patrick.net

Yeah but Gary, it's the Democrats in power now doing the Exact same thing you are warning us about the Tea Party.

And just for the record so every body knows, I'm against both parties for the main reason that they have turned into Polarized "Parties" the last thing I'm for is any Political affiliation that has the Word "Party" in their goddamn NAME!

We need to start Electing people that have no Answer for typical Left and Right fodder questions. Because truth be told they don't give a Rats ass about those fabricated troubles that is eroding the fabric of this country and what it is to be American.

We need politicians that take problems as they arise Maturely and with a level head acting for the good of all people. Instead of petty ASS HOLES acting in the best interest of their party leaders, party contributors second, and their party elite third, and for the fourth and feel good reason to sock it to the other party. But make no mistake the lowly constituents are on the very bottom of a long long shitty list. For the impetus of their actions.

Independents have no such goals, and typically are already wealthy and self made, and are big Washington and Wall Street outsiders.

I'm in awe who the educated Americans in this country keeps turning to in the polls, after bitching about the same guys performance the last 4 years, when he wore a different colored suit.

It's hard to have respect for them, or at least take their political rants seriously.

Common Sense says

OT: “since they are stupid” caught my eye, GaryA. Friendly tip…shooting off that kind of shallow generalization at a party will get you neither laid (by someone who matters) nor respected (by someone who matters).

Well then, perhaps they are just diabolically evil rather than stupid. I wrote about this here: http://bgamall.bravejournal.com/entry/64795

And a fellow wanted Sharron Angle's take. She is against public social security, and is a Tea Party joker. She knows like we all do that the boomers are boycotting stocks. It is really confounding Wall Street, and they need new fresh money, as 401k's are being depleted due to hardship as well. That new money is social security. It isn't stupid, I guess, just greedy and evil. Is that better, "common sense"? I have a little more common sense don't you think? Here is the deal, the money on the sidelines that Wall Street pines for on CNBC is boycotting stocks. I applaud all those who want to grab the banksters by the balls. There is no better way.

ahasuerus99 says

I suppose I don’t see the Tea Party the same way as GaryA and perhaps some others on this board, because I do not see it as a particularly unified front.

Agreed!

The "Tea Party" is most certainly not a unified front. You can ascribe all kinds of opinions to it since it's a somewhat anarchic collective. As an avid reader of Instapundit and Powerlineblog (blogs that cover the Tea Party quite thoroughly and without malice/snottiness), I don't see where in the Tea Party movement there is any consensus that ponzi home buyers are "to blame". My understanding all along has been that they are against bailing anyone else out-- bankers, home buyers... anyone. Actually seems pretty middle-of-the-road for the Patrick.net-savvy crowd. Unless you have an irrational predisposition to hating Tea Party folks (i.e. you think Olbermann is a journalist).

"It isn’t stupid, I guess, just greedy and evil"

I'm confused, Gary. So then Bernie Madoff isn't greedy and evil? Unless, of course, there's no difference between his scheme and the current mechanics of social security. However, my original post dealt more with the mistake of making generalizations and not your intended smack. Remember, no individual or entire party is one-dimensionally bad. There is a lot of genuine concern within that movement.

Ahhh... GaryA is from Reno. No wonder he's so bitter, biased and just plain wrong. Ya, I've got some family members with investment property out in Sparks lol. None of us are tea partiers. I'll give GaryA 1 point for not calling them tea-baggers like many of my co-workers in the SF bay area or for that matter our dear leader.

mark1inla says

ahasuerus99 says

I suppose I don’t see the Tea Party the same way as GaryA and perhaps some others on this board, because I do not see it as a particularly unified front.

Agreed!
The “Tea Party” is most certainly not a unified front. You can ascribe all kinds of opinions to it since it’s a somewhat anarchic collective. As an avid reader of Instapundit and Powerlineblog (blogs that cover the Tea Party quite thoroughly and without malice/snottiness), I don’t see where in the Tea Party movement there is any consensus that ponzi home buyers are “to blame”. My understanding all along has been that they are against bailing anyone else out– bankers, home buyers… anyone. Actually seems pretty middle-of-the-road for the Patrick.net-savvy crowd. Unless you have an irrational predisposition to hating Tea Party folks (i.e. you think Olbermann is a journalist).

