General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2220317

    TAX DAY, and 47 percent of all adult Americans pay NO Federal Income Taxes

    Locked

    by maxwell edison ·

    I wonder if such a thing happens in other industrialized countries? (Great Britain, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Japan, et al?)

    I wonder what will happen when the percentage of those paying NO Federal Income Taxes surpasses 50 percent?

    I wonder what will happen when our national debt equals – or exceeds – our GDP (Gross Domestic Product)?

    I wonder what will happen when the 20-somethings, 30-somethings, and 40-somethings realize their future is saddled with a huge unsecured debt?

    I wonder what will happen when the 20-somethings, 30-somethings, and 40-somethings realize they’ve been saddled with huge unfunded entitlement obligations to others?

    I wonder what will happen when …..

    But what the hell? Many of those 20-somethings, 30-somethings, and 40-somethings actually voted for it! To them: Have fun sleeping in the bed you made.

    This madness is simply not sustainable.

    The [i]progressives[/i] have been able to trump reality by playing the [i]compassion[/i] card. But in the end, they will be proven to be the Jokers – unfortunately, it will come at the expense of the rest of the deck.

    Yes, I wrote a pretty big check today. And not only am I not thanked for it, but I’m actually ridiculed. Maybe they want my heart as well?

    As hard as I try, and as hard as I work, funding my own retirement remains that elusive butterfly. Other people just won’t allow me to do it. And the check I wrote today proves it – maybe when I’m 80 or when pigs fly.

    Maybe I should chuck the effort and become a ward of the state. Maybe I’ll just do what’s necessary so I can become a tax receiver instead of a tax payer. Maybe I’m on the wrong band-wagon. Yea, that’s it; I’m on the wrong band-wagon.

    Happy tax day!

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2829399

      Chuck the effort

      by santeewelding ·

      In reply to TAX DAY, and 47 percent of all adult Americans pay NO Federal Income Taxes

      Become an enemy of the state.

      I have.

      Prudence does not allow me to tell you how.

      • #2829397

        A self-taught course, no doubt.

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Chuck the effort

        Let’s see, where are those enrollment papers?

    • #2829398

      Regardless of his disability

      by tig2 ·

      In reply to TAX DAY, and 47 percent of all adult Americans pay NO Federal Income Taxes

      We managed to pay our taxes about a month and a half ago. We are also trying to pre-pay 2011 taxes now. We are living on our retirement savings today because there isn’t a hell of a lot of choice. SSDI- that he paid into for over 35 years- doesn’t cover much.

      The system sucks mightily. I don’t know anyone that would dispute that. And I get that you are frustrated. Join the club.

      Forgive me, but I don’t see the value in kvetching about it.

      • #2829396

        Janus, my dear.

        by santeewelding ·

        In reply to Regardless of his disability

        Janus of the doorway.

      • #2829393

        Consider this

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Regardless of his disability

        You could consider me among the [i]unemployed[/i]. I haven’t had a full-time job in over a year.

        However, I don’t dare collect unemployment compensation from the government. I won’t do it; it’s a matter of principle. I want nothing from this government – except, of course, to be guaranteed protection of my civil liberties (dream on!).

        Instead, I get by the best I can. I do what I need to do. And I know what it’s like tapping into retirement savings – like I had to do today to pay my taxes so that other people might collect their unemployment benefits.

        What’s wrong with this !@#$%^& picture?

        And those who collect those unemployment benefits call me selfish!

        • #2829392

          Cuts to the bone, does it?

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Consider this

          I am tight-lipped.

        • #2829388

          I’m less concerned about me

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Cuts to the bone, does it?

          And more concerned about my son and other people’s sons and daughters – into whose lap this whole mess will ultimately fall.

          I give it ten years. It’ll make the Great Depression look like a walk on the beach.

        • #2829386

          On The Beach

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to I’m less concerned about me

          Yes.

        • #2827718

          And teh UK was in the same boat

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I’m less concerned about me

          The UK is STARTING to pull out of it this year, by half of the proposed growth anyway. Canada, having a better banking system didnt quite see the negative repercussions other nations did, but suffers all teh same because now that your dollar is worth less than ours, we pay mroe for gas at the pump because there is less revenue from you, just as power bills have gone up, lumber is more expensive etc. But alas, it is not the end of my world just yet, I have more to give.

          I certainly feel for you, poor old Americans are so hard done by in your communist society.

        • #2827477

          That’s what they want us to believe…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to And teh UK was in the same boat

          [i]The UK is STARTING to pull out of it this year,[/i]

          they’ll blow more smoke up our asses and re-arrange their mirrors… but the hardest is yet to come.

        • #2827423

          In your world, Tony

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to That’s what they want us to believe…

          I would believe the sky was falling too. In fact I’d have probably sucked on the tailpipe long ago, if I saw the world the way you do.

        • #2828523

          MY world…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to That’s what they want us to believe…

          … will be just fine. Some of those who try to enter it, though, might not be. It’s a simple world with simple rules… Be nice… and you can eat at my table. Be mean… at risk to life and limb.

        • #2828517

          That’s the thing, Tony

          by jck ·

          In reply to That’s what they want us to believe…

          [i]MY world…
          … will be just fine. Some of those who try to enter it, though, might not be. It’s a simple world with simple rules… Be nice… and you can eat at my table. Be mean… at risk to life and limb. [/i]

          A) If you’re *the* Alpha Male? Sure, you’ll be fine.

          B) Keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer. Know why? It’s the guy who’ll agree with you and smile at your face and buddy up to you…who will walk over you when you least expect it.

          Given you watch your back all the time and don’t trust anyone, you can enforce those rules.

          But, don’t make the same mistake others make. You can’t be all things all the time to everyone and know everything.

          Just remember: eventually, even the toughest male lion in the pride gets old and his arse gets kicked.

          So, buy lots of machine guns and hand grenades and let the ATF know you’re doing it. :^0

        • #2828482

          Exactly as it should be.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to That’s what they want us to believe…

          [i]Just remember: eventually, even the toughest male lion in the pride gets old and his arse gets kicked.[/i]

          If they can take it, they deserve it.

          [i]So, buy lots of machine guns and hand grenades and let the ATF know you’re doing it. [/i]

          I’m sure they know something… I DO have to show ID whenever I buy ammunition (which I’m happy to say is more available than it was just a few months ago).

        • #2828477

          I won’t get into specifics

          by jck ·

          In reply to That’s what they want us to believe…

          I’ll just say…I hope you didn’t buy more than a certain amount.

          And as for the alpha male thing:

          You don’t have to worry about me. I’m not out for anyone else’s money.

          Go shoot at thieves! :^0

          OMG…I need to get my 30-30 out and make sure it’s sighted-in so you don’t try and come and take my house!!! :-0

        • #2828467

          I only defend. (NT)

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to That’s what they want us to believe…

          .

        • #2829375

          It isn’t like I don’t get it

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to Consider this

          He was unemployed for nearly a year before the diagnosis and we didn’t file for SSDI until several months after that.

          I have some pretty ugly doctor’s bills- even after the insurance has done their minimal thing. Hell, we pay over $3600 a month for ONE of his scrips. We will do that for the rest of his life.

          [b]I’m[/b] not the enemy. You may not approve of how we are fighting our way through but at least we are fighting and not laying about whining about how we aren’t being given a fighting chance. YOU aren’t paying his medical bills, WE ARE.

          We PAID our taxes. Maybe we didn’t pay as much as some would like. Tough.

          We collect the SSDI that he paid into for over 35 years.

          Why in hell are you going after me?

        • #2829372

          Ain’t me going after you, Tig

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to It isn’t like I don’t get it

          I got my hands all over you, palpating for the least of your ailment.

          Dear God: Would that I could do more.

          I am more than sure that Max is of like mind.

        • #2829369

          Santee- I know YOU aren’t

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to Ain’t me going after you, Tig

          Others are.

          Person I considered a friend. Boy is my face red.

        • #2827328

          If you don’t consider me a friend. . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Santee- I know YOU aren’t

          ….. I can only ask that you take a second look. Did I really say what you thought I said? I won’t attempt to answer for you.

        • #2827327

          This reminds me of . . . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Ain’t me going after you, Tig

          ….. the truck that hit the curve ball out of left field into foul territory that hit me up side of the head with a 2×4 when I wasn’t looking. Or something like that.

          P.S. But something inside is telling me to just let it go.

        • #2827323

          Let it go

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to This reminds me of . . . . . . .

          Hit, System Restore.

