than the Repubs - what the hell is it going to take to convince you?

How small it must be inside your mind.

Damn Teabaggers said...

Is Warren Buffett required by law to take all the deductions he takes? Ask your wife.

Does he decline to take all the deductions he is allowed? Apparently he doesn't refuse them, otherwise he would be paying more than his secretary.

Is there any evidence to suggest that if his tax rate is raised he will suddenly forego all the deductions he has taken up until now? No, there isn't.

Therefore "people like myself should be paying more in taxes" doesn't mean he wants to pay any more himself, it means he wants his competition, those who are in his income bracket but don't have all his deductions, to pay more taxes.

In other words, it's the typical liberal "someone else should do it" mentality. "People like me" should pay more, but I shouldn't. Rather like John Kerry, who "wants to pay more taxes" but homeports his yacht outside of his home state to avoid paying them.

Tess said...

"Maybe you need to get out more Mark"

Wait a minute. Get out more? I thought when he didn't post (i.e. living his life) he was "running away from threads." Which is it? You people need to make up your minds!

6Kings said...

the last 10 years of the greatest wealth transfer in the history of the world.

GD, Maybe he means outside of the US. The Chinese and other foreign investors have been propping up the lefties "Big Government" programs forever. The borrowing that occurred in the last 2 years and will continue into the foreseeable future has been staggering and flowing right into China.

Democraps and their policies leave a trail of woe behind them everywhere they go...Cali, NY, Illinois, etc. They wouldn't know how to create wealth even if you gave them an instruction manual and it shows whenever and wherever they get to lead. M and his cohorts just live in denial.

juris imprudent said...

I'm going to make an assumption here, ya'll can correct me if I'm wrong, but here goes.

The hatred/envy/antipathy with regard to the wealthy in these parts is primarily directed at business people (Wall Street types especially). You aren't all that concerned with heirs to fortunes, because that would come to close to knocking a Kennedy, or folks that keep the tabloids filled, like Hiltons and Kardashians. You wouldn't want to have to fore-go your favorite actors or musicians. At least some of you wouldn't want to see your favorite sports star/team humbled. Now, perhaps only one of those hits close to home for you, maybe more, but you are a liar if there isn't some rich person whom you support/admire for some reason. [Let alone the ones you support without consciously doing so.]

Now the point of this little thought experiment is this - there are a lot more of the latter (folks you are more than willing to tolerate being rich) than the former (evil baby-eating Capitalist robber barons). Are you really willing to gore your own ox to make sure the other guys is gored as well?

Fundamentalist Wackos said...

Send a memo to Warren Buffett... and your wife:

https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454

Last in line said...

Are you willing to go so far as to say no amount of EDUCATION will assist Mark? Tell that to the kids at school?

Last in line said...

Guess not.

Well downtown, he started during the Reagan era and just sold his business last year. It's kind of hard to debate things about "my one friend..." or "My neighbor said..." because people are individuals make their own decisions in life.

Speaking for myself, I'm in a pretty good financial position right now for someone in their mid-30's. I'll never be as wealthy as a wall street ceo and don't really strive for it. The whole idiotic argument made in the original entry stated that I have some "fantasy" (It is real easy to debate when you can claim to jump into someone elses head and put attach bullshit motives that the other person does not have) is false because I manage my expectations. Mark knows I don't crave status because he's known me for 10 years, yet his "fantasy" still applies to me somehow.

Mark Ward said...

In terms of the fantasy, I would say that it applies less to you than other people I know. Where I am puzzled is the continued acceptance of charity for the wealthy. The people that run our gas, electricity, food production, and clothing really want to charge us more so they can have more and we can barely scrape by in many cases? It basically comes down to greed. They want more and they get that by seeing to it that we get less. Continue to knee the government in the balls (which are now black and blue) and watch your pretty good financial position vaporize.

Both you and I are unhappy when our bills of necessities go up. The difference arises when I see the government as a solution to regulate this and you see it as a cause of it, right?

juris imprudent said...

Hey, M what should the govt have done to prevent this sad tale?

