Althouse: The bailout fails!

September 29, 2008

The bailout fails!

Crash!

ADDED: They just couldn't choke down that crap sandwich!

Woe to us all! Right? Or... not....

511 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 511 of 511

Roberto said...: Michael_H said..."Michael - Thank you for your continuous posts. Every word you write makes me increasingly firm in my resolve to vote for McCain/Palin."

And of course, we both know you're full of shit.

You were voting for McCain way before you ever read any of my posts.

And we both also know you voted for George W. Bush twice.

Don't blame me for being a fucking right wing shill.

You did that all by yourself.; 9/29/08, 5:48 PM
krylovite said...: the House members listened to THE PEOPLE. Or do you want a dictatorship?

Are THE PEOPLE well enough informed to make intelligent decisions about the details of the bailout proposal?

Consider this:

- 6 out of 10 Americans between the ages of 18-24 can't locate Iraq on a map.

- Only 4% of Americans know that Canada is our largest foreign oil supplier.

- 31% of Americans can't name the current Vice President

- Only 15 percent of Americans can correctly identify John Roberts as chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, but 66 percent know the name of at least one of the American Idol judges.

Elected representatives aren't obliged to listen to THE PEOPLE on every issue and each bill they consider. In response THE PEOPLE have the opportunity to remove their representatives from office at election time. That's not the same thing as a dictatorship, silly boy.; 9/29/08, 5:48 PM
Simon said...: Blake - amazing that they didn't respond to such people management skills!; 9/29/08, 5:49 PM
knox said...: Michael,

See my comment from almost 4 hours ago. I said,

Bullshit. Until the republicans stopped them, they were going to give the first 20% of profits to ACORN.

"Until the republicans stopped them." Get it? Also, several of us cited the exact legislation that the democrats drafted, so please stop acting like it never existed.

Was it in the final bill? No. But I never said it was in the first place!!; 9/29/08, 5:49 PM
Roberto said...: Fletch, Unless you actually sell the gold...what have you got?

Gold that's appreciated in value...just like a stock or a long-term CD

Until you sell the stock, property or gold...you don't pay taxes.

Do you?; 9/29/08, 5:50 PM
blake said...: Wait, the Constitution was involved in this somehow?

I'm pretty sure most of this stuff was an end-run around it.; 9/29/08, 5:52 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: I propose that the RNC go on full attack mode with 30- and 60-second commercials laying the blame for the failures of Freddie and Fannie firmly on the doorsteps of Democrats.

Except Freddie and Fannie are a small part of the problem. So, you're really proposing a big diversionary tactic. Please elaborate on how F&F brought down Lehman, Wachovia, etc.; 9/29/08, 5:53 PM
Unknown said...: Something tells me that fletch isn't just a Paultard but an IRS denier as well.

(ok I'm cheating... Posting from my iPhone while my daughter watches a Cinderella video ;)); 9/29/08, 5:53 PM
Roberto said...: Knox, it was a bi-partisan agreement. Until I get to attend a meeting, I have no idea what the give and take was between the parties.

You're merely assuming the Republicans are doing what you want them to do.

The Democrats surely gave up something in return for something being forfeited on the other side.

That's what negotiations are all about.

Ever tried it?; 9/29/08, 5:54 PM
blake said...: Simon,

I know! I'd be lining up to do this thing that can't really be agreed upon--will it save the economy or just funnel money to special interests and compound the problem--knowing that:

a) It's all my fault in the first place.

b) Anything bad that happens in the future is also all my fault.

It may seem one-sided, but it's karmically balanced with all those no-papers loans.; 9/29/08, 5:54 PM
Roberto said...: "Are THE PEOPLE well enough informed to make intelligent decisions about the details of the bailout proposal?"

The latest polling reveals at least 30% of the American public has absolutely NO opinion on the bailout, which should tell you how well informed they are.; 9/29/08, 5:55 PM
Roberto said...: mcg: "Posting from my iPhone"

Harcore, Dude.

How do you hold your beer?; 9/29/08, 5:56 PM
knox said...: Knox, it was a bi-partisan agreement. Until I get to attend a meeting, I have no idea what the give and take was between the parties.

Nice backpedal.; 9/29/08, 5:56 PM
knox said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/29/08, 5:57 PM
knox said...: No wonder you're in sales. *spits*; 9/29/08, 5:57 PM
Roberto said...: "DOW CLOSES LOWER TODAY THAN FIRST DAY OF BUSH'S PRESIDENCY"

And to think most here voted for this idiot...twice.; 9/29/08, 5:57 PM
Simon said...: The now-mandatory comment view - which includes users' pictures - is kind of neat. I had no idea that Krylovite was female, let alone a slamming hottie!; 9/29/08, 5:57 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: "I bought my gold 1 oz at a time- and I won't pay a single penny of tax on my profit when I sell."

Oh really? Unless you sell to a completely private party for cash under the table you will (or should unless you plan to dodge it) pay taxes. Of course if we are in a depression and you are trading your gold for food or other services, no one will be around to care anyway.; 9/29/08, 5:58 PM
Unknown said...: Michael, I have one of those ball caps with built-in cupholders and straws.

