Stock Market Crash

[Nicholai]

This is an issue of greed and stupidity. The mortgage companies want more money, and the fact is: not very many people can afford to take out a $250k mortgage with an obscene interest rate because their credit sucks, but they damn sure try. The lending companies should have nipped this problem in the bud, and simply imposed lending regulations that wouldn't allow for people who can't afford a loan to get one.

[project_failure]

Id rather see less corparations and CEO's with all the money and have that in the hands of those the actually need and deserve it] and
do.

I can't imagine how a CEO of a corporation wouldn't deserve his pay. I mean he had bust his ass to get were he was. He worked hard and gets paid for his hard work. If I were the CEO of a Corporation and the government tried taking my money to fund some lazy low class s.o.b. (I'm not saying all the low class is lazy. Many work very hard for every penny.) I'd move and run my company from out of country.

@Rekarp personally i think the worst thing the US could do now is become protectionist and isolationist. History shows that those policies are a direct cramp on economic growth and deepen recessions which exactly not want you want now. You dont have a large enough domestic market for the demand and if you shoot tarrifs up suddenly you want be able to export easily either. Trade is a two way street.

I think we should be come Isolationist when it comes to war (not national security though). It's not our business if a country is having a war with another one till it starts to become a problem for us.

I disagree with public schooling though. I mean we pay taxes. The taxes we pay are a progressive tax. The more you are payed the higher percentage of your income goes towards taxes. So a middle class person pays more taxes that a lower class person. Now part of both of their taxes goes to public schooling. Both of their children go to the same school. Okay wait what! This means that the middle class person is being forced to pay part of the lower class citizen's child's schooling. That is wrong. The lower class child is not the responsibility of the middle class tax payer. Thats distributing the wealth which is a communist ideal. Now instead there should be private schooling.

In private schooling you pay the school the money for the supplies needed to teach the child. Now the private schools that cost more have more resources at their disposal and are probably better than one that gets paid less. So now the lower class citizen goes to a school that it's parent can a afford and gets the education that was paid for. Well now that the middle class parent is not being forced to help float the bill for other kids, the parent can invest more money into sending their kid to a better school.

I also believe in the flat tax. Just because I make more money does not mean that I should have to pay more than someone else. I invested my human capital (got training or further education). I got a better job and get paid more. It's not my problem that others make less.

Minimum wage needs to be removed because it is useless. Two years ago where I worked at I got paid minimum wage ($6.75). They then increased the minimum wage to $7.50. I got paid more but guess what, because of the businesses need to increase our pay it had to increase the price on it's good. Did increasing my pay help at all? NO, and guess what they did it again a year later. Now I get paid $8.00 and the company had to increase it's prices again. You should get paid in accordance to your productivity and value not what the government says.

way to long of a post.

[Extreme_Jesus]

Its all a matter of perspective who deserves what and when. There is no definitive answer. I dont like the idea of Managers making large ammounts of money for other peoples hard work. CEO's are meaningless without the workforce. Ive got no problem with them being paid more, but i feel there should be caps, its not right in my eyes the boss's get sometimes up to 30 or 40 times the average company worker salary.

Another way of looking at who deserves money can be shown with firefighters. They dont earn much, they risk their lives daily and could well die almost any day on the job. Do they deserve to be paid highly? I think so, but like i say its all personal opinion

Also, getting rid of mimimum wage? Without minimum wage you would get massive exploitation of people who are desperate for work but cant find it. Mimimum wage is incredibly effective at achieving fair pay and looking after those who are most vurnerable.


I guess i'll just never understand america's politics

[Rekarp]

So you mean people like Bill Gates who built Mircosoft from the ground up shouldn't deserve to be payed?

[CronoTriggerfan]

Minimum wage is an obstruction of the free market, employers should set prices completely based on merit. And the belief that CEOs don't work hard to get to the positions they're in is just stupid. What, do you think they just get handed a job?

