Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Really Mad

Yeah...People that didn't pay their mortgages really piss me off. If they did that they none of that other shit would have followed.

Originally posted by jaden101
Yeah...People that didn't pay their mortgages really piss me off. If they did that they none of that other shit would have followed.

Lol, yeah, the government printing money for banks 'just cause' is the fault of people failing to pay their mortgages.



Wait, what?

Originally posted by jaden101
Yeah...People that didn't pay their mortgages really piss me off. If they did that they none of that other shit would have followed.

You are oversimplfying the situation. First of all many people lost their jobs and no longer had the means to pay their morgtgage.

Secondly, One can't blame someone who purchased a house for $300,000 and now that house is worth $100,000, I'd walk away also.

The ones you CAN blame are people who took out large second mortgages and revolving home equity loans to buy boats, cars, big screen TVs, etc, and then walked away.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud

Secondly, One can't blame someone who purchased a house for $300,000 and now that house is worth $100,000, I'd walk away also.


Buying a house is a gamble; there's no guarantee that the value will rise. So defaulting on loan because it didn't pan out the way you planned/hoped is a breach of contract just the same as your "second mortage"point.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
You are oversimplfying the situation. First of all many people lost their jobs and no longer had the means to pay their morgtgage.

Secondly, One can't blame someone who purchased a house for $300,000 and now that house is worth $100,000, I'd walk away also.

The ones you CAN blame are people who took out large second mortgages and revolving home equity loans to buy boats, cars, big screen TVs, etc, and then walked away.

So I over simplified it from people not paying their mortgages to people not paying their mortgages?

Originally posted by AthenasTrgrFngr


That aimed at me? Extrapolate.

does your monthly mortgage go up if the value of your house goes down? if not then whys there a problem? i thought you bought a house to live in it, not buy it and then sell it. shrug

edit- no not at you rob. we posted at the same time

Originally posted by AthenasTrgrFngr
does your monthly mortgage go up if the value of your house goes down? if not then whys there a problem? i thought you bought a house to live in it, not buy it and then sell it. shrug

edit- no not at you rob. we posted at the same time

If interest rates go up then your mortgage payments go up and the overall value of your mortgage goes up...If this happens at the same time as the value of your house going down then you go into negative equity. You can then get into the situation where you can't pay your mortgage because the repayments are too high but the value of your house isn't enough to cover the remaining balance of the mortgage.

okay i think i understand what youre saying. that is pretty lame

Exactly, this is why smart(er) people get into a loan with a fixed interest rate, cost more upfront, but there's no risk of taking it in the ass should the FED raise the rates and suddenly your $1,850.00 monthly payment is $3,285.00 and the bank is "sorry to hear that, **** you, pay me."

You'd have to be a total idiot in the UK to get a variable rate mortgage at the moment because the interest rate can't go any lower without going to zero...The rate is currently 0.25% and it gets changed in increments of 0.25%....In other words...The only way is up.

What's stupid is that people are still getting mortgages at the absolute limit of their ability to pay.

Interest rates in the late 70's to early 80's in the UK were 17%

An example would work as follows in the UK.

If you were to take out a 100k mortgage at 0.25% (would never actually be this though obviously because the banks charge more than the base rate)then the monthly repayment 288.67

If this was to go up to 17% then the monthly repayment would be 1429.53

Bit of a difference.

...that's seriously not what this is about...

Why the hell do you guy keep talking about people not paying their mortgages. Yes, that's bad, it's breaking a contract, everyone knew that's bad for...hmm the last 500+ years.

You know what else is bad, the government giving your money to banks for absolutely no reason, an issue that we can see here, and that this thread is about.

Originally posted by Bardock42
...that's seriously not what this is about...

Why the hell do you guy keep talking about people not paying their mortgages. Yes, that's bad, it's breaking a contract, everyone knew that's bad for...hmm the last 500+ years.

You know what else is bad, the government giving your money to banks for absolutely no reason, an issue that we can see here, and that this thread is about.

THEY WOULDN'T BE HAVING TO GIVE THE BANKS MONEY IF THE PEOPLE DIDN'T DEFAULT ON THEIR MORTGAGES IN THE 1ST PLACE

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
You are oversimplfying the situation. First of all many people lost their jobs and no longer had the means to pay their morgtgage.

