11 replies to this topic

[eds]

To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be
. . . . . . 'so wanton,
. . . . . . so deficient in a moral sense of concern,
. . . . . . so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and
. . . . . . so blameworthy,
. . . as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes
. . . upon a person who intentionally causes a crime.
Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created
. . . by the defendant’s conduct,
. . . not the injuries actually resulting.

Are the people elected to make the laws, above the Law?
. . . or can the law apply to them as well?

If harm is caused, thru inaction (ie. 'Kicking the Can down the Road')
. . . can their 'Benefits & Perks' be taken away from them?
. . . can they be 'Fined,' 'Jailed,' or in someway made to feel the pain?
NO . . . I guess not.

Well than instead of 'Happy New Year," I wish everyone a
"Happy Fiscal Cliff."

[Shortpoet-GTD]

The baggers are bound and determined to bring this country down.
They are like Dracula, sucking the life blood out of it's victims with the elite's like Renfro, their willing accomplices.

[E3 wise]

Why solve a problem when you can stall and get more money from the rich to fight what is needed, real tax reform.  I really wish fiscal indifference could be prosecuted.  Look what ever happens lets just all agree the real cause of all of this fiscal mess is unicorns and the drag they are on entitlements, those two unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that spent billions a month had nothing to do with it, it was all those unicorns looking for handouts.

[Phil]

Well here we go again, Bush's entire war effort was $877 billion, Obama borrowed 1.5x that much his first year.  He has grown government spending to unprecidented levels by running $1 trillion deficits year after year and has already signalled he will do so the next four.  He wants $1.6 trillion in new taxes which is only $160 billion a year, but is also demanding anywhere from $50-$200 billion in stimulus.  In other words, business as usual with no deficit reduction, just deeper in debt.

"Baggers" are the only ones talking sanity, trillion dollar deficits are what will destroy this country.  Borrowing 40% of what we spend will destroy this country.  Pretending we are recovering when we are only enslaving future generations to prop up false prosperity today will destroy this country.  Let the printing presses roll.

It is Obama that is sucking the life out of the economy.  The private sector creates wealth, the public sector can oniy exist by leaching off the private.  It isn't public sector money or nothing, it is public sector or private sector.  Just because the public sector hasn't leached it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  The more government takes from the private sector the less is available to create wealth and the more is available to destroy it.

It is also the Baggers talking tax reform, liberals just want more.

[tigerlily78]

Phil, on 17 December 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

Well here we go again, Bush's entire war effort was $877 billion, Obama borrowed 1.5x that much his first year.  He has grown government spending to unprecidented levels by running $1 trillion deficits year after year and has already signalled he will do so the next four.  He wants $1.6 trillion in new taxes which is only $160 billion a year, but is also demanding anywhere from $50-$200 billion in stimulus.  In other words, business as usual with no deficit reduction, just deeper in debt.

"Baggers" are the only ones talking sanity, trillion dollar deficits are what will destroy this country.  Borrowing 40% of what we spend will destroy this country.  Pretending we are recovering when we are only enslaving future generations to prop up false prosperity today will destroy this country.  Let the printing presses roll.

It is Obama that is sucking the life out of the economy.  The private sector creates wealth, the public sector can oniy exist by leaching off the private.  It isn't public sector money or nothing, it is public sector or private sector.  Just because the public sector hasn't leached it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  The more government takes from the private sector the less is available to create wealth and the more is available to destroy it.

It is also the Baggers talking tax reform, liberals just want more.

Phil, Obama's FIRST YEAR of spending was already budgeted by the Bush administration. This is how the Federal budgeting process works and has worked since sometime in the 50's or 60's. Remember that Bush signed the TARP bill. Also consider that if you are budgeted to spend a certain number of dollars and then revenue coming in falls dramatically, a larger deficit is the natural and expected outcome.

