You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Dallas Cowboys’ category.
“But the big dilemma is how to deal with national debt. If governments spend more, they increase the debt. If they cut back, they slow the economy further. “I don’t know how it’s all going to end,” says Ron Simpson, managing director of global currency analysis for Action Economics..
The answer is rather obvious. You take it from those who have it… Long before modern civilization, that used to be the king and you took it from him by force; then, it evolved to the wealthy class and you busted monopolies,, then to the top echelon and you taxed, and now, it is appropriately named “the top 1%….”
You TAKE it from THEM……. Over the evolution of man and society, we have learned that it is a lot more effective to use benign forms of taxation, giving them options on how they wish to pay back, than storming the castle and killing all inside… and then looking around at each other, and saying …. “ok, so now what?”
Simply raise taxes on all profit until the debt crises has abated. But, be sure to give ample tax breaks, to the point that taxes can be completely written off, on every penny that is invested into physical capital in that country under question… That includes the United States…..
Move away from income tax… and more to profit tax… Which is essentially what the United States Income Tax System has now become.. and probably must now stay…
Instead of how much do you earn: we’ll tax that… our mantra is how much do you have after a minimum level of expenses have been surpassed.
Here in America it takes $56,000 for a family to live comfortably and have a 10% buffer. That is about where our income tax begins to take money and put it into the Treasury.
We’ve even evolved to where if you are a functioning adult, making a contribution to society and are under a poverty minimum, we will pay you money for your contribution.. (EIC)
This philosophy seems to work well.
WE, the People, just need to insist that it also applies to corporations and the top 1% as well…
Hell, during war we do it all the time… Hello, Mr/Mrs. We’re under attack. WE need to borrow your son/daughter for a while, maybe forever…
So why not: Hello, Mr/Mrs. 1 Percenter. We’re in a financial crises. WE need to borrow your excess profit for a while… just one year or two… Benefit to you, is that you will be twice as big and ready to double your income, as soon as that profit ban is lifted……..
You won’t find this on any domestic news services.
Wiki leaks was booted out from Amazon servers at pressure from the US.
Twitters touting Amazon said:
“It is one thing to be cowardly. Another to lie about it.”
“Wikileaks servers at Amazon ousted. Free speech the land of the free — fine our $ are now spent to employ people in Europe,”
“If Amazon are so uncomfortable with the first amendment, they should get out of the business of selling books.”
Wikileaks was briefly hosted by a California-based internet hosting provider called Everydns, and became briefly accessible through a DNS address. But Everydns dumped it saying it could not afford its other 500,000 customers being affected by the intense cyber attacks targeted at Wikileaks.
WikiLeaks later re-emerged on Friday with a Swiss domain, WikiLeaks.ch.
Anyone and everyone is building mirrors. No one is concerned with the content. Everyone is concerned with the freedom of the internet.
Like Robin Hood, the more Uncle Sam chases its founder Julian Assange, the more legendary he becomes…..
Face it: the damage is done. Whatever was in those documents is already out there. A smart leader would acknowledge the carelessness of his subordinates, and work to turn this negative event, somehow into a positive one.
It sure shows Dick Cheney for what he was. That is something positive ….
Duffy is God’s answer to a prayer.. I miss the old days of blogging when we were debating principals instead of people… Duffy has stuck to the old line of debating principals with facts, and that is what makes him special in the eyes of bloggers everywhere…
Since the passing of Steve Newton, he has been the only one to challenge me in any argument, and usually some pretty good stuff comes out of both sides during the exchange… I have respected that.. Cause once again, opinions mean dick. Facts are what we steer by.. It is my hope that in responding to his challenge that an answer may make itself apparent.. Who knows? It may not come from me… But if I’m the catalyst for bringing it out in the open, then… none of this was in vain..
Why I like to debate Duffy is simple.. Neither side, he or I, is concretely set in their opinions… We accept it when the other side makes sense… I usually go into such debates having no idea where they’ll end up… I hope the rest of you enjoy the ride as welI….
That said..
kavips rebutt’s:Uh… Mr. President. That’s not entirely accurate.
First off, the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was developed for, and locked in on, urban developmental areas and had no part of the subprime boom, which primarily occurred out in western desert regions where owning 4 to 5 investment homes was normal… Those homes were overwhelmingly funded by loan originators NOT SUBJECT to the act… We all know the crises was not because people couldn’t afford a payment on their house. It came about, because with no occupants, people could not afford the payments of 4 to 5 houses….. Instead of one loan per borrower turning up in default; four to five were.