Secondly, One can't blame someone who purchased a house for $300,000 and now that house is worth $100,000, I'd walk away also.

The ones you CAN blame are people who took out large second mortgages and revolving home equity loans to buy boats, cars, big screen TVs, etc, and then walked away.

I havent watched the video, I will when I get home, but seriously, my parents had a house built for 300 grand, and it is now easily worth half a mil, even in this economy.

some blame clearly goes to the people who were buying above their ability to pay. obviously my parents aren't exemplary of everyone, however, they are great evidence that people, if they spend their money rationally, can be resilient to economic down turns.

lol, I'm sure they would hate to hear me say this, but their ability to care for themselves and such has had a huge impact on why I am an anarchist. my dad, seriously, this man never needed the state to bail him out, even if he did lose his job in the recession

Originally posted by jaden101
*pointlessness*

So the **** what?

Hell if they want to give them a safety FOR WHAT THEY ACTUALLY INVESTED, fair enough, still shitty, but okay....but they just give them tax money for nothing. They are giving them a completely risk free investment and on top of that they even say "Hey, in case that what would have been the risk had we not covered it for you happens, we'll not just give you the money you lost...**** no, we'll double it".

That's ****ing bullshit.

Originally posted by inimalist


some blame clearly goes to the people who were buying above their ability to pay.



Which is the point I'm making albeit bluntly.

Granted I'm sure there were unscrupulous lenders willing to give people money knowing that things couldn't be sustained and that these people would end up potentially defaulting but people should've properly assessed the risks of what they were doing before going ahead. A mortgage and house is most cases the largest purchase a person will make in their lives. If they're going to go ahead on the basis of the absolute maximum of what they can afford at the time and hoping that either interest rates don't go up and that their income either goes up or at the very least doesn't go down thne whatever befalls them is their own fault.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Liberal whining and excuses to alleviate personal responsibility

Cheese with that whine?

My point still stands...I'm right...You're wrong.

It's not the people unable to pay their mortgages fault that your corrupt government gives your money away to banks, again, for no valid reason.

That's an issue, perhaps one that wouldn't exist in this way if there hadn't been a housing crisis (which is not solely the fault of the people getting mortgages btw, also the people giving them, i.e. banks, i.e. the ones profiting now from what they co-****ed-up), though it is a sign of the underlying fact that the government doesn't give a **** about it's people and is out to screw them, they may have had an opportunity less, but who the **** gives a shit, what they do is wrong, and should perhaps be discussed in the thread on the fact, rather than shifting the blame on people who are completely guiltless about this particular issue, though they admittedly are guilty about something else, that could perhaps be discussed in an appropriate thread, rather than hijacking this one, which, really, is a more important issue anyways.

Originally posted by jaden101
Cheese with that whine?

My point still stands...I'm right...You're wrong.

Nope, cause your point is unrelated to anything anyone has said here or what this thread is about. You bring up a totally off topic argument (which I immediately agreed with) and I just pointed out how it doesn't matter, as the thread is about the governments willingness to bend you over and take you to brown town, rather than the reasons it had the opportunity to do so.

Originally posted by Bardock42
More whining

I'd love to have a discussion about this with you but...Actually no I wouldn't...It's boring.

But here's the other option...The government asks the banks to buy up all the debt from other collapsed banks in the form of defaulted mortgages without offering the banks any sort of security on those debts at all (seeing as any offer to secure the debts would be from tax payers money and be "screwing people" by giving money to the banks)

What would happen to that debt?...Nothing...None of the banks would touch it with a barge pole and we'd still be in the exact same situation we were immediately after the sub prime mortgage market collapsed.

Originally posted by jaden101
I'd love to have a discussion about this with you but...Actually no I wouldn't...It's boring.

But here's the other option...The government asks the banks to buy up all the debt from other collapsed banks in the form of defaulted mortgages without offering the banks any sort of security on those debts at all (seeing as any offer to secure the debts would be from tax payers money and be "screwing people" by giving money to the banks)

What would happen to that debt?...Nothing...None of the banks would touch it with a barge pole and we'd still be in the exact same situation we were immediately after the sub prime mortgage market collapsed.

You must have missed where I said that giving them a security is fair enough...honestly, it seems like you haven't watched the video, nor read anything in this thread and rather went off on a pet peeve of yours. That, by chance, the case?

so the point of the video is that rich people collude with government to get more rich?

