The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Carl on December 07, 2011, 08:44:40 AM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2435482
rdking647 (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 12:21 PM
Original message
Austerity in Europe.. what would you do
Italy,spain,greece etc are proposing major austerity plans which will raise retirement ages,cut spending etc... to appease bond holders..
what would you do instead of austerity????
keep in mind that if your screw over the bondholders then that means you need a balanced budget since you will be shut out of the bond markets......
Socialism,meet reality.
izquierdista (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. Raise taxes on bondholders
If bond interest is taxed at 70%, they may change their tune.
The dreamer tries valiently to bring some basic sense to the DUmp yet finds once again no amount of watering will make grass grow on barren ground.
Dreamer Tatum (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Ummmm...WHAT?????????
You want to soak people for providing capital? Goodbye, capital...
izquierdista (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
19. There was plenty of capital to build up the United States
Back in the 1950s, the income on that capital was taxed at 70%. Tell me, where is that capital going to fly that a USAF drone won't be hovering overhead
Juneboarder (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
3. Deny the bondholders
and take back the country! Iceland did it, why can't any other country?
Dreamer Tatum (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Where would you get money to pay for social services? Pensions? Healthcare?
"Take back the country" is completely meaningless when a country can't service its own debt.
Hello, hyperinflation
Juneboarder (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Not sure, but the bondholders are crooks.
The longer we keep them propped up, the more they feel they deserve the support. Iceland denied them, and three years later they are about to reenter the bond market. As far as I can tell, Iceland did very well in their progress over the last three years.
I say eff the banks and bondholders; send 'em to Guantanamo!
Dreamer Tatum (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Explain how a bondholder is a crook.
A government bond might be the most transparent financial instrument there is.
The yield is set BEFORE THE INVESTMENT.
So please favor me: how are bondholders crooks.
If I loan you $100 at 5% interest and I expect my $105 back as agreed, am I a crook?
You have made $5.00 and since it wasn`t given to you by a government in the DUmps eyes yes you are.
Dreamer Tatum (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Send a bond investor to Guantanamo. Oy.
Pension funds invest in international bonds.
401ks invest in international bonds.
I don't think Guantanamo is big enough to punish all of the people you demand to have punished for the crime of seeking a safe, low-yield return on an investment.
But according to you, those people require punishment. How dare they lend money to a foreign country! Those BASTARDS!
Dreamer Tatum (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
4. Tax the rich!!! Oh, wait, they already do...
Tell the bondholders to **** off! Oh, wait, then there would be no investment at all.
Austerity is real and necessary. Period.
TBF (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. "Austerity is real and necessary. Period."
If that is your position, mine is: revolution, now. We'll see how powerful your 1% is when 99% decide they've had enough of your shit.
Dreamer Tatum (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Bzzt. Whine about rich people all you want.
But the reality of the situation is that the 99% need to pay taxes to help support the societal needs of the other of the 99%.
Currently a large portion of that goes to service debt. If the debt vanished, austerity would still be required to pay the bills
without acquiring more debt, which would then come at unreasonably high cost or not at all. It's really simple. Your 99/1 dichotomy
is a fun little diversion from the truth, but you can't push it down the road forever.
TBF (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. And after the revolution - defense spending 0%.
Now I will watch your right-wing head explode.
Dreamer Tatum (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. How many posts does it take to effect this revolution of which you speak?
And when did I say a word about defense?
You just don't like that governments will have to spend less money.
Enjoy your "revolution". I heard it's starting on Main and Elgin, so I guess you're in luck.
:rotf:
blindpig (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #9
37. The one percent's money was stolen from the 99%.
They produce nothing, we do all the work so **** them we will take it back. Our society is so productive that we all could live very well thank-you-very-much without the parasites hoarding and squandering so much. The anarchy of capitalism will be replaced with a rational economic system the purpose of which will be to meet human need, not to generate profits for the minority
You will die penniless regardless because no matter what system there is you will be a useless leech.
kctim (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
11. The ONLY effective thing that could be done
would be to make Europeans less dependent on their government.
