Let's work from the premise that 53% of Americans do not pay federal income tax. I went to the mall today, and to get there I had to drive through horrible traffic. How is it that 47 out of every hundred of those people in their vehicles or at the Apple store, or just walking around the mall pay no federal income tax? The answer of course is that the 53%ers make it possible through forced subsidization by taxation.
And another thing, let's assume that OWS is successful and Wall Street, bankers, and every other institution that OWS has targeted woke up tomorrow, saw the errors of their ways, and said: "You know what, you are right. We screwed up and we want to make amends. Who do we write the check to?" The easy answer is "The U.S. Treasury". However, the persons that have been actually and directly damaged by their misdeeds, in my opinion, is not every American. It's the 53% who paid the federal income tax that went to these institutions. In other words, the 47% that paid nothing isn't out a single dime. Now, if payroll (which is possible since the government does borrow money from Social Security--IIRC), state, and other taxes went to these institutions, we can discuss that. But it just blows my mind that I can be standing in any random group of 100 persons and know that almost half have no skin in the federal income tax game.
Forty percent of Americans don't pay federal income tax, Guido, because they don't make enough money. It's called income disparity. General Electric didn't pay taxes last year, either. So if you believe that taxes are necessary and that we should all bear the burden of paying them, perhaps we should insist that those with the deepest pockets pay a fair share.
If you throw out the jobless teenagers that you'll inevitably find at the mall, a lot more of the folks surrounding you will actually have some income tax liability. The mall is a place people with money to spend go.
What I find somewhat ironic about this complaint is that it is in fact the tax cut brigade (along with the crappy economy) that is responsible for fewer people paying income tax. By dropping their rate 5%, you managed to help a lot of people have their income tax liability completely offset by credits. I'd think that, given the aversion to taxation, that you'd be happy that fewer people are subjected to being taxed.
Quote from: guido911 on October 21, 2011, 07:27:46 PM
But it just blows my mind that I can be standing in any random group of 100 persons and know that almost half have no skin in the federal income tax game.
Maybe it is where you are standing. Stop hanging out at corporate headquarters.
Quote from: Ed W on October 21, 2011, 08:07:08 PM
Forty percent of Americans don't pay federal income tax, Guido, because they don't make enough money. It's called income disparity. General Electric didn't pay taxes last year, either. So if you believe that taxes are necessary and that we should all bear the burden of paying them, perhaps we should insist that those with the deepest pockets pay a fair share.
That's not my point. I know there are those that cannot afford to pay federal income tax. But 47 FREAKIN PERCENT! And if they cannot afford it, then why does it look like they can when I see what has to be some of those people shopping at the mall, dining at restaurants, etc. And of those 47%, how many are bitching about some of the other 53% should be required to pay more?
The GE corporate tax argument is a good one, but it has little to do with why nearly half of us pay no share of the federal tax burden. IMO, and as I have said before, if you pay nothing, shut your pie hole. And this is directed at the unemployed OWS protesters complaining that they are entitled to some benefit at another person/company's expense. For the life of me, I cannot see how hard-working people in this forum could empathize with these freeloaders. Like this one:
That punk should sicken and disgust you and anyone else that works hard and struggled to get their lot. Seriously, where do these people come from? Who taught people like this that they are entitled to anything for free. And I don't want to hear about how he the exception or the "fringe". There are videos like this all over the place.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 21, 2011, 08:21:10 PM
Maybe it is where you are standing. Stop hanging out at corporate headquarters.
You rock RM. lol
Quote from: nathanm on October 21, 2011, 08:17:25 PM
If you throw out the jobless teenagers that you'll inevitably find at the mall, a lot more of the folks surrounding you will actually have some income tax liability. The mall is a place people with money to spend go.
What I find somewhat ironic about this complaint is that it is in fact the tax cut brigade (along with the crappy economy) that is responsible for fewer people paying income tax. By dropping their rate 5%, you managed to help a lot of people have their income tax liability completely offset by credits. I'd think that, given the aversion to taxation, that you'd be happy that fewer people are subjected to being taxed.
I don't have an aversion to taxation as it's absolutely necessary. We need a military, police/fire, stop lights, etc. My problem is that I do not want to hear people who pay NOTHING demanding others and corporations pay more. Like I said to Ed, I just do not understand where that mentality comes from. When I was young, and perhaps you and others can relate, I do not recall being taught that if I wanted something it would just be given to me because I complained long and loudly enough. And I know the economy sucks, but why are these OWS people blaming Wall Street? Why aren't they going to their government and demanding it act instead of going to wealthy peoples homes and screaming at them. Do they think by doing so the rich will just bust out their checkbooks? Or, in reality, will doing so perhaps piss them off and they ship even more jobs overseas.
