Buffett Rule doesn't necessarily make for the best policy

Still pushing the old yacht scenario? Good luck with that.

Trickle-down still doesn't work for the other 99.99999% of Americans.

LadyJazzer wrote: Still pushing the old yacht scenario? Good luck with that.

Trickle-down still doesn't work for the other 99.99999% of Americans.

Like construction workers who build 1/2 million dollar homes too?

They also build homes for middle-income people too... B.F.D.

LadyJazzer wrote: They also build homes for middle-income people too... B.F.D.

They sure aren't building homes during the Obama recession.

Yeah, after jobs were being destroyed at a rate of 750,000/month under Bush's disastrous policies, and the way the banks were profiting off of playing fast and loose with everybody else's money, it's not hard to see why.

LadyJazzer wrote: Yeah, after jobs were being destroyed at a rate of 750,000/month under Bush's disastrous policies, and the way the banks were profiting off of playing fast and loose with everybody else's money, it's not hard to see why.

So when does Obama shoulder the blame? Never? He just can't reverse the Bush/Pelosi era, right? Just shows how incompetent he is.

Still upset that Obama hasn't been able to undo the Bush damage fast enough? Oh, well, when you have nothing but a bunch of right-wing knuckle-draggers opposing everything, that's to be expected.

Yes, Obama is so loved a few Tea Party people were able to take away his majorities in the House. Face it, he just doesn't know what he is doing.

That's what happens when you give incentives to the private sector to behave in the manner chosen by the government by promising to make sure that their capital isn't at risk to achieve the government aims. They are not placing their own money at risk, they are placing the government's money at risk in accordance with the instructions received from the government. The government wanted more people in certain income brackets to own their own homes and were so intent on making this a reality that they made an implicit guarantee to anyone that lent these people money to purchase a home that they would get their original investment back if the loan defaulted. Wasn't the banks that were playing fast and loose with the taxpayer's money, it was a federal government intent on adding the housing market to the ever expanding list of things it controlled. When you take away risk and leave the rewards in place via legislation backed by the full faith and credit of the federal government, what do you expect will happen? Who isn't going to go all in when they have no possibility of losing anything? If you were guaranteed that if you bought lottery tickets for every drawing you would get to keep all the winnings and if you didn't win the government would reimburse you for the cost of the lottery tickets, why wouldn't you go out an buy lottery tickets with all the cash you had on hand? You'd be a fool if you didn't - you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Saddest thing is, the federal government learned nothing from their blunder that wreaked havoc on the union's welfare. They are still out there telling banks that if you lend the money to the efforts we support we will guarantee you against any and all losses - remember Solyndra?

I remember Halliburton and KBM too... (and Blackwater / Xe / or whatever corporate-shell name they're hiding behind these days...)