Decius wrote:

This, however, is communist.

I certainly don't think it's communist but just as the UK had a mixed ecoonomy post WW2 now you have one.

but that aside

I was watching the news on Monday night and was listening to one economist talk about Andrew William Mellon Secretary of the Treasury from March 4, 1921 until February 12, 1932.

Mellon became unpopular with the onset of the Great Depression. Many economists today (such as Milton Friedman and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, to give two prominent examples) partially attribute the collapse of the American banking industry to the popularity among Federal Reserve leadership of Mellon's infamous "liquidationist" thesis: weeding out "weak" banks was seen as a harsh but necessary prerequisite to the recovery of the banking system. This "weeding out" was accomplished through refusing to lend cash to banks (taking loans and other investments as collateral), and by refusing to put more cash in circulation. He advocated spending cuts to keep the Federal budget balanced, and opposed measures for relief of public suffering. In 1929-31, he spent much of the time overseas, negotiating for repayment of European war debts from World War I. In February 1932, Mellon left the Treasury Department and accepted the post of U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom. He served for one year and then retired to private life.

I think this was the smart move rather than let the global economy go to the wall.

Decius wrote:

Never has the idea of progressive taxation seemed more just.

For the record I've always believed in progressive taxation.

ubernoir wrote:
I think this was the smart move rather than let the global economy go to the wall.

I was being sarcastic. I don't really disagree. But it was out of character for us to do that. In America if you fail in the marketplace its usually "tough shit" not "how can we help." The number one problem in the Great Depression was liquidity. They are trying to avoid that problem here.

Decius wrote:

ubernoir wrote:
I think this was the smart move rather than let the global economy go to the wall.

I was being sarcastic. I don't really disagree. But it was out of character for us to do that. In America if you fail in the marketplace its usually "tough shit" not "how can we help." The number one problem in the Great Depression was liquidity. They are trying to avoid that problem here.

cool sorry dude
I thought it was an out of character comment. The problem of text when tone is more difficult to pick up on.

Decius wrote:
If you were opposed to that you should have been fighting the guarantees years ago.

I was. No one listened. :(

Decius wrote:
This, however, is communist.

Not that I didn't expect to see the C-word, I just figured either dc0de or I would've been the first to use it. ;)

Decius wrote:
So, if we're going commie, I say why go half way. Never has the idea of progressive taxation seemed more just. Its not my fault. Its your fault. I ain't paying for it and I support taxing the crap out of your golden parachutes in order to cover it. Don't forget that the taxpayers have a monopoly on the use of force.

The problem is that you won't be hitting your intended targets. Taxes and fees are factored in as a business costs for corporations, and those costs are passed along to rank and file employees (fewer jobs, lower salaries/wages), consumers (higher retail prices), and investors (which includes everyone who has a retirement account). You'll indirectly hurt those taxpayers. Sure, you'll directly soak the people who work hard to make $100K/year, but the guys like Lehman's CEO Richard Fuld (who was paid an "estimated $466M in compensation from 1993 to 2007," and could still take an additional $60M on his way out), are already set for life. Their extreme salaries are structured to compensate for high tax rates, no matter how much you try to punish them through taxation.

Government should regulate. That's what it's here to do. It should not be using taxpayer dollars for guarantees, bailouts, or subsidies, nor should it try to run the economy or use taxation as a weapon.

Stefanie wrote:

Decius wrote:
If you were opposed to that you should have been fighting the guarantees years ago.

I was. No one listened. :(

Was there a serious, organized effort prior to 2005 to get rid of the guarantees on these entities?

Decius wrote:
Was there a serious, organized effort prior to 2005 to get rid of the guarantees on these entities?

Unfortunately, politicians rarely get serious and/or organized about these things unless we're in, or in the wake of, a crisis.