I don't know what the federal debt is just now, but let's play with some numbers. There are about 300 million people in the US, and if 40% pay no federal taxes, that's 120 million folks. Let's assume that a third of them are children who have no income. That leaves 80 million. If the poverty line is $22,000 and they pay 10% in taxes (as a hypothetical) it comes to $2.2K multiplied by 80 million or 186 billion dollars.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the national debt is currently about $15 trillion? So the poorest Americans - if they paid 10% in taxes - would contribute a little more than 1%.
Follow the money, Guido, not the ideology. If you want to make a real dent in the federal budget and the deficit, follow the money. It ain't in the hands of poor people.
Quote from: Ed W on October 21, 2011, 09:01:02 PM
I don't know what the federal debt is just now, but let's play with some numbers. There are about 300 million people in the US, and if 40% pay no federal taxes, that's 120 million folks. Let's assume that a third of them are children who have no income. That leaves 80 million. If the poverty line is $22,000 and they pay 10% in taxes (as a hypothetical) it comes to $2.2K multiplied by 80 million or 186 billion dollars.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the national debt is currently about $15 trillion? So the poorest Americans - if they paid 10% in taxes - would contribute a little more than 1%.
Follow the money, Guido, not the ideology. If you want to make a real dent in the federal budget and the deficit, follow the money. It ain't in the hands of poor people.
I am following the money, believe me, especially when its time to write the tax check. Again, this is not about those persons living destitute in the Appalachians or, locally, a little ways east of us. My point is I just don't understand why those that are able-bodied people who made bad choices--either with a career choice or forking out tens of thousands on a dipsmile college degree--have the nerve to waive signs demanding others pay more. My point is also about those who pay nothing shutting their gravy-training mouths. Come on Ed. Didn't that punk in that video pi$$ you off? That cannot be the way you were raised, or how you raised yours. My dad, who was as blue collar and union as could be, would have kicked the sh!t out of me if that kid was me.
Ed, I enjoy fighting with you because you are reasonable. But right now we are in apples and oranges area. 47% paying nothing and 53% paying at least something is okay with you?
Quote from: nathanm on October 21, 2011, 08:17:25 PM
I'd think that, given the aversion to taxation, that you'd be happy that fewer people are subjected to being taxed.
I think I am getting dizzy from the spinning.
Quote from: Ed W on October 21, 2011, 09:01:02 PM
I don't know what the federal debt is just now, but let's play with some numbers. There are about 300 million people in the US, and if 40% pay no federal taxes, that's 120 million folks. Let's assume that a third of them are children who have no income. That leaves 80 million. If the poverty line is $22,000 and they pay 10% in taxes (as a hypothetical) it comes to $2.2K multiplied by 80 million or 186 billion dollars.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the national debt is currently about $15 trillion? So the poorest Americans - if they paid 10% in taxes - would contribute a little more than 1%.
Follow the money, Guido, not the ideology. If you want to make a real dent in the federal budget and the deficit, follow the money. It ain't in the hands of poor people.
Go to the link below that Nathan provided to me in another thread. In order to make a dent, the income threshold gets a lot lower than many of us think.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table6
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 22, 2011, 09:40:58 AM
I think I am getting dizzy from the spinning.
The spinning on this subject is somewhat unnecessary. My gripe is how we as a country got to the point where snot-nosed kids can with the straightest of faces publicly demand someone else pay for their education. Same goes for those who pay nothing demanding others that do pay, pay more. I am being 100% serious--what happened? We had tough times in the past. And, yes, I understand that the tea party came to be when such a movement did not take place in tough times. But we know that was because of racism. :P But again, in all seriousness, did the tea party demand others to pay for things they couldn't afford?
Quote from: guido911 on October 21, 2011, 09:17:29 PM
I am following the money, believe me, especially when its time to write the tax check. Again, this is not about those persons living destitute in the Appalachians or, locally, a little ways east of us. My point is I just don't understand why those that are able-bodied people who made bad choices--either with a career choice or forking out tens of thousands on a dipsmile college degree--have the nerve to waive signs demanding others pay more. My point is also about those who pay nothing shutting their gravy-training mouths. Come on Ed. Didn't that punk in that video pi$$ you off? That cannot be the way you were raised, or how you raised yours. My dad, who was as blue collar and union as could be, would have kicked the sh!t out of me if that kid was me.
Ed, I enjoy fighting with you because you are reasonable. But right now we are in apples and oranges area. 47% paying nothing and 53% paying at least something is okay with you?
