If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Hot Air)   The EU's plan to destroy their economy altered, new plans in place should only mostly destroy their economy   (hotair.com) divider line 91
    More: Followup, Cypriot, European debt crisis, bank rescues, deposits  
•       •       •

6392 clicks; posted to Business » on 18 Mar 2013 at 11:08 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-18 11:20:28 AM  
5 votes:
1.bp.blogspot.com

Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your economy here is only MOSTLY destroyed. There's a big difference between mostly destroyed and all destroyed. Mostly destroyed is slightly rebuilt. With all destroyed, well, with all destroyed there's usually only one thing you can do:  go through their central banks and look for loose change.
2013-03-18 11:25:35 AM  
4 votes:
Article did not capture what I saw as one of the more interesting aspects of the deal; Cyprus is alleged to have become a large money laundering operation for the Russian mob and corrupt govt officials. The response could be real interesting when the EU pulls 10% from those guys. The EU will probably be banned from adopting Russia's unwanted orphans.
2013-03-18 01:04:15 PM  
3 votes:

studs up: Thunderpipes: Gdalescrboz: FarkinNortherner: Thunderpipes: (snip)
What liberals here want, is the exact same thing as the EU. They want to promise everyone the world so they get and stay in power. (snipped for brevity)

So my son ran for Treasurer at this school in 5th grade. He lost to a girl that promised everyone sno-cones. With a few weeks left in school he called across the playground, "Where's my firkin sno-cone?"
It caught on and the rest of the kids kept hounding her for sno-cones. She eventually quit the position and cried whenever the word sno-cone hit her ear. Sno-Cone is her nickname now. I don't think she is coming back next year.
This can be ramped up to a larger scale.


In reality she would've taken out a loan and bought the sno-cones. She could get reelected and do that in perpetuity until she was out of the school and leaving the problem behind and everyone remembering the free sno-cones while she only paid the interest on the loan. The other kids would figure out that doing that was how to get elected. This would keep happening until the lender figured out this was a bad idea or they could no longer pay the interest. Then the whole system would collapse.
2013-03-18 12:10:06 PM  
3 votes:
The economic problems we have right now can be simply summed up.

Too many middle-men making too much money doing no productive work - essentially paper shuffling manipulating "financial instruments"

We as a society need to get back to actually making things or providing services to each other rather than just playing the stock market like a personal casino.
2013-03-18 11:20:12 AM  
3 votes:
I hate the phrase, but this is blatant privatization of profits and socialization of losses.  Seriously, who the fark would put their money in a bank under this policy?
2013-03-18 11:15:32 AM  
3 votes:
i.qkme.me
2013-03-18 02:25:16 PM  
2 votes:

KellyX: Thunderpipes: KellyX: cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: If it were untrue, you would have a point.

You want the EXACT model of the EU countries.

I'm a liberal and I've lived in an EU country, and I don't want the exact model of the EU countries.

So, stop telling us what we want.

Only thing I want is a universal healthcare system... and redheads... blondes too.. with big tits... that like to go to the range with me and shot guns that make those big tits jiggle for a while...

/worse Liberal ever I guess...

To the range? The range is the DEVIL!!! Guns kill you.

You know, I am as conservative as they come in all things but religion (idiots). I would favor a universal health care system, if it was broadly funded. The problem is, when liberals talk about single payer or Obamacare or whatever, it is just a gigantic wealth redistribution. If you don't have everyone paying, it is not ever going to be a good thing. I know people ignore it, but we have an excellent health care system here if you actually are a hard working family. I should be getting a plate and 13 screws removed from my tibia soon, wait time for a completely elective operation like this is 5-6 weeks here. Try that in Canada.

Probably why I said a universal healthcare system, i.e. part of your taxes from every paycheck go into it, with there being a scaled tax depending on what you make. To me that's not that complex, yes, the poor would pay little to no taxes for it or get refunded a large amount back and the rich would pay a lot more, but if there's rich people whining about paying 15% tax or something, I'll gladly trade you paychecks and pay the taxes.


And that, to you is fair. That is why we fail. Rather than have poor people work and chip in a little, just take more from the "rich", because fark you, that's why.
2013-03-18 12:48:44 PM  
2 votes:

Thunderpipes: Gdalescrboz: FarkinNortherner: Thunderpipes: (snip)
What liberals here want, is the exact same thing as the EU. They want to promise everyone the world so they get and stay in power. (snipped for brevity)


So my son ran for Treasurer at this school in 5th grade. He lost to a girl that promised everyone sno-cones. With a few weeks left in school he called across the playground, "Where's my firkin sno-cone?"
It caught on and the rest of the kids kept hounding her for sno-cones. She eventually quit the position and cried whenever the word sno-cone hit her ear. Sno-Cone is her nickname now. I don't think she is coming back next year.
This can be ramped up to a larger scale.
2013-03-18 12:48:41 PM  
2 votes:

Thunderpipes: Gdalescrboz: FarkinNortherner: Thunderpipes: You want to take money from people, same thing really. You want the government to have the power to simply take money as they see fit So do you. Unless, of course, you don't want any state provided services. I suppose that's conceivably your position, but it's one that if applied in reality would result in disaster in fairly short order.

If it stopped at services I would agree with you.  But liberals don't want it to stop at services.

Always the liberal argument. "You don't want roads or police!". Ya, I do. I pay taxes for that. I don't want to pay taxes for methadone clinics, section 8 housing, illegal aliens' college tuition.

What liberals here want, is the exact same thing as the EU. They want to promise everyone the world so they get and stay in power. Only way to find that is by taking more and more and more from anyone who dares to succeed. Eventually, it fails. We will be Greece within 20 years. This is a fact.

Taxes should be broad based, and provide the minimum needed for the government to function. The states, as we debate here, are over 1 trillion in debt just because of teacher pensions (completely underfunded). Did you all know that? This is not about what the government needs, or what services people need. It is about entitlement spending, and what people want. They want taxpayer money given to them. Liberals oblige because it gets them votes and damn the torpedoes!


Just FYI, paying for methadone clinics is much cheaper than paying for police investigations of the property crimes committed by addicts.  And putting people in section 8 housing is much cheaper than paying for them to be housed in jails.  There isn't that whole "fark you for making bad choices" aspect, but it is more efficient.
2013-03-18 12:38:41 PM  
2 votes:

Gdalescrboz: FarkinNortherner: Thunderpipes: You want to take money from people, same thing really. You want the government to have the power to simply take money as they see fit So do you. Unless, of course, you don't want any state provided services. I suppose that's conceivably your position, but it's one that if applied in reality would result in disaster in fairly short order.

If it stopped at services I would agree with you.  But liberals don't want it to stop at services.


Always the liberal argument. "You don't want roads or police!". Ya, I do. I pay taxes for that. I don't want to pay taxes for methadone clinics, section 8 housing, illegal aliens' college tuition.

What liberals here want, is the exact same thing as the EU. They want to promise everyone the world so they get and stay in power. Only way to find that is by taking more and more and more from anyone who dares to succeed. Eventually, it fails. We will be Greece within 20 years. This is a fact.