Blogger is a huge pain in the ass on the iPhone.; 9/29/08, 5:59 PM
Roberto said...: Body language expert on the 1st debate:

McCain:

"A tension permeates McCain's personality."

"A snake eye's expression of anger."; 9/29/08, 6:00 PM
Simon said...: blake said...
"Wait, the Constitution was involved in this somehow? I'm pretty sure most of this stuff was an end-run around it."

Ed Meese raised some concerns about nondelegation, I'm told, but I guess now the text is dead we don't need to look too closely. The end run will come if Bush buys the assets anyway.; 9/29/08, 6:00 PM
blake said...: They're either liars or whiners.

Can't they be both?

You know, it used to be that a politician would say something like, "Well, our honorable opposition made a lot of bad mistakes, but now they've come around to the right way of thinking by agreeing to sign on to our bill."

Pelosi made it clear that she was going to blame the Reps entirely for past errors, and that she needed them to make future attacks against them possible.

That's just bad politicking.; 9/29/08, 6:00 PM
former law student said...: Why are so many people so willing to trust the government to save us?

US govt. is the only entity big enough.

By the time we get done paying for untangling this mess, we could have colonized Mars. It will make the Social Security bailout look like Ann's latte budget.; 9/29/08, 6:01 PM
bagoh20 said...: The terms of this deal are being reported online, so the transparency is there. People need to accept that there is no really good solution short term, but there are some real bad futures short and long term without a deal. Unless you are terminally ill, long term is all that really matters. This is how grown ups with wisdom evaluate choices. The alternative is what got us here. I lost 60 grand this month in the market. We just have to suck it up and take the path to recovery even if it's uphill.; 9/29/08, 6:01 PM
Simon said...: Michael said...
"Body language expert on the 1st debate"

He's a politician. At a debate. I'm pretty sure that if you had a body language expert examine Maria Sharapova during a tennis match she'd be thought pretty tense, too.; 9/29/08, 6:01 PM
Unknown said...: Uh-oh, Michael had returned to irrelevant troll mode.; 9/29/08, 6:02 PM
Simon said...: former law student said...
"By the time we get done paying for untangling this mess, we could have colonized Mars"

If we weren't spending over a trillion dollars a year on entitlement spending we could already have colonized Mars.; 9/29/08, 6:03 PM
Roberto said...: Polling On Bailout - 9/24/08

Pew Poll -
“As you may know, the government is potentially investing billions to try and keep financial institutions and markets secure. Do you think this is the right thing or the wrong thing for the government to be doing?”

Result: Right 57 percent, Wrong 30 percent.

LAT/Bloomberg:
“Do you think the government should use taxpayers’ dollars to rescue ailing private financial firms whose collapse could have adverse effects on the economy and market, or is it not the government’s responsibility to bail out private companies with taxpayers’ dollars?”

Result: Should do 31 percent, Should not 55 percent.

ABC/Post:
“Do you approve or disapprove of the steps the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department have taken to try to deal with the current situation involving the stock market and major financial institutions?"

Result: Approve 44 percent, Disapprove 42 percent.; 9/29/08, 6:03 PM
bagoh20 said...: Just a little good news: Gasoline prices are down for the 14th straight week. Biggest drop since 9/11. Yahoo!; 9/29/08, 6:03 PM
Unknown said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/29/08, 6:04 PM
Palladian said...: Hey guys, have fun with yet another re-run of The Michael Show.

Seriously, why do you people engage him? Why do you answer his questions? Where does it get you?; 9/29/08, 6:04 PM
Palladian said...: "Uh-oh, Michael had returned to irrelevant troll mode."

I didn't know he had ever left irrelevant troll mode.; 9/29/08, 6:05 PM
Roberto said...: mcg says: "Uh-oh, Michael had returned to irrelevant troll mode."

Just taking a break.; 9/29/08, 6:06 PM
Anonymous said...: michael said: And of course, we both know you're full of shit.

Sorry, you've won the coveted FOS award by acclimation.; 9/29/08, 6:07 PM
Roger J. said...: It seems to me that there is a certain amount of naivete on demonstration here. The congresscritters are political animals--there are some that actually may put the interests of the country above politics--but for some politicians its simply about being relected. The former are in short supply; the latter in oversupply.

And I think that people can look at the consequences and may not see them as others might. An honorable member, like I, may not see the crisis as such a big thing as others. Its a complex world out there, but to reduce it to caricatures suggests more about the spectator than the person who casts the vote.

Me? I'm happy that the government is less likely to insert its hamhanded presence in personal choices. And I have more faith in markets tha politicians. But to paint this issue in manichenean terms of good or evil, is to obscure the messy realitity that is both human nature and politics.

The sun will rise tomorrow, and the United States is not going to close its doors. Most peoples lives will go on. Somewhat altered perhaps by events, but that is the nature of reality.; 9/29/08, 6:09 PM
Unknown said...: Palladian,
Believe it or not I think michael's not particularly doylish when he stays on topic.; 9/29/08, 6:09 PM
bagoh20 said...: "Whack a Mole" has always been very popular. Same concept. I don't play that anymore either since I grew up.; 9/29/08, 6:10 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: "Well-run banks like BB&T, US Bank, BofA, etc are in good condition and making loans to good credit risks, same as always."