You're right about an apples and oranges comparison, Guido. I think we have a fundamentally different view of the world and those in it. I make enough money to be comfortable - i.e. I don't have to worry about paying the bills or where my next meal will come from, but a major medical expense could put the family in serious trouble. That's probably true of most of us. But I don't use money as a yardstick to measure my success or lack of it. Making more money will not make me happier. It won't make me more comfortable, though it could undoubtedly be used to purchase more toys. That's an illusive form of happiness because it doesn't last long. Lasting happiness isn't derived from material things. Instead, it comes from those people around us.
So I'm not overly concerned about whether the couple at the next table are making more or less money than me, or whether we pay the same amounts in taxes. I don't believe the poor should be punished for not making more money, as the Heritage Foundation seemed to imply when they pointed out that poor people have air conditioning, cable television, and automobiles. It's not important and it doesn't have an impact on my happiness. I'm realistic enough to realize that some people will game the system regardless of their income level. The poor will be with us always, along with hucksters, shysters, and con men of various stripes.
I do know people who believe that by making more money, they're somehow better people. They're wrong, of course, because true character comes from within, not from a bank account.
My apologies for waxing philosophical today. I'm awash in a gallon or so of coffee as my work day started at 4AM. There's a nap in my immediate future.
Quote from: Ed W on October 22, 2011, 01:32:02 PMI'm awash in a gallon or so of coffee as my work day started at 4AM.
What the hell is that all about?
Quote from: guido911 on October 21, 2011, 07:27:46 PM
Let's work from the premise that 53% of Americans do not pay federal income tax. I went to the mall today, and to get there I had to drive through horrible traffic. How is it that 47 out of every hundred of those people in their vehicles or at the Apple store, or just walking around the mall pay no federal income tax? The answer of course is that the 53%ers make it possible through forced subsidization by taxation.
And another thing, let's assume that OWS is successful and Wall Street, bankers, and every other institution that OWS has targeted woke up tomorrow, saw the errors of their ways, and said: "You know what, you are right. We screwed up and we want to make amends. Who do we write the check to?" The easy answer is "The U.S. Treasury". However, the persons that have been actually and directly damaged by their misdeeds, in my opinion, is not every American. It's the 53% who paid the federal income tax that went to these institutions. In other words, the 47% that paid nothing isn't out a single dime. Now, if payroll (which is possible since the government does borrow money from Social Security--IIRC), state, and other taxes went to these institutions, we can discuss that. But it just blows my mind that I can be standing in any random group of 100 persons and know that almost half have no skin in the federal income tax game.
This is coo coo....%43 don't pay any Federal taxes because they are frickin' broke. The %57 don't blame the banks and instead they just say bend over and take it America.
Quote from: guido911 on October 22, 2011, 01:52:39 PM
What the hell is that all about?
We've worked tons of overtime this year. Our current manager wants turn around times of 2 weeks or less. The idea is to repair so-called black boxes more quickly, thereby reducing the number of spares needed in inventory. I've probably worked 2 out of 3 Saturdays since the beginning of the year.
To have some sort of weekend, I start work at 4AM on Saturday. My weekday shift starts at 7AM. I don't sleep well anyway, so getting up at 3AM isn't much of a stretch.
After writing that bit earlier, I did indeed fall asleep. I was out for about an hour, then grabbed a camera and went out to the 'Harvest' Festival (can't call it Halloween for fear the fundies will engage in a long bout of pearl clutching) where I took some photos. They're having a chili cook-off today, and if I ate as much as some of these folks, I'd probably be looking wistfully at a Portasan too:
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6091/6269950281_9cd85f6021_o.jpg)
Ed, with as hard as you work, I would think you wouldn't have the slightest bit of sympathy for people wanting everything for free.
G, you go looking for dooshbags, you'll find them. I think you take the extremes and assume they are the norm. The press kind of encourages that. My kid goes to BTW. He graduates this year and has done very well. But I have been on guard to make sure he doesn't get contaminated with the "we're special" mentality that I saw a few years ago when TPS changed the rules about leaving campus during lunch break. In case you aren't aware, high school kids had been leaving campus to race to the nearest food joints since I was in school. It created traffic problems, truancy problems and generally was a bad idea. So, TPS ended the practice.
The reason I remember was because one of the local news crews went over to BTW and interviewed a petulant, young, intelligent, girl who was whining about the change. She said, "But we're special here at BTW. We worked hard to get here and if we're doing well we shouldn't have to be punished for what other schools are doing. Its just not fair!" I didn't know whether to laugh or what. Our sons were on the track to go there but we didn't think of the school the same way.
Truth is she didn't represent the school, the administration of the school or even more than a handful of its students. I think there will be more demonstrations by different groups but in my opinion they are not based on logic, philosophy or religion. They are based on a gut feeling that things aren't fair and just. They see the world from a different perspective and they are not very good at determining just what is abuse of the system and what is a lack in their understanding of the system. To be fair I thought the TP'ers suffered the same problem but with better sponsorship and organization.