Taxes should be broad based, and provide the minimum needed for the government to function. The states, as we debate here, are over 1 trillion in debt just because of teacher pensions (completely underfunded). Did you all know that? This is not about what the government needs, or what services people need. It is about entitlement spending, and what people want. They want taxpayer money given to them. Liberals oblige because it gets them votes and damn the torpedoes!
2013-03-18 12:33:02 PM  
2 votes:
"So we're gonna go ahead and take money out of your bank accounts cause we're a little low on money"
"But...that's my money! I worked my whole life for that!"
"So yeaaaaaaaaah....we're gonna go ahead and take some of that money"
"But it's mine. You have no right to it!"
"So yeah, we're gonna go ahead and take it"
2013-03-18 12:31:38 PM  
2 votes:
I can't wrap my head around this.  They are trying to take 5-6.5% of the money... Of all their money in those accounts...
And they didn't expect a run on the banks?!  It's basically theft, undermining the entire government and the entire banking system.

Worst idea I have ever heard.  And I live in Texas, where we let our teachers carry guns.
2013-03-18 12:28:53 PM  
2 votes:

Bloody William: Austerity is like addressing a heart condition from obesity by cutting off your leg because you'll weigh less.


Unless you are Latvia. Where it worked after all the gnashing of Keynesian teeth failed to sway their govt. Of course the fact that they are the fastest growing economy in the region now gets mostly ignored.
You are either an obdurate Krugman acolyte or ignorant. Please stop spewing these posts. We are all dumber for it.
2013-03-18 12:17:31 PM  
2 votes:

jvl: Speaker2Animals: Yeah, that's right, professor. They've been "solving" their spending problems in Europe for four years now and all that's resulted is higher unemployment.

Once again the critics pretend that austerity has failed because it has failed to reach the critic's imaginary goals.

The goal is to stabilize finances. No one promised employment would not be hurt, nor did they promise a pony.


It's putting someone on chemotherapy because they're heavily burned. It's giving someone antacids because they broke their legs.  It's addressing a completely different problem from the one everyone is trying to address.

The economy starts with people working, earning, and spending money. Government budgets are secondary to keeping that going. What austerity does is change the oil because the car isn't working while ignoring the empty fuel gauge.
2013-03-18 12:15:37 PM  
2 votes:

mr lawson: Really? Death tax threads. Paris hilton?


1) The inheritance tax is not a wealth tax - it a transfer tax, like everything else. You can like it or hate it, but at least face it for what it is - taxing money when it transfers from one party (the deceased) to another (the heir).
2) I've never heard anyone say we should get rid of the income tax in favor of the inheritance tax. People always want both.
2013-03-18 12:15:29 PM  
2 votes:

Day_Old_Dutchie: We as a society need to get back to actually making things or providing services to each other rather than just playing the stock market like a personal casino.


To do that we need to reduce offshoring. Easier said than done.

In my opinion the best* approach is to invent 'al Qaeda in the South China Sea' and start launching USS Cole style attacks on Chinese vessels as well as sabotage attacks on Chinese port infrastructure. Slow the rate of Chinese exports and increase prices by a few % and manufacturing in the west would start to look a whole lot more attractive.

*this may not, in fact, be the best approach
2013-03-18 11:44:05 AM  
2 votes:

Pair-o-Dice: The Irresponsible Captain: Grade A dimwits, the lot of 'em. Of course people are going to take their money out if you start doing this crap. That's part of what caused the Great Depression.

If Europe could stop shooting each other in the foot for a couple of months the world economy might recover. Despite the insanity in Washington right now, the US economy is one of the strongest in the world, so they're not holding everyone back. Certainly China isn't. Even Putinized Russia is doing well.

China's banking system operates under the 'new math' method.


China will have a collapse as well, a big one, not too far in the future. They are repeating the mistakes of the US, and the Europeans in many ways.
2013-03-18 11:43:48 AM  
2 votes:

monoski: Article did not capture what I saw as one of the more interesting aspects of the deal; Cyprus is alleged to have become a large money laundering operation for the Russian mob and corrupt govt officials. The response could be real interesting when the EU pulls 10% from those guys. The EU will probably be banned from adopting Russia's unwanted orphans.


I can understand wanting to seize hoards of money from the Russian mob.  I'm sure the Eurocrats thought that would be a great way to balance the books, take money from the criminal element with them having no legal recourse.

The problem is the impact on everyday Cypriots, not to mention foreigners residing in Cyprus, and the overall damage to customer confidence in the banking system that is produced by an arbitrary seizure of the funds of law abiding citizens.

It was a chainsaw solution to a problem that needed a surgeon's scalpel.
2013-03-18 11:37:53 AM  
2 votes:

Gdalescrboz: Speaker2Animals: Don't be surprised if depositors start to move away from European banks and look for other options to protect their savings from the governments that can't solve their spending problems.

Yeah, that's right, professor. They've been "solving" their spending problems in Europe for four years now and all that's resulted is higher unemployment.

I don't have a gambling problem, I have a "can't win my money back problem."


Your analogy is horrible and idiotic. Austerity didn't work in the 1920's is not working now and will never work as a tool for economic recovery.

1. Implement austerity measures
2. Lay off people in the public sector, stop providing services vital to maintaining a thriving workforce.
3. See consumer consumption, go down. See companies lay off more people further reducing consumer consumption. See companies drop contracts, delay expenditures in contracting economy.
4. Tax revenues have gone down.
5. Return to step 1?
2013-03-18 11:20:41 AM  
2 votes:
Got a real source by any chance instead of some poo-flinger's blog? Or is this just the thing they've discussed where they basically said that it's up to Cyprus to determine how to handle raising the money as long as they raised the money?
2013-03-18 11:10:26 AM  
2 votes:

Speaker2Animals: Don't be surprised if depositors start to move away from European banks and look for other options to protect their savings from the governments that can't solve their spending problems.

Yeah, that's right, professor. They've been "solving" their spending problems in Europe for four years now and all that's resulted is higher unemployment.


I don't have a gambling problem, I have a "can't win my money back problem."
2013-03-18 11:06:41 AM  
2 votes:
Don't be surprised if depositors start to move away from European banks and look for other options to protect their savings from the governments that can't solve their spending problems.

Yeah, that's right, professor. They've been "solving" their spending problems in Europe for four years now and all that's resulted is higher unemployment.
2013-03-18 06:00:53 PM  
1 votes:

DamnYankees: Slam1263: As is understating inflation. Is anyone buying into the notion that inflation is only 4%?

No, it's nowhere near 4%. It was around 2% last year.


Again, understating inflation, my cost for wire, connectors and other consumables, are up 14%.

But hey! My taxes are down! Because business is down 40% month over month, from last year.


DamnYankees: Slam1263: Why? Well, when I ask my accountant a simple question, such as; how will the Affordable Care Act affect me, and my employees? She starts to cry, and tells me to ask the government for more money, because they are tossing it out like, well, rubber checks.

You have an accountant who cries at basic accounting questions? You need to hire a new accountant.


You must be a liberal. Or a dolt, but I digress.
2013-03-18 05:39:29 PM  
1 votes:

Slam1263: Why? Well, when I ask my accountant a simple question, such as; how will the Affordable Care Act affect me, and my employees? She starts to cry, and tells me to ask the government for more money, because they are tossing it out like, well, rubber checks.