Michael: not exactly. When B of A makes a mortgage loan, they immediately re-sell it. Previously and maybe now too to Freddie or Fannie or another packager like Countrywide....oops now they own Countrywide. :-) Before all the sub prime mess banks would resell their loans at 80% because they had 20% down on the property already, so the bank was "made whole" and they could then turn around and lend again.

If there are no or limited resellers (Fannie etc) then the banks will have less cash to lend out because they must keep a certain amount of cash reserves as a ratio of deposits. Thus, cash will be much harder to come by and lending will be severely restricted. This has serious ripple effect ramifications on the entire economy.

Commercial lending, credit lines for businesses, are the most seriously impacted and those people will feel the pinch right away.

EX. Shoe store buys inventory on a line of credit. Bank can't make as large of a credit loan. Can't buy as many shoes. Must lay off employees. Formerly employed can't buy new shoes. Shoe store goes out of business.

At the same time the shoe manufacturer can't get a credit line either and can't make as many shoes. Lays off employees and also raises the price of shoes to compensate for less production making the shoes at the store more expensive so less people buy and so on.

Included in this loop of declining sales and increasing costs are the cattle industry for leather, steel industry for shoe shanks, plastic manufacturers, dye manufacturers, cattle feed manufacturers, trucking and shipping industry, advertising industry, boxing and storage, real estate because of vacant store fronts where the shoe store used to be and so on and so on.

It doesn't matter how good your credit is if there is no money to be lent.; 9/29/08, 6:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Everything is spin, including your comment that the Republicans were blown out of the water in 1932. While that is accurate, it is misleading by the ommission of context, the very essence of spin. Another way to frame the 1932 election is that the incumbent majority party failed to address a crisis and were thrown out in favor of the majority. As Kenobi said, "many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view"; did the voters in 1932 punish Republicans or simply the majority party? Depending on how you look at it, the precedent could bode ill for either side

Simon, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Throughout the 1920's, the Republicans were the majority party and controlled both elective branches of government. People were sick of Democrat Wison and his war, and returned substantial Republican majorities in every election through 1928. Looks like a majority party to me.

They were decisively thrown out in 1932 and replaced with a Democratic majority. The Republicans have languished in semi-minority status ever since, with notable comebacks, most recently the 12 years' Republican Congress that ended in 2006.

If you are saying that a majority in 1932 was thrown out in favor of another majority, well, that seems self-evident and tautological.

But the REASON the Republicans were thrown out in 1932 had to do with their identification with the causes of the crisis, i.e., greedy, careless banking practices and Wall St. excess; combined most particularly with their inability to be seen to address the effects of the crisis, i.e., massive unemployment and loss of savings.

I can be argued ad infinitum that Roosevelt's New Deal solutions only made the Depression worse, and that what was needed was the invisible hand of the market working its magic of clearing inefficiencies. Trouble is, people were desperate, and could not wait. There was a revolutionary situation developing, and, whatever the economic realities, Rooosevelt and the New Deal provided a psychological palliative to calm the situation.

According to Bernanke's model, inaction in the present crisis could easily result in 1932-like conditions, or worse, despite the bland confidence of many of the public. THAT is the frightening thing here, and the thing the Republicans had better be aware of. Although presently the minority party, the Republicans enjoyed majority control during the period, like the 1920's, that has been fixed in the public mind as the formative era for this crisis.

The Republicans are not the majority as the crisis breaks, certainly, but by proposing first a very reasonable but difficult solution, and then abandoning it out of seeming partisan interests, they APPEAR, no matter the provocation, to be the party of delay and inaction, just as they did in 1932. They need not be a majority to be painted into that corner again.

And, frankly, if they don't get their act together to do something quickly, no matter the apparent short-term political cost, they will rightly suffer much, much more in the end.

I really hate to see this, because I really am in favor of a genuine 2-party system, assuring checks and balances, rather than a total Democratic countryside, with God knows what witches brews rising out of the mists.; 9/29/08, 6:17 PM
Jim said...: 1) I agree with the commenters that say Democrats should draft a bill completely to their liking and pass it since they have the votes.

This is their mess: they should have to take the political hit to clean it up.

2) The Republicans should then run ads 24/7 telling voters how the Democrats decided to toss $700 billion of their money to fix up Democratic messes caused by liberal feel-good but craptastically unsound economic policies that required banks to lend money to completely unqualified buyers in ever greater numbers until the system collapsed under its own weight.

3) Even the NYT was running articles back in 1999 (before Bush took office for all you Bush=Hitler types) about how dangerous the whole thing was. Now we're supposed to believe that somehow "the last 8 years of Bush policies" caused this? Yeah...I guess if I failed reading comprehension before Clinton left office I might believe that. Too bad those articles prove just what a moronic meme that is.

4) The variety of YouTube videos out there make it clear just how Democrats responded when they were told that reform of the system was needed: reformers were accused of conspiring against the poor and minorities. This is what identity politics has cost us and is going to cost us in the days ahead. It also shows just how bogus all those charges are: it was just more fat Democrats lining their pockets with money from Fannie and Freddie.

