If you understand anything about the banking and US financial system it operates on leverage and trust. If you lose the trust of depositors, then it becomes a very dangerous situation. We are in a situation akin to walking through a bone dry forest at night with only a lighted candle in your hands.

I thought "Wall St. got drunk"?

Those who benefited should now pay for the bailout. Taxation of financial transactions similar to what they already have in Great Britain and other places could create enough money to eventually pay for the bailout and other goodies for us too.

Those who benefited should now pay for the bailout. Taxation of financial transactions similar to what they already have in Great Britain and other places could create enough money to eventually pay for the bailout and other goodies for us too.

How about every country in the world contributing as much as they are able? These countries looking at the US to bail out us and them are full of what you find in toilets. When all involved put there own houses in better order than our efforts will be successful. The world seems to be involved and because of that should shoulder some of the burden. They won't because Uncle Sugar has his checkbook open.

Those who benefited should now pay for the bailout.

#4 | Posted by danni

absolutely.

Those who benefited should now pay for the bailout.

#4 | Posted by danni

absolutely.

#6 | Posted by Lipzoidial

Abso-fuckin-lutely!

Butt WE'LL get stuck with the bill.

Not to mention that 20' Untreated Telephone pole stickin' outta our collective asses.

Taxation of financial transactions similar to what they already have in Great Britain and other places could create enough money to eventually pay for the bailout and other goodies for us too.

What????

I have heard a lot of idiotic things but this has to be it.

Yes, I like this plan.

Got milk, first tax the transaction than tax the commodity.

It's a good idea, Money. Tax the transactions at a small level. The bigger the trader, the higher the costs. Let Wall Street pay for their own bailout.

Capitalism is like a game of Texas Hold'em.

The bigger your pot, the more leverage you have to "win" the rest of it.

Of course it's different in that you can't really chose not to play in the first place, but we're not really supposed to mention that.

Nulli,

I can't help my old school teaching, the solution is to relieve middle class and lower of taxes to give them more money to spend.

Adding taxes doesn't help the problem it makes it bigger.

The fact that too much money is in too few hands just adding another wealth up tax gives those at the top more of the money.

Taxing the higher cost will just stop that individual from actually making the investment.

Taxing a transaction is nothing more than a staight across the board 10% no deduction tax, it is regressive which is the problem in the first place.

"Adding taxes doesn't help the problem it makes it bigger."

It would be a trivial cost to small investors, and a big cost to big speculators, i.e., Wall Street. That's the idea. Let Wall Street pay for its own bailout.

It would be a trivial cost to small investors, and a big cost to big speculators, i.e., Wall Street.

So attack that problem, after buying the stock if it is not held for so long a tax of investment punishment is added.

"Capitalism is like a game of Texas Hold'em.

The bigger your pot, the more leverage you have to "win" the rest of it."

As an occasional Hold'em player, I understand that exactly. You can crush your opponents by the sheer size of your pot.

Nulli,

any response? I understand partially what you are saying but wondering if you understand what I am saying.

I don't consider it regressive. It would be a very small tax on each transaction, negligible for the small investor, but significant to Wall Street speculators.

Question: Are we only taxing stock transactions, or bank deposits and what not as well?

(Time to go to work, I'll check back in later.)

"Capitalism is like a game of Texas Hold'em.

The bigger your pot, the more leverage you have to "win" the rest of it."

You mean "stack" not "pot". The pot consists of the chips in the middle being contested during the hand. A stack is what each player has personally. And in no-limit Texas Holdem it is relatively easy for a short stack to overtake a large stack. If someone has you 3:1 you can double through them and be even after one hand - of course if you lose that hand you are broke. The biggest difference is that unlike real life, the person with the bigger stack can't simply outspend you as once you are all in you are guaranteed to see all the cards. In a cash game having a big stack doesn't mean much at all. You can't win more than your opponents have and they can't lose more than what they have. The extra chips mean nothing.