You have an accountant who cries at basic accounting questions? You need to hire a new accountant.
2013-03-18 05:32:02 PM  
1 votes:

DamnYankees: Thunderpipes: You really are so farking dumb you think if you keep adding debt to your credit card, it is okay because you only added a little more than last year? Is that how you run your household?

Most people incur more debt as they get older - that's because they make more money. Income goes up, ability to borrow goes up (i.e. nicer house, bigger mortgage). Is there some reason this does not apply to the US government?

They key metric is whether or not your deficits are bigger or smaller than your economic growth. If you grow your economy 3%, and deficits grow 2%, you're completely fine doing that forever. Literally, forever.


Number 1, that is not what we are doing. Number 2, you completely ignore the debt, and the interest on the debt.
2013-03-18 05:25:39 PM  
1 votes:

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Thunderpipes: Compounding interest is working against us

Yes of course, that horrible compounding interest of the money we borrow at near record levels. Did you know that for every 100 dollars we borrow, we need only have to pay back .01 of a cent? NO seriously over the entire course of the bond, we only pay that much.

Of course you wouldn't know, because you've gone full derp.


BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

No, you pay an ROR of .01 cent, but you still owe the Ben Franklin. But it does show where you get your misguided ideas about economics.

DamnYankees: MyRandomName: When you are ignorant to reality... blame austerity! Ignore the fact that all but 3 EU countries have continued to increase spending. Ignore the fact that many have tried the liberal approach of raise taxes and grow spending. Blame austerity! So much easier that way.

Raising taxes is a form of austerity.


As is understating inflation. Is anyone buying into the notion that inflation is only 4%?

SlothB77: Shryke: SlothB77: the banks in the USA behaved badly and as punishment we bailed them out.

This is half of the reality.  Legions of consumers took out loans far larger than they could ever afford over the long term, in hopes of flipping their properties for a profit.

Ultimately, it is up to the banks not to assume risk they cannot handle.  They weren't forced into making those contracts, were they?


Uhm, the whole community banking act thingmabob escaped your attention, didn't it? Or maybe the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act.

C'mon, our regulators/legislators let their industries get 'too big tooo fail'.

DamnYankees: Thunderpipes: Obama is adding a trillion a year to the debt.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

The deficit as a percentage of GDP has gone down every year Obama has been in office.


Fire up the printing presses, we'll print our way out of debt!!!

I blame everyone, in a way I even blame myself, because I am sitting on top of a substantial amount of capital. Why? Well, when I ask my accountant a simple question, such as; how will the Affordable Care Act affect me, and my employees? She starts to cry, and tells me to ask the government for more money, because they are tossing it out like, well, rubber checks.

How many of you actually have businesses? I don't care if it selling thrift store finds on Ebay, how many of you?

How many of you have employees? I had six, one left, won't be replaced for a while because each and everyone of my peeps are paid on a 'as full time' contract. In other words, they get paid for 40 hours a week, even if I can only fine 20 hour of work.

Why does this greedy far right ahole do this? Because I value them as humans. They are not my friends, they are my employees, they have families, and lives. Hell, I've been on this site all damned day now, and maybe tomorrow, because there is no work. I got a couple of jobs coming up Wed - Fri that'll cover their wages.

My ROI, and the taxes, I'll take it out of my capital investment fund.

OK, now you have farked me off, quarterlys are due at the end of the month, $78,345.21, combined. Next quarter I'll get the privledge of writing another check.

I am paying the absolute minimum, and taking the risk that I will owe a large penalty. Why? The farking IRS cannot give me, or my crying accountant, guidance on what the true bill will be until OCTOBER, but they wants their money now.

But do go on, you idiots are telling me what I want to know; most of you don't know dick about business.

You should run for elected office, they don't either.
2013-03-18 04:33:38 PM  
1 votes:

BigNumber12: Evil High Priest: That world? Where we dominated all manufacturing after WWII? That's never coming back.

Not with that kind of attitude it isn't.


Exactly. We could easily bomb all of Europe back into the stone age again if we wanted to.
2013-03-18 04:26:44 PM  
1 votes:

SlothB77: Ultimately, it is up to the banks not to assume risk they cannot handle. They weren't forced into making those contracts, were they?


I've not absolved the banks. I am implicating the accomplices. Loans are (basically) two party contracts. Both parties have an obligation to proceed cautiously.
2013-03-18 04:16:45 PM  
1 votes:

Shryke: SlothB77: the banks in the USA behaved badly and as punishment we bailed them out.

This is half of the reality.  Legions of consumers took out loans far larger than they could ever afford over the long term, in hopes of flipping their properties for a profit.


Ultimately, it is up to the banks not to assume risk they cannot handle.  They weren't forced into making those contracts, were they?
2013-03-18 03:58:35 PM  
1 votes:

ACunningPlan: Thunderpipes: ACunningPlan: Thunderpipes: ACunningPlan: DamnYankees: CygnusDarius: Why can't the EU do what Iceland did?.

Because the EU is not a unified whole. Doing what Iceland did would be great for Cyprus but bad for Germany. And Germany has more clout than Cyprus.


Merkel is facing Federal elections in September; the German taxpayers are going "WTF" over continuously underwriting the cr$ppy countries debts.  This is her way of saying we're helping hold the EU together, but you won't get stiffed with the bill.  Much of the Greek bail-out money has "vanished" into the black hole which is the current Greek economy; so this bail-out came with pain shared by all.

And ultimately it's a way for the nutjobs running the EU to demand closer fiscal & political union.  It's essentially a power-grab.

It is working the same way here. Instead of individual countries, we have large groups of people. Some work, some don't. Some pay their bills, some don't. Some want to be responsible, some don't. In the end, the slackers need bailouts, and the only way to do that is to take from those that have been responsible. It is working the same here as there. Fail.

It's worse in Europe though, because this is empire-building on a massive scale.  There is too much power concentrated in too few hands & they all live inside an echo-chamber & feed off the EU monster.  Unfortunately there is no way out ; it will end in tears - probably not for quite a while yet - but eventually the whole thing will collapse under it's own dead weight.

It is not really any worse over there. The entire EU union is close enough in terms of GDP and population to be a reasonable comparison to the US. You describe our political system too, power concentrated in few hands, sounds perfect for us. And we too, will collapse under our own weight. Most people just don't really think about the numbers, because it does not effect them right here and now. But the numbers for the US are indeed a monster. Unless we mak ...


Is it really any different? Once again, our subcultures can be compared to their countries. Teachers are pissed if you dare suggest pension cuts. Liberals pissed at Pubs if you dare mention entitlement cuts. Pubs pissed at Dems for refusing to tackle the debt. Blacks pissed at whites for being white. Women pissed at men for being men. Men pissed at themselves for losing their balls. North pissed at the South because of slavery a few years ago. Poor people pissed at rich people for making it. Rich people pissed at poor people for stealing their stuff.

If anything, I would say we are more divided than they. We intentionally divide ourselves in an effort to win public office.
2013-03-18 03:19:44 PM  
1 votes:

Thunderpipes: ACunningPlan: Thunderpipes: ACunningPlan: DamnYankees: CygnusDarius: Why can't the EU do what Iceland did?.