Where I am puzzled is the continued acceptance of charity for the wealthy.

Who advocates charity for the wealthy? Paying less in taxes - for anyone - is not charity.

Maybe you are puzzled about something that only exists in your terribly confused mind.

Haplo9 said...

>The difference arises when I see the government as a solution to regulate this and you see it as a cause of it, right?

Simple question Mark - would you prefer it if the government set prices for all things deemed to be necessities?

Damn Teabaggers said...

He has already answered that one, Hap:

Think back to 1960. The federal government regulated the price of every airfare. It regulated every rail, truck and shipping route. It regulated the price of natural gas. It regulated stockbrokers' commissions. It regulated the interest rates that could be paid on checking accounts. It told most farmers how much they could grow of what commodity. It regulated what kind of political and religious comment could be expressed on the airwaves. And of course it conscripted millions of young men beginning their careers into the armed forces.

All of that is gone, gone, gone.

It sure is gone and that's why we have all the problems we have today.


Looks like an unqualified 'yes' to me.

Haplo9 said...

Oh yeah, I had forgotten about that one DT. Thanks. I wonder if Mark foresees any problems with that arrangement, or everything is wonderful..

(On a side note, does that quote not remind you Trent Lott's praising of Strom Thurmond? Clearly, Mark pines for old times - when he could be racist and get away with it. :P)

last in line said...

Another difference could also be that if the price of gas, food and clothing rise, I will adjust my behavior in order to lower my consumption. I'm no passive victim.

To add to the above 2 posts...remember that the dems aren't always going to have the white house and the other party will eventually get back in there...and they'll no doubt take advantage of all the centralized power you fought so hard for at this point in time. They're politicians after all.

juris imprudent said...

They want more and they get that by seeing to it that we get less.

Wow, the ignorance in that is just stunning.

Damn Teabaggers said...

I wonder if Mark foresees any problems with that arrangement, or everything is wonderful..

(On a side note, does that quote not remind you Trent Lott's praising of Strom Thurmond? Clearly, Mark pines for old times - when he could be racist and get away with it. :P)


I like what Civil War Reenactors had to say about it:

It's hilariously ironic to see you pining for the days of MK Ultra, Joe McCarthy and the Shah of Iran.

And this... Oh. My. Fucking. Gawd.

They want more and they get that by seeing to it that we get less.

Wow, the ignorance in that is just stunning.


Mark, you teach Economics? And you're really, truly unaware that the economy as a zero-sum game is a concept more outdated than Flat Earth Theory?

Shaping the minds of tomorrow... "critical" thinking, indeed.

Mark Ward said...

"would you prefer it if the government set prices for all things deemed to be necessities?"

No. I think that it depends on the situation. With the airlines, yes. The Constitution clearly states that the interstate commerce should be regulated by Congress. I have a good friend who is a pilot and life was pretty good back when our government set the prices. Now he is essentially treated like an animal and has no power whatsoever. He makes shit for money, works insane hours that are truly unsafe, and he works for a major airline.

The financial sector? You bet. If an investment firm wants to risk money on something, it should be the owners of the firm not the customer's money. That's gone now. Banks? You better believe it. What the "free" market has done is essentially make slaves of all of us with their ridiculous interest rates and excess fees.

I think the argument about the airwaves is different now with the advent of the internet. But I don't think that places like Clear Channel should be allowed to have a monopoly on the political market.

"I will adjust my behavior in order to lower my consumption."

But you are assuming a perfectly competitive market. It's getting to be less and less like that. If you don't like your natural gas company, will you adjust your behavior? I also doubt you will curtail your gasoline consumption unless you are paying 5 dollars a gallon.

"Mark, you teach Economics?"

No, I don't. But guess who does now? People who make millions of dollars serving on the boards of AIG and Goldman Sachs. I would urge you to see the film "Inside Job" as I am certain that whatever views you have of the economy will be thrown out the window.

You can try to shove a square peg into a round hole all day if you like, DT, but your libertarian ideas for economic policy are only going to hasten our demise.

