|
Edwynn -> RE: Yet .....ANOTHER....study regarding the wealthy (8/12/2011 7:04:19 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
quote:
ORIGINAL: Edwynn
There is no need for re-distribution of wealth or "share the wealth" measures, etc.
That is, if the laws were changed from the current status of relieving the largest corporations, especially the oil companies, of their full tax obligations and then sending our tax dollars to them in the form of numerous subsidies, tax credits, oil depletion allowance, etc.
The oil companies successfully mounted a recall campaign in California and routed out governor Grey Davis because he had the temerity to want Chevron and the others to actually pay the state for the oil they pumped within Cali borders. Even Alaska and Texas get a few pennies from it, but not Cali. (which is why the former two states never have any serious budget problems while California is a beggar state).
Georgia and New Jersey had just put anti-predatory lending laws in place, whereupon Standard and Poors came along and bullied them into rescinding those laws.
Do you see some issue with corporate concerns possibly conflicting with democracy here? Just possibly?
The misallocation of resources goes far beyond mere excessive tax breaks to the wealthiest, let's make that clear.
And if our present unemployment situation has anything at all to do with "specific government action," indeed we can go back to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act or the Commodity Futures Trading Modernization Act in allowing the collateralized debt obligations (CDO) and the partner credit default swaps to run amok without any government oversight whatsoever.
How many jobs and how much "wealth" was 'created' from all that?
PS
Massive home foreclosures and business bankruptcies are not referred to as "wealth creation" in most business or economics classes, just to clear that up.
Why I consider you an ideologue and not a very smart one is clear in this post.
You throw all kinds of straw-men out there, claim I believe them, do it from a attitude of economic ignorance, and then act superior.
What a fucking klutz.
Firm
Failure to comprehend or accept facts on your part does not constitute ignorance on my part.
Everything in the post was factual, but if you think otherwise, you are welcome to refute point by point.
Your reference to another who provides facts as being an "idealogue" speaks plenty here.
PS
The "who did you vote for?" question was not even directed to you. Another troublesome fact.
|
|
|
|