Because the EU is not a unified whole. Doing what Iceland did would be great for Cyprus but bad for Germany. And Germany has more clout than Cyprus.


Merkel is facing Federal elections in September; the German taxpayers are going "WTF" over continuously underwriting the cr$ppy countries debts.  This is her way of saying we're helping hold the EU together, but you won't get stiffed with the bill.  Much of the Greek bail-out money has "vanished" into the black hole which is the current Greek economy; so this bail-out came with pain shared by all.

And ultimately it's a way for the nutjobs running the EU to demand closer fiscal & political union.  It's essentially a power-grab.

It is working the same way here. Instead of individual countries, we have large groups of people. Some work, some don't. Some pay their bills, some don't. Some want to be responsible, some don't. In the end, the slackers need bailouts, and the only way to do that is to take from those that have been responsible. It is working the same here as there. Fail.

It's worse in Europe though, because this is empire-building on a massive scale.  There is too much power concentrated in too few hands & they all live inside an echo-chamber & feed off the EU monster.  Unfortunately there is no way out ; it will end in tears - probably not for quite a while yet - but eventually the whole thing will collapse under it's own dead weight.

It is not really any worse over there. The entire EU union is close enough in terms of GDP and population to be a reasonable comparison to the US. You describe our political system too, power concentrated in few hands, sounds perfect for us. And we too, will collapse under our own weight. Most people just don't really think about the numbers, because it does not effect them right here and now. But the numbers for the US are indeed a monster. Unless we make massive, mas ...


I do agree with you in part about the similarities; although I've always cherished the notion US citizens are somewhat safeguarded from their political class:)  The trouble with the EU is it's meddling with national identities and cultures at the same time.  The states here have individual rights, but ultimately they do all see themselves as Americans.

In the EU that uniformity is less established which causes friction throughout the whole entity: e.g. the Greeks are pissed at the Germans for imposing austerity which puzzles the Germans who are in effect funding the Greeks.  The Greeks [naturally have national pride] are resentful [unfairly really] of German interference and of having an unelected troika oversee their economy.  Meanwhile the Germans don't understand why the Greeks can't be more German.....   Add an entrenched, blinkered bureaucracy committed to the vision no matter what, and it's a recipe for disaster.  Plus those in charge won't sacrifice their egos to consider the possibility of error.

At least in the US, it's Americans trying to solve America's troubles.
2013-03-18 03:12:35 PM  
1 votes:

BigNumber12: Day_Old_Dutchie: The economic problems we have right now can be simply summed up.

Too many middle-men making too much money doing no productive work - essentially paper shuffling manipulating "financial instruments"

We as a society need to get back to actually making things or providing services to each other rather than just playing the stock market like a personal casino.

I like you.


That world? Where we dominated all manufacturing after WWII? That's never coming back. Nev. Er. All we have left is software dev and high-speed pizza delivery.
2013-03-18 03:11:27 PM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: Because the minor tax increases he did were much less than the huge lowering of taxes he did

[citation needed]


Good lord.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
2013-03-18 03:06:52 PM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: InstaZen25: cameroncrazy1984: InstaZen25: MyKingdomForYourHorse: studs up: They will grow up eventually and get jobs when economic freedom returns in full force. I have faith in the youth to recover quickly.

Austerity!

Confidently farking your country in the ass, then kicking the can down the road for your kids!

I don't think you get it. The country was already farked. They just finally admitted it. There was no future for the young, just a false promise of one that the country could not afford.

There was a future, they just squandered it away because they were too afraid to raise taxes. And now they lost most of a generation.

People leave if you tax away their income too. This will be especially prevalent in the Euro-zone, where the wealthy aren't the only ones who can leave easily.

This is why the middle class usually takes the brunt of the tax burden in terms of %'s and real effect.

Reagan raised taxes 11 times in the 80s. Please explain why the economy got better after that?


Because the minor tax increases he did were much less than the huge lowering of taxes he did. Might want to read. When you lower taxes by gigantic margins, but increase other very little, it does not mean you are increasing taxes the way you imply. Overall, he greatly lowered taxes, the country came out of a nasty recession and kicked butt.

Liberals want the opposite.
2013-03-18 03:06:34 PM  
1 votes:

BigNumber12: Day_Old_Dutchie: The economic problems we have right now can be simply summed up.

Too many middle-men making too much money doing no productive work - essentially paper shuffling manipulating "financial instruments"

We as a society need to get back to actually making things or providing services to each other rather than just playing the stock market like a personal casino.

I like you.


Why? This is a buggy-whip argument, as well as a strawman.
2013-03-18 02:49:09 PM  
1 votes:

monoski: Article did not capture what I saw as one of the more interesting aspects of the deal; Cyprus is alleged to have become a large money laundering operation for the Russian mob and corrupt govt officials. The response could be real interesting when the EU pulls 10% from those guys. The EU will probably be banned from adopting Russia's unwanted orphans.


I think Russian mob money has already been factored into this deal. If the taxation had been limited to the uninsured deposits and left the insured ones alone, the uninsured (presumably heavily represented by the Russian Tony Sopranos) would be looking at about a 20% haircut instead of 10%. I don't know whether the architects of this feared massive Russian flight or just getting their kneecaps smashed, but it looks like they decided to sting the little guys in order to give the big guys a break.

I think they massivly mishandled this mess in any case. Anyone with money in a European bank, particularly one in Spain or Italy, must be hauling it out of there as fast as they can by now. Nice bank run you've created, idiots.
2013-03-18 02:47:12 PM  
1 votes:

ethics-gradient: FarkinNortherner: The variation in income and employment related benefits, healthcare, even median retirement age is enormous. Ironically part of the reason the euro doesn't work in its current form is the lack of homogeneity.

Or rather the EU not admitting the lack of homogeneity and not factoring it in. This is not just a Euro question it goes all across the EU project, what is an acceptable standard of driving to pass a test in one country is laughably crap in another. Same for standards of police, evidence, judges etc.

Diversity should be a great EU strength overall but for it to work long term we have to admit that some EU countries have higher standards than others and they should not have to lower their sights because Goatherdia can't be bothered to change their culture of corruption and incompetance.


Once again, can be completely true for groups of people within the US. Some have higher standards, some lower. But here, the liberal view is, the people with high standards should indeed be lowered because another group can't be bothered to change their culture of laziness and incompetence. If the EU should have standards, shouldn't we?
2013-03-18 02:36:23 PM  
1 votes:

FarkinNortherner: The variation in income and employment related benefits, healthcare, even median retirement age is enormous. Ironically part of the reason the euro doesn't work in its current form is the lack of homogeneity.


Or rather the EU not admitting the lack of homogeneity and not factoring it in. This is not just a Euro question it goes all across the EU project, what is an acceptable standard of driving to pass a test in one country is laughably crap in another. Same for standards of police, evidence, judges etc.