I don't teach dogma either...whatever the side. Centrally planned economies have, by and large, been shown to be failures along with Marxism. My question to students would be why? Or how? Deregulation has also been shown to be catastrophic. Why? How? I realize these are pretty basic starting points but can you answer either of these questions?

I'm willing to bet you can answer the first but not the second. Dogma and all.

last in line said...

Will I adjust my behavior? Naw, I'll just adjust my thermostat.

I could curtail my gasoline consumption any time I want. My job is only 7 miles from my house and the gym is halfway between both locations. Speaking of gasoline, I remember the discussion on here a couple years ago where you blamed Bush for $2.75/gallon gas.

juris imprudent said...

No. I think that it depends on the situation. With the airlines, yes.

May I ask why? Is there a reason or did you just pick this, literally out of the air?

Now he is essentially treated like an animal and has no power whatsoever. He makes shit for money, works insane hours that are truly unsafe, and he works for a major airline.

You are a pathetic liar. It would be easier for you to tell the truth - you don't know shit. Such as...

What the "free" market has done is essentially make slaves of all of us with their ridiculous interest rates and excess fees.

If I could touch you right this moment, I swear to the God I don't believe in, I would bitch-slap you. Repeatedly.

But I don't think that places like Clear Channel should be allowed to have a monopoly on the political market.

Meaning you would censor them out of existence. Nice, very nice.

But you are assuming a perfectly competitive market.

No he isn't you codswallop lump of stupidity. He was talking about what he would do when prices rise. You apparently don't change any behavior when something gets more expensive - you just howl that the govt should do something about it. Then you erect your mighty strawman argument about perfect competition - which was utterly fucking irrelevant to the point - so you can tear it apart like a meth-addled spastic chihuahua.

I have to tend to agree that you don't teach dogma. You might indoctrinate, but I seriously doubt you can teach.

GuardDuck said...

If you don't like your natural gas company, will you adjust your behavior?

Tell me Mark, you can walk into a store and have your choice of ten different colas but you get one natural gas company. Which one is a result of the free market and which is the result of the government?

Mark Ward said...

But is it the fault of the government or the gas company who desires a market that is not perfectly competitive? I would say the latter. The energy industry has it pretty darn good these days but that's part and parcel to our oligopolies we have in the various private sectors. Six movie studios receive 90 percent of the revenue. There are basically 8 entertainment companies that put out TV product...4 that do music...4 wireless providers...6 publishers...these are not perfectly competitive markets. But why?

Because the owners of these companies use their money and lobbying power to manipulate the government. And that's what we have going on with the energy industry. They can set whatever price they want.

Mark Ward said...

"You are a pathetic liar. It would be easier for you to tell the truth - you don't know shit. Such as..."

What exactly are you basing this on? I have known my pilot friend for 28 years. He laments to me often about his long hours, time away from his family, and shit pay.

Speaking Truth to Idiots said...

>Because the owners of these companies use their money and lobbying power to manipulate the government.

Which is EXACTLY why we think the government should not have the power to manipulate the market to pick winners and losers; but only to prevent force and fraud from causing their own distortions.

So why do you keep arguing that governments should have this power? If the government has the power, there will always be those who attempt to manipulate that power for their own ends.

Damn Teabaggers said...

But is it the fault of the government or the gas company who desires a market that is not perfectly competitive? I would say the latter.

That's a very revealing statement. As long as a single employee or stockholder is trying to provide for himself and his family working for that company, what is that company's primary duty? To provide a product or service desirable enough for the employees and stockholders to make money, that's what. Trying to pressure others into allowing them greater market share and less competition is perfectly in line with that. It may make them assholes, but it does not necessarily make them criminals, as you seem to think it does automatically.

On the other hand, if a government employee or elected official, whose specific job it is to prevent the use of force and/or fraud, allows a company to pressure him into abetting fraud instead of preventing it, you're claiming that is the fault of the company applying the pressure, not the person specifically tasked with refusing to fold under that pressure. This even though the person tasked with dealing with that pressure is, by definition, defrauding his employer, eg the American taxpayer.