So, absolutely, lard up the bill with all your payoffs to liberal special interest groups - you know the ones whose employees keep getting caught committing massive voter registration fraud? Yeah, those groups. Pass it without any Republican votes....See you on Election Day...; 9/29/08, 6:18 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Argh. Let's watch Nancy Pelosi's stock go down with the rest of them.

What is her job, again?

If she can't deliver when the country needs it, maybe she needs to be replaced.

I'd get rid of most of the Democratic leadership, who tend to be old and out of touch. Better for the party, better for the country.

If they can't get it down with a willing President and a comfortable majority, how will an Obama administration be any better?; 9/29/08, 6:19 PM
Cedarford said...: The popular joke now is that Bush’s greatest foul-up now appears to be his failure to LET radical Muslims nuke Manhattan and DC.

It is a systemic failure by Ruling Elites of both parties and as the rapid decline of America as a world power continues and people’s standard of living erodes - we have to ask if it is time for a 5th American Revolution (Jacksonian Democracy 2nd, Civil War was the 3rd, FDR’s peaceful revolution 4th) and major revisions to the US Constitution. On matters like making Presidential line-item vetos possible, imposing national term limits, ending lifetime Fed judicial appoinments, driving moneyed interests out of controlling American domestic and foreign policy.

Jefferson thought periodic revolutions were necessary since no generation could anticipate challenges to future generations or forceably bind them to long-dead people’s laws and constitutions.

It will take a decline in American standard of living, a drop from great nation status, and recognition that democracy has been ripped away from the masses - to start significant structural change.

Unfortunately for domestic tranquility and a natural desire to let “the big shots” work matters out, all three of these things appear to be happening.
Add in that the Amending process is broken. No Constitutional change in the face of any organized opposition has been permitted to pass since 1962 (the poll tax) - 46 years ago. And we have had a government incapable of fiscal responsibility and solving structural problems since the mid-70s.

Get ready. It won’t likely be a Revolution of rural gun owners and survivalists - but a mass movement of people convinced that their children’s lives will be poorer and worse-off than their own. Staging general strikes, boycotts, tax rebellions - finishing breaking down the system until change is forced.

I think people habituated to making everything a Partisan matter fail to see this as a true paradigm shift where the public, also stupid and compacent as all hell in this - focuses their rage on both Parties and the apparant failure of national institutions.

Pogo's "pox on the US political parties" is more reflective of the public slowly grasping the near-equal complicity of both Parties and government's growing inability to address major problems in a competent or timely manner.

Partisans will insist on blaming Republicans or Democrats for a few more weeks, because so many are so conditioned by media and emotions to see nothing as more important than electing McCain or Obama.

But both will basically try to do business as usual if elected. It doesn't really matter who is, outside now very peripheral matters like how "Iraqi freedom-lovers" fare..

Keep in mind this meltdown is nothing compared to the catastrophe coming soon where either China stops funding a declining America - or all the 58 trillion in unfunded social security and medicare liabilities start hitting, after the baby boomers and their Reps pissed all
that money away on other Democrat or Republican "priorities".; 9/29/08, 6:21 PM
Fletch said...: Revenant-

You will if you don't want to go to federal prison for tax evasion.

Only when the Gov't can provide documented evidence on the timing of both my "buys" and my "sells".

Of course, absolutely no evidence exists on any of my purchases... (15 yr old video from a small coin shop?); 9/29/08, 6:22 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Of course, absolutely no evidence exists on any of my purchases... (15 yr old video from a small coin shop?)

LOL you think the IRS is going to take your explanation that you can poop gold?

They can and will either demand you produce a cost basis or they will make it up for you on their own.; 9/29/08, 6:24 PM
Cedarford said...: Simon - If we weren't spending over a trillion dollars a year on entitlement spending we could already have colonized Mars.

We lack the technology to do more than briefly visit the place with a few humans, at enormous cost.

Even if we had the technology, indications are Mars lacks the geologic processes that gave the Earth minable vital ore, energy deposits essential for human survival in that climate.
And the biggest barrier to ever colonizing the place is lack of a critical gas essential to life - nitrogen.
---------------; 9/29/08, 6:30 PM
blake said...: LOL you think the IRS is going to take your explanation that you can poop gold?

We used to have some poultry around here that did that, sorta, but Congress killed it.; 9/29/08, 6:31 PM
Palladian said...: "Get ready. It won’t likely be a Revolution of rural gun owners and survivalists - but a mass movement of people convinced that their children’s lives will be poorer and worse-off than their own. Staging general strikes, boycotts, tax rebellions - finishing breaking down the system until change is forced."

Again, get your fucking swords and suits of armor out of storage because it is imperative that we keep the Cedarfords AWAY from the levers of power. Stroll far enough down his dark path and you'll soon learn who he means when he talks about getting rid of "the ruling elites". It might be you.; 9/29/08, 6:32 PM
former law student said...: the shoe manufacturer can't get a credit line either and can't make as many shoes.

No problem. All shoes are made in China, which receives an infinite supply of US dollars.; 9/29/08, 6:33 PM
Palladian said...: So it's ok to like Michael now? Wow, who knew?; 9/29/08, 6:34 PM
former law student said...: We lack the technology to do more than briefly visit the place with a few humans, at enormous cost.