          (I just had to, among other things, like pulling the plug on my router, checking connectivity, etc., after a slew of problems interfered with me being here…ain’t nobody remoting into my setup, is there?)

          Tig is loved; you are loved; and I love me.

        • #2827322

          Too late

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Let it go

          I’ve already let it go. But only in one sense. It’s that danged heart that keeps reminding.

        • #2829330

          The problem with bringing up issues like I did. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to It isn’t like I don’t get it

          ….. is that people (like you) see it as a personal attack on them. Rest assured, it’s not.

          I’m not attacking you or anyone like you. I’m rallying against an overall system that is not only unfair, but it’s destructive and has put us on the road to financial disaster.

          The train wreck is not only likely, but it’s imminent. What happens then?

          And what should I tell my son when he wonders why his generation is being handed a mess like this? Be thankful you don’t have any kids who ask you the same question.

          P.S. And people like me – who have also been paying into the same system for more than 35 years – have been warning others about the looming disaster that awaits. But not enough people would listen. They were too busy either playing or folding to the compassion card.

          P.P.S. How could you possibly think that starting this discussion was intended to be a personal attack against you? I’ve supported you and your causes for years.

        • #2827138

          but its a system you have funded.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to The problem with bringing up issues like I did. . . . .

          If ANYTHING, if you don’t support the system, at least get your money back.

          Not collecting what is rightly yours, that you have paid into (like it or not), is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

        • #2827077

          When you bring up an issue like this the way you did,…

          by jck ·

          In reply to The problem with bringing up issues like I did. . . . .

          …you imply the current regime’s actions to be bringing “imminent” damage.

          However, why don’t you talk about the [b]factual[/b] damage that was done previously?

          In the past administration, capitalistic business was allowed to profit and run rampant. What has it gotten our society?

          Practical economic ruin.

          Then, you criticize a similar botton-up system of assistance and improvement for the everyday American that has in our country’s past brought us back from the greatest economic oollapse in our country’s history.

          Perhaps you should teach your son what we should have learned from Teddy Roosevelt when he tried to corral and prevent unfettered capitalism: that greed to hoard the goods and riches of our country to one’s self or to a select group does no good to a country of varied peoples.

          BTW, I’m not nearly as old as you and have been paying in for over 30 years now. Do you think I have any less stake than you?

        • #2827719

          What’s wrong with this !@#$%^& picture?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Consider this

          You paid into a system designed to assist you when you were unemplyed and yet chose not to accept the benefits which you paid for. Therefore those that pay into teh system and choose to accept such benefits they have paid for owe you no apology.

          It is like paying for medical insurance and then letting yourself die because you are too proud to use the insurance. That’s nobody’s problem but your own.

        • #2828427

          Take the money

          by av . ·

          In reply to Consider this

          You paid into it. Thats what its there for.

          Maybe you’re too proud to do it, and thats your choice. I know you don’t like entitlement programs, but you’ve paid into unemployment for your entire working life. If you need it, its there. Theres no shame if you don’t abuse it and its certainly better than killing your retirement fund.

          AV

      • #2829390

        SSDI- that he paid into for over 35 years

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Regardless of his disability

        We’ve ALL paid into it – some for MORE than 35 years.

        However, it’s all gone; it’s all spent; it’s nothing but a bunch of IOUs in a file cabinet in West Virginia.

        Current – and future – tax payers are actually the ones paying for it.

        It begs the question, who’s going to pay for them?

        • #2829389

          Quit beating around the bush.

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to SSDI- that he paid into for over 35 years

          It is here, and, it is now.

        • #2829384

          I want to see some specific answers. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Quit beating around the bush.

          …. to these questions – the ones I initially asked:

          I wonder if such a thing happens in other industrialized countries? (Great Britain, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Japan, et al?)

          I wonder what will happen when the percentage of those paying NO Federal Income Taxes surpasses 50 percent?

          I wonder what will happen when our national debt equals – or exceeds – our GDP (Gross Domestic Product)?

          I wonder what will happen when the 20-somethings, 30-somethings, and 40-somethings realize their future is saddled with a huge unsecured debt?

          I wonder what will happen when the 20-somethings, 30-somethings, and 40-somethings realize they’ve been saddled with huge unfunded entitlement obligations to others?

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=329288&messageID=3277852&tag=content;leftCol

        • #2829381

          Specificity

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to I want to see some specific answers. . . . .

          Low chuckle.

        • #2829382

          And I didn’t even get. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Quit beating around the bush.

        • #2829358

          Don’t worry. The US Embassy in London is saving MILLIONS

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to And I didn’t even get. . . . .

          Currently 4m Pounds Sterling in unpaid charges and fines.

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/17/obama-ambassador-london-congestion-charge

          Pay up, you stingy bastards! It’s a bloody toll, not a tax. Our embassy staff in the US pay your road tolls. It’s my money you’re ripping off.

          The last London Mayor, (Red) Ken Livingstone, called the ambassador during Bush’s reign, Robert Tuttle, a “venal little crook”. Aaah! The Special Relationship.

          🙂

        • #2829315

          A tax by any other name. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Don’t worry. The US Embassy in London is saving MILLIONS

          ….. is still a tax.

          How many such [i]chameleons[/i] do we see every day? User fees, access fees, look at them listed in your phone bill fees, registration fees, surcharges, hospitatility fees, etc…….. and tolls.

          Build a toll booth. If they don’t pay, they walk.

        • #2827865

          Our solution

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to A tax by any other name. . . . .

          We don’t have many toll roads, one in Ontario. It was built by the government then privatised, sold to a foreign company.

          If you don’t pay your tolls, you can’t renew your plates. Drive with out of date plates, pay another fine, and so on.

          James

        • #2829373

          Hello??? I would be a tax payer here.

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to SSDI- that he paid into for over 35 years

          As would he. We PAID ours. We didn’t need to start forum discussions about it either.

          Just my opinion but you are starting the wrong fight with the wrong person.

          I am sorry you think that we should have seen this coming, stored millions of dollars and never touched anything that we had paid into.

          I’m equally sorry you think so little of me.

          I know, I know. We were so unforgivably stupid we even bought insurance thinking we were being responsible and yet completely screwing up your version of utopia that doesn’t include such things.

          Whatever.

          Personally, I am grateful that we HAVE that insurance. And I don’t feel a moments guilt that he collects SSDI. Just a thought here- I am not his marital partner. I will not collect survivor benefits. I will likely have to take time off work so that I can attend his funeral. Happy now?

        • #2829324

          Where exactly . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Hello??? I would be a tax payer here.

          ….. did I personally target you? Please be specific.

          And if I posted something that’s factually wrong, please point that out.

          Moreover, how could you possibly think that starting this discussion was intended to be a personal attack against you? I’ve supported you and your causes for years.

        • #2829317

          I started this discussion. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Hello??? I would be a tax payer here.

          …. by making a factual statement:

          [i](It’s) TAX DAY, and 47 percent of all adult Americans pay NO Federal Income Taxes[/i]

          and by asking five questions:

          [i]I wonder if such a thing happens in other industrialized countries? (Great Britain, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Japan, et al?)

          I wonder what will happen when the percentage of those paying NO Federal Income Taxes surpasses 50 percent?

          I wonder what will happen when our national debt equals – or exceeds – our GDP (Gross Domestic Product)?

          I wonder what will happen when the 20-somethings, 30-somethings, and 40-somethings realize their future is saddled with a huge unsecured debt?

          I wonder what will happen when the 20-somethings, 30-somethings, and 40-somethings realize they’ve been saddled with huge unfunded entitlement obligations to others?[/i]

          You didn’t answer any of the questions, but rather took offense to them being asked. What, in my original message (or subsequent ones), was targeting you? I have to wonder why you even posted what you did?

          Heck, I wish at least one person would try to answer the five questions in an objective manner?

        • #2828460

          I think…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to I started this discussion. . . . .

          Not trying to be snide or butt into a personal argument, but soap-boxing is often experienced as a personal attack by a lot of people, in fact, every person not feeling exactly like you do. Then, if someone has worries, then the perceived attack is quite real, even if it was not your intent. Whether it’s collateral damage or friendly fire, either way it’s no good being defensive about it.

        • #2828420

          That’s why they call it

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to I think…

          “taking offense”. It’s in the eye of the beholder, and their choice whether or not to “take offense”.

          That’s not to say that the choice is right or wrong, but absent evidence of specific intent, the onus is on the beholder.

