RoR: Forum

This is an especially disingenuous tax, since the bailout funds were not "sold" as something that was supposed to be revenue-neutral. Basically, it's much the same technique as the health care bill -- pass the bill as something that just HAS to be done, and then when it turns out to be a money pit, use that entirely foreseeable consequence as a reason to pass a tax to pay for it.

If the bailout bills or the health care bills had the taxes to pay for their entire costs included upfront, they would never pass.

Socialism first, the check later.

Post 1

Friday, January 15, 2010 - 12:06am

Banks that received no government money will pay back the loans of those that did.

I see this as a kind of "Banking Unification" bill. Like the Steel Unification and Railroad Unification plans from Atlas Shrugged, in this case, the assets and liabilities of all banks are pooled, and then equalized. Those with the most liabilities get money and those the most assets supply it.

Post 2

Friday, January 15, 2010 - 7:12am

Sickening...

Friday, January 15, 2010 - 1:12pm

This is sickening. Crony-capitalism at its finest.

Wouldn't it be nice if your next door neighbor repaid your home mortga...oh wait.....

Post 4

Friday, January 15, 2010 - 1:25pm

Banks weren't lending enough, businesses weren't borrowing enough, to get The Economy moving. Why not a tax on businesses that could have borrowed more money, but didn't? We could call it "You Should Have Borrowed More Money Tax." After all, even businesses that didn't borrow money benefited from the administration's efforts to save the system as a whole.

Why not a tax on businesses that did borrow money? We could call it "You Did Borrow More Money Tax." Clearly, they benefited from the administration's efforts to save the system as a whole.

Why not a tax on businesses that could have hired more people, but didn't? We could call it "You Should Have Hired More Folks Tax." After all, even businesses that didn't hire more employees benefited from the administration's efforts to save the system as a whole.

Why not a tax on businesses that could have hired more people, and did? We could call it "You Hired More Folks Tax." After all, businesses that hired more employees benefited from the administration's efforts to save the system as a whole.

Why not a tax on individuals who could have started a new business, but didn't -- thus, avoiding taxes? We could call it "You Should Have Started a Business Tax." After all, even folks that didn't start a new business benefited from the administration's efforts to save the system as a whole.

Why not a tax on individuals who could have started a new business, and did? We could call it "You Started a Business Tax." After all, folks that started a new business benefited from the administration's efforts to save the system as a whole.

Why not a tax on the best students, who could have graduated early and started working, but didn't-- thus, avoiding taxes. We could call it "You Should Have Graduated Early Because You Could Tax." After all, even folks that didn't graduate early and start working benefited from the administration's efforts to save the system as a whole.

Why not a tax on the best students, who could have graduated early and started working, and did. We could call it "You Graduated Early Because You Could Tax." After all, folks that graduated early and started working benefited from the administration's efforts to save the system as a whole.

We need more creative thinking like this in DC, to Run The Economy.

Post 5

Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 9:18am

Loved it, Fred !!! The possibilities are endless....

jt

Post 6

Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 11:42am

My gut feeling

I really think that this is a wag-the-dog show. I think Obama is cutting under-the-table deals with corporations in order to create the public appearance of doing good. Part of the deal is to propagate the charade that he cares about "social justice." Here is a mock discussion:

Obama:
I'm going to set up monopolies for you, but I want something in return.

Bankers (or other big corporations):
What?

Obama:
Two things. Privately, I'm going to be funneling money toward myself. And, publically, I'm going to act like you are evil and that I need to make taxes and regulations in order to give the appearance that I'm protecting the public from you.

Bankers (or other big corporations):
How much is in it for me?

Obama:
Like I said, I'm going to set up monopolies for you -- your profits will be billions and billions of dollars more than you could have made if I had left the market free and you were forced to compete with others.

Bankers (or other big corporations):
Okay, where do I sign?

Post 7

Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 12:10pm

... and here is the linchpin (or is it lynchpin?):

Banker (or other big corporate executive):
[having integrity] And what if I don't sign, Commissar Obama? What then?