With a budget of $50 trillion, it's surprising how much you can accomplish.; 9/29/08, 6:35 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Are THE PEOPLE well enough informed to make intelligent decisions about the details of the bailout proposal?

Are the legislators well enough informed to make intelligent decisions about the details of the bailout proposal? Are they even intelligent?; 9/29/08, 6:37 PM
Anonymous said...: We lack the technology to do more than briefly visit the place with a few humans, at enormous cost.

Yes, I'm going to France next month.; 9/29/08, 6:41 PM
Anonymous said...: palladian said...
So it's ok to like Michael now? Wow, who knew?

6:34 PM

Is it?? Why? And who did say so?; 9/29/08, 6:53 PM
Unknown said...: Only when the Gov't can provide documented evidence on the timing of both my "buys" and my "sells".

Of course, absolutely no evidence exists on any of my purchases... (15 yr old video from a small coin shop?)

Ah, I was close enough. Fletch is a garden variety tax evader. Why am I not surprised.; 9/29/08, 7:00 PM
Unknown said...: So it's ok to like Michael now? Wow, who knew?

:-) Well, not so fast. Seems he can go back and forth between troll and contributor at the speed of sound. But when he's on topic about the seriousness of this credit crunch I actually *shudder* agree with him.; 9/29/08, 7:01 PM
Fletch said...: Lucky Old Michael-

In the S&p or a mutual fund of stocks your return would be much, much more than gold.

Not according to (liberal)* Theo Boehm... He's the person that I responded to when he said that he would have been better off in a "mattress fund" over the last 15 years.
-------------------------------

* I also wish to challenge your statement that 95% of Althouse commenters are "conservatives"...

(BTW, I'm a "Paultard" "rational anarchist" who liked it when Katherine Mangu-Ward made Althouse cry.)

Liberals who I see as "regulars" include:

You (of course)
Doyle
AlphaLib
Beth
Madison Man
integrity
UWS
former law student
Trevor Jackson
mortimer brezny
ZachPSire
krylovite
too many jims
Verso
Eli Blake
1jpb
garage mahal
AJD(and alises)

That's 18 "liberal regulars" that have posted in the last 48 hours-- You couldn't even name 50 "conservatives" from the last month!

If 18 is the "5%" in your equation, please provide the names of the other 290+ "conservative regulars" that represent the 95% split you are asserting...; 9/29/08, 7:12 PM
Fletch said...: Lucky Old Michael-

And to think most here voted for this idiot...twice.

Try again! I voted for Browne(2000) and Badnarik(2004)- and I was an 'election worker' at the polls in Ohio in both 2000 and 2004.

Why do you continue to spew "Community-based reality" 'talking points' to people who are smarter and more accomplished than you?; 9/29/08, 7:25 PM
knox said...: Seriously, why do you people engage him? Why do you answer his questions? Where does it get you?

Under normal conditions I ignore him but I'm mad as hell today. And he deserves to be called a dumbass. Repeatedly.; 9/29/08, 7:27 PM
integrity said...: dust bunny queen said:

Of course if we are in a depression and you are trading your gold for food or other services, no one will be around to care anyway.

My beloved fellow Madeline Kahn fan-the out of control depression hysteria must stop now. A deep recession maybe, but it won't be as dire and 1930's as you seem to think.

The checks are coming, calm down. They want even more strings attached, appropriately(I'm against bailout).

You are scaring the shit out of myself and others unnecessarily, and I have money. Please stop.; 9/29/08, 7:31 PM
Palladian said...: "We lack the technology to do more than briefly visit the place with a few humans, at enormous cost.

Yes, I'm going to France next month."

LOL; 9/29/08, 7:51 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: MCG posted a Hot Air link earlier that said the comments made by Pelosi objected to by House Rs were from a press conference.

The video of the Republican press conference blaming Pelosi shows Boehner and others clearly blaming Pelosi for her statements on the floor.

So the Hot Air video posted earlier by mcg is irrelevant. That was not on the floor.

At the links given you can see both videos and judge for yourself the merits of the latest fake Republican outrage.

They're playing games with our financial future.; 9/29/08, 7:58 PM
reader_iam said...: Re: the list

I think Madisonman could possibly fit on a moderate (or middle and/or independent and/or mixed, whatever word or collection of words you want to use) list, too, in which spectrum I'd also put such people as myself, Peter Hoh, Amba (Annie), Michael Reynolds (for the most part), one of the Kevins, and a few others. And yes, Althouse, herself.; 9/29/08, 8:16 PM
Fletch said...: Revenant

Ah, I was close enough. Fletch is a garden variety tax evader. Why am I not surprised.

Can you "prove" it? :o)

I will not allow anyone to steal my money simply because some socialist asshole has a gov't license.

Since you are a fan of 'taxes', I'm quite sure you will be paying for my 2008 obligation...; 9/29/08, 8:19 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Re: the moderate list

I think of myself as moderate, so my name should be on there. Heh.; 9/29/08, 8:31 PM
Simon said...: Reader - alas, poor Reynolds. He has wandered entirely off the deep end thse lastfew months.; 9/29/08, 8:34 PM
reader_iam said...: Simon: That's why I said for the most part. I still think that on a host of issues, he's more in the middle/mixed part of the spectrum. However, it is true that I don't tend to place people primarily, and certainly not solely, on the basis of party, per se or even advocacy for one particular presidential candidate in one election or another. I base it on a range of positions and overall voting pattern. Perhaps this is an oddity, and so perhaps my point of view isn't germane to the discussion.