[Rekarp]

Minimum wage is an obstruction of the free market, employers should set prices completely based on merit. And the belief that CEOs don't work hard to get to the positions they're in is just stupid. What, do you think they just get handed a job?

Remember all the CEOs in movies are evil bastards that fly helicopters and are fat and lazy.

[Extreme_Jesus]

No no no, i dont believe they shouldnt be payed, and i know that they're not all ogres. But that doesnt mean exploitation doesnt happen.

It just my opinion, something tells me im not gonna convince any of you otherwise, and i aint moving to america anytime soon so lets jsut leave it at that

After all there is no concrete "right" or "wrong" in politics, or even morals for that matter

Just a Right and a Left (sorry i couldnt resist )

[CronoTriggerfan]

Remember all the CEOs in movies are evil bastards that fly helicopters and are fat and lazy.

Don't forget that they've got legions of hookers, greased-back hair, and are always puffing a Cuban.

No no no, i dont believe they shouldnt be payed, and i know that they're not all ogres. But that doesnt mean exploitation doesnt happen.

I don't think anyone took it as that. You're not that stupid, after all. (I kid, of course). I think what most people here, including myself, would disagree with you on is the "Robin Hood" position, the idea that the poor inherently "deserve" things because they're poor, and the rich should give it to them simply because they're rich, which is a false premise. If the rich wanna give to the poor, that's awesome, but it shouldn't be forced upon anyone. Unfortunately, we've got a tax system in America that does just that.

This is an issue of greed and stupidity. The mortgage companies want more money, and the fact is: not very many people can afford to take out a $250k mortgage with an obscene interest rate because their credit sucks, but they damn sure try. The lending companies should have nipped this problem in the bud, and simply imposed lending regulations that wouldn't allow for people who can't afford a loan to get one.

That logic is about as sound as saying that McDonald's should go out of business because they sell food that's bad for you. Sure, if you're a retard, eat it all the time, get severe health issues and die, whose fault is that? Oh, wait, sorry, it IS the fault of the corporation, because we need more trial lawyer scum in America so they can become Communist rabble-rousers ...excuse me, "community organizers" in the inner-city Chicago political machine. That way we'll have a whole back-log of Democratic leadership for the next few years!

[SpongeBuell]

If the rich wanna give to the poor, that's awesome, but it shouldn't be forced upon anyone. Unfortunately, we've got a tax system in America that does just that.

Right, because the percent of income taxed is so much higher for the Warren Buffets of the world than it is for, say, his secretaries

[CronoTriggerfan]

If the rich wanna give to the poor, that's awesome, but it shouldn't be forced upon anyone. Unfortunately, we've got a tax system in America that does just that.

Right, because the percent of income taxed is so much higher for the Warren Buffets of the world than it is for, say, his secretaries

Percentage-wise? Yeah, it's a huge difference. The Warren Buffets are forking over 50%+ to the government, while his secretary probably pays, what, 20%? And at the end of the day, who deserves it more? Warren Buffet, who worked his ass off and made smart investments, or his secretary, who probably has a basic accounting degree? Better yet, does the homeless guy on the street corner who contributes nothing to society deserve Warren Buffet's money, too?

[project_failure]

If the rich wanna give to the poor, that's awesome, but it shouldn't be forced upon anyone. Unfortunately, we've got a tax system in America that does just that.

Right, because the percent of income taxed is so much higher for the Warren Buffets of the world than it is for, say, his secretaries

Percentage-wise? Yeah, it's a huge difference. The Warren Buffets are forking over 50%+ to the government, while his secretary probably pays, what, 20%? And at the end of the day, who deserves it more? Warren Buffet, who worked his ass off and made smart investments, or his secretary, who probably has a basic accounting degree? Better yet, does the homeless guy on the street corner who contributes nothing to society deserve Warren Buffet's money, too?

Exactly! A flat tax would at least be fair. You make more so you pay a little more but your not having to pay a higher percentage of what you earn. It is a fact that taxes are necessary.

[Gamelver]

CTF you're annoyingly arrogant and insulting in these manners....
I think that's one of the reasons why Ben originally didn't want politics on his forums .