Diversity should be a great EU strength overall but for it to work long term we have to admit that some EU countries have higher standards than others and they should not have to lower their sights because Goatherdia can't be bothered to change their culture of corruption and incompetance.
2013-03-18 02:23:04 PM  
1 votes:

ACunningPlan: Thunderpipes: ACunningPlan: DamnYankees: CygnusDarius: Why can't the EU do what Iceland did?.

Because the EU is not a unified whole. Doing what Iceland did would be great for Cyprus but bad for Germany. And Germany has more clout than Cyprus.


Merkel is facing Federal elections in September; the German taxpayers are going "WTF" over continuously underwriting the cr$ppy countries debts.  This is her way of saying we're helping hold the EU together, but you won't get stiffed with the bill.  Much of the Greek bail-out money has "vanished" into the black hole which is the current Greek economy; so this bail-out came with pain shared by all.

And ultimately it's a way for the nutjobs running the EU to demand closer fiscal & political union.  It's essentially a power-grab.

It is working the same way here. Instead of individual countries, we have large groups of people. Some work, some don't. Some pay their bills, some don't. Some want to be responsible, some don't. In the end, the slackers need bailouts, and the only way to do that is to take from those that have been responsible. It is working the same here as there. Fail.

It's worse in Europe though, because this is empire-building on a massive scale.  There is too much power concentrated in too few hands & they all live inside an echo-chamber & feed off the EU monster.  Unfortunately there is no way out ; it will end in tears - probably not for quite a while yet - but eventually the whole thing will collapse under it's own dead weight.


It is not really any worse over there. The entire EU union is close enough in terms of GDP and population to be a reasonable comparison to the US. You describe our political system too, power concentrated in few hands, sounds perfect for us. And we too, will collapse under our own weight. Most people just don't really think about the numbers, because it does not effect them right here and now. But the numbers for the US are indeed a monster. Unless we make massive, massive cuts right now, we cannot escape the inevitable collapse.
2013-03-18 02:21:39 PM  
1 votes:

sethstorm: But causing great pain to the banks that caused the mess works - see Iceland.


Oh? Is that so? And by "causing great pain to the banks", you mean "depositors", right?
2013-03-18 02:20:33 PM  
1 votes:

InstaZen25: sethstorm: MyKingdomForYourHorse: studs up: They will grow up eventually and get jobs when economic freedom returns in full force. I have faith in the youth to recover quickly.

Austerity!

Confidently farking your country in the ass, then kicking the can down the road for your kids!

THIS.

Austerity is just simply a way to use financial solvency as an excuse to push the burden away from those that caused it to the people that can't avoid it.

In a free society you elect those that caused the problem, ultimately making you responsible. The children for the most part really are the ones who can't avoid any of this debt crap. You can't pick where or to whom you are born.


That presumes too many things that are not present in the population - age being irrelevant.  Even if you're of voting and majority age, you're assuming that people have perfect knowledge when it comes to the ballot box.  On the other hand, restricting the vote any further(as a bid to try to solve that problem) makes for perverse incentives.  Third parties would be able to control whether some people can vote through employment status or property ownership - despite the presence of a secret ballot - in ways worse than Tammany Hall.

It's a case of "it's a bad system, but it's better than the rest".   As for austerity, bankers are trying to offload it with political measures to people that realistically have no power - due to a broken political system in their country.
jvl
2013-03-18 02:12:52 PM  
1 votes:

Speaker2Animals: jvl: Speaker2Animals: Yeah, that's right, professor. They've been "solving" their spending problems in Europe for four years now and all that's resulted is higher unemployment.

Once again the critics pretend that austerity has failed because it has failed to reach the critic's imaginary goals.

The goal is to stabilize finances. No one promised employment would not be hurt, nor did they promise a pony.

Marie Antoinette!! I thought you were beheaded! F*ck the average person -- we have to take care of the elite while we're making the 99% suffer for our sins!


As soon as we find a magic pony which farts money, then government can spend freely without consequence.  In the meantime, there is reality.
2013-03-18 02:00:24 PM  
1 votes:

DamnYankees: Yay austerity!


In Cyprus? Haha. Silly Krugmanoid. Printing pieces of paper with symbols on it doesn't solve fiscal messes; it just papers over the problem.
2013-03-18 01:59:19 PM  
1 votes:

Thunderpipes: Number 1: where you are employed is your choice. How much money you make, is your choice.
Number 2:. There will be no more underwriting. Obamacare means a fat smoking alcoholic will get the same rates as a 27 year old marathon runner. Who wins there? Choice is now gone.

You know who really gets shafted with Obamacare? Healthy young people. They can't afford it on their own unless they are poor. They will likely never get the good coverage via their employer without getting a big reduction in salary. Once again, we take from the good, give to the bad (take from healthy people, give to unhealthy. Just like everything else liberal, it takes away incentive to care.



Perhaps you missed this from my earlier point since it was implied so I will make it clear.  Underwriting (individual) risk in the health insurance context is a misnomer.  There is no risk that health insurance won't be called upon for coverage in a given year, it's almost a certainty.  Certainly, absent risk sharing, there is no possible way an individual will pay enough premium to give the insurer a reasonable chance at maintaining a positive loss ratio over a five to ten year period.

You however seem to be under a misapprehension that, since individual risk factors cannot be considered, there will be no actual underwriting involved.  The price which will be charged for the insurance policies offered will reflect the underwriting efforts of the insurer as they evaluate the population as a whole.  Meaning, while they can't assign a price to individuals based on their individual characteristics, they will assess the pool of insureds as a whole, meaning the marathon runner and the fat smokers, to see what the total cost of insuring them was (and will be) in order to assign a price that each of them will pay.  So the fat smoker will pay a little less and the marathon runner will pay a little more.  However, over time this will begin to balance out as the marathon runner gets pregnant, the fat smoker contracts diabetes, and the marathon runner is diagnosed with cancer.

The real benefit to all parties is the muted impact that catastrophic events will have.  While the marathon runner is less likely to have a major medical event its still possible that they could, say, get struck by a car.  Now, if individual risk factors were evaluated, their injuries and secondary issues would be taken into account upon renewal and their premium would be increased to 1) recoup the losses of the insurer since they had not assessed a high risk factor and therefore had not built up a large premium buffer and 2) to begin building up a higher premium balance in anticipation of future medical issues.  Now of course the marathon runner went from being low risk to being a high risk and faces, on top of the other expensive issues to be grappled with, a much higher health insurance premium.
2013-03-18 01:57:46 PM  
1 votes:
The job is not done until their status as a tax evasion domicile is gone.

That's the biggest reason there's a desire for devastation to visit Cyprus.
2013-03-18 01:46:56 PM  
1 votes:

MyKingdomForYourHorse: studs up: They will grow up eventually and get jobs when economic freedom returns in full force. I have faith in the youth to recover quickly.

Austerity!

Confidently farking your country in the ass, then kicking the can down the road for your kids!


I think you are confusing that with debt. Nice try!
2013-03-18 01:35:35 PM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: studs up: cameroncrazy1984: studs up: devout obstinance in the face of facts bores me

Who is the one who is being obstinate in the face of facts, here? He's right, you're wrong, get over it.

Based on what? I don't think you have even a basic understanding of what is being debated. I like the way you pound the floor insisting you are right. Amusing troll is amusing.
3.8/10

Which part of what he said was wrong? Does Latvia not have trillions more in debt now? Do they not have a young population that is fleeing the country? What part was wrong, specifically?