        • #2828419

          Old guy told me once

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to That’s why they call it

          When I was young, now older and grateful for having taken it to heart, that I am beholden to not a thing said about me.

          Another, still older, advised me that

          “… (there is) nothing vulgar in Nature seen with the eye of science or of true art…”

          To be found buried in,

          http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/Hazlitt/TableTalk/PleasurePainting.htm

        • #2828317

          @Tony: Being offensive…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to That’s why they call it

          …means in a literal reading to “be making an attack”. And when soap-boxing, some people are often making wholesale attacks, so they shouldn’t be surprised and start whinging when someone acknowledges their existence and intent by taking offense.

        • #2828284

          @Santee: A very young person told me,,,

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to That’s why they call it

          “Why are you being cranky?”
          It was my two year old daughter.
          I stopped and thought about it, and no, there was no good reason.
          Saved my day, that.

        • #2828283

          Adds to mine, that.

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to That’s why they call it

          .

        • #2827145

          Two people

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to That’s why they call it

          can witness the same act or speech. One can be offended, the other not. The beholder decides.

        • #2826932

          One person…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to That’s why they call it

          can choose his words wisely :p
          The instigator carries responsibility; the ability of some victims to bear the attack is not in defense of the attacker, and you know that.
          Like this: If I hit you, and you shake it off, I’m still guilty of assault. Your good fortune in avoiding injury doesn’t count in my defense in regards to the making of the attack. It may shed doubt about the deadly force of my attack and so may lead to a smaller sentence than if you’d been massively unfortunate and died from that tap on the chin, but that’s just the way the cookie crumbles.

        • #2826900

          Indeed. One CAN chose his words wisely…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to That’s why they call it

          For example, your CHOICE of the word “instigator”, without any evidence of ill-intent, implies someone who has a preconceived notion that everybody is out to get him, and is seeking an excuse to claim some sort of victimhood status, presumably as justification to try to force his views or conditions on another when merely practicing those views hasn’t convinced them to see it his way.

        • #2826896

          You both

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to That’s why they call it

          Spar over the relatives of two relatives.

        • #2826880

          @tony

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to That’s why they call it

          In english please?

        • #2826876

          In english

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to That’s why they call it

          ” Daddeeee, he hurt my widdle feelwings. Go beat him up.”

        • #3033000

          The way the cookie crumbles…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to That’s why they call it

          If you pick on kids with bigfisted dads, don’t whine about taking a beating. :p
          Anyway, I was just trying to enlighten max about how his cute little agitprop blew up in his face, and how he could prevent that kind of backlash in the future.

    • #2829361

      That will the the good old USA for ya

      by the ‘g-man.’ ·

      In reply to TAX DAY, and 47 percent of all adult Americans pay NO Federal Income Taxes

      you made that bed long before now and you all know it.

      • #2829323

        You’re absolutely right

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to That will the the good old USA for ya

        We made our bed, and we now have to sleep in it.

        Some of us, however, have been rallying for years – even decades – against the way it was being made – and we’re the one’s getting short-sheeted. Actually, we’re all getting short-sheeted.

        • #2827717

          You mean you finally agree?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to You’re absolutely right

          I’ve said for years that your country could not sustain itself beased purely on eth lifestyle Americans feel they derserve to live by/ I don’t know how many times I have pointed out how personal gluttony will not be sustained forever. You can blame it on whatever you choose, and YES, all governments are so currupt in that way, you are not alone, just catching up and seeing reality first hand. Recessions happen and it takes teh actions of the people to change that, not just the government. I’ve said before that there’s nothing you can do by winging about government, all you can do is learn to live for less and make the most out of it one day at a time. Government’s are screwed globally, no matter hwo’s in power, and yours is no different, it’s just that the people like to pretend you are above the realities others have learned to face.

        • #2827638

          It all went wrong on

          by the ‘g-man.’ ·

          In reply to You’re absolutely right

          July 4, 1776.

          No Taxation Without Representation was it not…

        • #2827589

          You must have misunderstood, that’s all

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to It all went wrong on

          America was founded on the greatest constitution ever written by mankind. If people only still rode horses and carried muskets, life in America would be perfect. If more men wore knickers and women stayed at home raising children while their slaves tended the fields, life in America would be perfect.

          Damn progress screwed everything up for them.

    • #2829359

      US Government debt

      by excorpguy ·

      In reply to TAX DAY, and 47 percent of all adult Americans pay NO Federal Income Taxes

      This blog got me thinking of Social Security deductions that I have paid my entire working life. I am currently 46 years old.

      Originally when Social Security was started, it was only supposed to be a supplemental income in retirement. Also, at the time life spans were only within a year or two of when one started getting the benefits.

      Fast forward to today and many people have not saved enough money during their lives to support their retirement years. Many rely entirely on their Social Security checks for their existence.

      The simple fact is that Congress has spent the Social Security fund over the years. More people have been added to the roles without ever having worked and added to the existing fund with SSI and death benefits.

      Do I believe that I will receive ANY Social Security benefits after years of payroll deductions? It is simple math that the number or people draining the fund dry vs. those paying into it say NO.

      I expect very soon that age cutoffs will be enacted that those of a certain age will continue to be benefits. Those that fall under the magic number will be SOL.

      Add to this VAT and a National Sales Tax to bleed everyone with a few more years of this Ponzi scheme.

      My 2 cents…

    • #2829320

      I was with you, up to a point.

      by charliespencer ·

      In reply to TAX DAY, and 47 percent of all adult Americans pay NO Federal Income Taxes

      “The progressives have been able to trump reality by playing the compassion card.”

      Plenty of blame to go around across the political spectrum. Progressives didn’t go to war in the Middle East with no plan to pay for it other than running up the debt.

      • #2829312

        Do yourself a favor

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to I was with you, up to a point.

        And look at a breakdown of the federal budget. How much is spent, and where does it go?

        P.S. And try to just answer the five questions. Even if you want to blame Bush and the war in the middle-east, the questions are still worthy of being asked – and answered.

        P.P.S. I’m actually rethinking my position on the middle-east. Maybe simply isolating the whole lot of them the best we can is the better approach.

    • #2829299

      If it makes you feel any better…

      by notsochiguy ·

      In reply to TAX DAY, and 47 percent of all adult Americans pay NO Federal Income Taxes

      …your/our money is going to reform people and put them on the path of righteousness:

      http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/04/15/am.zarrella.scamming.irs.cnn

      In the article I read on this yesterday, the part that slayed me was that the IRS was given mountains of evidence from police/department of corrections sources, and pretty much only had to take it to a DA for prosecution. Instead, it was stated that they needed to start their own investigation from scratch.

      So, not only was the money flying out the door for the scam, but double the fact-finding efforts = double the taxpayers’ money it takes to stop these felons.

      Unreal.

      The Joker had it right in ‘The Dark Knight’; the government may as well put it in a pile and burn it. The heat from the fire would provide more tangible value than what we’re getting now.

      • #2829296

        Sometimes, lunatics provide intelligent answers.

        by jfuller05 ·

        In reply to If it makes you feel any better…

        Perhaps lunatic is an understatement when it comes to the Joker, but you understand what I mean. 🙂

    • #2829298

      Some answers re Canada

      by jamesrl ·

      In reply to TAX DAY, and 47 percent of all adult Americans pay NO Federal Income Taxes

      According to the Calgary Herald, 30% of Canadians pay no Federal Tax (though when you look at taxes, there are many other taxes that everyone pays.

      http://communities.canada.com/calgaryherald/blogs/hannaford/archive/2009/04/17/30-per-cent-of-canadians-pay-no-tax-at-all.aspx

      Regarding Taxes:
      http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/product_files/CanadianConsumerTaxIndex2007.pdf

      On National Debt to GDP ratio by country:
      Canada (62.3%)is similar to the US(60.8 %), better than some worse than others. Japan makes us all look good (170.4%). But I have to say, Canada’s trend over the past while has been going down (running surpluses yearly) until the recession.

      James

      • #2827776

        Please qualify your comments

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Some answers re Canada

        I ask this not because I doubt you, but because they do not match up with the information in the following article:

        http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071108/tax_rich_071108?s_name=&no_ads=

        [i]….Canadians with an income of $13,523 — the lowest 10 per cent of family earnings — were paying 30.7 per cent in federal and provincial taxes….[/i]

        By contrast, any American family of four with a household income of $50,000 per year or less, pays NO federal income tax – ZERO.

        Those with an annual household income of less than $50,000, not only pay NO federal income taxes, but it’s very likely they’ll get a gift of cash from those who do pay taxes.