In any case, I too think the original reference to 95% is simply silliness. This is a far more diverse community--collection of oddballs?--than that.; 9/29/08, 8:43 PM
Revenant said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/29/08, 8:45 PM
reader_iam said...: Truthfully, Freeman, I see you having a large streak of the libertarian in you, and to the degree that's true, I think it does move you more in the direction of the center as compared to some of your fellow conservatives without that streak.; 9/29/08, 8:46 PM
Revenant said...: Can you "prove" it?

Apparently you don't understand how the IRS works. If they decide you have illegally obtained income -- e.g., if you're mysteriously surviving on no declared income -- they can simply assign taxes to you, and it becomes up to you to demonstrate that you aren't obligated to pay them. It isn't like a normal criminal court, where you are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

If they discover that you possess a large cache of gold, they can simply take it and require you to prove you obtained it legally. Oops! You paid cash and deliberately concealed the paper trail -- you can't. Voila, you lose all your savings.

There's also the question of who is going to buy this gold *from* you. All it takes is one honest buyer mentioning the transaction to the government and you're fucked.

I will not allow anyone to steal my money simply because some socialist asshole has a gov't license.

If you enjoyed comparable power to the federal government, that macho attitude would make sense. Since you don't, it makes you look like an idiot.

Since you are a fan of 'taxes', I'm quite sure you will be paying for my 2008 obligation...

Since I actually make a decent income I personally pay for quite a few deadbeats. Eventually I'll be paying for your prison cell.

Lots of folks have thought they were so much smarter than the IRS. Prisons are full of them, really.; 9/29/08, 8:50 PM
Revenant said...: If we weren't spending over a trillion dollars a year on entitlement spending we could already have colonized Mars.

It would make more sense to colonize Earth orbit. It has only slightly less hospitable than Mars and a good deal closer. :); 9/29/08, 8:54 PM
Unknown said...: Fletch has left enough information about himself out there on the Internet that he won't be too hard to find if the IRS happened to get interested somehow.; 9/29/08, 9:06 PM
Joe said...: I love this (sarcastically):

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/bailout-plan.html

You know where that very important $700-billion figure came from?

Here's a quote from that Forbes story:

"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."

* * *

And government wonders why we even trust them at all. They are completely and utterly full of shit.; 9/29/08, 9:20 PM
Fletch said...: DBQ-

Unless you sell to a completely private party for cash under the table you will (or should unless you plan to dodge it) pay taxes.

OJ "should" be in jail.

I also "should"...

"Honor my parents".
"Brush twice daily".
"Give Blood".
"Be a 'Big Brother'".
"Quit getting drunk 6 days a week".

Have you ever heard about "Freedom"?; 9/29/08, 9:35 PM
Unknown said...: Yeah. I've also heard "anti-IRS nutjob", too.; 9/29/08, 9:38 PM
Revenant said...: It isn't even that Fletch is anti-IRS. Most people are anti-IRS. Fletch just thinks he's come up with a brilliantly clever new way of not paying taxes without realizing it is the same plan pretty much every tax evader in prison came up with. Just... don't pay.

He thinks this is about freedom. Personally I don't define "freedom" as "ending up in prison". This isn't about respecting the law, it is about recognizing that the law will in fact ruin your life if you don't obey it. :); 9/29/08, 9:56 PM
Fletch said...: mcg-

Fletch has left enough information about himself out there on the Internet that he won't be too hard to find if the IRS happened to get interested somehow.

This represents the entire basis of "politics" in 2008...simply use the Gov't in an attempt to intimidate your enemies!

mcg is an asshole who cannot argue on the basis of "facts", but he will simply threaten Gov't intervention in response to a "blog comment" in opposition to his opinion.

You go, girl!; 9/29/08, 10:02 PM
Fletch said...: Revenant-

Lots of folks have thought they were so much smarter than the IRS. Prisons are full of them, really.

Compare the number of "drug users" with "tax evaders" in Fed prisons.

I be scared!- because I am a "drug user"...; 9/29/08, 10:15 PM
Fletch said...: Revenant-

This isn't about respecting the law, it is about recognizing that the law will in fact ruin your life if you don't obey it. :)

I think this reply will be my next entry in the "Why am I a 'libertarian'?"- in 25 words or less" contest.

It's a winner!; 9/29/08, 10:32 PM
(O)CT(O)PUS said...: KLEINKARIERTE BEAMTEN; 9/29/08, 10:43 PM
Unknown said...: mcg is an asshole who cannot argue on the basis of "facts",

No, you listen, asshole. I have a friend in prison as we speak who got caught up in just this kind of nonsense. Well, actually, he is a former friend, because he went off the deep end in lots of ways, and his peculiar interpretations of the law and the Constitution were only part of the symptoms.

He is where he belongs. Sounds like you guys would get along great. You can share a few fond memories of Ron Paul while you draw straws to see which one of you is on bottom that night.; 9/29/08, 10:45 PM
Revenant said...: I be scared!- because I am a "drug user"...

