I'm going to restate part of an earlier post:

"In other words those taxpayers will likely pay more taxes on money at risk, as opposed to money not at risk."

People can blame exotic derivatives all they want, but capital gains involve more than that. To take Boatshoes' 'widget' hypothetical, in the real world typically you have a someone or something funding the widget making - at significant risk.

People can blame exotic derivatives all they want, but capital gains involve more than that. To take Boatshoes' 'widget' hypothetical, in the real world typically you have a someone or something funding the widget making - at significant risk.

Is that the same real world that allows the major TBTF firms and many others to have perfect trading quarters? Something that until recently had never happened once, let alone by multiple firms in the 200+ year history of the stock exchange.

Manhattan Buckeye;414876 wrote:I'm going to restate part of an earlier post:

"In other words those taxpayers will likely pay more taxes on money at risk, as opposed to money not at risk."

People can blame exotic derivatives all they want, but capital gains involve more than that. To take Boatshoes' 'widget' hypothetical, in the real world typically you have a someone or something funding the widget making - at significant risk.

Exactly which will, of course, mean Homo Economicus will be even less likely to plow profits into people (IE: hire).

All those tangents off what I wrote and not one acknowledged the point I made: IT WAS THE HOUSING MELTDOWN THAT TANKED THE ECONOMY AND SKEWED THE ECONOMIC GAINS FROM THE PREVIOUS SEVEN YEARS UNDER BUSH. Take out the meltdown, and the tax cuts worked just fine in helping to keep the economy chugging along.

You can't discard all the gains made under most of the Bush years by tying an unrelated economic anchor to the subject. The tax cuts worked just fine and the economy would have been fine going forward under Obama if not for the idiocy of the left (the CRA) and negligence of Fannie and Freddie (by Barnie Frank, Maxine Waters and others) and the unchecked greed of Wall Street to take a bad situation and make it exponentially worse.

The economy might have been okay had we done anything of value in regards to the financial sector and the housing crisis. Also if we didn't get involved in wars costing hundreds of billions. Not everything was exactly the Bush administration's fault. But some of it definitely was. Deregulating wall street was a horrible idea.

Writerbuckeye;415199 wrote:All those tangents off what I wrote and not one acknowledged the point I made: IT WAS THE HOUSING MELTDOWN THAT TANKED THE ECONOMY AND SKEWED THE ECONOMIC GAINS FROM THE PREVIOUS SEVEN YEARS UNDER BUSH. Take out the meltdown, and the tax cuts worked just fine in helping to keep the economy chugging along.

You can't discard all the gains made under most of the Bush years by tying an unrelated economic anchor to the subject. The tax cuts worked just fine and the economy would have been fine going forward under Obama if not for the idiocy of the left (the CRA) and negligence of Fannie and Freddie (by Barnie Frank, Maxine Waters and others) and the unchecked greed of Wall Street to take a bad situation and make it exponentially worse.

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment Writer.

No one denies Wall Street excesses in the matter, but the left continues to bury its head in the sand at its own involvement in the housing meltdown and, as usual, are very quick to point the finger at Bush. Sooner or later the rooster will come home to roost...it always does.

Government spending is the problem - period.

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/april/spending-not-tax-cuts-is-the-real-driver-of-the-fiscal-mess

QuakerOats;415428 wrote:Government spending is the problem - period.

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/april/spending-not-tax-cuts-is-the-real-driver-of-the-fiscal-mess

Naw you're all wrong. According to the brilliant minds on Capitol Hill we need MORE government spending to stimulate the economy. Pelosi even thinks we need more people on unemployment to stimulate the economy. SPENDING...That's the key. Get with the program.

believer;415402 wrote:I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment Writer.

No one denies Wall Street excesses in the matter, but the left continues to bury its head in the sand at its own involvement in the housing meltdown and, as usual, are very quick to point the finger at Bush. Sooner or later the rooster will come home to roost...it always does.

Great cartoon here-



http://www.investors.com/EditorialCartoons/Cartoon.aspx?id=538626