I'm sorry, are you saying that all that debt just accrued since austerity was implemented? Well, here is that conservative rag, the NYT saying you, once again, are talking out your ass. You really need to stop posting your ignorance for the world to see. It's got to start getting embarrassing soon.
And yes, the young are fleeing the country. It happens when the free ride is over. A generation raised on the dole will go somewhere else when there is no more dole. They will grow up eventually and get jobs when economic freedom returns in full force. I have faith in the youth to recover quickly.
2013-03-18 01:31:25 PM  
1 votes:

Thunderpipes: The problem is, when liberals talk about single payer or Obamacare or whatever, it is just a gigantic wealth redistribution. If you don't have everyone paying, it is not ever going to be a good thing. I know people ignore it, but we have an excellent health care system here if you actually are a hard working family. I should be getting a plate and 13 screws removed from my tibia soon, wait time for a completely elective operation like this is 5-6 weeks here. Try that in Canada.



As an insurance professional let me say you are off base.  In general Insurance companies are very well funded on account of the strict oversight of state regulatory agencies.  However, their underwriting practices and the premium charged varies depending on the risk level of the pool of insureds they are writing.  The problem is that the risk pools vary widely because the market itself is fragmented into a number large and small groups (individual employers of varying size) each with different risk profiles and financial capacity (e.g. willingness to shoulder more or less of the premium charged before passing the remainder to the employees/insureds).  However, once you move outside the group market, you have individuals attempting to purchase insurance policies on their own and since they are not allocated into a group they bear the risk burden on their own.  That means insurers, who are concerned about maintaining generally positive loss ratios (e.g. the ratio of loss & costs incurred under the policy versus premium charged) can't spread risk over many individuals and therefore must focus on collecting enough premium from a single individual.

This varies from the underwriting practices regarding property and casualty (e.g. homeowners, auto, umbrella liability, etc) practices due to the fact that "risk" is slightly different in those contexts.  Under P&C insurers tend to evaluate the performance of their portfolio of a given policy line (e.g. all homeowners or all auto policies) in a given jurisdiction.  While the loss history of a given policy has an impact it is much smaller than what one sees in the health insurance market and the underwriting decisions are focused on maintaining positive loss ratios across the entire policy line (e.g. risk is being shared amongst all such policies in a state).  The reason being that under P&C losses are not a given or a certainty...there is a risk that a loss may occur but it's equally likely that no loss will occur.  On the contrary, with health insurance, it's extremely likely that there will be a loss to any given policy during the policy year.  An individual insured can go for several years before calling upon their property or auto insurer for coverage but it's quite likely they'll call on their health insurer for coverage several times a year.

So whether you have excellent health coverage depends entirely on the size of your employer.  If you are an individual payer you do not have excellent coverage nor do you have affordable coverage.  If your employer is a small business your coverage is definitely going to be more expensive and provide less coverage overall than what is being offered to a larger employer with a more desirable population of insureds.  This variation could be evened out if risk were distributed over an entire population through a universal health care method but...
2013-03-18 01:22:53 PM  
1 votes:
People, remember: Thunderpipes is someone who thinks only rich people should be able to vote.

/at least in federal elections
2013-03-18 01:22:35 PM  
1 votes:

CygnusDarius: Why can't the EU do what Iceland did?.


Because the EU is not a unified whole. Doing what Iceland did would be great for Cyprus but bad for Germany. And Germany has more clout than Cyprus.
2013-03-18 01:13:35 PM  
1 votes:

KellyX: [www.republicain-lorrain.fr image 680x481]

Turns out in Cypress, when you withdraw money you always cross your legs while standing out...


The lines to get your money out are so long that they had to make a choice between ATM or bathroom.
2013-03-18 01:10:21 PM  
1 votes:
FarkinNortherner Gdalescrboz: If it stopped at services I would agree with you. But liberals don't want it to stop at services. Fairly strongly depends on what you regard as a service that the government should be providing. However, irrespective of political hue or view of the role and size of the state, Thunderpipes apparent implication that he would remove the government's capacity to raise any mandatory taxes is ludicrous.

I
am of the opinion that if the gov't is offering to spend money on a person specifically because they meet a requirement, such as you earn bellow XXX, it is not a service.  What that is, is a bribe with other people's money.  For example, we will pay for your health insurance with so-and-so's money.  Or, we will pay for your food with so-and-so's money, etc., all you have to do is vote for me.  The left would have an argument if such bribes came with strings attached; forcing people to go to school for example.  But they don't, they give away what other people have earned in exchange for a vote.  When only certain people qualify for funding, and that funding is another persons money, you aren't providing a service you are bribing.
2013-03-18 01:07:37 PM  
1 votes:

Alonjar: Thunderpipes: Would cost even less if you simply beat down criminals and made being poor so tough they had no choice but to work.

ROFL no choice but to work?  Is this guy serious?

They'll just come beat  you down and take  your stuff.  Believe it or not, this is a problem people have been working on for thousands of years.


And it would end very badly for them. The weak will always be weak and easily slapped around. That is your goddamn argument, really? Give money to the lazy or they will attack you?

Jesus Christ. No wonder we are failing.
2013-03-18 01:07:36 PM  
1 votes:

Thunderpipes: If you don't have everyone paying, it is not ever going to be a good thing.


Really? Because Canada, Japan, Belgium, the UK, all of these countries have single-payer healthcare and not everyone pays in. And you know what is in common with all of these countries? They all get better healthcare at a lower cost per-capita than the US of A.
2013-03-18 01:06:40 PM  
1 votes:

FarkinNortherner: studs up: Unless you are Latvia. Where it worked after all the gnashing of Keynesian teeth failed to sway their govt. Of course the fact that they are the fastest growing economy in the region now gets mostly ignored.

Latvia's debts have quadrupled, its unemployment rate is at 12% despite a reduction in the size of its under 25 workforce (thanks to economic migration), median incomes have fallen by 35% and an already abysmal standard of education and healthcare provision has got even worse. It also suffered the largest contraction of any European economy.

Still, it's now in growth, partly as a result of selling below-cost timber into Sweden thanks to European subsidies, so that's the post-Keynesians justified...


Um no , no , no....I could keep going, but your devout obstinance in the face of facts bores me. Keep spewing, useful idiot. Even your own team is admits that they did the right thing. I do love however that you think that the standard of healthcare and education is so poor after years of Keynesian economics. I'm sure you didn't mean to say that you expected this new recovery to have all of that fixed in the first few years after decades of mismanagement and failed policies. Have faith, things will improve under a more free economy.
2013-03-18 01:03:11 PM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: seanpg71: Thunderpipes: Gdalescrboz: FarkinNortherner: Thunderpipes: You want to take money from people, same thing really. You want the government to have the power to simply take money as they see fit So do you. Unless, of course, you don't want any state provided services. I suppose that's conceivably your position, but it's one that if applied in reality would result in disaster in fairly short order.

If it stopped at services I would agree with you.  But liberals don't want it to stop at services.