Obama:
Then I will go to your competitors and make the same deal. You will be left with the burdening taxes and regulation, but without the special deals that I am offering you (as long as you stay quiet and help me continue to play on the public's emotions).

Banker (or other big corporate executive):
But what will this do to The Economy?

Obama:
It will ruin it, but I don't care. I just care about short-run gains and profiting off of unwarranted trust and playing off of unwarranted philosophical notions -- such as altruism, and social and economic justice. I want products of labor without having to produce anything. I, like a 2 year-old in a candy store, simply ... want. I am willing to violate the rights of anyone to get what I want (but always in the name of something ideal -- so as to perpetuate the fraud).

Banker (or other big corporate executive):
This sucks. I wish Bush was still in office.

Obama:
Hah! You fool! He did the same corrupt things that I'm doing (albeit to a lesser degree)! He started the TARP thing, you know. Do you think that he didn't cut these same kind of under-the-table deals???

The reason that both sides of the political aisle can continue to get away with this kind of fraudulent plunder and intentional duplicity is because of the ideas of philosophers such as Rousseau, Comte, and Kant. These ideas have corrupted American culture and allow for folks like me to be persistently and thoroughly evil. It is cultural warfare and I'm currently winning.

Banker (or other big corporate executive):
I'm going public about this.

Obama:
Then I'm going to fire you as CEO of your company (or kill you, if necessary). Besides, the American public would never believe you. They are still too entrenched into the wrong philosophies of folks such as Kant, Hegel, and Marx.

They do not see that the final solution to guys like me would be to recognize the supremacy of the US Constitution (as Jefferson thought was needed) -- and to hold every administration fully accountable to it, and to the libertarian minarchy that it prescribed. They still think that big government can work (if the "good guys" get elected).

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/16, 12:37pm)

Post 8

Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 12:33pm

With that last scenario, the wised banker would had said nothing, but taped the whole and afterwards gone public, displaying both the conversation and the threats...
[and, of course, made security arrangements]

Post 9

Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 12:38pm

Robert,

Heads-up. I cross-posted an edit to the last part with your comment (on the last part). For your knowledge, I had not read your words before I did that. As it turns out, what I added is highly relevant to what you said.

Ed

Post 10

Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 12:39pm

And another thing ...

This whole "wag-the-dog" scenario works -- even if it is never explicitly stated by the parties in question.

Ed

Post 11

Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 2:44pm

The other scenario is that Obama believes that social justice is only possible with an all powerful government that is mostly socialist. But he knows that he can't get there without crashing the existing system - totally blowing it up but in a way that lets him blame the capitalists. Then he uses the crisis and its panic to finish the job he has just begun. I think that makes more sense and explains more actions than money hunger.

Post 12

Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 2:46pm

"...totally blowing it up but in a way that lets him blame the capitalists. Then he uses the crisis and its panic to finish the job he has just begun."

Which is straight out of his alliance with Alinsky's RULES FOR RADICALS.

Post 13

Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 2:48pm

Joe,

Exactly! It matches the rhetoric, the actions, the people he has surrounded himself with, and his past. I've been very impressed with Beck for his exposition of this.

I'll go even further and say that I doubt anyone who hasn't been following this on Beck has a good grasp of what is happening in our political arena.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 1/16, 2:51pm)

Post 14

Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 4:54pm

Steve,

*********
The other scenario is that Obama believes that social justice is only possible with an all powerful government that is mostly socialist.
*********

But either way -- whether he is, at root, motivated by a Utopian ideal or by a Nietzschean, predatory egoism -- the end result is the same (he screws everyone but himself).

Ed

Post 15

Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 5:42pm

Ed, That's true. (except I'm hoping his dishonesty also screws him, and the earlier we can be sure what motivates him the sooner we can correctly interpret his moves and the more effectively we can defend against them.)

Post 16

Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 7:25am