        • #2827742

          Assumptions

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Please qualify your comments

          You assume the two statements are incompatible or inconsistent.

          The Calgary Herald article claims 30% of Canadians pay no income tax. Their article is based on a study from the right wing think tank, the Fraser Institute (who I don’t always agree with, but who I respect).

          The CTV story is based on a study by a left wing think tank. They claim the higher income earners have benefited from tax cuts which started in the mid 90s more than lower or middle income. It shows the top 5% pay less tax on a proportional (percentage of income basis) than poor. But when you look at the study directly (just look at the charts) you see the bottom 10% pay little federal and provincial tax, but proportionately more “other” taxes. The “total” taxes for the bottom 10 is about 25%, the top 1% 30%(the middle class pay more as a percentage).

          Certainly I know a large number of people who are adults who do not earn enough income
          to file, my wife is one. She has health issues which precludes her holding a steady job, but according to standards she does not qualify for any kind of government support. So much for living in socialist canukistan.

          I also know a number of women who raise kids instead of working, or take only part time jobs. The income threshold for filing a tax return in Canada is around $8500 for a single person. They would be part of the 30% that don’t pay taxes. I honestly don’t think it would equal 30% if that was the only group involved.

          Rough calculation for Ontario is that about 7% are on welfare, thats up as some people laid off in the recession use up their employment insurance benefits go onto welfare. If you are unemployed for a full year you’d probably get any taxes paid on employment insurance refunded. We also have seniors on limited incomes, and single mothers on welfare.So while 30% doesn’t seem outlandish, I couldn’t find a good breakdown. But that doesn’t mean all of those people are living off government funding.

          BTW I paid income taxes on the employment insurance income I got from the government when I was laid off in 2002.

          James

        • #2827716

          I see 30% too

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Please qualify your comments

          30% of Canadians pay no ‘income tax’ anyway.

    • #2827893

      answers

      by jck ·

      In reply to TAX DAY, and 47 percent of all adult Americans pay NO Federal Income Taxes

      [i]Yes, I wrote a pretty big check today. And not only am I not thanked for it, but I’m actually ridiculed. Maybe they want my heart as well?

      As hard as I try, and as hard as I work, funding my own retirement remains that elusive butterfly. Other people just won’t allow me to do it. And the check I wrote today proves it – maybe when I’m 80 or when pigs fly.

      Maybe I should chuck the effort and become a ward of the state. Maybe I’ll just do what’s necessary so I can become a tax receiver instead of a tax payer. Maybe I’m on the wrong band-wagon. Yea, that’s it; I’m on the wrong band-wagon.

      Happy tax day! [/i]

      Just a simple question, Max.

      Do you claim all your exemptions during the year?

      As your investments earn dividends, do you actively pay tax on them throughout the year?

      If you’re writing out a “big” check every tax year, I tend to think it’s because you have deferred paying taxes until the latest time possible, rather than at the point you are paid.

      I claim zero exemptions, plus pay in $10 each pay period extra.

      Each year, I get a 4-figure tax refund. About 2/3 of that is due to home mortgage interest write-off.

      Something is wrong if you’re writing a big check, because if you pay taxes on all your income at the time that you earn it within the tax tables the IRS publishes…you should have little or no tax burden to pay.

      And if you have any exemptions/write-offs, you should end up getting somewhat of a refund.

      I’m no tax advisor, but I’d bet there’s something else there.

      Anyways. Sorry you had to pay.

      I got my refund in February, and paid off some debt. 🙂

      Happy tax day :^0

      • #2827889

        In the UK, around 60% pay Income Tax

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to answers

        Doesn’t seem like it’s because they are poor, though.

        http://www.independent.co.uk/money/tax/majority-of-superrich-pay-no-income-tax-454178.html

        🙂

        • #2827884

          Yeah, I heard about…

          by jck ·

          In reply to In the UK, around 60% pay Income Tax

          folks like Roman Abromovich and others who are foreign nationals using the “non-domicile” exemption and avoiding some GBP 2B of taxes.

          Pity really. That’s monies I’m sure your nation could use well to help the sick or improve motorways.

        • #2827877

          It has done a 360

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Yeah, I heard about…

          Since the 60s when many rich people left Britain because of tax issues, including more than a few rock stars.

          Take a good listen to the Beatles “Taxman”, it isn’t just a pop song. The Beatles were subject like a few other very rich Britains to a super tax of 95%. So when whey sing 1 for you, 19 for me, they were not exagerating at all.

          Taxman:
          Let me tell you how it will be,
          There?s one for you, nineteen for me,
          ?Cause I?m the Taxman,
          Yeah, I?m the Taxman.
          Should five per cent appear too small,
          Be thankful I don?t take it all.
          ?Cos I?m the Taxman,
          Yeah, I?m the Taxman.

          (If you drive a car ), I?ll tax the street,
          (If you try to sit ), I?ll tax your seat,
          (If you get too cold ), I?ll tax the heat,
          (If you take a walk ), I?ll tax your feet.
          Taxman.

          ?Cause I?m the Taxman,
          Yeah, I?m the Taxman.
          Don?t ask me what I want it for
          (Taxman! Mister Wilson!)
          If you don?t want to pay some more
          (Taxman! Mister Heath!),
          ?Cause I?m the Taxman,
          Yeah, I?m the Taxman.

          Now my advice for those who die, (Taxman!)
          Declare the pennies on your eyes, (Taxman!)
          ?Cause I?m the Taxman,
          Yeah, I?m the Taxman.
          And you?re working for no-one but me,
          (Taxman).

      • #2827858

        It is an empty complaint anyways

        by ic-it ·

        In reply to answers

        Those that did not pay really aren’t making much in the way of income.
        That includes head of households working two or more jobs.
        I too had to write a fairly large check, for that I am happy.
        It means that i am still earning and providing for my family. I will increase my withholdings this year just enough to avoid the penalties. It is my money and I am not giving them a free ride.

        To suggest this financial mess is the result of the progressives, come on, you are smarter than that.

      • #2827777

        You baited me with your title. . . . .

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to answers

        …. so I read your message.

        But alas, I discovered that you did not answer my questions at all. Your misleading message title said [i]answers[/i], but there were none. There were only questions for me. I’ll make a deal with you. You answer my questions first, and then I’ll answer yours.

        • #2827714

          A fool and his money are soon parted, ‘they’ say

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to You baited me with your title. . . . .

          If you pay for insurance, you are only right to collect that insurance. Just like OAP, Medical Insurance, motor vehicle insurance. If you feel you are more of a man by not collecting what you have paid for, that’s your ‘choice’, and YOUR choice is exactly what it is. You can’t then go and complain that you made such a choice and see no benefit from it.

        • #2827478

          The answer could lie within my question

          by jck ·

          In reply to You baited me with your title. . . . .

          See, you put out that you are paying out taxes.

          However, you do not supply the method or arrangements you have to pay them out during the year…and imply that you are paying out more than the IRS mandated schedule.

          Hence, no one can definitively say why your tax bill is a burden on you or not.

          It would be like you asking an accountant to do the taxes for your wages without giving them your check stubs, W-2, etc.

          Why are you paying high taxes on your submission?

          For all I know, it could be because you’re being penalized for delinquency.

          Hence, this is the answer to your question:

          No one can solve your problem, unless given the full breadth of terms by which you paid during the year.

          But if you want answers to your diatribe, then here some direct ones are:

          [i]I wonder if such a thing happens in other industrialized countries? (Great Britain, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Japan, et al?)[/i]

          Yes. Lower income folks in other countries are exempted from tax, as well as wealthy people who use loopholes to get income exemptions.

          [i]I wonder what will happen when the percentage of those paying NO Federal Income Taxes surpasses 50 percent?[/i]

          Many things can happen. That all depends on what the Congress passes into law.

          [i]I wonder what will happen when our national debt equals – or exceeds – our GDP (Gross Domestic Product)?[/i]

          Again, many things can happen.

          Maybe China will invade?

          [i]I wonder what will happen when the 20-somethings, 30-somethings, and 40-somethings realize their future is saddled with a huge unsecured debt?[/i]

          I’m a 40-something. I can only speak for myself.

          A lot of the fiscal conservatives complained about Clinton, but he at least balanced a budget. He made departments tighten their belts and make things work without killing off departments and offices that did provide needed service.

          Then when those fiscal conservatives got their candidate in office, he skyrocketed the debt with no positive result other than increasing dividends on a select group of stocks (finance and oil).