As usual, you'll support any despotism as long as it agrees with your prejudices. Sad, but not surprising.

Mark Ward said...

What should actually happen is that the government prevents force and fraud which is essentially what is happening now. Take away that power and we continue to have the issues we have now or worse.

DT, your first paragraph reminded me of something I saw on a friend's FB status recently.

"Which corporations are prioritizing their employees before their shareholders? I want to give them my money."

You lump shareholders and employees together and I think that in our current environment, it's their shareholders that are getting preferential treatment. Now there are good companies out there (Southwest Airlines, Minnetonka Moccasins, UPS) but we have become a country that is obsessed with profit to a fault.

juris imprudent said...

But is it the fault of the government or the gas company

Psst, buddy, who gave the gas company a monopoly on service in your geographic area? [Hint: the state/local govt] It's sad, but you almost understand something here - though no matter how hard it smashes into your forehead, it can't penetrate.

Dumb dumb dumb dumb, dumb dumb dumb dumb!

M I also know pilots, and their work rules did not change due to ending the price control under the CAB (you do know what the CAB was, right?). You also know that that was Carter that signed that, right? The act was introduced by a Democratic Senator, you knew that too, right? And it was carried through the House when it was under Democrat control too. But you knew all of that and that is why you blame libertarians for the fact that flying is more affordable and accessible then it was under the regulatory regime.

Nor is air travel a true necessity to life - certainly not like food, water, housing or clothing - none of which oddly enough end up in your discussion about free markets and regulation.

GuardDuck said...

Why do I get the feeling that if modeling two "perfectly competitive" markets, Mark and I would come with with two completely different animals?


Mark, a perfectly competitive market would look to you like no such thing. Besides which such a creature is impossible to achieve and is not desirable in and of itself anyway.

GuardDuck said...

Let me add to that last post.

When I said such a thing is impossible and not desirable I meant a market as view by Mark as "perfectly competitive".

A truly perfectly competitive market is a misnomer. By nature competition creates efficiency, innovation and discovery. In a free market these are fueled by the motivation of profit. Once achieved by one competitor that competitor has a market edge. That edge 'destroys' the "perfectly competitive" nature of the market.

The free market expects and demands that competitors seek and exploit market edges. A truly free market is never "perfectly competitive".

Damn Teabaggers said...

What should actually happen is that the government prevents force and fraud which is essentially what is happening now.

It is? You mean the financial meltdown resulting from the SEC not doing their jobs never actually happened? You mean the BP oil spill resulting from the MMS not doing their jobs never actually happened?

Take away that power and we continue to have the issues we have now or worse.

The power they currently have is not being used to prevent force and/or fraud, it's being used to abet it. And you can't claim that you don't know/don't support it either, as using immigration law to abet fraud by illegals against citizens and Obama's open, blatant forcible rape of the former stockholders of GM are both things you are full of praise for.

Increase that power and you increase their ability to abet such fraud. And since you (and Democrats in general) are openly against enforcing laws and regulations on anyone who supports you, people assume that you will do nothing to change that. Is that unreasonable of them?

You lump shareholders and employees together and I think that in our current environment, it's their shareholders that are getting preferential treatment.

I don't think it's any of my business. If I don't like the way they treat their employees, I won't work for them. If I don't like the way they treat their stockholders, I won't invest with them.

GM's "Epic Success" has resulted in the UAW recovering about 60% of their losses. Of course, the people who were stockholders when Obama took control and shitcanned bankruptcy law have recovered about.... 0%

Is that how you define "fairness", or is that still "preferential treatment" of the stockholders?

Mark Ward said...

DT, sorry, I left out the word "not" in there...so it should read:

What should actually happen is that the government prevents force and fraud which is essentially NOT what is happening now.

That's the crux of the problem, really. And with a very large group of people wanting the government to "get the hell out of the way" you could see why I would be frustrated.

oojc said...

Careful, Mark. You are posting a comment on a column that is off the page. Does that mean you are now, officially, NOT running away?