That explains a lot.; 9/29/08, 10:52 PM
Fletch said...: Revenant-

Apparently you don't understand how the IRS works. If they decide you have illegally obtained income -- e.g., if you're mysteriously surviving on no declared income -- they can simply assign taxes to you, and it becomes up to you to demonstrate that you aren't obligated to pay them. It isn't like a normal criminal court, where you are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do you support this application of "justice"?

Why?

Also, if the Gov't has failed to "charge" me at any time since 1997- what is my criminal and/or 'tax' liability today?

I am quite sure that I know the applicable laws- do you?; 9/29/08, 10:55 PM
reader_iam said...: What's the point of being so gleefully in-your-face about your stance, Fletch?; 9/29/08, 10:57 PM
Unknown said...: I am quite sure that I know the applicable laws- do you?

That's funny, that's what my friend said before they tossed his ass in jail. He was wrong, too.; 9/29/08, 10:58 PM
reader_iam said...: Where's the enlightened self-interest?; 9/29/08, 10:59 PM
blake said...: Who was that guy--he has a website, had one early on--who talked about how one wasn't legally obliged to pay taxes?

Oh, yeah, Irwin Schiff. I was talking to a Canadian guy a few months back who tried a similar thing out (apparently, they have Irwin Schiff types in Canada, too). He also went to jail, but then he paid his taxes and decided he had been misinformed.

In fairness, though, Fletch is unlikely to get caught. Most tax cheaters don't.; 9/29/08, 11:09 PM
Fletch said...: mcg-

No, you listen, asshole. I have a friend in prison as we speak who got caught up in just this kind of nonsense.

More different scary, please!

That sounds a bit "overly concerned" when simply talking about a "friend"... (My first "jail term" was at age 15- and I'm a 43 yr old who has served multiple sentences as both a "juvenile" and as an adult).

Well, actually, he is a former friend, because he went off the deep end in lots of ways, and his peculiar interpretations of the law and the Constitution were only part of the symptoms.`

I still don't understand why Social(ist) (In)Security was ever regarded as "constitutional"- perhaps you are "The One" who can inform me about the truth?; 9/29/08, 11:18 PM
Unknown said...: That sounds a bit "overly concerned" when simply talking about a "friend"...

What are you talking about? Why would I not be concerned about a friend? And why wouldn't I be overly concerned about the fact that he's likely going to be in jail for the rest of his natural life? (Not that I expect you to be, if you're caught; his mistake was convincing others he was legit.)

Anyway, I think you've adequately exposed yourself as a tax protestor. One thing I learned from him is that arguing is pointless. Had he listened to his friends he wouldn't be in jail today. Instead he just pushed us away since we weren't buying his crap.; 9/30/08, 12:00 AM
Unknown said...: I don't want to mislead anyone---my former friend is in jail for fraud, not for tax evasion. But his work started with tax evasion and moved onto schemes like defrauding mortgage lenders. That's where he got caught. To this day I think he's convinced he's in the right.; 9/30/08, 12:02 AM
Trumpit said...: From Hamlet by William Shakespeare; Polonius speaking: "Neither a borrower, nor a lender be; For loan oft loses both itself and friend"; 9/30/08, 12:16 AM
Trumpit said...: Today, Polonius would be called a commie by disapproving of lending money. Of course the capitalist scheme of making money by charging usurious interest is well known. The Rethuglicans changed the bankrupcy laws so that the little people who are stuck paying over 20% in interest on their credit card can never get out of debt unless they commit suicide. The rich capitalist pigs in this country are to blame for controling the government through their lobbyists, etc. We don't need a another GR8 Depression, but if it leads to a revolution and the destruction of Rethuglican politics, then it may be a good thing after all.; 9/30/08, 12:27 AM
Michael The Magnificent said...: As someone upthread mentioned, this is the Government (specifically, Bush) saying it's an emergency, and that we should toss him our wallets.

I don't know about anyone else, but that whole 'It's an emergency! Toss me your wallet! No time to think about it, just do it!' approach only works on me with people I absolutely trust.

Now think about this. It's the right wingers who are holding onto their wallets, saying, "Not just no, but HELL FSCKING NO," and it's the left wingers who are complaining that we're not going along with Bush's request for our wallets.

It's Bizarro world!; 9/30/08, 12:35 AM
Trumpit said...: I am not interested in hearing about your crooked friend, mcg. Although you are known by the company that you keep. May I suggest a suicide pact. I happen to believe your friend is really YOU. It's a common technique to avoid accepting responsiblity for one's nefarious, slimy actions by referring to oneself in the 3rd person. Fess up to your nasty deeds to go along with your nasty beliefs. They go hand in hand. How romantic.; 9/30/08, 12:38 AM
Fletch said...: reader-

What's the point of being so gleefully in-your-face about your stance, Fletch?

My Congresswoman, Deborah Pryce is retiring this year...
.
.
.

(giggle!)

I think it simply does not matter anymore!

Heinlein described the three classes of taxpayers as 'makers', 'takers', and 'fakers'- I'm simply shifting my declared position from "faker" to "taker".; 9/30/08, 12:45 AM
Fletch said...: mcg-

Anyway, I think you've adequately exposed yourself as a tax protestor. One thing I learned from him is that arguing is pointless.