Also, if there's one thing I've learned, it's that when someone forms their opinions enough to argue strongly about them, there's little point in trying to convert other strongly opinionated people. If anything, you should be randomly messaging people who don't know anything about it, or possibly might not.

Sure it's fun to reason with others, but what's the point ? It's like a game. I guess gaming is just too natural here on benheck....

Having said that, I believe in the "trickle up" theory. Those with the money and power and the means should help those without them, at least a little bit. Then, instead of money barely trickling down (because people are so generous, after all ), there is an actual strong basis and support for those with high incomes.

It's hard to govern such a large amount of people; this country is very diverse, and very over-populated. So, yes, perhaps some might not deserve the government's help, but I believe most do.....

/me plays a little Copland...Cool people will know which piece ...

(oh, I have at most a small idea of what I'm talking about (at least on the U.S. government/people). But I don't care, because I'm not trying to convince anyone, and I'm no politician . So I welcome comments, but am mostly apathetic on such matters. I really shouldn't be )

[SpongeBuell]

If the rich wanna give to the poor, that's awesome, but it shouldn't be forced upon anyone. Unfortunately, we've got a tax system in America that does just that.

Right, because the percent of income taxed is so much higher for the Warren Buffets of the world than it is for, say, his secretaries

Percentage-wise? Yeah, it's a huge difference. The Warren Buffets are forking over 50%+ to the government, while his secretary probably pays, what, 20%? And at the end of the day, who deserves it more? Warren Buffet, who worked his ass off and made smart investments, or his secretary, who probably has a basic accounting degree? Better yet, does the homeless guy on the street corner who contributes nothing to society deserve Warren Buffet's money, too?

Sorry I didn't see this earlier, must have gone under my radar or something (if it makes you feel any better, found it when looking through which of the political threads had your conservative radio shows, hoping I could listen to it while cleaning my room. I was actually being sarcastic with that remark. You actually have it all wrong... Warren Buffet pays a little over half as much tax as his secretary, percentagewise.

I'm all for the American ideal of "work hard, make money, live out your dreams" but there gets to be a point where you have to ask, "do you really need your own private plane, enormous yacht, 3rd house that makes my house look like a shack (even though you have 2 that are even better yet) and 15 high-end cars? Really? When other people are having a hard time heating their single small house?

Oftentimes, it's people that work for the ultra rich that are having these problems (or another ultra rich person way down the line). These are often the same people that work in the lower-paying, front-end jobs of a company (ie, the servers at a restaurant, the flight attendants of an airline, the teachers at a school compared to a superintendent). If you stretch them out too much, cut too many costs with their salaries while increasing your own, they can't help but to have too much to deal with, become rude/upset with other customers, and their customer base goes down. Then what happens? Lose too many customers, and your own business goes down. So, long story short, for the good of people, sometimes it's a good idea to help others before you help yourself in excess.

Again, not saying that the CEOs shouldn't make more than their employees, but there gets to be a point where it gets to be a little obscene.

[benheck]

A flat sales tax (in lieu of income tax) would be great, then drug dealers and the Mob would end up paying in like law-abiding Americans.

It would also encourage people to save more and spend less frivolously.

But it'll never happen!

-Ben

[CronoTriggerfan]

A flat sales tax (in lieu of income tax) would be great, then drug dealers and the Mob would end up paying in like law-abiding Americans.

It would also encourage people to save more and spend less frivolously.

But it'll never happen!

-Ben

Because it makes too much sense.

And Brian, I see why you think the way you do, but your premise isn't that people should help others, it's that people should be FORCED to help others. And who decides "rich" and "poor"? The federal government. According to them, my family, as well as many people around me, are "rich", and have to pay into this Welfare State we have set up. If I were to steal $1,000 from you and give it to a homeless guy, that's a crime, but when the government does it, it's righteous? 40% of taxpaying Americans (that is, not counting kids) already don't even pay income tax, how much more help do they need?