Quote from: AquaMan on October 22, 2011, 05:45:47 PM
G, you go looking for dooshbags, you'll find them. I think you take the extremes and assume they are the norm. The press kind of encourages that. My kid goes to BTW. He graduates this year and has done very well. But I have been on guard to make sure he doesn't get contaminated with the "we're special" mentality that I saw a few years ago when TPS changed the rules about leaving campus during lunch break. In case you aren't aware, high school kids had been leaving campus to race to the nearest food joints since I was in school. It created traffic problems, truancy problems and generally was a bad idea. So, TPS ended the practice.
The reason I remember was because one of the local news crews went over to BTW and interviewed a petulant, young, intelligent, girl who was whining about the change. She said, "But we're special here at BTW. We worked hard to get here and if we're doing well we shouldn't have to be punished for what other schools are doing. Its just not fair!" I didn't know whether to laugh or what. Our sons were on the track to go there but we didn't think of the school the same way.
Truth is she didn't represent the school, the administration of the school or even more than a handful of its students. I think there will be more demonstrations by different groups but in my opinion they are not based on logic, philosophy or religion. They are based on a gut feeling that things aren't fair and just. They see the world from a different perspective and they are not very good at determining just what is abuse of the system and what is a lack in their understanding of the system. To be fair I thought the TP'ers suffered the same problem but with better sponsorship and organization.
Aqua, I thought TPS ended open campuses when someone shot some EC students at the Wendy's (no longer there now) on 19th & Garnett back in the early 90s? I seem to remember that happening right after I moved back from Texas (around the end of 93 or first of 94).
I remember that being a popular lunch spot for us, as well as Cardinal Coney. Unless TPS reopened campuses after that again between back then and now.
Sorry for hi-jacking the thread, just curious about your noting that.
Back to our regularly scheduled topic.
Quote from: AquaMan on October 22, 2011, 05:45:47 PM
G, you go looking for dooshbags, you'll find them. I think you take the extremes and assume they are the norm. The press kind of encourages that. My kid goes to BTW. He graduates this year and has done very well. But I have been on guard to make sure he doesn't get contaminated with the "we're special" mentality that I saw a few years ago when TPS changed the rules about leaving campus during lunch break. In case you aren't aware, high school kids had been leaving campus to race to the nearest food joints since I was in school. It created traffic problems, truancy problems and generally was a bad idea. So, TPS ended the practice.
The reason I remember was because one of the local news crews went over to BTW and interviewed a petulant, young, intelligent, girl who was whining about the change. She said, "But we're special here at BTW. We worked hard to get here and if we're doing well we shouldn't have to be punished for what other schools are doing. Its just not fair!" I didn't know whether to laugh or what. Our sons were on the track to go there but we didn't think of the school the same way.
Truth is she didn't represent the school, the administration of the school or even more than a handful of its students. I think there will be more demonstrations by different groups but in my opinion they are not based on logic, philosophy or religion. They are based on a gut feeling that things aren't fair and just. They see the world from a different perspective and they are not very good at determining just what is abuse of the system and what is a lack in their understanding of the system. To be fair I thought the TP'ers suffered the same problem but with better sponsorship and organization.
The thing is that it's not just a few dooshbags. This movement is littered with them. Antisemitism, racism, violence, drug abuse, felons hiding in their ranks, as well as storming into restaurants and banks yelling and screaming, crapping on cop cars and in doorways, going to the homes of CEOs, trashing public property, and on and on and on. I read today that a mother of four from Florida abandoned her family to hang out with OWS.
Mother of the year nominee ::)
Quote
Hessler has spoken with her family -- husband Curtiss, 42; son Peyton, 17; and daughters Kennedy 15, Sullivan, 13, and Veda, 7 -- just three times since leaving them. "Friends are taking care of them," she said.
Not everyone has supported her decision. "My mother told me I was being very selfish," she admitted.
And her husband, a former Bank of America financial adviser who now works at a local Florida bank, is perplexed. "He says he's working for 'the Man,' and I'm fighting against him," she said.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/she_plans_to_stray_awhile_opuo0dDOjE39dfRDdUZ1sM (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/she_plans_to_stray_awhile_opuo0dDOjE39dfRDdUZ1sM)
Quote from: Hoss on October 22, 2011, 06:24:06 PM
Aqua, I thought TPS ended open campuses when someone shot some EC students at the Wendy's (no longer there now) on 19th & Garnett back in the early 90s? I seem to remember that happening right after I moved back from Texas (around the end of 93 or first of 94).
I remember that being a popular lunch spot for us, as well as Cardinal Coney. Unless TPS reopened campuses after that again between back then and now.