Looking at historical tax rates, I don't think anyone can argue with a straight face that the wealthiest or corporations are any where near being taxed to death or to even such a rate that would stifle the economy. The reality is, the stock market rebounded in 2012 to pre-recession levels, corporate PROFITS are at an all time record high... but some mysterious reason (GREED) none of that growth in prosperity is really showing in the lives of average Americans. When we are picking up the interest tab on two decades of spending done on the credit card, nearly directly caused by a ludicrously low tax burden on those most well off and two wars (one of them wholly illegitimate) then I think it makes sense to demand that they also make "sacrifices" to be part of the solution, not just old people who paid their SS and FICA taxes for their whole lives and are now poised to get the shaft simply because Republicans are allergic to taxes.  Seriously. At no time in American history has a president REDUCED tax rates while engaging in a war... that will be GW's legacy to us all.
Profits vs. Taxes: http://billmoyers.co...and-wages-dont/

And if you want to discuss welfare, then look no further than the congressional back patting going on over Defense spending on programs that even the Pentagon claims are obsolete and unnecessary:  http://thehill.com/b...in-defense-bill

[yoder]

The Fiscal Dip was created by a bunch of fiscal dips and when the time was right, the mainstream media went into full "smoke blowing" mode.  The hype was stellar, the b.s. was odiferous, and the logic was absent.  And yet the majority of the U.S. sat breathless at the end of their armchairs as the country sailed over this imaginary gorge.

Now here we are at the other side, and what do we see?  More imaginary cliffs lined one after the other in endless succession.

[tigerlily78]

Good to see you about Yoder. :)

[Phil]

Tigerlilly,

Sorry but it is congress that passes budgets.  Who was in charge of congress Bush's last two years?  Oh yes, democrats!    Obama inherited his own budget since he was part of the senate that wrote it.   THAT's how the budget process works.

Bush signed the TARP bill which was a loan.  It made money for the government as it was paid back.  The biggest name left on the list is GM, $28 billion or so, NOT loaned by Bush but by Obama.  GM will lose us money.

We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world now.  Everyone above us cut their rates.  That puts us at a completive disadvantage and that's not the way to create jobs.  Regardless, corporations never pay taxes, their customers do.  You stick it to corporations, they raise their prices to compensate, you pay.  Get it?  Economics 101.

Profits for SOME corporations are at a record high.  If it was a general trend the stock market would be through the roof. Instead it is just tracking inflation like it's done for years now.  I am a decades long investor and make money at it, I know intimately what;s going on in corporate America and the markets, (I watch the financial channels daily, that's where you get the straight scoop).

Tax cuts for the rich cost $70 billion/yr.  That is 5% of the $1.3 trillion dollar problem, you are ignoring the other 95%.  Tell me about the other 95% then we can talk!

There was no illegitimate war except Viet Nam which was started by democrats.   Bush went to congress and got overwhelming approval.  And please don't give me that Bush lied crap, congress gets the exact same intelligence report that the president does.

Again, Bush's entire war effort was $877 billion, Obama's first deficit was 1.5x that.  That's $877 billion over 8 years, vs Obama's $1.3 trillion average every year.

First, Bush's tax cuts INCREASED tax revenue.  Check the treasury web site.  Second, if they were so horrible, why did democrats and Obama just make them permanent?  You can't have it both ways.

"not just old people who paid their SS and FICA taxes for their whole lives and are now poised to get the shaft simply because Republicans are allergic to taxes"

I'm sorry but that's a complete lie.  SS is separately funded and has nothing to do with our budget issues.  It does need a simple fix, the latest suggestion being a retirement increase to 70.   That will fix it.  Medicare is also separately funded but it's expenditures are far above income and growing exponentially.   It's Medicare and Medicaid that will sink us, along with Obamacare.  It's cost has already doubled from what was promised and it isn't even fully implemented.

Bill Moyers is a radical leftist who's views I have no interest in, sorry.  Now if you want to quote a good libertarian like John Stossel, I'm all over it!

Look, I'm not a particular fan of either party but saying one walks on water while the other is evil is rather absurd isn't it?  As I've often said, Bush was not evil incarnate, Obama does not walk on water.  If I were talking to die hard conservatives I'd say just the opposite.  Both are human, both have good points, both have bad points.

What really saddens me is this whole pervasive attitude that corporations are evil, that profits are evil, that free market capitalism is evil.  It is the exact opposite.  Profits go to stock holders, that's anyone with a IRA, 401K, union pension, and individual investors like me.  You want corps to make less profit?  You are screwing everyone's retirement accounts!!!!

Who's done more good for this world, Mother Teresa or Bill Gates?  Hands down Bill Gates,  his software has created millions of jobs all over the world and lifted many out of poverty.

Are there evil people in business?  Of course, just like in politics, arts, educating, government, religions, etc.