I don't buy that for a minute Marc. I don't care about the rank and file. I care about what Hennessey believes. He is the founder. He is for cutting basic government as a means of strengthening the big banks and lower the tax burden of the very top earners. He is for letting banks fail, but not the big banks. So the big banks get bigger. He is for doing away with social security so the big banks can get their hands on the money. He is for lack of regulation but we saw how that allowed the big banks to go wild.

He is for switching power from the government to the people, all the while knowing that the banksters, not the government is in charge. So don't tell me this guy doesn't know. He knows, and he is trying to call fascism communism. You cannot understand what is going on if you think that fascism is communism. Fascism is corporate rule. Communism is government rule. We have corporate rule. That is what the Tea Party midgets reject. I say Hennessey knows and is a liar. Others may want to say they are midgets and maybe they are. One of the two.

Common Sense says

“It isn’t stupid, I guess, just greedy and evil”
I’m confused, Gary. So then Bernie Madoff isn’t greedy and evil? Unless, of course, there’s no difference between his scheme and the current mechanics of social security. However, my original post dealt more with the mistake of making generalizations and not your intended smack. Remember, no individual or entire party is one-dimensionally bad. There is a lot of genuine concern within that movement.

Wall Street wants the social security money. You can call it a ponzi if you want, but the Wall Street casino is a much greater and much more classic ponzi. If the trust fund ran out people would get over 60 percent of their benefits. If the stock market crashes, you never know.

Wall Street is bleeding dry from the "sideline money" permanently sidelined. Wall Street sees 401k money being withdrawn for hardship. Wall Street wants social security money and all the lies under heaven will not change that fact.

Well, I say give it to 'em. Maybe a job'r two will come from it. And from what I've seen over the past 1.5 years, I'm convinced the taxpayers will get the bill for any losses regardless of whether the money is stolen by the politicians or gambled away by Wall Street.

No we need to strangle Wall Street. Wall Street is engaged in a massive misallocation of capital, and is destroying mainstreet. The way to strangle Wall Street is to cut off the money supply.

We already know that they are manipulating the stock market, the bond market and the price of commodities and houses. The world would be better off without Wall Street because it is no longer true capitalism.

You may be right about the bill. We default and tell the banksters and the IMF to shove it if it comes to that.

Another way that Wall Street may be destroyed would involve a package with a terrorist nuke in it. I hope it does not happen.

Personal responsibility is what the Tea Party people are trying to bring back.

Attacking Tea Party logic means that you are against personal responsibility.

Frohickey says

Personal responsibility is what the Tea Party people are trying to bring back.
Attacking Tea Party logic means that you are against personal responsibility.

No, it is not so simple as that. Tea Party personal responsibility plays into the hands of Wall Street and the uber rich. Tea Party is either naive or in bed with the banksters. The way that Hennessy carries on with Kudlow makes me wonder. The Tea Party is just interested in tax breaks for the rich. If that is what selfish society is about then I suggest that it is not about personal responsibility, but rather is about personal GREED. There is a difference. If the poor and middle classes swallow this propaganda, they will be raped and the Tea Party folks will be richer.

Perhaps it is as simple as that.

Tea Party wants personal responsibility. If Wall Street or uber rich happens to like that as well, maybe Wall Street/uber rich wants personal responsibility as well. Tax breaks for the rich is pretty good, IMHO, about the only thing better than that would be "Tax breaks for everyone". However, some people see giving tax breaks to everyone as only giving tax breaks to people who are eligible for it.

If there was a government program that allows you to deduct money paid as interest when you borrow a loan, and loans are only given to people who can afford to pay the loans back, would that be considered a tax break for the uber rich, or a tax break for everyone?

Maybe the more egalitarian way of doing tax policy is to have a flat tax. Everyone with a pulse pays $x amount. That way, you cannot accuse government of being in the pockets of the rich.

"The Tea Party is just interested in tax breaks for the rich. If that is what selfish society is about then I suggest that it is not about personal responsibility, but rather is about personal GREED."

