22635, RE: Look|
Posted by janey, Mon Aug-14-00 12:16 PM
>Here's what the Green Party's Platform
>states word for word....
>* Democratic Banking: Mandatory conversion of
>the 200 largest banks with
>80% of all bank assets
>into democratic publicly-owned community banks.
>Financial and technical incentives and
>assistance for voluntary conversion of
>other privately-owned banks into publicly-owned
>community banks or consumer-owned credit
Which restates my point that the platform contemplates transferring ownership of the banks and not ownership of the monies on deposit.
>What this means is they are
>going to take the 200
>biggest private banks and turn
>them into government-run banks,
Do you believe that the banking industry is not currently regulated by the government?
>with 80% of the monies
>that were generated within the
No. That is a definitional provision. This is the way that they are defining, or clarifying, what they mean by the largest 200 banks.
>about it.....government under the Green
>Party controls the money,
As today's government does.
>the tax rate,
As today's government does.
There are complicated back door ways of regulating this that are currently in place. At least give it to the Green Party that they are up front about their agenda.
and how much
>you can even MAKE in
>one year. What makes
>you think they won't touch
True that they appear to be advocating a complete redistribution of wealth, HOWEVER, you will note that my point to which you are responding is that the platform regarding bank ownership does not contemplate nationalizing the monies on deposit.
>was only a couple of
>years ago in which representatives
>were trying to get a
>bill passed in Congress in
>which banks were to be
>required to report to the
>government of any out of
>the ordinary transactions by it's
Surely you are aware that a transaction (ANY transaction by a regulated institution, whether that is a bank or a stock brokerage or whatever) that is in excess of $10,000 and is conducted in cash must be reported to the government? That law has been in place for at least 15 years (I became aware of it 15 years ago). In addition, your point isn't terribly apt, since you are pointing to proposals that were not made by Green Party members.
A bill like
>that wouldn't be necessary because
>government already CONTROLS the banks.
Not clear how much more control the government could assert than it already does. All this proposal does, in my view, is shift the bank profits to the government. And allow the government then to decide whether profits are appropriate for financial institutions and, if so, how those monies could be used for society as a whole.
>therefore, eventually, all that money
>is going to be gone,
>especially for former millionaires.
>The Green Party has a
>provision in which to tax
>all assets in a household
>over 2.5 million.
A relatively small number of people have assets in excess of 2.5 million. You also don't say at what rate those assets will be taxed. I assume 100%, given some of the other proposals that they have made. But be clear that just saying "they're going to tax it" doesn't tell you what will be left at the end of the day.
>justice there. Hence, you're
>only going to get what
>government SAYS you can get.
And how is that different from how the system is currently set up? Except that you agree with the current allocations and the effects of the proposed allocations are unknown, so frightening.
Again, I am not a Green Party member or proponent. Just trying to keep your arguments on the straight and narrow. You are a powerful and persuasive writer (just because I disagree with you and am not generally persuaded by your writing does not negate this). You don't need to descend into exaggeration or hyperbole to make your points.