Sorry for hi-jacking the thread, just curious about your noting that.
Back to our regularly scheduled topic.
I vaguely remember the incident. There were numerous problems with students speeding from Edison down 41st over to Brookside as well. My first son graduated there in 2000 so it had to have been around 1996 when he entered because his was the first incoming class to be restricted to campus.
Guido, the only stories reported are the scandalous ones. I'm sure there are plenty of them. No one wants to hear about a quiet, well behaved group of demonstrators who are sober, keen of mind and wit, who show up at 8am and are in bed by 10pm. Doesn't sell ad space.
Quote from: AquaMan on October 22, 2011, 10:07:57 PM
I vaguely remember the incident. There were numerous problems with students speeding from Edison down 41st over to Brookside as well. My first son graduated there in 2000 so it had to have been around 1996 when he entered because his was the first incoming class to be restricted to campus.
The office I worked out of was just south of 21st on Garnett'
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-02-16/news/mn-23601_1_restaurant-employee (http://articles.latimes.com/1994-02-16/news/mn-23601_1_restaurant-employee)
Quote from: dbacks fan on October 23, 2011, 01:33:13 AM
The office I worked out of was just south of 21st on Garnett'
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-02-16/news/mn-23601_1_restaurant-employee (http://articles.latimes.com/1994-02-16/news/mn-23601_1_restaurant-employee)
I was busy with a 1 year old, a 11 yr old, a 14 yr old, the demise of an emotionally draining startup newspaper, and re-focussing to make a living. I'm afraid I wasn't really paying attention to a lot of stuff, even something as shocking as that. Pretty scary for parents to see what teenage hormones and guns can lead to eh?
Quote from: AquaMan on October 23, 2011, 10:27:09 AM
I was busy with a 1 year old, a 11 yr old, a 14 yr old, the demise of an emotionally draining startup newspaper, and re-focussing to make a living. I'm afraid I wasn't really paying attention to a lot of stuff, even something as shocking as that. Pretty scary for parents to see what teenage hormones and guns can lead to eh?
And to this day I still drive by that place (it's no longer a Wendy's by the way) and think of that shooting. Sad that I relate it to that, and not the times I went there in my junior or senior year for lunch.
Why is she unemployed? Perhaps because her clientele doesn't want this very special look.
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n271/douggells/owsphoto-1.jpg)
As the late Clara Peller famously asked, "Where's the beef?" There's been no criticism of the OWS central tenet - that Wall Street should be held accountable for crashing our financial system and the resulting nationwide havoc. I've seen lots of snide pokes at individuals, but not much about the message.
Quote from: Ed W on October 23, 2011, 04:13:32 PM
As the late Clara Peller famously asked, "Where's the beef?" There's been no criticism of the OWS central tenet - that Wall Street should be held accountable for crashing our financial system and the resulting nationwide havoc. I've seen lots of snide pokes at individuals, but not much about the message.
And you won't Ed. Republicans/TPers as a generality don't think much of those who don't fit the 'moral fabric' they mold themselves to. How about some of the screeching by those members in here about the sexual orientation of Rachel Maddow..who, by the way is Rhodes Scholar.
Don't hear them much screeching, however, about Vice President Cheney's daughter (Mary).
Quote from: guido911 on October 23, 2011, 03:45:45 PM
Why is she unemployed? Perhaps because her clientele doesn't want this very special look.
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n271/douggells/owsphoto-1.jpg)
She's on the wrong coast with that look. ;)
Quote from: guido911 on October 23, 2011, 03:45:45 PM
Why is she unemployed? Perhaps because her clientele doesn't want this very special look.
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n271/douggells/owsphoto-1.jpg)
When I was once dragged to Ihloff, I saw much weirder looking people working there.
I would think thats a pretty common look for a Cosmetologist, especially one under 25 yrs of age.
Quote from: Ed W on October 23, 2011, 04:13:32 PM
As the late Clara Peller famously asked, "Where's the beef?" There's been no criticism of the OWS central tenet - that Wall Street should be held accountable for crashing our financial system and the resulting nationwide havoc. I've seen lots of snide pokes at individuals, but not much about the message.
Are you kidding? Since when is Wall Street crashing the financial system the central tenet of OWS. Those people are going after everything from banks to health care to education to infrastructure, and to eating the rich in general. The message itself cannot be articulated, and those advancing whatever the message, are hampered by the behavior of most unsavory elements of our society.
Quote from: nathanm on October 23, 2011, 05:22:30 PM
When I was once dragged to Ihloff, I saw much weirder looking people working there.
Suuurrreee you were "dragged" to Ihloff. :P I was once "dragged" to Night Trips".