It's charming in it's delightful absurdity. A typical FDR era attack "they're for the rich" and accusations of "greed" from someone who just wants to rob the "rich" for his own sake but that's not "greed". In addition, even as the attackers of the tea party generalize that they're all "greedy" and out "for the rich", at the same time they're a bunch of loser trailer park residents who don't deserve any respect or consideration whatsoever.

If only those "rich" "trailer park residents" weren't so "greedy", then the socialists could run this place like South America so it will look like... Sweden someday. Got it?

Me neither.

But that's the universe they live in. Oh, did I mention that those who disagree with them are "stupid?" What a surprise!

Frohickey says

Maybe the more egalitarian way of doing tax policy is to have a flat tax. Everyone with a pulse pays $x amount. That way, you cannot accuse government of being in the pockets of the rich.

A flat tax would be strong evidence that the government is in the pocket of the rich. That would be HUGELY beneficial for them...

PolishKnight says

“The Tea Party is just interested in tax breaks for the rich. If that is what selfish society is about then I suggest that it is not about personal responsibility, but rather is about personal GREED.”
It’s charming in it’s delightful absurdity. A typical FDR era attack “they’re for the rich” and accusations of “greed” from someone who just wants to rob the “rich” for his own sake but that’s not “greed”. In addition, even as the attackers of the tea party generalize that they’re all “greedy” and out “for the rich”, at the same time they’re a bunch of loser trailer park residents who don’t deserve any respect or consideration whatsoever.
If only those “rich” “trailer park residents” weren’t so “greedy”, then the socialists could run this place like South America so it will look like… Sweden someday. Got it?
Me neither.
But that’s the universe they live in. Oh, did I mention that those who disagree with them are “stupid?” What a surprise!

I'm not familar enough with the Tea Party members to know what the story is, but here's one possible scenario to explain the dichotomy that you point out.

Some wealthy, well connected folks observe that there is a bubbling anger at government because of the bailouts of Wall St. and the banks. Additionally, Obama's election has stirred up some resentment among some people for whatever reason.

So the wealthy folks stoke this anger and fear and let it coalesce into some sort of ragtag movement all the while subtlely pushing them towards positions that further their interests. But cloaking it under the guise of personal responsibility or liberty or free market principles so it's not too obvious. Eventually, you end up with seniors on Medicare telling their senators to keep government out of their healthcare... Does that sounds about right?

tatupu70 says

A flat tax would be strong evidence that the government is in the pocket of the rich. That would be HUGELY beneficial for them…

Only if the flat tax were used to pay for something the 'rich' would require/use and the 'poor' wouldn't. Since government is supposed to provide universal services, such as common defense, patent protection, post roads, navy, etc., then there should be no such program that government does that will be HUGELY beneficial to one group of people and not beneficial to another group of people.

If a program exist that is HUGELY beneficial to one group and not beneficial to another group, then government should not be undertaking that program, or government should be funding that program solely with fees that are paid for only by the gropu that benefits.

Frolickey--

It would be good for the rich because they would pay much less and the middle class would pay much more (as a percentage of income)

Tea Party Complaint No 1: Government Employee Pay & Pensions
Oh, I'd say everyone, and I mean everyone is getting involved:
[SF] Public Defender Jeff Adachi, a stalwart of the left, is the equally unlikely champion of a pension reform initiative that has jolted organized labor into full combat mode even as the measure awaits certification for the ballot.

tatupu70 says

Frolickey–
It would be good for the rich because they would pay much less and the middle class would pay much more (as a percentage of income)

Why are you hung up on "percentage of income"? Would you seek to penalize someone that happens to be more fortunate than you? What if you are the one that is trying to become more fortunate? Wouldn't that be punitive to becoming successful?

If the rich pay $10K in taxes, and the middle class pay $10K in taxes, who is paying much less and who is paying much more? Last I checked, $10,000 = $10,000.

Frohickey says

tatupu70 says

Frolickey–
It would be good for the rich because they would pay much less and the middle class would pay much more (as a percentage of income)

Why are you hung up on “percentage of income”? Would you seek to penalize someone that happens to be more fortunate than you? What if you are the one that is trying to become more fortunate? Wouldn’t that be punitive to becoming successful?
If the rich pay $10K in taxes, and the middle class pay $10K in taxes, who is paying much less and who is paying much more? Last I checked, $10,000 = $10,000.