Always the liberal argument. "You don't want roads or police!". Ya, I do. I pay taxes for that. I don't want to pay taxes for methadone clinics, section 8 housing, illegal aliens' college tuition. 

What liberals here want, is the exact same thing as the EU. They want to promise everyone the world so they get and stay in power. Only way to find that is by taking more and more and more from anyone who dares to succeed. Eventually, it fails. We will be Greece within 20 years. This is a fact.

Taxes should be broad based, and provide the minimum needed for the government to function. The states, as we debate here, are over 1 trillion in debt just because of teacher pensions (completely underfunded). Did you all know that? This is not about what the government needs, or what services people need. It is about entitlement spending, and what people want. They want taxpayer money given to them. Liberals oblige because it gets them votes and damn the torpedoes!

Just FYI, paying for methadone clinics is much cheaper than paying for police investigations of the property crimes committed by addicts.  And putting people in section 8 housing is much cheaper than paying for them to be housed in jails.  There isn't that whole "fark you for making bad choices" aspect, but it is more efficient.

Would cost even less if you simply beat down criminals and made being poor so tough they had no choice but to work.

Because jobs always fall from job trees whenever someone "wa ...


camaroncrazy1984, you have just employed the either-or fallacy.   You have implied that Thunderpipes' assertion that anyone who wants a job can only get one by the benevolence of government programs, or by one falling from a job tree.  There is a third option: perhaps governments could issue an employment tax break during recessions, such as the one Obama extended when he came into office in 2009, which loosened a government impediment to employment.  You choose to ignore this third option--that of actually decreasing the scope of a recognized governmental intervention.  That is why your assertion is an either-or fallacy.
2013-03-18 01:01:21 PM  
1 votes:

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Gdalescrboz: If it stopped at services I would agree with you. But liberals don't want it to stop at services.

Yes because we want to rape your daughter, kill your puppy, kidnap your wife, and steal all your money so we can give to the crack smoking,HIV infested, herpes laden welfare abusing woman down the street living in her 8 bedroom town house subsidized with section 8, while her 32 kids by 30 different baby daddies run amok in your suburban neighborhood.

Ohh and the baby daddies start selling crack in your town as well.

Did I forget anything?


Brains?

Checking your penis at the door?

Logging out of the HuffPos at the local library?
2013-03-18 12:59:31 PM  
1 votes:
THUNDERPIPES tells it like it is.  Take that, libs.
2013-03-18 12:59:16 PM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: I'm a liberal and I've lived in an EU country, and I don't want the exact model of the EU countries.


Always assuming there was one model to choose from. The variation in income and employment related benefits, healthcare, even median retirement age is enormous. Ironically part of the reason the euro doesn't work in its current form is the lack of homogeneity.
2013-03-18 12:59:08 PM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: If it were untrue, you would have a point.

You want the EXACT model of the EU countries.

I'm a liberal and I've lived in an EU country, and I don't want the exact model of the EU countries.

So, stop telling us what we want.


Only thing I want is a universal healthcare system... and redheads... blondes too.. with big tits... that like to go to the range with me and shot guns that make those big tits jiggle for a while...

/worse Liberal ever I guess...
2013-03-18 12:58:43 PM  
1 votes:
People still respond to Trollerpipes?
2013-03-18 12:57:12 PM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: It is about entitlement spending,

So you think that the teachers don't deserve a retirement? And that the issue isn't that we have the lowest tax rates in 30 years and a growing, aging population?


I've noticed that the either-or fallacy is your favorite.  I'm going to start pointing it out.

You have implied that Thunderpipes' claim that teachers are owed too much in pensions means that he thinks "that the teachers don't deserve a retirement ."  You have no reason to believe this claim.  Perhaps he simply believes that teachers deserve some, but less, pensions for their retirement.  Thus there is a third option.  That is why your assertion is an either-or fallacy.
2013-03-18 12:51:57 PM  
1 votes:

seanpg71: Thunderpipes: Gdalescrboz: FarkinNortherner: Thunderpipes: You want to take money from people, same thing really. You want the government to have the power to simply take money as they see fit So do you. Unless, of course, you don't want any state provided services. I suppose that's conceivably your position, but it's one that if applied in reality would result in disaster in fairly short order.

If it stopped at services I would agree with you.  But liberals don't want it to stop at services.

Always the liberal argument. "You don't want roads or police!". Ya, I do. I pay taxes for that. I don't want to pay taxes for methadone clinics, section 8 housing, illegal aliens' college tuition.

What liberals here want, is the exact same thing as the EU. They want to promise everyone the world so they get and stay in power. Only way to find that is by taking more and more and more from anyone who dares to succeed. Eventually, it fails. We will be Greece within 20 years. This is a fact.

Taxes should be broad based, and provide the minimum needed for the government to function. The states, as we debate here, are over 1 trillion in debt just because of teacher pensions (completely underfunded). Did you all know that? This is not about what the government needs, or what services people need. It is about entitlement spending, and what people want. They want taxpayer money given to them. Liberals oblige because it gets them votes and damn the torpedoes!

Just FYI, paying for methadone clinics is much cheaper than paying for police investigations of the property crimes committed by addicts.  And putting people in section 8 housing is much cheaper than paying for them to be housed in jails.  There isn't that whole "fark you for making bad choices" aspect, but it is more efficient.


Would cost even less if you simply beat down criminals and made being poor so tough they had no choice but to work.
2013-03-18 12:50:47 PM  
1 votes:

Thunderpipes: That is exactly how your boy keeps getting elected.


And, there it is.
2013-03-18 12:48:30 PM  
1 votes:

studs up: Unless you are Latvia. Where it worked after all the gnashing of Keynesian teeth failed to sway their govt. Of course the fact that they are the fastest growing economy in the region now gets mostly ignored.


Latvia's debts have quadrupled, its unemployment rate is at 12% despite a reduction in the size of its under 25 workforce (thanks to economic migration), median incomes have fallen by 35% and an already abysmal standard of education and healthcare provision has got even worse. It also suffered the largest contraction of any European economy.

Still, it's now in growth, partly as a result of selling below-cost timber into Sweden thanks to European subsidies, so that's the post-Keynesians justified...
2013-03-18 12:38:40 PM  
1 votes:
Just a more open-than-normal display of the idea that if you wave around some magic papers and conduct the right rituals, politicians can justify that which would otherwise be utterly criminal, in this case, overt theft.
2013-03-18 12:37:44 PM  
1 votes:

Day_Old_Dutchie: The economic problems we have right now can be simply summed up.

Too many middle-men making too much money doing no productive work - essentially paper shuffling manipulating "financial instruments"

We as a society need to get back to actually making things or providing services to each other rather than just playing the stock market like a personal casino.