Quote from: AquaMan on October 23, 2011, 05:51:22 PM
I would think thats a pretty common look for a Cosmetologist, especially one under 25 yrs of age.
I guess every generation has their special look.
Quote from: Hoss on October 23, 2011, 04:29:13 PM
Rachel Maddow..who, by the way is Rhodes Scholar.
Just knocked my opinion of Rhodes Scholar down another notch.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 23, 2011, 06:18:23 PM
Just knocked my opinion of Rhodes Scholar down another notch.
And W graduated from Yale and Harvard Business School and we all know what a dumb@ss he is/was. Other notable Rhodes scholars: Kris Kristofferson, Gov. Bobby Jindal, and the Clenis.
Quote from: Ed W on October 23, 2011, 04:13:32 PM
As the late Clara Peller famously asked, "Where's the beef?" There's been no criticism of the OWS central tenet - that Wall Street should be held accountable for crashing our financial system and the resulting nationwide havoc. I've seen lots of snide pokes at individuals, but not much about the message.
+1
at the very roots I agree with the tenents of both movments:
TPM- Government: Stop being so big and stop being wasteful with my money
OWS- Coporations: if you are people then why do you like money more than other people?
I think the TPM is better at identifying the government as a collection of humans, while the OWS sees corporations more as nebulous entities.
Quote from: Ed W on October 23, 2011, 04:13:32 PM
As the late Clara Peller famously asked, "Where's the beef?" There's been no criticism of the OWS central tenet - that Wall Street should be held accountable for crashing our financial system and the resulting nationwide havoc. I've seen lots of snide pokes at individuals, but not much about the message.
But isn't that deflection? Wall Street was simply doing what Wall Street does, making money.
Our financial system was set on a path to imminent crash by the inflation of a bubble in the housing sector that snowballed.
Our own federal government is to blame. Policy was enacted to encourage banks to take on bad debt, and an assumption established that that debt would be guaranteed by the fed. Banks that did not participate in the loan guarantee process through Fanny & Freddy were subject to investigation and prosecution by the justice department.
Banks have sold investment products on loans for ever. Typically this is a good investment for those on Wall Street, because the elements of these products are vetted through the loan process and backed up by the lenders through collateral.
Investment products that contained loans with the Fanny & Freddy stamp were considered even better because after all, the federal government backed Fanny & Freddy.
Sure there were some speculators who were smart enough to understand that the government was creating a bubble, but there was nothing illegal in the trading of such assets. In fact, the government needed these accomplices to make the scheme work for as long as it did.
It has already been established beyond a doubt that the OWS crowd is not intellectually equipped to understand this, so the deflection on Wall Street alone is easy. Especially since good financial minds will learn to make money in good times and bad, and Wall Street has many such minds. This makes them the easy target for the intellectually impaired.
Meanwhile the architects of our financial collapse slouch towards the exit as their scapegoats weather the storm. I guarantee you that many OWS folks will decry the Wall Street banker, and then turn around and pledge continuing support for Barney Frank.
Well, at least you're posts are sort of entertaining.
So, OWS people are established to be "not intellectual enough" to understand what happened. Your usual arrogance. Who established that? You, Fox and Guido? Why didn't you include TP's as well? My lawyer friend in Washington walked among them with a banner touting single payer and was booed and yelled at. When he started talking to them they didn't even know what single payer was. In fact, most of them had no clear understanding of health insurance at all.
You say, the Federal Government Caused All This. So, since the federal government is made up of Americans from all walks of life, many political philosophies and spanning decades of different political party domination, are you saying that Americans are stupid, criminal, self serving scammers? What good does it do to blame something as amorphous as "the Federal Gubmnt"? The one thing you could have determined, with a little unaided personal reflection, was that Wall Street and the Federal Gubmnt share one thing. They depend on lobbyists paid for by Wall Street to write the financial legislation for politicians (whose campaign are funded by those same entities) that enables the whole process. But you only see the Feds as the problem because that is infinitely easier than creating solutions. What're you proposing? Eliminate the Fed? Throttle it till it is easily ignored by Wall Street?
And, your legal mind is keen today as well. Nothing illegal occurred? I just doubt your expertise on these matters. I'll go with your insights on Q, but not law and politics. Nonetheless, that is what all these demonstrations are about. People who make the rules to benefit themselves and their pals, play fast and loose with them and when it all falls apart and the masses have to pay for their orgy, continue to live like Princes while alleging they did nothing illegal.
In your rush to absolve Wall Street of blame and dismiss OWS as looney, indulgent, undisciplined hippies, you deflect from the fact that our system is failing us. The perception of corporate America and Wall Street in particular as predatory and elitist will continue to drive demonstrations by those not invited to the party, in one form or another
Quote from: AquaMan on October 24, 2011, 10:51:12 AM
Well, at least you're posts are sort of entertaining.