First off--it's not about punishing or being punitive to anyone. The goal is to have a vibrant economy and healthy society. In order to accomplish this goal, you need to have progressive taxation--otherwise you end up with extreme disparity between the haves and have nots. Which usually ends in war or revolution.

tatupu70 says

First off–it’s not about punishing or being punitive to anyone. The goal is to have a vibrant economy and healthy society. In order to accomplish this goal, you need to have progressive taxation–otherwise you end up with extreme disparity between the haves and have nots. Which usually ends in war or revolution.

In other words, you would use the power of government to penalize high income people in order to maintain public order? Are you saying that we need to eliminate the possibility of extreme disparity between the haves and have-nots in order to maintain order? What does that say about the lawfulness of the have-nots? What does that say about the inability of government to protect the innocent and punish the guilty?

GaryA says

Wall Street wants the social security money. You can call it a ponzi if you want, but the Wall Street casino is a much greater and much more classic ponzi. If the trust fund ran out people would get over 60 percent of their benefits. If the stock market crashes, you never know.
Wall Street is bleeding dry from the “sideline money” permanently sidelined. Wall Street sees 401k money being withdrawn for hardship. Wall Street wants social security money and all the lies under heaven will not change that fact.

I do not have a problem with this.
1) Social Security money is money earned by the business (6.1%) and by the employee (6.1%)
2) If you earn the money, its your property, and as your property, you should have complete control over it.
3) With the Social Security regulations, you do not have control over your money until the time you retire, and you do not have control over which causes you support. (read, foreign wars).
4) Government takes your money and gives you an IOU, but the conditions of the IOU are always subject to change without your consent. If this were done property, government would be forced to refund all monies with interest back to you if they were to change the conditions of the contract.

How the hell could it possibly be the borrowers fault?

The arrangement was very explicit: Pay $X per month, or the lender gets the collateral. Mortgage lending is the same as pawn shop lending. They lend money, and keep collateral if payment terms are not met. And let's not forget they are not lending out of kindness, they are lending FOR PROFIT. Huge profit.

Sorry, if you're a pawn shop that lends $1000 against a ring that's only worth $500, you're an idiot, and you deserve to loose $500. How can you possibly blame somebody for just going and buying a new ring for $500 instead of going back with $1000 to reclaim their old one?

Same goes for mortgage lenders that lent $1 Million against a home only worth $500K. And same goes for the people that give the keys back and rent or buy a cheaper place.

tatupu70 says

Frohickey says

tatupu70 says

Frolickey–
It would be good for the rich because they would pay much less and the middle class would pay much more (as a percentage of income)

Why are you hung up on “percentage of income”? Would you seek to penalize someone that happens to be more fortunate than you? What if you are the one that is trying to become more fortunate? Wouldn’t that be punitive to becoming successful?
If the rich pay $10K in taxes, and the middle class pay $10K in taxes, who is paying much less and who is paying much more? Last I checked, $10,000 = $10,000.

First off–it’s not about punishing or being punitive to anyone. The goal is to have a vibrant economy and healthy society. In order to accomplish this goal, you need to have progressive taxation–otherwise you end up with extreme disparity between the haves and have nots. Which usually ends in war or revolution.

This is the first time that I have heard the argument that a flat tax was a flat dollar figure, and I think you are incorrect, Frohicky, to describe it as a flat amount. I have always understood it to be a "flat" % of income. For example, if it were a flat 10%, then someone making $10K/year would pay $1,000, someone making $100,000/year would pay $10,000, etc. Also, a flat % of income is not the same as "progressive taxation."

Frohickey says

1) Social Security money is money earned by the business (6.1%) and by the employee (6.1%)
2) If you earn the money, its your property, and as your property, you should have complete control over it.
3) With the Social Security regulations, you do not have control over your money until the time you retire, and you do not have control over which causes you support. (read, foreign wars).
4) Government takes your money and gives you an IOU, but the conditions of the IOU are always subject to change without your consent. If this were done property, government would be forced to refund all monies with interest back to you if they were to change the conditions of the contract

I'm not sure you understand Social Security. It's no longer your money the second you pay FICA. You've paid into a trust fund. And as such, you are not entitled to have direct control (you do have control over who you vote for..).

tatupu70 says
I’m not sure you understand Social Security. It’s no longer your money the second you pay FICA. You’ve paid into a trust fund. And as such, you are not entitled to have direct control (you do have control over who you vote for..).