/yawn, wake me when its not 1838 anymore

I think it's pointless to argue about why this mess happened, it has and we can't change that.

Problem now is like the video said is banks are manipulating the system to prevent a recovery and bilk the taxpayers out of yet ever more huge sums of money.

Originally posted by inimalist
so the point of the video is that rich people collude with government to get more rich?

/yawn, wake me when its not 1838 anymore


That doesn't make it okay

I believe about 25% of the population in the U.S. have lost their jobs, at least in many areas. If there aren't any jobs, then they have to default on their mortgages. Unfortunately a bad move by the government was "School to Work Programs", which was to re-train the unemployed with Federal loans, but once people began to graduate, there still wasn't any jobs out there. Now the Federal government is trying to collect all the loans paid out to reeducate everyone, which was a failed project.

Originally posted by inimalist
so the point of the video is that rich people collude with government to get more rich?

/yawn, wake me when its not 1838 anymore

Just because it isn't a new phenomenon (though many are close to oblivious about it), doesn't mean it isn't valid, interesting or necessary to talk about.

No one should care or worry if their home goes up or down in value if they're never going to sell it.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Problem now is like the video said is banks are manipulating the system to prevent a recovery and bilk the taxpayers out of yet ever more huge sums of money.

If that's truly the case (which is possible), then the only thing 'we' the people can do is revolt and replace our government, because it's either corrupt and in bed with the banking-empire, or it's so ****ing inept it can't see through the ploy. Either way, a forceful expulsion is required.

Now go get your pitchfork and torch.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You must have missed where I said that giving them a security is fair enough...honestly, it seems like you haven't watched the video, nor read anything in this thread and rather went off on a pet peeve of yours. That, by chance, the case?

Deary me...OK Bardock. Yes it's a shitty situation that the banks have far smarter people than the government and can flesh out deals for themselves to a ridiculous extent in terms of profit? Yes it is...

Let me ask you a question though.

If you were offered a house at say half it's market value and then were offered a mortgage for the full value and then the government said to you that they would also cover you for 80% of the full value...What would you do?

You know what my pet peeve is?...Idiots...Idiots that seem to think these issues are in isolation from one another.

They're not....Which was the point I was making...It's easy to say "OMGZ THE CORRUPTZ GOVERNMENTZZZZZ AND EVIL BANKKKZZ!!!!!!" When in large part neither of them had anything to do with debts going bad and causing the collapse in the 1st place except in the case of those unscrupulous lenders that I previously mentioned.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
That doesn't make it okay

I never said it did, but seriously, if this is the issue that makes you think "oh, those terrible rich people", I'd say you should have been paying more attention

This doesn't make me mad because I'd expect nothing less

Originally posted by Bardock42
Just because it isn't a new phenomenon (though many are close to oblivious about it), doesn't mean it isn't valid, interesting or necessary to talk about.

but what are we talking about? some limited scope issue where we can specifically identify monetary gains by a bank at the taxpayers expense?

I hardly think that is the heart of the issue. The recession didn't start the collusion between government and capital

As an aside, regulation has often been cited as the reason the banking system gets away with screwing the government and it's a simply matter of money.

If you are a top level expert in finance then who would you work for?....The government on a salary of $50,000 a year working for a financial regulatory body or for a bank where you could potentially earn millions?

So what happens?...The A grade top level graduates with the real financial aptitude go in to the banking sector and the idiots who spent their university years getting drunk and not going to the classes at their shit college end up working for the government's regulatory bodies.

Years down the line the government has to ask the successful banks to buy up the debt of other collapsed banks and offer to guarantee the debts to a certain extent...Who's going to come out on top of those negotiations? Especially when the banks have the government over a barrel as they can simply refuse to buy up any of the debt. What would happen then?...Things would get worse and worse and worse...The government would be buying up bad debt all over the place with no way to ever recover the money....Except for begging other banks to buy it.

I find specific examples to be a good thing to know about in order to point to them and show them as proof of what is otherwise only discussed in theory. Originally posted by jaden101
Deary me...OK Bardock. Yes it's a shitty situation that the banks have far smarter people than the government and can flesh out deals for themselves to a ridiculous extent in terms of profit? Yes it is...

Let me ask you a question though.

If you were offered a house at say half it's market value and then were offered a mortgage for the full value and then the government said to you that they would also cover you for 80% of the full value...What would you do?

