had a lengthy post in page 38 that apparently was overlooked by you,
No, I read it. And it's just one long op-ed right wing rant stating the same old outdated, thoroughly discredited dogma. Discredited in every way as you can cite no objective sources for any of it and have therefore taken no credibly debateable positions.
For example, from your SELF-LEGENDARY single post you refer to on page 38...
Things like welfare are unconstitutional
Patently absurd. Our Constitution's checks and balances are designed such that WE as a people, a government, and as a society make these determinations. Just because YOU don't like it, doesn't mean that America made this decision in error or that it violates the laws of our land.
I think we can all agree that when the government gets involved in anything it ends up either becoming worse or just flat out broken.
WE, the educated and critically observant, shall agree on no such thing. From the armed forces to the police to the fire department to the etc. etc. OUR government does an excellent job of many huge organizations and none of these are "flat out broken". Again, when you resort to unsubstatiated hyperbole to support extreme and ill-informed positions, you open yourself up for quite easy rebuttals.
Guess who decided to make the call to allow the selling of riskier loans to people? THE GOVERNMENT!
Misleading. While Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were incentivized to open up loans to a broader market in 1999, it was only when the Wall Street financial institutions created the CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP financial instruments (as a means of dispersing risky loans) and then took that to outrageous extremes that we ran into the current economic collapse. Basically, the Republicans (and Democrats, though they were in the minority for all of this) were paid by the Wall Streeters to deregulated the amount of assets to debts ratio that had sustained the market since the Great Depression (roughly 3 to 1). This ratio soared to 20/50/100 to 1 in some cases and you can tell which institutions crashed first when their notes came due. Now, NORMALLY, government regulators would have kept an eye on this, but Bush gutted EVERY government agency upon coming to power, replacing all the top tiers of every agency with unqualified political appointees. Those career professionals who weren't canned, often resigned in protest. You can trace everything from the failure of the Hurricane Katrina reponse to the Justice Department scandals to the tainted goods from China to the failure to monitor Wall Street to this unprecedented gutting of government agencies by Bush. So, you can SAY the government failed here, but it is MUCH more complicated than that. If all of the previous elements had not happened, SOMEBODY would have blown the whistle on this years ago...and SOMEBODY would have had the authority to act. There is PLENTY of failure to go around here and EVERYONE let us down.
And don't give me that bullshit about some of these people not having the opportunity.
Again, this is just a rant, stating a position that has been disproven by countless studies , etc. I hope that you are never in the situation many people are finding themselves these days. Not everyone who is broke and homeless started out that way.
So from what I am to understand, rich people are horrible people because they chose to better themselves and worked hard to get where they are today, and poor people are in need of help because many of them choose to not better their lives but instead ask for handouts.
Again, you are just spreading some right wing dogma that isn't making any real point here whatsoever. I think the point of the increasing the tax slightly on the wealthiest Americans is that Bush's tax cut did NOT provide the trickle down economic stimulus that he promised. So all Obama has been talking about doing is taking away the failed tax cut GIFT the wealthy got 8 years ago. Which means, if Bush hadn't given this away, the wealthy would have paid more for 8 years, and then be paying THE SAME AMOUNT now. So, you are complaining because it got easier for the rich for 8 years, and it's now going back to the way it was 8 years ago...when our economy was booming, unemployment was at its lowest, and our government was running a surplus and paying down its debts. The dollar was quite strong and the stock market was making real money (unlike the phantom money that just disappeared with the housing bubble).
So, he wasn't even asking for more than they were already paying 8 years ago. And yet, the right wing bitches as if he's talking about doubling their taxes. Puh-lease. They got a GIFT for 8 years and the CHEAPER RIDE is coming to an end.
Boo. Hoo.
Regardless, the American public has voted. A majority has decided that those tax cuts were a bad idea and we'd like to see our tax money reapportioned in a more humane and pro-American citizen way.
My position, as a businessman, is that I'd rather pay a little more in tax if my gross receipts are going up due to a strong economy (because I will be making NET a lot more money) than pay a little bit less in taxes off a shitty gross because nobody is spending their money.
A critical thinker would notice that your "post" is nothing but a bunch of uninformed "positions" presented as if they carried the weight of reason behind them. But they don't.
So the reason I ignored the post earlier is that you simply didn't say a single thing that added to the discussion. It was quite rightly dismissed as uneducated drivel. In this case, right wing drivel.
Now, can you counter this with any rationale arguments, or are you just going to rattle off more insults in an effort to dodge the actual points I've made?