So drop the tax rates for production below those of investment income.  Ding!
People talk smack about the "low" investment income tax rates.  Low tax rates aren't a bad thing inherently.   It's what they do  that is bad.  So instead of increasing the tax rate on "gambling," which is political suicide for Both parties at this point, let's drop the tax rates on real production.  Close all the exemption "loopholes" while you're at it, using an even hand.  Cut the R's favorite exemptions: crop subsidies and oil.  Cut the D's favorite exemptions: experimental energy technologies and perigovernmental organizations.  The "rich" will then choose to invest a higher proportion of their money in Making Things instead of the "casino" than they do now.  They won't quit the casino altogether.  They won't shift all their portfolios into 100% corporate paper and bonds.  But it would be an incremental shift that has a permanent positive affect.  Will tax revenues suffer?  Maybe for a while.  But wouldn't you prefer that we have a Making Things economy instead of a Casino economy?
2013-03-18 12:36:53 PM  
1 votes:
How to both ruin and save an economy.
Depending on who you talk to.
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
2013-03-18 12:26:39 PM  
1 votes:
FarkinNortherner: Thunderpipes: You want to take money from people, same thing really. You want the government to have the power to simply take money as they see fit So do you. Unless, of course, you don't want any state provided services. I suppose that's conceivably your position, but it's one that if applied in reality would result in disaster in fairly short order.

If it stopped at services I would agree with you.  But liberals don't want it to stop at services.
2013-03-18 12:23:47 PM  
1 votes:

mr lawson: So you are only for a tax if it transfers hands, ccorrect?


I'd need to think about it on a case by case basis - everything is contextual. As a general rule I do think transfer taxes are the easiest to implement so I generally favor them.
2013-03-18 12:14:35 PM  
1 votes:

mr lawson: DamnYankees: mr lawson: Well, quite a few people here always yell "tax wealth not income" and also biatch about companies who have large amoints of money in banks and not using it to make jobs. So taxing bank accounts would seem to be right up their alley

I've never really heard anyone here advocate a wealth tax as opposed to an income tax, so that's neither here nor there.

Really? Death tax threads. Paris hilton?


Inheritance tax covers the transfer of wealth, not the wealth itself. And don't call it "death tax," because you sound like a complete tool.
2013-03-18 12:10:51 PM  
1 votes:

Thunderpipes: You want to take money from people, same thing really. You want the government to have the power to simply take money as they see fit


So do you. Unless, of course, you don't want any state provided services. I suppose that's conceivably your position, but it's one that if applied in reality would result in disaster in fairly short order.
2013-03-18 12:09:26 PM  
1 votes:

DamnYankees: Thunderpipes: This is what you guys want for the US.

Funny.

We want to tax deposits?


Well, quite a few people here always yell "tax wealth not income" and also biatch about companies who have large amoints of money in banks and not using it to make jobs. So taxing bank accounts would seem to be right up their alley
2013-03-18 12:08:36 PM  
1 votes:

skozlaw: Got a real source by any chance instead of some poo-flinger's blog? Or is this just the thing they've discussed where they basically said that it's up to Cyprus to determine how to handle raising the money as long as they raised the money?


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
2013-03-18 12:02:50 PM  
1 votes:
Austerity is like addressing a heart condition from obesity by cutting off your leg because you'll weigh less.
2013-03-18 12:00:54 PM  
1 votes:
 xria: GentlemanJ: The upside of this will be more support of UKIP in Britain. The EU is unraveling.

Or the opposite - this is essentially the sort of thing that happened in the US before full federalization and a stronger central authority was instituted.


Nationalism wasn't nearly as much a factor here.  The extremity of nationalism in Europe never fails to surprise me.
2013-03-18 11:59:24 AM  
1 votes:
Ah, Credit Unions. Ahhhhhh.

/Join them before Congress locks out new membership.
2013-03-18 11:57:03 AM  
1 votes:
When the Olympics moved on, taking its building projects with it, it left a little like a thief in the night. Exactly like a thief in the night in fact. It usually left in the very early hours of the morning, and the following day there always turned out to be a very great deal of stuff missing. Whole cultures and economies would collapse in its wake, often within a week, leaving once-thriving countries desolate and shell-shocked but still somehow feeling they had been part of some great adventure.
2013-03-18 11:53:37 AM  
1 votes:

Thunderpipes: This is what you guys want for the US.

Funny.


We want to tax deposits?
2013-03-18 11:42:07 AM  
1 votes:

MyKingdomForYourHorse: So let me get this straight. You have an issue with the banks not being able to lend because its too risky as they cannot risk the capital. So to get at that money the government is going to tax it so they can pay their debt to the banks?


THIS.   Seriously this is nothing more than handing money over to the banks directly from the depositors.  This money wont be freed up and used to create liquidity.  This money will stay in the coffers of the bank.

Hey Mortimer - lets open a new bank account, say we guarantee the investors 100% of their money and offer them less than 1% in returns on it.  After the suckers have given us their money lets get the government to steal 6.75% and give it back to us.  Our total profit is all the interest on what we lend out AND 6.75% risk free.  GENIUS.

fark investment banks and the governments lining their pockets.
2013-03-18 11:41:18 AM  
1 votes:
main page politics.... *backs away slowly*
2013-03-18 11:36:05 AM  
1 votes:
Hot Air's understanding of economics is somewhere around potato.
2013-03-18 11:35:48 AM  
1 votes:
Home safe sales will be going up.
2013-03-18 11:35:37 AM  
1 votes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc

Yeah!  I get to whip out the Keynes vs. Hayek rap battles.  :-)

//surprisingly good economic summaries for funny vids.
2013-03-18 11:35:22 AM  
1 votes:

GentlemanJ: The upside of this will be more support of UKIP in Britain. The EU is unraveling.


It's almost as if a collection of smaller governmental entities can only function when they have a strong central authority who can enforce actions across lines of demarcation.

I wonder where in the world such a thing exists?
2013-03-18 11:35:13 AM  
1 votes:

The Irresponsible Captain: Grade A dimwits, the lot of 'em. Of course people are going to take their money out if you start doing this crap. That's part of what caused the Great Depression.

If Europe could stop shooting each other in the foot for a couple of months the world economy might recover. Despite the insanity in Washington right now, the US economy is one of the strongest in the world, so they're not holding everyone back. Certainly China isn't. Even Putinized Russia is doing well.


China's banking system operates under the 'new math' method.
2013-03-18 11:33:42 AM  
1 votes:
The upside of this will be more support of UKIP in Britain. The EU is unraveling.
2013-03-18 11:32:46 AM  
1 votes:

Clemkadidlefark: Ambitwistor: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 270x198]

Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your economy here is only MOSTLY destroyed. There's a big difference between mostly destroyed and all destroyed. Mostly destroyed is slightly rebuilt. With all destroyed, well, with all destroyed there's usually only one thing you can do:  go through their central banks and look for loose change.

Beautiful, just beautiful ....

Also ...

There's an App for that

[static3.businessinsider.com image 385x289]


I thought the Jobs marketer was dead.
2013-03-18 11:32:34 AM  
1 votes:
The lunch is over and it turns out it was not free after all.  Here's the check.
2013-03-18 11:20:16 AM  
1 votes:
So let me get this straight. You have an issue with the banks not being able to lend because its too risky as they cannot risk the capital. So to get at that money the government is going to tax it so they can pay their debt to the banks?

....yeah good luck with that

On brighter news, I'll be offering that once in a life time experience to live like Mad Max European Tours this time next year!
2013-03-18 11:16:57 AM  
1 votes:
Socialist people problems
images.sodahead.com
/oh wait.
 
Displayed 91 of 91 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report