That's the entire point!

I will never argue directly with the IRS about the edges of tax policy-- I simply execute my exploits against the hugely bloated white underbelly... and the Gov't cannot possibly produce evidence against me during the "audit"!

I also toss the gangsters a couple grand every three months in "estimated taxes" so they will leave me alone...; 9/30/08, 1:18 AM
Unknown said...: I happen to believe your friend is really YOU.

Well, it would be a bit difficult to post here at all hours were that the case. Though actually, my friend's co-conspirator in the mortgage fraud dealings has a blog.

Michael thinks a belief in young-earth creationism is whacked? Here's whacked.; 9/30/08, 1:26 AM
Fletch said...: strumpit-

Of course the capitalist scheme of making money by charging usurious interest is well known. The Rethuglicans changed the bankrupcy laws so that the little people who are stuck paying over 20% in interest on their credit card can never get out of debt unless they commit suicide.

"The first rule of not being abused by bankers is to 'never pay interest'".

"The second rule is to never pay "interest"!

Why are poor people too dumb to learn this rule?; 9/30/08, 1:37 AM
Unknown said...: I will never argue directly with the IRS about the edges of tax policy

Edges my ass. You're talking about concealing capital gains. Ain't nothing more straightforward than that.; 9/30/08, 1:38 AM
Michael The Magnificent said...: Fletch: The first rule of not being abused by bankers is to 'never pay interest. The second rule is to never pay interest! Why are poor people too dumb to learn this rule?

Not to encourage you, but as I tried to explain to a friend of mine (unsuccessfully) with $80K of debt and nothing to show for it, there are two types of people in the world; those who pay interest, and those who earn interest.; 9/30/08, 1:51 AM
reader_iam said...: Hell, far be it from me to duck stating the obvious ...

There's a third type of people in the world: those who both earn interest and pay interest.

At least in the U.S., that'd be a whacking lot of us, at any rate.; 9/30/08, 2:09 AM
Fletch said...: mcg-

Edges my ass. You're talking about concealing capital gains. Ain't nothing more straightforward than that.

Please produce even one concrete bit of evidence about these "concealed" Capital Gains...

Otherwise, it's merely jealousy...; 9/30/08, 2:13 AM
reader_iam said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/30/08, 2:20 AM
reader_iam said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/30/08, 2:22 AM
reader_iam said...: Yep, what Fletch and MCG are doing is courting; that's the best explanation for the extended dance.

The only question is: Will they post [the low-res version of] the consummation on YouTube?; 9/30/08, 2:25 AM
former law student said...: I still don't understand why Social Security was ever regarded as "constitutional"

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

1. Setting and collecting Social Security taxes is constitutional because Congress has power to lay and collect taxes.

2. Paying Social Security benefits is constitutional because Congress has power to provide for the general Welfare, and providing a pension to help support taxpayers in their old age promotes the general Welfare, because we will all grow old (d.v.).; 9/30/08, 2:29 AM
blake said...: 1. Setting and collecting Social Security taxes is constitutional because Congress has power to lay and collect taxes.

So we can agree, at least, that it is a tax, and not something else.; 9/30/08, 2:36 AM
Fletch said...: reader-

The only question is: Will they post [the low-res version of] the consummation on YouTube?

Do you really want to go there?; 9/30/08, 2:49 AM
Simon said...: former law student said...
"Paying Social Security benefits is constitutional because Congress has power to provide for the general Welfare"

Another argument that's been made is that, if there's a freestanding and unlimited taxation power, there is a freestanding and unlimited power to spend and attach strings to the receipt of that money in Article IV § 3. You get there by arguing that money taken by the United States becomes the "property" thereof, and § 3 gives Congress power "to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting ... Property belonging to the United States...." I don't know that either of these rationales hold up to close scrutiny, I've not examined it closely enough, but I'm skeptical of both the Article IV and the general welfare clause theories (a construction that would seem to give Congress near-plenary power despite the manifest design of the Constitution to do the opposite should always be received skeptically).; 9/30/08, 7:26 AM
Arturius said...: As it is, I have lost, net, the better part of $100,000 in the past 15 years on supposedly safe and conservative investments.

Theo, with respect, if you have lost $100K over the last 15 years, I would say your financial advisor was incompetent.; 9/30/08, 7:48 AM
Arturius said...: And the "voices" of "main street" know more than Paulson, Buffet, etc.?

I would say the voices of Main Street, those individuals who comprise the majority who are paying their mortgages and live within their means, certainly know more than the elected officials and financial community who thought it was a grand idea to lend out a trillion dollars to poor credit risk folks who stood a damn good chance of never paying it back. So in a word, yes.

There are all kinds of things "main street" thinks or wants that would turn the entire country upside down.

Would you care to elaborate on what kinds of things they may be? Last time I checked we lived in a Republic. Are you suggesting that should be replaced with an intellectual ruling elite?; 9/30/08, 7:55 AM
Revenant said...: What's the point of being so gleefully in-your-face about your stance, Fletch?

He's trolling. I doubt he's bought so much as a gold tooth filling in his entire life. :); 9/30/08, 8:11 AM