You know what my pet peeve is?...Idiots...Idiots that seem to think these issues are in isolation from one another.

They're not....Which was the point I was making...It's easy to say "OMGZ THE CORRUPTZ GOVERNMENTZZZZZ AND EVIL BANKKKZZ!!!!!!" When in large part neither of them had anything to do with debts going bad and causing the collapse in the 1st place except in the case of those unscrupulous lenders that I previously mentioned.

Well, I am with you on that really. I am all for blame and credit where it is due. Like how we should blame the FDIC here...

I think I see where you are coming from, I'm not particularly blaming the bankers, I'd do the same if offered the deal, I just don't think it should be possible, and yeah, that is a bigger issue, but this isolated example points to it and is easily understandable to most people, imo.

I argee if you owe a house that is what you have to do.

But what if you and all your neighbors have lost your jobs?
There are so many abandoned houses everywhere around here and they just sit there.

Originally posted by jaden101
THEY WOULDN'T BE HAVING TO GIVE THE BANKS MONEY IF THE PEOPLE DIDN'T DEFAULT ON THEIR MORTGAGES IN THE 1ST PLACE
They didn't have to give the banks money. That was a choice. What they should have been doing was breaking up the banks preemptively so our economy wouldn't be so reliant on them.

Originally posted by Robtard
If that's truly the case (which is possible), then the only thing 'we' the people can do is revolt and replace our government, because it's either corrupt and in bed with the banking-empire, or it's so ****ing inept it can't see through the ploy. Either way, a forceful expulsion is required.

Now go get your pitchfork and torch.

That's what some of the second ammendment exists for.

However, our government has made sure that that provision in the second ammendment is antiquated.


Originally posted by jaden101
Deary me...OK Bardock. Yes it's a shitty situation that the They're not....Which was the point I was making...It's easy to say "OMGZ THE CORRUPTZ GOVERNMENTZZZZZ AND EVIL BANKKKZZ!!!!!!" When in large part neither of them had anything to do with debts going bad and causing the collapse in the 1st place except in the case of those unscrupulous lenders that I previously mentioned.

Incorrect. The government was the initial catalyst for the sub-prime lending crisis due the interest rates and policies Bush and co. had.

The sub-prime lending crisis caused the financial crisis and the collapse of many financial institutions.

This caused bad debt bailouts and debt shifts with governments picking up the tab.


That last part is what the thread is about.


Where's he blame?

In this order:

1. Interest rates and policies from the government.

2. Stupid lenders lending stupidly due to conditions created by #1.

3. Stupid people taking out lans they couldn't afford because of:

....a. Ignorance.
....b. They did not care.
....c. Predatory lending practices.
....d. They lost their means of income or their means of income decreased through both related and unrelated circumstances.

4. Bailouts given.

5. Banks offered lucrative compensation for bailing each other out with government assistance.



All 5 are to blame for this problem.



About what you're saying: I agree, mostly, that the people are to blame for the majority of this problem. I posted on this before. I also think the banks are to blame as well as the government for creating those conditions.

Who is NOT to blame? I am. Who is paying for this? I am. Who should actually get the bailout? Me. Did I get one? I did. To the tune of $8000 (plus $93 in interest because the IRS took too long.)

edit -

Dang it...double post. My bad.

DDM, may I have some of your $8,000 please?

Originally posted by BackFire
DDM, may I have some of your $8,000 please?

Already spent it on crack and hoes.




(Really, I spent it on bills.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's what some of the second ammendment exists for.

However, our government has made sure that that provision in the second ammendment is antiquated.




Incorrect. The government was the initial catalyst for the sub-prime lending crisis due the interest rates and policies Bush and co. had.

The sub-prime lending crisis caused the financial crisis and the collapse of many financial institutions.

This caused bad debt bailouts and debt shifts with governments picking up the tab.


That last part is what the thread is about.


Where's he blame?

In this order:

1. Interest rates and policies from the government.

2. Stupid lenders lending stupidly due to conditions created by #1.

3. Stupid people taking out lans they couldn't afford because of:

....a. Ignorance.
....b. They did not care.
....c. Predatory lending practices.
....d. They lost their means of income or their means of income decreased through both related and unrelated circumstances.

