[tomder55]

Nope had we followed constitutional principles ,the government would not have grown to a point where we now have hidden fees revealed in legislation 2 years after it was passed... that no one knew about... because the idiot Dem majority leader never read the legislation she shoved up our keister... telling us we would have to pass it to find out what was in it.

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

I wrote many times that I don't believe any business is too big to fail .Someone who believes in capitalism would never say that .

Nahhh.. I'm a capitalist. I've also played monopoly.

Excon

[tomder55]

Good then you are perfect for the next Sec Treasury . He has lots of monopoly money to play with.

[speechlesstx]

Nope had we followed constitutional principles ,the government would not have grown to a point where we now have hidden fees revealed in legislation 2 years after it was passed... that no one knew about... because the idiot Dem majority leader never read the legislation she shoved up our keister... telling us we would have to pass it to find out what was in it.

And we're still learning. Remember when Obama said Obamacare would lower premiums by $2500 a year? Not only are premiums still rising, there's a $63-per-head fee to cover those with pre-existing conditions that employers are most likely to pass on to employees.

Also on Jan 1 we get a new "unearned income Medicare contribution tax" thanks to Obamacare.

In the debate over the looming fiscal cliff, U.S. President Barack Obama often plays down any adverse economic impact from letting the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire for high-income Americans, claiming that the top tax rates would merely return to where they were during the Clinton years.

Unfortunately, the president’s claim is incorrect because he ignores the impending arrival of the unearned income Medicare contribution tax, which will further raise tax rates on income from saving.
Sponsored Links

Scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, the tax, which was adopted as part of the 2010 health-care law, is a 3.8 percent levy on interest, dividends, capital gains and passive business income received by taxpayers with incomes exceeding $200,000 (or $250,000 for couples).

Because the new tax was added to the health-care law late in the process without congressional hearings, it received little attention at the time. With only a few weeks left before it takes effect, it remains largely unknown.

Its obscurity has allowed bizarre myths to circulate on the Internet -- despite what you may have read online, the tax is not a 3.8 percent levy on home sales.

One problem with the unearned income Medicare contribution tax is the name Congress chose for it, which is a triple misnomer. The income that will be subject to the tax isn’t unearned -- it is earned by savers who receive market rewards for delaying consumption and providing funds to finance business investment.

Also, because the proceeds will be paid into the general treasury, the tax will have no financial link to Medicare. And, of course, the tax will be a compulsory payment, not a voluntary contribution.

But he's not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 right? I really don't get the logic of punishing success.

[paraclete]

But he's not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 right? I really don't get the logic of punishing success.

No you don't get the concept, the inferstructure that enables you to earn that money doesn't come free and since you are benefiting more than most you get to pay. The idea that you can just make money because you are so brilliant it just falls out of the sky on you and you own nothing to anyone is fantasy. Without everything around you you couldn't make a dime, and since you have more you need more protection, more aircraft carriers, more survelliance, just more. You don't want more, tell your congressman to take a hike the next time he staples a boondoggle to a bill.

[tomder55]

I've been trying to get my congressperson to take a hike for years. Now ,for the 2nd time in a decade my district has been carved apart and gerrymandered . I went from a conservative rep in the 1990s to Eliot Engel ,a flaming lib who at least understood foreign policy ;to Nita Lowey , a flaming true lib believer .

[paraclete]

Ah demographics, you just need to keep moving, Tom, isn't that what your people did? Moved west to escape? Hey, speaking of moving west, have you seen the pictures of your country at night, a clear dividing line down what I can only assume is the Mississippi. Gerrymanders and Boondoggles, you have interesting political customs

[speechlesstx]

No you don't get the concept, the inferstructure that enables you to earn that money doesn't come free and since you are benefiting more than most you get to pay. The idea that you can just make money because you are so brilliant it just falls out of the sky on you and you own nothing to anyone is fantasy. Without everything around you you couldn't make a dime, and since you have more you need more protection, more aircraft carriers, more survelliance, just more. You don't want more, tell your congressman to take a hike the next time he staples a boondoggle to a bill.

