This should make you mad

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 [evil] 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.)

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.

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.

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.

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 [who knows, maybe I'm guilty too, I'm sure we all are, this is human psych])

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.

["... don't swing that way recently" my ass... 😠]