Quote Originally Posted by kidkboom View Post
Food is objective. &c...Many times in the history of humanity has someone claimed that their stone-tablet balance sheet, their abacus, their papyrus, notebook, i-pad, contained numbers that would objectively solve the financial problems of the leader/king/world.. Most recently, Greenspan.. all were wrong, as far as I know..
I think there is a little misunderstanding here. Greenspan made terrible mistakes. As far as I'm concerned much of Wall st. are criminal establishments, as indicated by so much documentation that they would never be able to refute. Saying that the tax policies tell us what is going on does not mean that I agree with all the tax policies. What I'm saying is you can sort much of the wheat from the chaff and the bluff and bluster in a straight forward way. For example Republican or Democratic leadership says something. But how much is it preaching to their respective choirs? It is very easy to tell objectively in implemented tax codes. What are the established political parties really up to? What do they say? What does the press say? There is a tremendous amount of confusion in political discussion, done on purpose I might add, for special interest purposes. But you can tell what is really going on by looking at things like tax codes, other policies are usually in line with these. That is, one can readily discern the true intents in politics by looking objectively at those sorts of things. That is the sort of real balance sheet inspections I'm referring to, not the fantasy creations of predatory financial interests of the likes of Wall st. It just so happens that some of problems can be solved by appropriate tax policies. But you've made up your mind. So why waste words? Some people think that government IS the problem. In my opinion, it is bad governance that is the problem, not good governance that is the problem. Some will say "but that's subjective". I'll tell you what I'm talking about from another field. It was known for many years that things like benzene, asbestos, and other chemicals were causing health problems for workers in many fields. It took many decades to ban them or restrict their use. Why so long? Is this really that subjective? The chemicals should have been restricted promptly. It wasn't something anyone could really argue about, it was completely obvious that the chemicals were causing problems. When things are actually known to be problems like benzene, asbestos and other carcinogens, they should be restricted. It looks objective to me. But industry slowed it down. This is bad governance. We also know of such things in taxation. Things that are bad for the economy. But special interests keep bad legislation on the books, and promote more. We know objectively that certain policies are problems, and they should be stopped. But people say, like the corporations dragging their feet about benzene and asbestos "that's just subjective". I think that perhaps the disagreement is more about definitions about what objective and subjective are, than about substance. But maybe you think asbestos is ok. I am for healthy and safe work conditions for workers. If workers say something in the work environment is causing problems they should be listened to right away, not seventy years later. The same goes for the economy. We know things in place right now are causing problems. It really is as clear cut as the cases about asbestos and benzene, even though it is in a different field. But special interests say "it's just subjective, you don't have any real proof that these tax loopholes are causing problems" Perhaps you don't know that Wall st. hedge fund lobbyists have been able to have enacted special low tax rates, that are lower than you and I could ever get for such high incomes as they get. Have it your way. Vote for agent orange if you want.
Try telling the kids up and down your street that money isn't what they think it is.

Quote from Mr. KBoom: "Many times in the history of humanity has someone claimed that their stone-tablet balance sheet, their abacus, their papyrus, notebook, i-pad, contained numbers that would objectively solve the financial problems of the leader/king/world.. Most recently, Greenspan.. all were wrong, as far as I know.." It's comical that you should whinge about Wall st. while spouting this stuff. The last thing that Wall st. wants is anyone fixing the system. Taxation is one of the ways that would clamp down on them, but you didn't bother to ask how. You didn't bother to ask how can taxation improve the economy. And now I certainly won't bother to tell you how.
I'm glad I know what's under the hood. I'm glad I listened to people and asked questions "how does that work? Why is it like that?" "That's interesting tell me some more about it." I'm glad I went to the library and looked things up. I know what's coming down the pipe.
But then I have no credibility. So why are you reading this? Try duking it out with this guy:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_K._Black