The problem is we are entering the end game now;. Our deficits have risen at such an alarming rate that the world is only willing to absorb half of them.  That's why Bernake is printing money to buy the other half.  I am aware of no economy on earth that has survived this tactic.  Bernake saying he won't be back in 2014 does not give me the warm fuzzies either.  Trying to attack the very engine that creates wealth at this juncture is dangerous at best.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Clinton instituted "pay as you go" and chaney/bush ignored that completely with the prescription drug benefit
for seniors and two wars. (And those wars were chaney's idea; he held the strings on puppet bush)

They were not even part of the budget; but set aside, so they wouldn't be counted.

I respect your opinion Phil, but you will never convince me that bush wasn't the worst president in the history
of the universe and spent money like a drunken sailor. (No offense to drunken sailors)

[yoder]

The effective corporate tax rate, which is after deductions and exemptions is at least 10 percentage points lower and does not take into account subsidies, grants, or even touch revenue outside the US.  The effective rate still leaves the US in the top 10, but not in the top spot.

Bush's war was more than a trillion, not the 877 billion as that does not include the emergency funding that was also used to pay for the war.

Tax cuts being tied to increased federal revenue is questionable, there are far too many other factors at play to say the one causes the other.

Most members of Congress did not actually have access to the same information that the White House did prior to Bush's war.  The President's intelligence information is sanitized before being disseminated to any other entities.  Compartmentalized Intelligence has been a standard procedure for the intelligence agencies for decades and those 3 letter agencies are very careful selecting who gets what.

The argument that Bush's war was illigitimate or illegal has more to do with who knew what and when than anything else.  It will be 40 years or more before we begin to know what really happened.

Corporations are not evil.  They are incorporeal entities that exist only on paper.  People who hide behind the corporate facade and do immoral, unethical and pathetic things and then bail out with their golden parachutes may not even be evil, but they are certainly not good or their actions defensible.  When people can hide behaviour that is damaging to others and would in most cases be considered illegal or immoral, many will jump at that chance.  In this case corporations have been providing that protection.  Transparency would remove that temptation from the morally bankrupt, and would allow corporations run correctly and transparently to prosper.

[eds]

yoder, on 21 January 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

Transparency would remove that temptation from the morally bankrupt, and would allow corporations run correctly and transparently to prosper.

I agree with that statement, and thought that I would invest in the most "Transparent" company I could find.
. . . I invested in one, in the Health industry, a huge Global company, in the DOW 30, with a sterling reputation,
. . . they even have a company "CREED" to do no harm.  
Yet, one of their 256 sub-companies, really messed up, and
. . . has caused no end of problems,
. . . recalling all of their line of sub-products, for the past year.

It only takes one bad apple, to besmirch the reputation of a whole barrel of companies,
. . . even in a company that espouses having a moral compass.

That being said, the company pulled together, to clean up the mess.
. . . It has caused them Billions of dollars, to clean up the mess.
. . . They didn't "Kick the can down the road,"
. . . that would have been "depraved indifference."

[Phil]

Shortpoet,

All you have to do is look at the deficit curves.  If Bush spent like a drunken sailor, Obama is spending like an entire platoon!   Also, look at Bush's first six years with a republican congress vs the last two with a democrat one.  It's congress that passes budgets not the president and Bush lost control of congress when democrats came in.

When Obama was elected democrats also dropped pay as you go.  Pot meet kettle!

I respect your opinion as well but nothing will change my view that Obama is the worst president in history.  I actually have to expend effort to make money in the markets now!

yoder,

Yes our effective tax rate is lower but other countries have other ways to subsidize their industries so we still are at a disadvantage.  Incidentally, both democrats and republicans agree on this and it's one thing that may actually get done.  As I have mentioned, corporations don't pay taxes anyway, we their customers do.  Corporate taxes are especially hard on the poor, lowering the tax rate would help them the most.

Bottom line is, tax revenues went up after the tax reductions.  It's moot anyway since democrats have now made them permanent.  It's rather disingenuous to label them detrimental then turn around and make them permanent, don't you think?

Corporations are very transparent.  Their quarterly report tells you exactly what is going on by law.  Of course there are the Bernie Madoffs of the world but that is the exception not the rule.   As a professional I got a golden parachute, they are quite common.   Of course mine was a fraction of what the big boys get but that is to be expected because I wasn't a big boy.

The problem we have now is not free market capitalism, it's crony capitalism.  Picking winners and losers, capitalizing gains and socializing losses are not free market principles, quite the opposite.  The only method that lowers cost and increases quality is free market competition.