Interesting clip on Housing Crisis

[Tossica]

We bought our house for 120k, the insurance company is trying to fucking tell us it's worth 250k and wants more money.

Bull. fucking. shit. even with the renovations we've done.

Don't be surprised if they don't pay for it if it burns down.

[Harrison]

I'll be gone by then

[Haylo]

I live in the outlying suburbs of DC and there hasn't been a real drop-off here that i've noticed.

[Diekan]

Uh, Diekan, I hate to break it to you, but *ANY* form of progressive tax is specifically designed to "spread the wealth around".... We've had one in this country since 1913 when we ratified the 16th amendment. So, your argument that Obama's tax plan is "Un-American" has no basis whatsoever, when you consider the power for the government to impose exactly that type of tax is enshrined within the constitution, and has been for nearly 100 years! Of course, back then there were only 2 brackets, and now there are are 6, allowing for finer gradations, but that's detail, not fundamentals. Still, as I said, it is IMPOSSIBLE for something to be Constitutional and yet be un-American, given that the Constitution IS America in a legal sense.

Hell, you know about the 1950s, right? Arguably one of the most prosperous times in this nation, and quite possibly the best period ever in this country for the middle class, yes? Guess what the tax rate was on the top tax bracket then? For almost the entire time from 1951 to 1963, the top tax bracket was at 91%. Can you even begin to argue that America was not a prosperous nation in the 1950s and early 60s? Well, you could try, but you wouldn't get very far. Funny how that directly contravenes your argument about what Obama's tax would do, yes?

Hell, you know what the top tax rate was for most of Reagan's presidency? 50%. You going to call him a socialist for having the tax rate so high on the top bracket?

Again, Obama's plan just sets the tax rate for the top bracket back to what it was under Clinton. Did you see a destroyed economy and the vast wiping out of small business under Clinton? Funny, I didn't, and I worked for a couple in that era.

You are making a huge stink and rant about something that has no fundamental underpinnings. We have been "spreading the wealth around" in this country for nigh-on 100 years now, without the Chicken Littles crying "EEK! SOCIALISM! RUN!" Indeed, at this countries HEIGHT as a world power and economic powerhouse, the "wealth was spread around" from those top brackets at over a 90% clip!

So, you'll pardon me when I don't give one iota of credence to your statement that what Obama wants to do is somehow un-American, yes? Indeed, based on the last 100 years of tax history, what he's calling for is a mild shift BACK to traditional American values, which were destroyed under Bush, by allowing the highest income group to so radically outstrip everyone else...

-Arlos

I'm well aware of the history of taxation - from the Stamp Act to the implimentation, or adoption rather, of the income tax back in the Civil War.

You make a very coherent and quality argument, but you've missed something. For one - taxes are not the same as *spreading the wealth around.* Taxes are primarily used to fund project (as you already know): roads, education, military expenses, wild life refuges, etc and etc. Speading the wealth around is simply taking from those who have to give it to those who do not have. I see a distinct difference between someone recieving welfare aid (from tax money) and someone who will get a free check from the government even if they are working; just because they make what is considered to be below the poverity line.

Obama's comments to Joe the Plumber pin point exactly what he thinks and how he feels about wealth in the United States. And, the recent audio tapes of his talking points from back in 2002 simply confirm in my mind he does indeed have very socialistic tendencies and agendas.

Secondly, you point out the 1950's and the prosperity enjoyed during that era despite the taxation going on. What you failed to point out was that companies were not outsourcing *tech support* to India or sending entire manufacturing plants to China back then (among other things). Of course we were prosperous. Everything was done or made right here despite taxes. You can't apply 1950's logic to 2008. The United States has the second highest corp tax rate in the WORLD. Second only to Japan. It stiffles progress. It stiffles job growth.

If you really want to bring jobs back and create an economic boom the first few steps you have to take are to reduce taxes for companies who bring jobs back or create new jobs here. If a company refuses, then fine, they don't get the tax breaks. Secondly, you have to repleal stupid legislation like Sorbanes Oxley. Our government is NOTORIOUS for creating new laws over laws that already exist in the face of a crisis. I call it the "bandaide over the bandaide phenomina." There were already laws on the books to prevent what happened with Enron from occuring. But, those laws weren't enforced - much like there are laws making naked shorting illegal - but those are not being enforced either. Rather than enforcing the damn law to start with, when a crisis does unfold, our incompetent government rushes new legilsation through - hoping it will prevent such events from happening again. It's wasteful and rediculous. Now, without digressing further... Sorbanes Oxley costs large companies MILLIONS of dollars a year. Why?

Higher taxes on companies isn't going to work. More useless regulation isn't going to work. Taking from the rich to give to the poor isn't going to work.

And, again – taxation is not the same as spreading the wealth around. They are two completely different lines of thought.