So, OWS people are established to be "not intellectual enough" to understand what happened. Your usual arrogance. Who established that? You, Fox and Guido? Why didn't you include TP's as well? My lawyer friend in Washington walked among them with a banner touting single payer and was booed and yelled at. When he started talking to them they didn't even know what single payer was. In fact, most of them had no clear understanding of health insurance at all.
You say, the Federal Government Caused All This. So, since the federal government is made up of Americans from all walks of life, many political philosophies and spanning decades of different political party domination, are you saying that Americans are stupid, criminal, self serving scammers? What good does it do to blame something as amorphous as "the Federal Gubmnt"? The one thing you could have determined, with a little unaided personal reflection, was that Wall Street and the Federal Gubmnt share one thing. They depend on lobbyists paid for by Wall Street to write the financial legislation for politicians (whose campaign are funded by those same entities) that enables the whole process. But you only see the Feds as the problem because that is infinitely easier than creating solutions. What're you proposing? Eliminate the Fed? Throttle it till it is easily ignored by Wall Street?
And, your legal mind is keen today as well. Nothing illegal occurred? I just doubt your expertise on these matters. I'll go with your insights on Q, but not law and politics. Nonetheless, that is what all these demonstrations are about. People who make the rules to benefit themselves and their pals, play fast and loose with them and when it all falls apart and the masses have to pay for their orgy, continue to live like Princes while alleging they did nothing illegal.
In your rush to absolve Wall Street of blame and dismiss OWS as looney, indulgent, undisciplined hippies, you deflect from the fact that our system is failing us. The perception of corporate America and Wall Street in particular as predatory and elitist will continue to drive demonstrations by those not invited to the party, in one form or another
Wow. You're going in all directions there. Don't get dizzy.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 24, 2011, 10:53:37 AM
Wow. You're going in all directions there. Don't get dizzy.
What, you're not intellectually equipped to keep up? :)
Just picked out a couple of egregious remarks you made and expounded upon them.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 24, 2011, 09:59:31 AM
But isn't that deflection? Wall Street was simply doing what Wall Street does, making money.
Our financial system was set on a path to imminent crash by the inflation of a bubble in the housing sector that snowballed.
Our own federal government is to blame. Policy was enacted to encourage banks to take on bad debt, and an assumption established that that debt would be guaranteed by the fed. Banks that did not participate in the loan guarantee process through Fanny & Freddy were subject to investigation and prosecution by the justice department.
...
Meanwhile the architects of our financial collapse slouch towards the exit as their scapegoats weather the storm. I guarantee you that many OWS folks will decry the Wall Street banker, and then turn around and pledge continuing support for Barney Frank.
Government's role is to be the nag that keeps Wall Street from going overboard and tanking the economy. At that, they failed, but not for any reasons you list. Your reasons are complete revisionist history thrown out there by Erick Erickson and his ilk so as to deflect the blame away from his side's failed policies.
Here are the facts: Despite all the talk about subprime, subprime isn't what gave us this mess. Subprime originations were less than a fifth of the total mortgage volume in the vintages where mortgage losses are highest. Fannie and Freddie aren't what gave us this mess, either. They were losing market share like mad to other securitizers who had lower standards. In the worst years (for losses), they had less than 50% market share. It only went back up after everyone else got out of the business after the crash.
Fannie and Freddie did make mistakes. Their CEOs saw the declining market share not as a good thing, but as them doing wrong by their investors. They managed to keep out until almost the end, but couldn't help but buy some super-senior tranches of toxic MBSes. This is where most of their losses not attributable to the general downturn in the housing market came from. Keep in mind that Fannie and Freddie did not have the authority to relax their lending standards or increase the size of loan they could purchase, and Congress did not expand their role until
after the meltdown, when they and FHA were providing all the liquidity in the mortgage market.
Remember, jumbo loans are called jumbo because neither the GSEs nor FHA can buy them. They got priced out of the vast majority of California and Florida before 2005, and that's precisely where most of the losses are.
Edited to add: Here's an image illustrating my point. There's something a little odd about the middle of the last decade...
(http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/OB-MK956_FANFRE_NS_20110208232002.jpg)
Quote from: AquaMan on October 24, 2011, 10:57:46 AM
What, you're not intellectually equipped to keep up? :)
Just picked out a couple of egregious remarks you made and expounded upon them.
The point is, if we can trace our economic failure to policy, then it is easy to remedy. We simply recognize, and do not make such policies in the future.
When the Federal Government aspires to manipulate markets, there is a negative consequence. A far reaching and powerful consequence that is difficult (if not impossible) to predict.