Wonder how that will go over?
Fumesucker (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. Strangely enough the wealthy are even more dependent on government than the poor..
The 1% depend on government to keep the 99% from giving them tumbrel rides.
kctim (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #17
42. Yep
the wealthy are indeed dependent on government to enforce law and keep the peace. No doubt about that. Of course, most sane and logical people believe it is facts, not wealth or envy, that should condemn a person.
Now, to get back on topic, the less a person is dependent on government, the less effect austerity has on them.
Then why waste time talking at the DUmp?
Fumesucker (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Everyone is dependent on government..
In the long run the rich most of all because they have the most that other people with less want to take away from them.
So if the "spending cuts" were to lean heavily toward cutting law enforcement services in rich areas then the rich would suffer greatly.
The DUmp summed up.
mainer (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #47
71. It's laws and government that PROTECT the poor from the rich
otherwise the rich would run roughshod over everyone else.
Laws are there to protect those who can't protect themselves. Government builds roads that the poor can't build in their own neighborhoods, while the rich can. Government funds public schools, so the poor can get an education when the rich can send theirs to private schools. Government gives us free libraries, clean air, clean water. The poor benefit the most.
Fumesucker (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #71
77. In theory, theory and practice are identical..
In practice they are not.
The rich run roughshod over everyone else *now* because they own the politicians which means they own the police who are at least nominally controlled by the politicians.
You have an entire major political party in the USA devoted to nothing beyond servicing the desires of the wealthy and another major party that is partially devoted the same thing.
Fumesucker is an appropriate name.
redqueen (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
18. Seize assets from banking executives,
financial executives, etc.
Anyone who profited significantly from the shell game they used to inflate the housing bubble should have a big chunk of their assets confiscated. No matter where they relocated those assets, and no matter whose name they have them listed under (usually a wife).
mainer (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
22. from what I've read, Greeks have been shirking taxes for a generation
Tax cheating has been widespread, and the government now has to hunt out all the houses with swimming pools to disprove the homeowners' claims of poverty. Some people expect something for nothing.
Look around you on the island.
WilmywoodNCparalegal (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
23. Speaking from the perspective of an Italian,
many Italians do not file tax returns and evade their tax obligations. It is a major major problem. At the same time, they are able to afford second and even third homes (which will be taxed even more, according to the latest austerity measures) on rather average salaries.
Italians have some of the longest lifespans in the world. Yet, I personally know a family friend who retired at age 40 (she began working at 16 and had acquired enough credits to be able to retire at the minimum pension levels).
Something has got to give. Tax laws need to be better enforced so that tax evasion becomes a thing of the past. People need to start sacrificing a little bit more... If you want more than 1 home, then you should expect to be taxed for it.
mainer (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Retirement at 40 is just ... wrong. If everyone else has to pay for it.
We're living into our 80's now. We should expect to work longer than the last generation did.
WORK??!!
WildNovember (488 posts) Tue Dec-06-11 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #24
36. We are multiples more productive than the last generation; why should we work longer than them?
Edited on Tue Dec-06-11 03:17 PM by WildNovember
And average lifespan is not in the 80s. It's 78 years, and it's not significantly longer then the lifespan of the last generation omitting reduced child mortality.
The capitalist paradigm isn't "live longer, produce more = work more".
mainer (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #36
43. ps, if you want to retire at 40, that's fine.
But I think you should pare down your retirement comfort way down. Or expect to contribute enough into the pot so you aren't a burden to young taxpayers who will be forced to work until 70 to keep you on permanent vacation. (And US women do have a lifespan of 80.)
WildNovember (488 posts) Tue Dec-06-11 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #43
52. Thanks for repeating the talking points. Good to know you support the attempt
to pit the young against the old in service of the rulers' comfort.
WildNovember (488 posts) Wed Dec-07-11 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #68
92. I'm the old too. The generation that paid both for their parent's Social Security and their own.
Meanwhile, Reagan and Bush gave the top 1% tax cuts and used my money to fund them.