My mistake.
It was my money prior to it having been taken against my will for the Social Security trust fund, which is insolvent and would need to change the conditions of its payout to me during my retirement years because its was a government-approved Ponzi scheme all along for which Madoff and others have been imprisoned for.

Realtors go nuts when they try to sell me a property and I ask them about that the same house would rent for. The tell me "you can't go by monthly rents." These guys are such slime.

Frohickey says

My mistake.
It was my money prior to it having been taken against my will for the Social Security trust fund, which is insolvent and would need to change the conditions of its payout to me during my retirement years because its was a government-approved Ponzi scheme all along for which Madoff and others have been imprisoned for.

Not really--it has built up a huge surplus of funds to pay for the years in which there is a shortfall in collections. Unfortunately, the Federal Government spent the surplus and Social Security is left with an IOU from the government. It's not a ponzi scheme at all.

W.C.Fields

Frohickey says

tatupu70 says

First off–it’s not about punishing or being punitive to anyone. The goal is to have a vibrant economy and healthy society. In order to accomplish this goal, you need to have progressive taxation–otherwise you end up with extreme disparity between the haves and have nots. Which usually ends in war or revolution.

In other words, you would use the power of government to penalize high income people in order to maintain public order? Are you saying that we need to eliminate the possibility of extreme disparity between the haves and have-nots in order to maintain order? What does that say about the lawfulness of the have-nots? What does that say about the inability of government to protect the innocent and punish the guilty?

It says that in the real world the poorest countries always have huge disparities in income with almost no middle class and the very rich being strong arm types that control the country. Name one first world country that doesn't have progressive taxes in order to provide services that make it possible to be a first world country. The "rich" have a great responsibility to the society that makes it possible for them to be rich in the first place. A stable well educated work force, advanced infrastructure, a system of law, etc., etc. are all expensive but necessary to maintain prosperity. Some "rich" such as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates willing publicly admit that the current taxation system is totally out of kilter in their favor. If you so strongly object to the progressive taxation concept feel free to move to any country you please that doesn't endorse it. Let us know how it turns out.

tatupu70 says

Unfortunately, the Federal Government spent the surplus and Social Security is left with an IOU from the government.

Unfortunately? What would you have SS do?

When SS has a surplus is must save the funds somewhere, and all they will have is an IOU. This is what saving is: letting somebody else spend the money, and getting an IOU in return.

What's the safest saving instrument? US treasuries, an IOU from the government. I suppose they could have lent the money to home buyers, or state and local governments, but still somebody would have "spent the surplus" and SS would be left with an IOU from state/local government or a homeowner. It's not avoidable.

bob2356 says

Some “rich” such as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates willing publicly admit that the current taxation system is totally out of kilter in their favor.

True, but the same top Billionairs are also given away their billions to the most needy in the world, as has been true historically for over 100 years now.

I dont think we never had any surplus, the surplus often mentioned was one spoken about at the end of the Clinton years based on on going capital gains from the bubble in the tech stock markets. This was true with California as well. CA reved up the spending thinking they would get the tax revenue down the road, which never happened. Anyway there isnt a surplus today.

MarkInSF says

Unfortunately? What would you have SS do?
When SS has a surplus is must save the funds somewhere, and all they will have is an IOU. This is what saving is: letting somebody else spend the money, and getting an IOU in return.
What’s the safest saving instrument? US treasuries, an IOU from the government. I suppose they could have lent the money to home buyers, or state and local governments, but still somebody would have “spent the surplus” and SS would be left with an IOU from state/local government or a homeowner. It’s not avoidable.

Good points.

thomas.wong1986 says

I dont think we never had any surplus, the surplus often mentioned was one spoken about at the end of the Clinton years based on on going capital gains from the bubble in the tech stock markets. This was true with California as well. CA reved up the spending thinking they would get the tax revenue down the road, which never happened. Anyway there isnt a surplus today.

You're confusing the Federal budget with Social Security.