Second off, The housing bubble reached its point of maximum inflation in 2005.
Courtesy of NYT
Third off, During those exact same years, Fannie and Freddie were sidelined by Congressional pressure, and saw a sharp drop in their share of loans secured by the Feds… Follow the dotted line on the very bottom of the graph…
Courtesy of NYT
Fourth off; During those exact same years, private secures, like Delaware’s own AIG, grabbed the lions share of the market.
Courtesy of NYT
Remember these graphs for later on when I discuss the results of deregulation, versus regulation… But like it or not, these graphs conclusively show that private insurers, who thanks to Marie Evans, we now know were deregulated by Phil Gramm in the 2000 Omnibus Bill, were the primary cause of the worlds financial collapse.. Probably put best by these words of AIG’s spokesperson, who when asked why they didn’t have sufficient funds to cover losses, said point blank, “We were deregulated. We were no laws requiring us to keep any funds, ..so we spent it…”
kavips rebutt’s:Uh… Mr. President. That’s not entirely accurate. I agree that the hedge funds did survive better than the banks. Not because of bailouts, but because they sold short during the crises and made billions while firms closed and people got thrown out of work. There is nothing wrong with that; I did the same. In fact close readers may remember my warnings that the crises was impending almost a year earlier. Very close readers may remember my telling them exactly when to sell, and at what point the stock market would rebound… I must say: I called it rather well. 🙂
De regulated hedge funds are not the issue… De-regulated, excessively leveraged, mortgage securities, are a different story however… They, not the banks that held them, are the cause of the crises…Years from now, when academics search for causes of the stock market crash of 2008, they will focus on the pivotal role of mortgage-backed securities. These exotic financial instruments allowed a downturn in U.S. home prices to morph into a contagion that brought down Bear Stearns a year ago this month – and more recently have brought the global banking system to its knees.
Where you err is when you state that banks too big to fail, assumed they would be bailed out… By implication, you say imply they failed from squandering money, and wanted the bailouts.. But your tax dollars didn’t flow directly to the bottom line.
So in that sense, the bailout money represents an expense for banks. That’s one reason a number of banks have said they want to give the money back as soon as possible.
You say big banks were counting on a bailout, and they got them? That didn’t happen to these banks. New Mexico, Georgia, and Florida each lost a bank just last Friday. That brings to 8, the number of banks failed in June. Unfortunately if a bank is failing, it can’t bet on itself to fail, as can a hedge fund.
kavips rebutt’s:Uh… Mr. President. That’s not entirely accurate. The idea is that the banks made bad decisions knowing taxpayers would bail them out is the issue that is inaccurate. For the record, I have no qualms that it was the Clinton legacy who tore down the wall between banks and investment banking. Like you, I feel it was a good idea to do so… Again the problem was not primarily with banks making loans to people who could not pay.. Although, it was as late as October 2009, when I was made aware of one private Bank in Denver still exaggerating income to make loans look good enough on paper to get approval of securitization. What caused the collapse was the leveraging of those loans as securities, so that as the housing market became overextended, and the ARM jumped past the low cost opening years, the damage was 100 times worse because of leveraging. What made the collapse criminal, was that the insurance most financial institutions had bought from AIG, to cover such an improbable event, had already spent by that companies executives, out on bonuses to themselves. What made it doubly criminal, was that when they received government dollars through a taxpayer bailout, those same executives assumed it was to first go towards paying their bonuses again. However, very recent events may give some cover to the argument that some collusion was implicit in the bailing out of Goldman Sacs and AIG… Basically, once bailed out, AIG paid Goldman Sacs for shares twice as much as they were worth. The documents also indicate that regulators ignored recommendations from their own advisers to force the banks to accept losses on their A.I.G. deals and instead paid the banks in full for the contracts.
Courtesy of ESPN
While doing research on this weekend’s games in order to show up Hube, I came across this file tape in Dallas Cowboy archives. I realized there was no way Dallas’s quarterback could concentrate hard enough in the final minutes to pull it off this Sunday. I went with the Giants.
At least Romo will have a good weekend.
To paraphrase TO: “its not fair….it’s….not….fair…”
Don’t expect to see Campbell’s, Lipton, Progresso, or any other soup company in line to offer Dallas’s quarterback a lucrative advertising contract. Why?
Romo always chokes in the Bowl.