Not working longer so the rulers can get richer. Anyone who does is a sap. Your kids and grandkids aren't going to have a better life just because you work until you die. It's going to take a redistribution of income between capital and labor and a return of living wage jobs to the US.
Lydia Leftcoast (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
49. Where did all the purveyors of conventional Wall Street "wisdom" and
outright right-wingers come from all of a sudden?
I'm seeing them on every thread.
I really think that DU has been invaded and/or is the object of psy ops.
rdking647 (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #49
63. so what is your solution
if a country spends more than its revenue it has to borrow the money somewhere. without the bond market you cant borrow so you have to balance the budget. either cut spending or raise taxes. Greece and Italy have debts greater than their entire GDP so if you confiscated every penny from every citizen you would still be in a hole
Lydia Leftcoast (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #63
69. If their debt is so large that it's bigger than their GDP
Edited on Tue Dec-06-11 06:46 PM by Lydia Leftcoast
then they will NEVER pay it back.
Default, followed by withdrawal from the euro and stringent, stringent controls on their countries banks, is the only option.
We give people the option of bankruptcy as a fresh start. Any system that does not give countries that option is immoral.
Argentina and Iceland both defaulted, and it was the beginning of recovery for them.
The only alternative is to be in the position of the typical Third World country, with the common people suffering eternal "austerity" to pay for money that never benefited them but was probably transferred directly into some dictator's Swiss bank account, or worse yet, never left the U.S. but went directly from the U.S. Treasury to the coffers of some U.S.-based contractor.
I say this as someone who now, thanks to a small inheritance, gains part of her income from bonds.
redqueen (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #50
67. Why is seizing assets ridiculous?
These people rigged the system. They did not act in good faith, and intended all along to cash in on the shell game.
Spending cuts are fine but those who made out like the bandits they are from this scheming shouldn't be let off to enjoy their ill-gotten gains IMO.
mainer (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #67
73. Whoa. Seizing assets? Whose assets? Every rich person?
Or just bankers? What if they operated by the current laws? It's a dangerous line you're talking there.
redqueen (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #73
76. Please... "every rich person" ... that is just idiotic.
Edited on Tue Dec-06-11 06:52 PM by redqueen
There are laws and there are ethics. If bankers or financial executives only held themselves to the letter of the law, but completely ignored the spirit of it, then I see no reason why they should be allowed to keep their assets.
These people are criminals. They have been shuffling assets here and there and putting them in other people's names because they knew the day would come when the game would be over and taxpayers would be clamoring for blood.
mainer (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #76
83. If they're within the law, what do you charge them with?
That's what scares me, the arbitrariness of choosing who gets their assets seized. If they haven't committed a crime, how do we justify seizing the assets? Who makes the decision?
WildNovember (488 posts) Wed Dec-07-11 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #83
93. You've got it wrong. The top 1% is seizing *our* assets. They just do it in a sneaky way.
What court in the world could argue with that evidence?
rdking647 (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #78
87. except for the fact that without bondholders
you can never run a deficit..
girl gone mad (1000+ posts) Wed Dec-07-11 05:52 AM
Response to Reply #87
104. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Edited on Wed Dec-07-11 05:55 AM by girl gone mad
Of course a government can run deficits, with or without bondholders.
Holders of sovereign bonds are dependent on the sovereign, not the other way around.
hack89 (1000+ posts) Wed Dec-07-11 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #104
120. Deficits imply borrowed money
borrowed money implies bonds. You still need the cash to pay your bills.
WildNovember (488 posts) Wed Dec-07-11 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #95
96. Who says we have to get money from bondholders? It's just a fictional arrangement.
Edited on Wed Dec-07-11 02:01 AM by WildNovember
And who says we can't tax more at the top? And who says we can't increase corporate taxes? And who says we can't build and run the factories ourselves, for our own benefit?
All these "rules" are just social fictions. You can bet if there were a unified effort to give the biggest bondholders haircuts, they'd be forced to take them.
The only problem is that the biggest bondholders (or their paid lackeys) are also running the governments, writing the laws, and writing the propaganda that passes as "news and infotainment".
