Obama administration oversight of the banking industry

[wanamingo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoWCrxYk-yQ

This was a previously banned TED talk I think illuminates these point much better than I could.

 

[chunkymonster]

Correct me if Im wrong but the budget isnt enforceable by law. Its more of a guideline of where the parameters of spending and discretionary caps.

Incorrect.

While the Constitution does not specifically establish a procedure for a federal budget, it does give Congress the "powers of the purse". However, the Congressional Budget Control Act of 1974 REQUIRES BY LAW for the President to submit a budget on or by the first Monday in February each calendar year. It is worth noting that the budget is is not self-enforceable by the Act but enforced by Congressional Points of Order. The Points of Order, require by law, that the Congress follow the timeline of the BCA. The BCA also requires the Senate Budget Committee to report on budget resolutions (i.e.; submit their version of the budget) to the full Senate. And, the BCA requires the House and Senate to reach a agreement (i.e.; vote on the budget) on the budget resolutions.

The fact is the Senate has not submitted a budget on over 1,200 days.

Moody's has stated they too will downgrade America's credit rating, just like the S&P did, if a DEFICIT REDUCTION budget deal is not reached.

Oh, and btw...reducing government spending by $X over the next ten years DOES NOT EQUAL a deficit reduction, a deficit reduction implies an budget that immediately reduces federal spending and pays down the national debt.

We are witnessing the Cloward-Piven Strategy take place before our very eyes.

 

[wanamingo]

Well wouldnt that fall under long term investments anyway which is already taxed lower? I think its 15%.

The ring analogy is just a really simple example of purchasing a product then selling it for more in the future. I would also be wary of writing off precious metals trading, many people make a lot of money there. So it could be a gold ring or gold bullion doesn't matter. A commodity is being sold with a net profit. Or really any kind of trading that gets a quick profit (35%).

Because in the situation you just gave there is an almost certainty that the investor isnt going to pull his money out in the first year. I also fail to see how paying 15% on long term capital gains would keep anyone from investing.

What you described seems like you could fill with a loan.....

 

[wanamingo]

What if you didn't want to take on any debt?

What if strategic sales planning is telling the decision makers that corporate bonds and private investment makes much more sense in the long term rather than taking on more debt?

Back to the precious metals. Ok, you need traders, advisors, customer service reps., security to guard the gold supply, etc etc. So yes, gold trading does create jobs.

But how come increased buying power could accomplish the exact same thing? If the general public is buying more widgets from your company then you make more profit and the whole system needs to hire to keep up with demand.

How does a person collect their money from capital gains? By selling their stock or creating a contract before hand? - Honest question.

 

[wanamingo]

You think the free market would support giving money to the actual consumers. The way it is now a company can be inflated overnight and crush competition. A better way would to be let people decide with purchases, at least in a capitalistic society. Because then the product would be the focal point and not just sales.

If you had a successful investment that you didn't start collecting on for more than 1 year it would be a long term investment, if the company reached a point where it could start giving out quarterly dividends then its making so much money it doesn't need to reinvest for growth. But even in such a case it would only take 15% longer to recoup the taxation. So its really just increasing the amount of time it takes to get a return.

This is an interesting debate that I think can be described as follows.

Is it better for the investor to have more money in their pocket or the consumer?

 

[Reynod]

Im confused now I thought republicans like tax cuts?

What taxes would Romney lower to improve the economy?

The previous republican govt tax cuts are what put your economy in the toilet in the first place ... being unable to raise enough revenue to cover the budget ... successive blowouts causing the massive rise in debt.

Your country needs to raise taxes.

Jeez your economists are as stupid as ours are.

Did they all dodge the same classes?

Somebody should listen to Mr Clinton (no ... the other one) ... that old geezer seems on the right track.

 

[chunkymonster]

The previous republican govt tax cuts are what put your economy in the toilet in the first place ... being unable to raise enough revenue to cover the budget ... successive blowouts causing the massive rise in debt.

Your country needs to raise taxes.

Jeez your economists are as stupid as ours are.

Did they all dodge the same classes?

Somebody should listen to Mr Clinton (no ... the other one) ... that old geezer seems on the right track.

You are right by saying the previous republican tax cuts are why our economy is in the toilet, but the tax cuts are only partially to blame. We can also count Medicare Part D, TARP, the Obama stimulus packages, and the ACA. The irony is, if the Congress had cut spending and scaled back the billions in foreign aid, there would have been no reason to borrow money from China and continue deficit spending.

You are partially correct in that America needs to raise taxes, more importantly, American needs to totally overhaul it's tax code.

The Democrat/Progressive narrative is to raise taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" (actually people who make over $250,000 annually) based on the subjective lie that they "need to pay their fair share" and continued by the lie that by raising the taxes on that income level it will raise enough revenue to solve America's financial problems. As Clinton said, do the math, the Democrat/Progressive narrative does not add up any more than the Republican narrative.

The irony about the "pay their fair share" narrative is the fact that about 50% of Americans have a 0% federal tax liability; which means that while they do pay federal taxes, they get all of it returned to them as a tax return. There are even documented instances where that 50% of Americans actually get more returned to then than they paid in. So, when is comes to the narrative of "pay their fair share", those who make a fair wage have no choice but question WTF Democrats and Progressives are talking about!

So, if the narrative is that everyone "pay their fair share" then it is fair to have the 50% increase their federal tax liability along with having higher income people pay more in taxes. But that would be politically impossible under the current tax code.

There is where overhauling the American tax code becomes necessary. It is the current tax code that allows the rich to get richer, the poor to remain poor, and is causing the middle class in America to lose decades worth of hard earned wealth.

 

[Reynod]

Some good points there chunky.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Herman Cain anyone?

 

[chunkymonster]

Herman Cain anyone?

The biggest appeal, to me, of the "9-9-9" plan was the 9% sales tax was only on new durable goods, which meant that all used goods were not subject to sales tax, that's friggin' awesome because I buy mostly used stuff anyway!

The 9-9-9 plan had a better chance of becoming law than a flat/fair tax ever will.

Sadly, now, neither will ever have a chance to become law...