Does condescension come naturally to you?

[paraclete]

No I learned it at my mother's knee

[speechlesstx]

no I learned it at my mother's knee

Well momma should've taught you some manners.

[excon]

Hello again,

Eric Holder admits to concern about impact on markets of prosecuting bankers and banks suspected of violating the law.

To ME, that means the banks run the United States of America. We don't run it. I think that's a DANGEROUS situation. We don't run the banks. I think we should.

Elizabeth Warren thinks banks who launder money for the drug cartels, should be prosecuted. . You wingers don't?? I don't know what's unreasonable about that. I know you hate her, but for the life of me, I don't know why.

I also believe that you DON'T believe in the concept of "too big to fail". Why not?

excon

[speechlesstx]

I think Corzine should be prosecuted, don't you?

[excon]

Hello again, Steve,

I think Corzine should be prosecuted, don't you?

Unlike you, I think ALL the banksters who broke the law should be tried - NOT just the right wingers. Even your beloved Ronny Raygun put banksters in JAIL!

Excon

[tomder55]

I think Warren has a valid point about HSBC. As far as 'too big to fail ' .Nope ;don't believe in it . You always have anti-trust laws if you think American banks have grown too big. I still contend that it is regulations that have the perverse effect of driving smaller competition to larger corporations out of the game. Do you think it is a coincidence that as Dodd Frank goes on line ;more and more consolidation is happening ?

What's interesting is what he's not worried about:

... And not citing regulatory risk was interesting. He even pointed out that while margins may come down, market share may increase due to a “bigger moat” - We were surprised that regulatory risk was not mentioned as one of the key risks. In Dimon's eyes, higher capital rules, Volcker, and OTC derivative reforms longer-term make it more expensive and tend to make it tougher for smaller players to enter the market, effectively widening JPM's “moat.” While there will be some drags on profitability – as prices and margins narrow, efficient scale players like JPM should eventually be able to gain market share.

The Four Things That Worry Jamie Dimon - Business Insider

“Do I think it will be more difficult?” Barnes asks. “Yes. There is a certain size and scale that [banks] simply will have to get to in order to handle the new changes, and a little community bank that has one branch in one location in a small town will likely struggle to survive on its own.”

Will Dodd-Frank Kill Small Banks? | Columbia Business Times

[speechlesstx]

Yep, Libs solution is to feed the beast.

[Tuttyd]

Yep, Libs solution is to feed the beast.

Both sides feed the beast. That the whole idea of having a ruling class.


Tut

[speechlesstx]

Both sides feed the beast. That the whole idea of having a ruling class.


Tut

Ok, whatever. Only one side is pretending to be beast slayers while in bed with them, and that would be to my left. Surely you can see the utter hypocrisy in liberal rhetoric on the subject.

[Tuttyd]

Ok, whatever. Only one side is pretending to be beast slayers while in bed with them, and that would be to my left. Surely you can see the utter hypocrisy in liberal rhetoric on the subject.

"Ok, whatever"

This is a bit terse don't you think?

So ruling elites are fine, so long as it can be demonstrated that Democrats are hypocrites?

So yes, I can see the hypocrisy in exactly the same way as I can see what is regarded as priorities.


Tut

[paraclete]

It's easy, if they don't comply with the law, if they get involved in money laundering and other undesirable financial transactions, cancel their banking licence. HSBC operates in many countries so cancellation in one country is not so much a disaster as an embarrassment and I sat the same for that other criminal bank UBC

[speechlesstx]

"Ok, whatever"

This is a bit terse don't you think?

Just conceding a point to move along.

So ruling elites are fine, so long as it can be demonstrated that Democrats are hypocrites?

That's hardly an assumption I would have made. They're all hypocrites, I was merely pointing out their populist pretense. It's preached here at AMHD every day.