Bondholders aren't needed to have money. They're not needed to put mental and physical labor into action to create wealth, i.e. the things people need to live.
If there are people and resources, austerity is never necessary. There are people and resources, ergo this "austerity" is just a cover for class war and global war.
How much clearer can it be? Nearly every European country supposedly requires "austerity". The US requires it, Iceland supposedly required it, Africa already got it, so did Eastern Europe, Latin America and japan supposedly require it -- the whole ****ing world supposedly needs financial austerity.
Who is benefiting?
Global class war, waged by the 1% against the rest.
It is a dizzing array of economic idiocy,unyielding envy and hatred.
Sorry for the length,just too much to bring over and more still there if anyone cares to wander over to the cesspool to read it.
-
WildNovember (488 posts) Wed Dec-07-11 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #95
96. Who says we have to get money from bondholders? It's just a fictional arrangement.
Edited on Wed Dec-07-11 02:01 AM by WildNovember
And who says we can't tax more at the top? And who says we can't increase corporate taxes? And who says we can't build and run the factories ourselves, for our own benefit?
While standing around in parks doing drugs and enabling rapes?
OWS's GA is sitting on half a mill.
Prove your theory.
Blaze a trail.
Lead from the front.
DO SOMETHING!
-
*begins digging hole below grade for the "bar".
Oh, DUmmies, Greece RAN OUT OF OTHER COUNTRIES MONEY. Think about it.
Socialism meet reality.
-
Lydia Leftcoast (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-06-11 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #63
69. If their debt is so large that it's bigger than their GDP
then they will NEVER pay it back.
Default, followed by withdrawal from the euro and stringent, stringent controls on their countries banks, is the only option.
We give people the option of bankruptcy as a fresh start. Any system that does not give countries that option is immoral.
Argentina and Iceland both defaulted, and it was the beginning of recovery for them.
The only alternative is to be in the position of the typical Third World country, with the common people suffering eternal "austerity" to pay for money that never benefited them but was probably transferred directly into some dictator's Swiss bank account, or worse yet, never left the U.S. but went directly from the U.S. Treasury to the coffers of some U.S.-based contractor.
I say this as someone who now, thanks to a small inheritance, gains part of her income from bonds.
You are such a dumbass. Defaulting means ruined credit, which means you'll borrow in the future at a higher interest rate, getting you back into the SAME damn debt, only quicker because you STILL want the country to continue spending the same amount of money on the same bullshit programs that got them there in the FIRST damn place.
My GOD Democrats are stupid.
-
Except for the Dreamer, the stupid in that is so thick even a Gerber with a razor edge couldn't cut it. The taxaholics don't seem to be aware that a huge part of the problem in those Mediterranean countries is that their accounting is as honest as a Chicago election, and their taxpayers are notorious cheats from highest to lowest, so their numbers are garbage and raising the taxes on the bonds would have a trivial effect even aside from all the economic arguments against it. It's really no wonder the Northern Europeans are getting sick of carrying them.
-
They're like 2-year olds. They exhaust me. I'm so sick and tired of stupid people in this country. What are they doing in the government schools these days anyways? Coloring with crayons?
You know what's really irritating, and it's happening all the time...if someone makes a glimmer of sense, all they can do is skreech "RIGHT WING TALKING POINT! RIGHT WING TALKING POINT!!! YOU'RE A 1%ER!!!!!"
Democrats are braindead idiots. Childish, too.
-
My first thought when I read the header for this was "Kill the socialist milk cow"...
then I read about half of the replies and my thoughts turned to "Kill the damn DUmbass socialist we have here".
-
They're like 2-year olds. They exhaust me. I'm so sick and tired of stupid people in this country. What are they doing in the government schools these days anyways? Coloring with crayons?
Two-year-olds are at least cute and occasionally even charming, rarely mean and rotten by nature, and have the potential to grow up into good human beings (Hard as it may be to see in them when they've gotten hold of a permanent marker and a stretch of blank wall, for sure).
-
Wow! I lost brain cells I'll never get back reading that.
Cindie