          So what is this 40-something going to do? I’ll give someone besides the status quo politicians a chance to do something constructive, rather than let party politics dictate our country’s direction.

          [i]I wonder what will happen when the 20-somethings, 30-somethings, and 40-somethings realize they’ve been saddled with huge unfunded entitlement obligations to others?[/i]

          It didn’t just start. Been going on for decades.

          And since it’s been going on for years, why did you and your generation not do something about it so things would be better?

          [i]But what the hell? Many of those 20-somethings, 30-somethings, and 40-somethings actually voted for it! To them: Have fun sleeping in the bed you made.[/i]

          Hm. Let’s see.

          The country is in a mess from 8 years of “conservative” direction, yet it’s the total fault of a president who hasn’t been in office even half his term?

          Your hypothesis is faulted for that, and the fact that *all* of these problems you claim are what the younger folks “voted for”…have all existed for decades.

          [i]The progressives have been able to trump reality by playing the compassion card. But in the end, they will be proven to be the Jokers – unfortunately, it will come at the expense of the rest of the deck.[/i]

          I’m surprised you didn’t sneak a Clinton/”poker” joke in there too.

          As for the “compassion card”, the “conservatives” played that as well. Bush was always making empassioned speeches about “helping the people of Iraq”. Well, over $700B spent over there and what do we have?

          Nothing.

          Iraqi independence has not taken place.
          Iraqi military is still not stable.
          Iraqi economic conditions have barely improved.
          Iraqi infrastructure is still a mess.
          Iraqi borders are still insecure.

          So, we’ve spent $720B in Iraq and benefitted how?

          At least Obama’s healthcare plan gets people medical attention which means people are more able to work, and it is designed to reduce wasteful spending in government healthcare systems.

          Is there wrong with more able-bodied workers and lower amounts of wasteful government spending?

          [i]Yes, I wrote a pretty big check today. And not only am I not thanked for it, but I’m actually ridiculed. Maybe they want my heart as well?[/i]

          No, paying your taxes will do just fine. Keep your heart.

          BTW, no one gets thanked by the IRS. Stop whining.

          [i]As hard as I try, and as hard as I work, funding my own retirement remains that elusive butterfly. Other people just won’t allow me to do it. And the check I wrote today proves it – maybe when I’m 80 or when pigs fly.[/i]

          Who is stopping you? You have no retirement investments?

          As much as you act like you make, you should be able to. I’m just a piddly computer programmer, and I have a tidy sum put away less than 10 years after having to cash in because of post-9/11 circumstances.

          Rather than a tax advisor, it sounds like you could use a financial advisor if your financial future is so bleak.

          [i]Maybe I should chuck the effort and become a ward of the state. Maybe I’ll just do what’s necessary so I can become a tax receiver instead of a tax payer. Maybe I’m on the wrong band-wagon. Yea, that’s it; I’m on the wrong band-wagon.[/i]

          Perhaps you should.

          Then, you can eat bland food and not get to choose what you eat.

          And, you will have to watch whatever channels they have on the TV in the home you are put into.

          Plus, you won’t get to decide what games you wish to play as the home will decide your recreational activities.

          There you go. Choose to be a ward, and you lose your choices in life.

          BTW, I’m pondering going back to school and staying on the financial assistance program as long as I can. $50k in loans per year + $15k grants? Tax free?

          I could live like a king and bolster my retirements easily.

          I wonder if I can stretch out getting a degree in kennel cleaning for 8 years. :^0

        • #2827321

          I rest my case

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to The answer could lie within my question

          You’re not worth my time.

        • #2827320

          Not

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to I rest my case

          I assure you, Max, when it comes to [b]jck[/b] and grapefruit.

          The man is far-seeing.

          ____

          Wayward bracket.

        • #2827318

          Okay. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Not

          …. he’s a grapefruit.

        • #2827317

          No.

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Okay. . . . .

          You are confused. I am the grapefruit.

        • #2827316

          Fine. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Okay. . . . .

          Then jck is not worth my time.

        • #2827315

          Can’t bring yourself to say

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Okay. . . . .

          “Shitforbrains”?

          _________

          They’re on to me. “Shithead” used to work.

        • #2827311

          Shitforbrains

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Okay. . . . .

          Why do you want to force me to say it?

          P.S. Just drop it. Nothing will change my opinion of jck. You’re only making me elaborate.

        • #2827310

          Like your

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Okay. . . . .

          Consignment of me to hell?

          Face it: you’re malleable.

          Mark of intelligence, in some cases; indecision and rubber legs, in other cases.

        • #2827308

          I don’t . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Okay. . . . .

          ….. consign you to hell.

          I consign that jck isn’t worth my time – something he’s proven (just look at his mesages).

          You confuse the two.

          If you want to defend jck, then be prepared to defend – and agree with – what he says. (And spare me the right to say it crap, because I have the same right to reply in disagreement.)

        • #2827305

          P.S. to Santee

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Okay. . . . .

          Just drop it. It’s not your fight.

        • #2827304

          Still mulling over

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Okay. . . . .

          What was said in another thread about penal and custodial.

          [b]Oz, jck,[/b], even, [b]Tony[/b], announcing shitforbrains.

          Surprised you didn’t put in an appearance.

        • #2827301

          You’re Still mulling . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Okay. . . . .

          [i]….. over what was said in another thread about penal and custodial….. Oz, jck, even, Tony, announcing shitforbrains…… Surprised you didn’t put in an appearance. [/i]

          Never saw it. I have no idea what you’re talking about.

          P.S. I avoid Oz like the plague he is. I don’t read his messages. He’s proven unworthy of my time.

        • #2827300

          You deprive yourself

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Okay. . . . .

          Of current study in anthropology.

        • #2827297

          Okay, fine.

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Okay. . . . .

          [i]I deprive myself of the current study in anthropology.[/i]

          I can live with that.

          Have a nice evening. Time for me to sign-off.

        • #2828568

          Blah blah blah

          by jck ·

          In reply to Okay. . . . .

          I gave you answers as you requested, yet you gave nothing back other than an insult.

          You running for political office yet? You’d fit in well with the not keeping promises thing.

          Fact is, you have no comeback for what I said because it’s all true.

          Conservatives have spent almost $1T between Iraq and Afghanistan in the past several years, and we have NOTHING for it. Gas is higher, terrorism is still spreading, etc.

          Yet, you will fault “progressives” (your PC term for socialists) for passing legislation which looks after the medical well-being of our nation.

          I’m spot on. America will benefit. It just doesn’t seem that way to you, since it doesn’t put another dollar in your pocket.

          You know, maybe you’d have more retirement money if you bought more gas-efficient vehicles?

          Think about that. Maybe this blaming the government is due to a lack of actually evaluating what you’re doing wrong too.

          I’m not perfect, and neither are you.

        • #2827314

          Iraqi …….

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to The answer could lie within my question

          [i]Iraqi independence has not taken place.
          Iraqi military is still not stable.
          Iraqi economic conditions have barely improved.
          Iraqi infrastructure is still a mess.
          Iraqi borders are still insecure.
          [/i]

          Your god, Barack Obama, promised, that if he were elected, all troops would be out of Iraq in one year.

          He lied.

          I predicted that it was a lie.

          You’re an idiot. So is Obama.

        • #2827285

          Thought it was combat troops?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Iraqi …….

          While referring to combat operations in Iraq: “I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011,”

          “In his remarks today about the successful completion of Iraq?s second ever national election, President Barack Obama said that there are now less than 100,000 troops in Iraq and he assured the Iraqi people that the United States will fulfill their obligation and have U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by the end of August. Obama said, ?By the end of August, our combat mission will end.?

          So he forsees a combat mission ending by August and all troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011.

          WWII ended in 1945, yet many nations still have troops in Germany to this day.

        • #2828560

          So, let’s see if you’re right…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Iraqi …….

          First source – Reuters news report by Missy Ryan of Reuters in Baghdad, Iraq on Wed Nov 5, 2008 3:40pm EST:

          [i]Obama opposed the U.S. war in Iraq from the beginning, and his promise to pull combat troops out of the country by mid-2010 was a cornerstone of his campaign.[/i]

          That was reported the day after he was elected. So, that’s fresh after the campaign trail.

          Then, just this on January 28, 2010 from UNI:

          [i] Washington, Jan 28 : While renewing his pledge to continue to fight al Qaeda, President Barack Obama has said the United States would withdraw all its troops from Iraq by the end of August, leaving that country to its people.