Why is that so hard to understand? Why do we have to learn that again, and again, and again?
Why is it so hard to understand? Because it's simply not true as a universal axiom.
Quote from: nathanm on October 24, 2011, 11:11:51 AM
Why is it so hard to understand? Because it's simply not true as a universal axiom.
Ahh, so that is why we are preparing to do it again. Perhaps eventually we will get this market manipulation thing right. Seems to permeate politics these days.
Recite the liberal mantra:
"If at first you don't succeed, try Keynes again."
Quote from: Gaspar on October 24, 2011, 01:00:59 PM
Ahh, so that is why we are preparing to do it again. Perhaps eventually we will get this market manipulation thing right. Seems to permeate politics these days.
Recite the liberal mantra:
"If at first you don't succeed, try Keynes again."
Can't be any different than the conservative/TP mantra.
"If at first you don't succeed, try Fox again"...
Quote from: Gaspar on October 24, 2011, 01:00:59 PM
Ahh, so that is why we are preparing to do it again. Perhaps eventually we will get this market manipulation thing right. Seems to permeate politics these days.
Recite the liberal mantra:
"If at first you don't succeed, try Keynes again."
And we can recite your mantra:
"If at first you don't succeed, go down on Rand again"The fact of the matter is that it was the private sector that blew up the mortgage market. You may not like the facts, but that's what they are.
Why is it a point of faith to you that markets are infallible? What regulation changed in 2003 to cause more private sector mortgage originations? What regulation requires anyone to lend to bad credit risks? What regulation even provides the barest of incentives for private securitizers to purchase bad loans?
Conversely, what market forces incent people to lend to bad credit risks. What market forces provide securitizers an incentive to package bad loans?
And even if you believe subprime was the source of our problem, you should be aware that traditional banks didn't originate many subprime loans precisely because the GSE's lending standards didn't allow for the banks to get subprime mortgages off their books that way. Subprime went to private securitizers.
Edited to add: You might consider reading some Adam Smith. His books are available at no charge from Google Books.
Santelli apparently gets it.
Quote from: guido911 on October 24, 2011, 02:49:49 PM
Santelli apparently gets it.
I would be more convinced if his complaint about government merely moving around money weren't equally applicable to the traders whom he is using as his backdrop. Delicious irony..
Quote from: guido911 on October 24, 2011, 02:49:49 PM
Santelli apparently gets it.
Santelli's a moron. I don't say that about many people, but . . . Santelli's a moron.
Quote from: we vs us on October 24, 2011, 03:16:42 PM
Santelli's a moron. I don't say that about many people, but . . . Santelli's a moron.
He's a moron? I don't like Obama, so I guess that makes him a moron.
Quote from: guido911 on October 24, 2011, 03:22:37 PM
He's a moron? I don't like Obama, so I guess that makes him a moron.
What, you hadn't already pre-decided that? Wow, knock me over with a feather.
Here's a good summation..NSFW...and my apologies in advance for the language. If the mods have to remove it, I fully understand.
(http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lt6je3MDcP1r4hrdso1_500.png)
Quote from: Ed W on October 24, 2011, 04:33:01 PM
Here's a good summation..NSFW...and my apologies in advance for the language. If the mods have to remove it, I fully understand.
(http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lt6je3MDcP1r4hrdso1_500.png)
That sure does get the point across, doesn't it?
Quote from: Ed W on October 24, 2011, 04:33:01 PM
Here's a good summation..NSFW...and my apologies in advance for the language. If the mods have to remove it, I fully understand.
(http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lt6je3MDcP1r4hrdso1_500.png)
I like that. And I'm assuming those hippies at OWS work and pay taxes that went to bailouts.
Quote from: we vs us on October 24, 2011, 05:04:29 PM
That sure does get the point across, doesn't it?
That's why banks need to seperate from investment and brokerage firms.
Quote from: guido911 on October 24, 2011, 05:33:57 PM
I like that. And I'm assuming those hippies at OWS work and pay taxes that went to bailouts.
Maybe you're not aware of this, but there are a lot of OWS folks who do in fact have jobs and pay taxes. The tea partyists could be attacked from that same angle, by the way, since there are a lot of retirees in their midst. ;)
Quote from: Ed W on October 24, 2011, 04:33:01 PM
Here's a good summation..NSFW...and my apologies in advance for the language. If the mods have to remove it, I fully understand.
(http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lt6je3MDcP1r4hrdso1_500.png)
I don't care who you are that's some fanfuckingtasticshit right there!
Just glad that was a Full Sail I was sipping on and not a Marshall's when I read it.
I don't get why some of these OWS morons are hanging out with children.
http://www.kpax.com/news/occupy-missoula-protester-facing-child-endangerment-charge/#