4. Bailouts given.

5. Banks offered lucrative compensation for bailing each other out with government assistance.



All 5 are to blame for this problem.



About what you're saying: I agree, mostly, that the people are to blame for the majority of this problem. I posted on this before. I also think the banks are to blame as well as the government for creating those conditions.

Who is NOT to blame? I am. Who is paying for this? I am. Who should actually get the bailout? Me. Did I get one? I did. To the tune of $8000 (plus $93 in interest because the IRS took too long.)

The US was continually cutting interest rates between 2006 and 2008 in the run up to the recession so clearly that would've helped people's mortgage payments.

Originally posted by jaden101
The US was continually cutting interest rates between 2006 and 2008 in the run up to the recession so clearly that would've helped people's mortgage payments.

That's not my original idea, that's the ideas of many different economists.



Lemme see if I can find articles.



Here's something that discusses the legislation that directly played a role up to this problem, but I didn't read all of it.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Real-Cause-of-the-Curr-by-Joe-Reeser-080926-83.html


Here's one by a professor:
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2148




There was another article written by a Harvard Business School professor that talked about the interest rates being the probably, directly contradicting what you've stated in your post above. I could not find that one. I believe I posted that on KMC, before...so I could possibly find it...but that would be hard as I do not have an idea what key words I should search for other than financial+crisis.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Who is NOT to blame? I am. Who is paying for this? I am. Who should actually get the bailout? Me. Did I get one? I did. To the tune of $8000 (plus $93 in interest because the IRS took too long.)

How did you qualify for an $8,000.00 bailout? You're white.

Disagreed, that $8,000.00 in part came out of my and Backfire's pockets via taxes, you douche; you're part of the problem.

Don't blame the government. Blame the US citizens who voted them into power.

Originally posted by Robtard
How did you qualify for an $8,000.00 bailout? You're white.

Disagreed, that $8,000.00 in part came out of my and Backfire's pockets via taxes, you douche; you're part of the problem.

You gave him six thousanths of a cent.

Originally posted by Robtard
How did you qualify for an $8,000.00 bailout? You're white.

Disagreed, that $8,000.00 in part came out of my and Backfire's pockets via taxes, you douche; you're part of the problem.

Yeah, but, that was after well over a decade of paying taxes in thousands of dollars to the federal government. I'm still not even with the government: not even close. So, no, it didn't come out of your pocket: it came out of my pockets. (Not skeets, either.)


Additionally, I had to spend $9500 in closing costs to even qualify for that $8000 check for first time home buyers.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You gave him six thousanths of a cent.

Indeed, sir. And that doesn't even account for the fact that that top 10% pay almost half of all the taxes (it could be more, I'd have to look it up again.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed, sir. And that doesn't even account for the fact that that top 10% pay almost half of all the taxes (it could be more, I'd have to look it up again.)
Yeah, but when you control 80% of the country's net worth, that would actually be undertaxing.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yeah, but when you control 80% of the country's net worth, that would actually be undertaxing.

Good point.

I never actually thought of it that way. I think you may have changed my opinion on the tax distribution. Believe it or not, I've never heard the argument put that way before and I've never thought about taxing based on wealth distribution. I've only ever thought of it on an income basis. What about a hybrid of both income and wealth? Don't you think that would the fairest tax system?

I don't mind having to pay 50% of my taxes if I made 250,000 a year. So it's not as thought I'm a hypocrite.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Good point.

I never actually thought of it that way. I think you may have changed my opinion on the tax distribution. Believe it or not, I've never heard the argument put that way before and I've never thought about taxing based on wealth distribution. I've only ever thought of it on an income basis. What about a hybrid of both income and wealth? Don't you think that would the fairest tax system?

I don't mind having to pay 50% of my taxes if I made 250,000 a year. So it's not as thought I'm a hypocrite.
Wow, wasn't expecting that response.

Taxing is a complex thing, but I would say its only fair that people pay a proportion of taxes around their proportion of the national wealth.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Wow, wasn't expecting that response.

Taxing is a complex thing, but I would say its only fair that people pay a proportion of taxes around their proportion of the national wealth.

The people who flip out when you propose such a thing are the kind of people who look, not at how much they have, but how much they pay in taxes. Then, they spend money to convince people who have so little by comparison that they some how have anything in common.