          “As a candidate [last year], I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as the President,” he said in his state of the Union Address last night. [/i]

          And in fact, he did not promise a year. He campaigned on 16 months. Even the prime minister of Iraq knew that, as shown in this interview with German site SPEIGEL on July 19, 2008:

          [i][b]Iraq Leader Maliki Supports Obama’s Withdrawal Plans[/b]

          In an interview with SPIEGEL, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Barack Obama’s 16 month timeframe for a withdrawal from Iraq is the right one.

          Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports US presidential candidate Barack Obama’s plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. When asked in and interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded “as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned.” He then continued: “US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”[/i]

          So, Max. You are the idiot. Get your facts right before you go claiming you know what you’re talking about.

          Because as far as I can figure, 16 months from January 20th, 2009 would be May 20th, 2010. And, Obama readjusted the deadline to August after negotiations with the Iraqi government on what was agreeable.

          You’re an idiot. Obama is Ivy League educated.

          And, I proved you to be stupid/wrong once again.

          Oh BTW, I am a Christian. My God teaches forgiveness, understanding, compassion and love.

          Maybe you should go to church more, if you are a Christian too, and get that hate and bitterness out of your heart.

          And, my God isn’t Barack Obama.

          I’m just smart enough to realize just because you’ve played with money all your life doesn’t make you qualified to run something or a born leader.

          Have a nice day.

      • #2827715

        Yeah I look forward to it

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to answers

        I don’t see or keep my tax returns, for another year anyway, but then I’ll have that extra few grand each year, no GSt rebate of course, people who earn more money and buy more goods (thus paying more GST) don’t get get such quarterly rebates. Mind you the GST rebate isn’t even enough to fill my gas tank once. But it was 19 degrees and stunningly beatiful today, went and hung out at the marine with a friend and had salmon fihss and chips, yummy. Glad I can afford to pay taxes and enjoy when I’m not working though.

        • #2827472

          Well…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Yeah I look forward to it

          I think the case is concerning Max:

          He takes as many exemptions as he can during the year, and maybe makes extra earnings for which he doesn’t pay at a rate that would cover the tax obligation.

          Then when April 15 comes and he didn’t pay in enough during the year, he has to write a fat check.

          He sees that as paying “too much” when it is, in reality, what everyone else is paying too.

          Hell. I paid 5 figures in taxes this past year. Between 25 and 30 percent of my income to the US government. Plus 7.65 percent FICA/Medicare.

          Does it bother me? Yeah. I get no free anything in this country. While I think people unable to provide for themselves should get help, there has to be a determination to differentiate between [b]unable[/b] and [b][u]unwilling[/b][/u].

          The US Government is REALLY bad at that. They need to find those who can work (and as I have said repeatedly before) and make the Jamestown, Virginia precident apply:

          If you’re able to work and you don’t…and your family won’t provide for you…then you will starve…

          Starvation is a huge motivator to work.

          And oh yeah. Someone tries to steal from you rather than work and earn their meals…allow the victim to shoot the criminal.

        • #2827466

          But what if…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Well…

          [i]Someone tries to steal from you rather than work and earn their meals…allow the victim to shoot the criminal. [/i]

          … he doesn’t kill the criminal, but disables him for life?

        • #2827461

          Give him…

          by jck ·

          In reply to But what if…

          another bullet :p

        • #2827446

          Again

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Give him…

          with the entitlements. Bullets aren’t FREE, you know 🙂

        • #2827421

          Simple

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Again

          Get a bif f’in rock. Don’t need guns,, choke the bugger into reality.

        • #2827417

          It is cheaper…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Again

          to give the victim another bullet to finish the job and clean up the gene pool, than to have to pay $40k-65k imprisoning a free-radical human…or worse yet…the $300k a year giving them care if they are a vegetable.

          Or, there is another option:

          Let their family take care of them. If the family doesn’t want to, then nature will take care of that easy.

          Either way, things would be dealt with.

        • #2827403

          jck

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Again

          Question: what if the family wants to but can’t.

        • #2827400

          So sorry…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Again

          If ya can find someone willing to feed, take care of, bathe, buy expensive medical supplies for a vegetable guy who got that way from being shot in the head while robbing someone?

          Well, let them take care of him.

          Otherwise, I don’t think it’s society’s responsibility to take care of persons whose maladay came in the course of violating the law.

          Otherwise, why don’t I just go ram my car into a crowd of people then plunge into a tree and get brain damaged so my parents can claim medicaid and medicare for me and live in my house free as welfare will pay for it all?

          Sorry. I can’t see maintaining the physical well-being of a criminal. Makes no sense.

        • #2827363

          We do it

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Again

          [i]I can’t see maintaining the physical well-being of a criminal. Makes no sense.[/i]

          for child abuse and neglect perpetrators…

        • #2828572

          Yeah well..

          by jck ·

          In reply to Again

          I have vocalized to several representatives, past and present, my advocacy of the death penalty.

          But for some reason, we have to pay $1Ms of dollars to keep mass murderers and baby rapers in prison for a lifetime.

    • #2827770

      Selfish versus Compassionate

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to TAX DAY, and 47 percent of all adult Americans pay NO Federal Income Taxes

      In today’s talk, if Person-A wants to keep what he earns so that he can decide what to do with it himself, he’s called [i]selfish[/i].

      By contrast, if Person-B wants to take those earnings from Person-A – either for himself or for the presumed benefit of others – he’s called [i]compassionate[/i]

      What’s wrong with this picture?

      • #2827713

        Yes

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Selfish versus Compassionate

        Someone that doesn’t want to pay taxes, that lives in a nation like all others that collects such taxes, is either delusional or overly hopeful.

        I don’t want to pay taxes either, but guess what, we all do if we earn a living and want to enjoy our freedoms. If we didn’t pay taxes, you would end up being paid about half of what you do now. NET income is what you should focus living on, that’s what you really earn, forget calculating gross figures.

    • #2827762

      All aboard the gravy train

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to TAX DAY, and 47 percent of all adult Americans pay NO Federal Income Taxes

      People are either afraid to admit they’re riding on a gravy train, or they’re afraid of being criticized for not wanting to fund it.

      • #2827712

        Which gravy train?

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to All aboard the gravy train

        Please, interview 10,000 people collecting EI or welfare and let me know how many live a comfortable life riding the gravy train. THen let me know how many have no hope of furthering their education due to costs and retraining limitations, how many USED to pay a lot of money in taxes and wish they could again, how many are living with people they can’t stand because they simply cannot afforf to live alone, how many couldn’t afford to buy the kids new shoes, pens and pencils for school, how many couldn’t afford to help their mother with her health issues before she passed away, how many can’t afford to feed themselves after they spent their entire welfare check feeding and keeping a roof over their kids heads (if they are fortunate enough).

        Man, you sure do find some bizarre issues to feel sorry for yourself about. Are you feeling a little less fortunate due to your work status over the last year? I truly do hope things turn around for you, I’ve been there and AM there now. I have the skills to find SOME work but I am not working full time either, but I don’t blame that on anyone, it’s just that the most of the world has fallen on hard times, I am not alone.

        I know a lot of people a lot worse off than me, I choose to think myself lucky that I can still enjoy my life, instead of feeling sorry for myself and blaming my current financial staus on others who are even less fortunate than me.

    • #2827756

      I hit some nerves with this one

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to TAX DAY, and 47 percent of all adult Americans pay NO Federal Income Taxes

      .

    • #2827739

      What surprises me is that you are surprised!!!

      by sleepin’dawg ·

      In reply to TAX DAY, and 47 percent of all adult Americans pay NO Federal Income Taxes

      C’mon Max, I warned everyone here many times over that the best reason for keeping a low profile financially speaking was to avoid as much and as many taxes as possible and keep what little is left of our privacy and freedoms.
      Take note; I said [b][i][u]AVOID[/b][/i][/u] not evade.
      Well the chickens have finally come home to roost and none of them look to be too healthy or, for that matter, edible. I tried to give some investment advice but was pretty much ridiculed for my efforts.
      People keep asking me how I’ve made out during the recent financial boondoggles, which, by the way, are still going on, witness Goldman-Sachs. I reply, “Anyone can make money in a bull market but it takes a really good investor to make money in a bear market as well.” So far I’m doing just fine financially, thank-you very much. Now if I could just get my bones to knit properly I could really get to work on some of the opportunities I see comming up.

      [b][i]Dawg[/b][/i] ]:)

      • #2827737

        Been wondering about you

        by santeewelding ·

        In reply to What surprises me is that you are surprised!!!