Frohickey says

Perhaps it is as simple as that.
Tea Party wants personal responsibility. If Wall Street or uber rich happens to like that as well, maybe Wall Street/uber rich wants personal responsibility as well. Tax breaks for the rich is pretty good, IMHO, about the only thing better than that would be “Tax breaks for everyone”. However, some people see giving tax breaks to everyone as only giving tax breaks to people who are eligible for it.
If there was a government program that allows you to deduct money paid as interest when you borrow a loan, and loans are only given to people who can afford to pay the loans back, would that be considered a tax break for the uber rich, or a tax break for everyone?
Maybe the more egalitarian way of doing tax policy is to have a flat tax. Everyone with a pulse pays $x amount. That way, you cannot accuse government of being in the pockets of the rich.

Frohicky, if the Tea Party just wanted personal responsibility, Hennessy would not be schmoozing with Kudlow while failing to call out the banksters. And he was introduced each time as a founder of the Tea Party. So he was speaking for the Tea Party. I don't trust the Tea Party as far as I can throw them. And for good reason. Santelli said people who lost in bad mortgages were fools. Santelli is a spoiled shill for CNBC. He is a jerk, a number one jerk. He knows what the banksters did. Shame on him.

Frohickey says

tatupu70 says

First off–it’s not about punishing or being punitive to anyone. The goal is to have a vibrant economy and healthy society. In order to accomplish this goal, you need to have progressive taxation–otherwise you end up with extreme disparity between the haves and have nots. Which usually ends in war or revolution.

In other words, you would use the power of government to penalize high income people in order to maintain public order? Are you saying that we need to eliminate the possibility of extreme disparity between the haves and have-nots in order to maintain order? What does that say about the lawfulness of the have-nots? What does that say about the inability of government to protect the innocent and punish the guilty?

Absolutely, unless you want to prove Marx right. He said the upper class would destroy capitalism and if the middle class doesn't come back Marx wins and you lose. The government has always had the right to temper monopoly. Wall Street has a monopoly, and it is of money.

GaryA says

Santelli said people who lost in bad mortgages were fools. Santelli is a spoiled shill for CNBC. He is a jerk, a number one jerk. He knows what the banksters did. Shame on him.

Santelli referred to himself in the famous speech as a "follower of Ayn Rand". Not so much a shill, as an ideologue that is surrounded by people who all tell him he's right every day, and in a service industry that glorifies the idea that PILES OF MONEY is the be-all end-all. Of course he's going to blame the peasants, that guy next door that bought "too much house". He despises them because they took advantage of the system for a few nickels. He doesn't hate his own people of course, his beloved financial industry which deserves to be demoted a few ranks in terms of it's share of the economic pie. The very idea that cutting Wall Street and it's tendrils down to a sustainable size of parasite, is anathema to the way they think.

I read Rand in college, and liked it at first. Until I read more of her and realized she was a nutjob of the Nietzschean variety. Her philosophy boils down to "what is good for me is right" and for example extended to admiring the killer William Edward Hickman for his smug superior attitude to people he killed. So basically sociopaths and their admirers.

http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

Yeah that's what "Randists" always boil down to I think for guys like Santelli. The self-appointed elite view the peasants as dragging them down, despise them, and relish the thought of them being ground underfoot. They despise taxes of all forms, as it ultimately represents the collective bargaining power of the peasants.

MarkInSF says

tatupu70 says

Unfortunately, the Federal Government spent the surplus and Social Security is left with an IOU from the government.

Unfortunately? What would you have SS do?
When SS has a surplus is must save the funds somewhere, and all they will have is an IOU. This is what saving is: letting somebody else spend the money, and getting an IOU in return.
What’s the safest saving instrument? US treasuries, an IOU from the government. I suppose they could have lent the money to home buyers, or state and local governments, but still somebody would have “spent the surplus” and SS would be left with an IOU from state/local government or a homeowner. It’s not avoidable.

So..."Spending" the money on Treasuries is no different than spending the money via the general fund on expense items, because otherwise the government would have to sell Treasuries to fund the general expense items? Therefore, just include Social Security funds as part of the general revenue so that it can directly fund government expenses when SS runs a surplus? You don't see a particular fundamental problem with this approach?