Originally posted by skekUng
The people who flip out when you propose such a thing are the kind of people who look, not at how much they have, but how much they pay in taxes. Then, they spend money to convince people who have so little by comparison that they some how have anything in common.
Yeah, yeah sure. But I think we should also be questioning why people are so easily convinced of stupid things.

that's a no brainer.

Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Cool. How do we fix that?

Originally posted by skekUng
The people who flip out when you propose such a thing are the kind of people who look, not at how much they have, but how much they pay in taxes. Then, they spend money to convince people who have so little by comparison that they some how have anything in common.

It's the same people that are freaking out about banker's bonuses at the moment...They conveniently forget the fact that a bonus will have 55% deducted in income tax and national insurance (in the UK I'm referring to) plus whatever taxes that are levied against what the banker decides to spend his money on.

Now...If the money were to stay in the bank as profit then it would have a total tax value of 23% (taking into account corporate tax, capital gains etc etc)

So the government actually makes MORE in tax when the bankers are given larger bonuses.

Yet it's political suicide for a politician to try and make that case.

Originally posted by jaden101
It's the same people that are freaking out about banker's bonuses at the moment...They conveniently forget the fact that a bonus will have 55% deducted in income tax and national insurance (in the UK I'm referring to) plus whatever taxes that are levied against what the banker decides to spend his money on.

Now...If the money were to stay in the bank as profit then it would have a total tax value of 23% (taking into account corporate tax, capital gains etc etc)

So the government actually makes MORE in tax when the bankers are given larger bonuses.

Yet it's political suicide for a politician to try and make that case.
I think the reason people are angry has to do with the executives getting money at all, not how much its being taxed.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Cool. How do we fix that?

There is a fundamental issue with education reform though. It pains me to say, as education was the thing I named as being the way to change the future. The problem is, people's education is not simply "acultural", and the teaching of politics, even at a university level, is never done in such a way that people are encouraged to challange political establishments and institutions they may have identified with already, or even worse, because we experience political discourse through the dimensions set a priori by the state and governing system itself, that predisposes us to interpret political theory from the position of Liberal or Conservative or whatever.

My fear would be, in a system that encouraged political organization and what not through only educational reform, that we would see very well educated partisans, who have used thier education to inocculate themselves from possible criticisms of the party rhetoric they had already adopted. It would be like institutionalizing talking-points (which is really all I saw a lot of people getting from their poli-sci degree anyways )

Originally posted by jaden101
So the government actually makes MORE in tax when the bankers are given larger bonuses.

Yet it's political suicide for a politician to try and make that case.

But then, there is even less of the pie for the average person. The state will buy its new guns and continue to pay for a bloated and wasteful social security plans, and the wealthy get to invest more in an economy that every day exists more and more in a theoretical reality, and has no impact on the goods and services regular people need.

Its hardly an argument that people are served better with greater taxes collected by the state when "Wealth Redistribution" is still considered a profanity.

Originally posted by inimalist
There is a fundamental issue with education reform though. It pains me to say, as education was the thing I named as being the way to change the future. The problem is, people's education is not simply "acultural", and the teaching of politics, even at a university level, is never done in such a way that people are encouraged to challange political establishments and institutions they may have identified with already, or even worse, because we experience political discourse through the dimensions set a priori by the state and governing system itself, that predisposes us to interpret political theory from the position of Liberal or Conservative or whatever.

My fear would be, in a system that encouraged political organization and what not through only educational reform, that we would see very well educated partisans, who have used thier education to inocculate themselves from possible criticisms of the party rhetoric they had already adopted. It would be like institutionalizing talking-points (which is really all I saw a lot of people getting from their poli-sci degree anyways )
So, how do we fix this problem?

Originally posted by King Kandy
So, how do we fix this problem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights

Originally posted by jaden101
It's the same people that are freaking out about banker's bonuses at the moment...They conveniently forget the fact that a bonus will have 55% deducted in income tax and national insurance (in the UK I'm referring to) plus whatever taxes that are levied against what the banker decides to spend his money on.

Now...If the money were to stay in the bank as profit then it would have a total tax value of 23% (taking into account corporate tax, capital gains etc etc)

So the government actually makes MORE in tax when the bankers are given larger bonuses.

Yet it's political suicide for a politician to try and make that case.

This opinion still comes from the better off 45% -if ever it were that high.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So, how do we fix this problem?

If I knew I'd be in activism