        Have you made provisions against the pissed have-nots eyeing you as a have, no matter how much you have?

        • #2827735

          Nah, not at all. Still rely on Messers Smith & Wesson for security.

          by sleepin’dawg ·

          In reply to Been wondering about you

          I may be on the limp for a bit but I’ll never be a victim. I’ve always maintained that if you look and behave like a victim you’ll end up being one.
          I follow the old boy scout motto, “Be Prepared”.

          [b][i]Dawg[/b][/i] ]:)

      • #2827736

        BTW Max they still haven’t closed all the loopholes for tax avoidance.

        by sleepin’dawg ·

        In reply to What surprises me is that you are surprised!!!

        Or all the offshore tax havens and they probably never will, even if they could.

        [b][i]Dawg[/b][/i] ]:)

    • #2827726

      What? Tax?

      by .martin. ·

      In reply to TAX DAY, and 47 percent of all adult Americans pay NO Federal Income Taxes

      I can’t do that until July :p

    • #2827721

      Wow, I’m so sorry.

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to TAX DAY, and 47 percent of all adult Americans pay NO Federal Income Taxes

      Seriously, Max. Once I manage to stop the flow of tears and catch my breath, I’ll say a prayer for you. It really upsets me that the government doesn’t send me a thank you letter either, but it is heartwarming to know that they need my money so badly that they wouldn’t forget to take it each year and merely give me a safe, democratic nation with all the freedoms to enjoy the life I have made for myself. 30% of Canadians don’t have such obligations as me, kinda makes me feel fuzzy inside.

      I have to admit that it’s also a privilege being the only Canadian that pays taxes, I know how it feels to be so alone in suffering from an extorted income, however it makes me feel so unique and important. I know that IF I ever get the fortune of retirement, I will also live on limited income and they will take a piece of taht too, and what do I get? Freedom? Peace? Safety? Health? A home? Weekends doing what I choose to do? Pshaw!

      The fact that I have a home, a warm bed, food in the fridge and friends that I can enjoy my free time with means nothing in the grand scheme of things, I too am hard done by, I pay taxes (well in fact my income is simply stolen from me and given to others without so much as a thank you), but that’s okay.

      I’m the one who has it rough, not those who are disabled and unable to work, not those who’s parents were drunks and crackheads so they were too screwed up to finish their education and get a good job, not those who didn’t even have parents and were raised in foster homes and living with the resulting mental issues, it is ME that is hard done by. MY life is not fair and for that, I will shed these tears for those poor souls who are so desperately downtrodden, like us, and hope to hell that those that go without are bloody grateful for my sacrifice.

      ‘kin whiny little clown.

    • #2827720

      What will happen when it passes 50%?

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to TAX DAY, and 47 percent of all adult Americans pay NO Federal Income Taxes

      Then less than half of yoru nation will be paying income tax. And perhaps you won’t be able to bomb Baghdad, or next week’s target without considering costs, maybe some of those people who are wrongly incarcerated at your personal expense will have to be released, MAYBE just maybe, you will have to be mroe resourceful (sorry, just a maybe don’t want to scare anyone here), MAYBE you;ll have to pay a little more for yoru resources and take less from other nations, oh fiddlesticks, it’s all Obama’s fault. If Bush was still in power your could waste the trillions you choose to on idiotic means and then pretend it was all okay again while your government slips further into debt.

      It’s amazing how one man can screw up your nation in a mere year and a few months. Especially after teh repiblican party did such a great job of strengthening yoru economy and saving money for the prior 8 years. Oh, how stable your country was and how screwed up it is now, and they would have gotten away with it if it wasn’t for them meddling democrats!

      • #2827299

        meddling democrats

        by flakeyjake ·

        In reply to What will happen when it passes 50%?

        Actually the way I see it is the fact that lawyers should not be involved in the day to day running of any government in any way whatsoever. My opinion is that the majority of the worlds problems stems to the fact that a lawyer is only out for their-self. Besides, it is easier to be a lawyer than a scientist or engineer, which is in a short supply nowadays.

    • #2827705

      Behind the 47%

      by thechas ·

      In reply to TAX DAY, and 47 percent of all adult Americans pay NO Federal Income Taxes

      Max,

      I agree that the 47% projection from the Tax Policy Center is troubling. At least until you start looking behind the numbers.

      Start with the Tax Policy Center report that is quoted as a source by many news stories.

      http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=1001289

      The first thing to note is that the 47% that will owe no federal income tax in 2009 is based on a computer model.

      The more significant item to note is that the vast majority of those that will owe no income tax are families earning less than $40,000 in 2009.

      I came across one statement in an article that said without the stimulus credits, the number of tax payers who would owe no income tax will drop to 38%

      Still, what is missing in Tax Policy Center Report and all the news stories is that the main factor behind the 47% number is the loss of income for large numbers of families in this recession.

      Another fact that was skipped, is that all of those tax payers in the 47% still paid their social security and Medicare taxes. So even if they ended up getting full refund of Federal Income Tax, they still contributed to the funding of the government.

      One final thought on this. If you look at the details of the so called “fair tax”, the prebate for low income families would amount to about the same percentage of people with no Federal tax burden.

      Chas

    • #2827590

      Your 47% is not just the unemployed either

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to TAX DAY, and 47 percent of all adult Americans pay NO Federal Income Taxes

      The figrue includes, people who work full time and pay income taxes, sales taxes etc. but have enough deductions that they are not required to pay taxes on federal tax day.

      Some of them even get a ‘rebate’ that MAY actually exceed what they pay in taxes.

      Single mothers who work full time, get to write off babysitting/extended child care costs and more.

      Low income, full time workers, often the family’s sole breadwinner, also get great write offs.

      Senoir citizens, I don’t know how they get by pn what they get given in social security, are also exepmt.

      So really, with these working people making up a great portion of the ‘non-federal tax payers’, they do pay their share of taxes and usually pay very little federal tax anyway, additional exepmtions and the stimulus plan have reduced that further, but the change has hardly tipped the scales that much further than before.

    • #2827474
      • #2827473

        Aw

        by jck ·

        In reply to Like GE

        Poor corporation paying so much there.

        Kinda like Bill Gates. You donate enough money to your charity that your daddy runs for you as a not-for-profit, you get to write off most of your taxes.

        Maybe I can donate enough of my pay to a charity my parents run, that gives them extra income, and I can declare bankruptcy and owe no money. :^0

        • #2827419

          Running a non profit

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Aw

          Wouldn’t exactly give THEM more money though (unless illegally), being on the sucking end of the teet would help in that case.

        • #2827397

          Sure it can

          by jck ·

          In reply to Running a non profit

          Because, the organization can pay them whatever salary…then disburse the rest to creditors and/or beneficiaries.

          Gates’ Sr. makes a dumpload overseeing the administration of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

          I just need to find a way to pay my parents really well for signing checks. :^0

        • #2827345

          First, buy a bare-bones OS…

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Sure it can

          Then make a deal with IBM.

        • #2828557

          I’d prefer

          by jck ·

          In reply to First, buy a bare-bones OS…

          winning the lottery tomorrow :^0

        • #2827325

          Reasonable wage

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Sure it can

          From what I understand, in this case only the Canadian law on the matter, wage must be deemed ‘fair and reasonable’. If the organization handles millions snd administrative duties would notmally pay six figures, then that is deemed fair and reasonable wage. YOu can’t simply have a charity that handles 200,000 a year, have little to no responsibilty and take home 60,000/yr.

          Reasonable wage is measured against what a person working for a for profit company and conducting the same duties with the same volume of revenue would earn. So if Bill Gates himself turned MS into a non-profit organization, he’d still take home a tidy sum, though of course less than he earns today, due to the gross revenue losses.

    • #2828475

      Socialism at it’s best

      by theprofessordan ·

      In reply to TAX DAY, and 47 percent of all adult Americans pay NO Federal Income Taxes

      This is all in the master plan for the bleeding heart socialist in the this country (the politicians formerly known as democrats). They can’t get the slugs of the world to work so let’s tax the crap out of those that have actually achieved something and worked hard to give it to those that don’t want to work, granted there are some that are really trying and not able to achieve. Has anyone ever read Animal Farm? If you haven’t, you should.

      • #2828461

        And how…

        by ansugisalas ·

        In reply to Socialism at it’s best

        …just how did it happen, that a year of cleaning up the mess it took another guy eight years to make, made that whole thing to be the clean-up guys fault?

        Just wondering.

