Again, 170 million out of 170 BILLION is only 1/1000 of the total loan amount.Again, it's only like buying a few Chiclets out of a $100 loan.
AIG just went straight up gangsta' with that ish.
(Okay Invisible Hand, I know you would prefer "shit" instead of "ish". "Ish" is just being polite. Would you prefer the pretense of Michel Foucault and have me strike everything and to put it "under erasure"?)
I've never been a fan of Robin Hood.
I never got the concept.
Is the moral of the story; "Don't become rich, someone will come and steal all of your money and give it to poor people"?
I think that this is what is flawed in Obama's plan.
This is why Obama's Budget Plan won't work.
Rich people deserve to be rich.
Poor people deserve to be poor.
Rich people don't deserve to be greedy.
Poor people don't deserve to be oppressed.
I'm a small business owner who may like to become a big business owner.
But how would a 90% tax be any incentive to do this?
I addressed a more workable plan dealing with profitable credit unions (fixing the economy from the middle - out, instead of from the top - down (where too many people have grown accustomed to an instant profit) in an earlier post.
I'm no economist,
But this Robin Hood plan is just effed up.
8 comments:
I don't think the 90% tax bracket should be of concern to anybody unless they have received money from the government to stay in business. And if someone has received money to stay in business but decides that lining their own pocket is of a greater concern to them, then why not get the money back?
I know you are exceedingly intelligent, so I'm going to assume you was faded when you posted this. The 90% tax only applies to businesses that took TARP money, in order to stay in business, and then try to pay excessive bonuses. When you have to borrow money from the government to stay in business, you shouldn't then get to pay yourself a ridiculous bonus, especially when it was your lack of performance that brought the company to its knees. Talk about failing up. This 90% tax thing applies quite narrowly and has nothing do with taking away reasonable and sensible incentives. The AIG case is the opposite of rewarding based on achievement; it's rewarding based on failure, simply because you think you're entitled.
Further, I don't agree with your other statements about "the rich deserve to be rich", etc. Much of the current wealth of this country was built on the backs of slaves, exploited immigrants, workers exploited during the industrial revolution, etc. The heirs and beneficiaries of this wealth hardly "deserve" to be rich. They are merely taking advantage of their rich, mostly White privilege (as your boy Ed might phrase it). Keep in mind something like 5% of the people control something like 85% of the wealth in this country. Sure, there are newly rich everyday, but most of the country's wealth is still old money. During the last 8 yrs the top 5% have only increased the total proportion of the country's income they account for; hence, the "rich getting richer". This is clearly out of whack and is a recipe for revolution and potential demise (see Lenin).
Chris Rock said something like: in every classroom of kids you'll have something like 4 or 5 kids that will get all A's, 4 or 5 that will get F's and everyone else falls in the middle, is average. If you allow the 4 or 5 kids getting A's to amass all the rewards, or in the capitalist model you seem to be advocating, allow the top 4 or 5 accumulate all the wealth, there's going to be some serious problems. You can call it wealth re-distribution or whatever, but the continued growing gap between the haves and have nots is not a smart plan in the long run.
In America everyone does have a potential winning lottery ticket, but the reality of what actually occurs for almost everyone is quite different. It makes sense to provide a floor for everyone while still allowing individuals to benefit on their merits, but not straight rip-off tax payers.
Please show me this world of perfect meritocracy you often seem to speak of in your posts. I would like to live there some day.
do rich people really deserve to be rich, and the poor deserve to be poor?
I question how much social mobility really goes on in the U.S.
It seams to me most people either move a half peg up or down from where they were born... few real self made men/woman. more like born with opportunity and support and took advantage vs. born in a hole and the other crabs kept me down.
not sayin we should take from the rich, but I caution the idea of thinking the rich deserve what they have due to superior brains or work ethic.
I think you miss the larger point of the actual Robin Hood story (not the romantic movie version) Robin Hood did steal from the rich, but it was ill gotten rich. Prince Charles ( I believe ) was sitting in for King Richard while he was off at war. Whereas the King had always been fair and just and allowed the people of the land to work to make a good living for themselves, The Prince took what ever he wanted leaving the people with just enough to keep working to give him more.
If you work hard and get rich (cause you worked hard) you deserve your reward. AIG didn't work hard, they were Prince Charles not King Richard. Obamin Hood is just trying to make a fair playing field and keep Charles out of our pocket!
One of my partners loves to watch Tiger, Venus, Serena, & Lewis Hamilton. When I asked him why he enjoyed those sports he siad it was not so much that he enjoyed the sports as he enjoyed the fact that blacks were able to excel at sports that we normally don't have access to. Yes there are football fields and basketball courts but these sports have long eluded us because they require an investment upfront to gain access to these things.
Not every rich person worked hard to get their fortune and not every poor person was a lazy ass who deserves to be poor.
@ curious - I'm not concerned with THIS 90% tax, but on the government's ability to arbitrarily implement a tax on any sub-group of induviduals in the future.
@ DPizz - The last three posts were meant to to taken as one.
What someone ends up getting for being "rich" is often different than what is perceived.
And the same could be said of those who are thought of as "poor".
@ - brohammas - (See @DPizz above)
@ - DJ - (see @brohammas above)
I'm not sure connecting the last 3 posts changes my comment. Perhaps you should better delineate any relationships between posts for those of us less sophisticated and adept at interpreting the complex themes you weave in your blog.
If your real point was the government's arbitrary use of power, you should have written about that, cause it sure sounded like you were trying to defend the AIG bonuses.
Lastly, Dude, I suggest you un-moderate the comments. Waiting for you to post all the comments, basically at one time, is stifling any potential discussion on your blog, especially between commentors and it fuels redundancy in comments as well. There are many major blogs that don't moderate comments or delete unwelcome comments after the fact with little if any negative impact on the blog. If inappropriate comments become problematic, you can simply delete them or go back to moderation mode.
Well.. not the last three.
But from "Low Self Esteem" to "Who's Smarter".
But that I don't automaticaly express my point in a direct manner... why?
I already know what I think, I'd just like a different point of view or sometimes my opinions are yet to be fully formed (or misinformed).
As for the AIG bonuses...yeah, they suck. But the whole concept of the packages suck even more.
There are many small banks and credit unions that are in good financial shape. The money should be going there.
I'm less concerned with the wasting of 170m than I am with the 170b.
The focus is on the wrong issue.
Always entertaining, coming here Mr. John. Always.
Post a Comment