        Oh, and you guys’ idea of socialist is our idea of a neo-liberal all-out privatizing corporate-owned scumball. Same person, different perspectives. You haven’t ever seen socialism at work in the US, and you’re never going to see it either.
        Not that I’m in favor of socialism, just saying that that’s not it. I prefer getting things done in an optimal way, not by way of some dogma or other, so both extremes are out.

        • #2828276

          Maybe they need new history books in Finland

          by theprofessordan ·

          In reply to And how…

          “that a year of cleaning up the mess it took another guy eight years to make”

          Are you kidding me? Yes it was George Bush that approved ridiculous home loans that people couldn’t afford to pay after the adjustable mortgage adjusted. And if I recall correctly, Bush’s predecessor, Bill Clinton, left a bit of a mess as well. This was a huge reason that Al Gore lost to Bush.

          And for the record, I am not bashing Obama. I am not thrilled with ALL U.S. politicians. I do feel that there are things that the government needs to be involved in I just think that the government is starting to overstep their bounds. The reality is that this isn’t George Bush’s fault or Bill Clinton’s fault or even Barack Obama’s fault. I like most Americans want the government to back off.

        • #2827151

          Huh?!?

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Maybe they need new history books in Finland

          Dubya hasn’t made history books yet, nor, apparently has the communist regime of… who was it again? JFK? Jimmy Carter? Ronnie McDonald? Enlighten me.

          Bush made it a policy even before 9/11 to put the federal government in debt. I guess it was a tribute to that freak Milton Friedman and his theory of “How to put a Gas Chamber in every home”… talk about turning the tables.

        • #3032883

          Reality Check

          by theprofessordan ·

          In reply to Huh?!?

          Presidents get too much credit when things go well and take too much crap when things go bad. Bush made his fair share of mistakes. I will be the first to say that going to Iraq was a mistake. He also allienated the rest of the world and pandered to his buddies when it came to things like drilling the Alaskan pipeline. But this countries issues are a result of bad business practices and people in power at financial institutions encouraging their companies to approve loans that were for lack of a better word bad. I was talking to a girl one day who worked as a hair dresser. Her husband was a construction worker, and not a foreman. They had bought a $250,000 home on an adjustable mortgage. Now unless the young girl was promoted or bought her own hair saloon or something drastically changed with her and her husband’s income, when her mortgage company decided to adjust her mortgage rate, more than likely they wouldn’t be able to pay their mortgage. This wasn’t Bush’s or Clinton’s fault and to be honest as much as I admire Obama for trying, this is a problem the government can’t change.

        • #3032873

          Laying down the law.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Reality Check

          If high-risk loaning is illegal, it tends to happen less.
          If interest adjustment is well-regulated, then the kind of marketing of low-interest-soon-to-be-astronomical loans won’t happen.
          Regulating loan interest manipulation is easy and useful, and no society needs loan-sharks, and if the interest rate is tied to the fed rate, then people have a chance of knowing what they’re getting into, and can budget for it.

          Bush wanted wholesale deregulation, the republicans wanted wholesale deregulation, Milton Friedman posthumously wanted wholesale deregulation. It’s just not wise, it doesn’t work, it’s a recipe for disaster.
          Look at Friedman’s track record with Argentina: Before, it was a wealthy stable nation that generated wealth and stability synergistically in it’s neighbours as well. After: Not stable. Not wealthy. Negative synergies. Long recovery ahead.
          Friedman was misguided in the extreme, and you guys need to shake that off.

        • #3032831

          Accountability is the issue

          by theprofessordan ·

          In reply to Laying down the law.

          I prescribe to the notion of KISS (keep it simple stupid). What is the biggest problem that this country is facing right now. Fiancial institutions are going belly up. We have seen a record number of banks close recently. Why is this happening? Because of things like adjustable and no-interest mortgages. We in this country want more than we can pay for and because of banks and financial institutions giving us the rope, we have hung ourselves. Regardless of what Bush and the Republicans wanted in regards to deregulation, Americans have done this to ourselves.

          Now here is what REALLY scares me. If you study the great depression, one positive outcome of the great depression is that people that lived through the great depression died with a lot of money because what they went through taught them to save and to make sacrifices. In this current situation, we aren’t reacting the same way. We are looking for bailouts and someone to force the mortgage companies to help people stay in their homes. I am not saying that it is a good thing for people to lose their homes, but sometimes in life you have to make changes and the government’s approach is not a positive one that is going to lead us out. And to be honest, this conversation started talking about Socialism and that is where I am aggravated with. The economy will fix itself one way or another. All the government is doing is using this to take more power, which is the wrong thing to help.

        • #2827160

          Extremes are in

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to And how…

          Without extremes the US would come to a screechign halt. Left absolutely MUST oppose anythign right and vice versa. Anything teh left says, he right must say to teh extremme opposite. It reults in nonsense from both sides, a divided nation and no hope of middle, more comfortable and acceptable or sensible ground.
          Maybe a few generations into the future, they’ll wake up and realize that they have more strength by finding a reaosnable resolution to issues and not opposing for teh mere sake of opposition.

          When both the numbers 1 and 10 are equally absurd, they see no number 5.

      • #2827161

        Animal Farm

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Socialism at it’s best

        Was forced reading in grade 5, I remember it too. But you post seems a bit misguided, first it is slugs that wont work, but you recognize others whp are really trying to achieve it. OF course forgetting also that tehre are MILLIONS in America who do work full time and STILL can’t afford health insurance because the industry was left to run rampant. There is no hope of an easy way out, as other nations have also found, but most citizens of other nations choose to blame the bums for their laziness, not the government for supporting those who deserve it and merely end up being shafted by those who don’t.

        All systems are screwed by someone, but it’s not the fault of the system which actuallu does a lot of good, it’s the fault of the abusers who scam the system.

        In other words, I don’t blame our government for supporting deserving people just because some people scam the system, my contempt is toward the losers who scam what is a worthy system instead.

        Do I mind some of my tax dollars being used to help a fellow Canadian who needs a hand up? nope, not for ome second. I don’t even think about it outside of TR. They will still tax me and waste it somewhere else if it wasn’t helping others. Even as a working taxpayer, I see HUGE benefits, I pay a mere pittance in medical each month compared to most Americans and our care is just as good, if not better. We do live longer on the whole and I have never been turned down for care, never had to wait for tests or mecial procedures etc.

        Then again, I don’t live in under a socialist or even a democratic government, maybe that’s it. 🙂

        • #3032828

          I do agree that helping people is good

          by theprofessordan ·

          In reply to Animal Farm

          I just don’t think that the way that this country is going is positive. The U.S. government does have some positive roles and I do appreciate them trying to help but they aren’t helping. The reality is that the economy will fix itself if the government stays out of it.

        • #3032804

          ahh

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I do agree that helping people is good

          Okay th edo nothign approach. Sit on the hands and hope for the best. Unforunately, that doesn’t look so good on the world stage and wouldn’t fare too well for America in teh long run.

        • #3032792

          How do you know?

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to ahh

          [i]Unforunately, that doesn’t look so good on the world stage[/i]

          Who is actually trying that that you can say it isn’t working?

          What country’s government is “staying out of it”?

        • #3032760

          None and that’s exactly the problem.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to How do you know?

          The US is a major importer countries worlwide. The US economy directly reflects on teh economy of others who [i]currently [/i]rely on US dollars for their goods. When the dollar goes down, other nations prices go up and THEIR economy is harmed too.

          In one sense, it is GREAT that the US dollar is on par with the Canadian dollar right now, in 30 minutes I can hop across the line and buy cheao gas, smokes, booze etc. (yes gas is cheaper where we sell it than where we drill it).

          But our gasoline costs are balanced by the amount of gas sold into the US, when the US dollar is stronger than ours, our oil companies make more money and our gas prices come down(example: when $1.00 US = $1.20 Canadian).

          Since the dollar neared and now JUST slightly exceeded the US dollar, our gas prices have proprtionately crept back up. Today, gas was $1.14/L which is $4.29 Canadian per gallon (again now on par with the US dollar).

          I can hit Point Roberts, WA in a half hour and fill up for 2.79 a gallon, once again, dollars at par.

          So if all other nations who were hit by the economic downturn are making efforts and offering massive bailouts at the taxpayers expense, it would case a lot of dissent towarsd the US if there was nothing being done.

          It’s a pretty damn simple concept that doesn’t need to be tested to be realized.

    • #2828462

      Bush deliberately screwed over the US economy…

      by ansugisalas ·

      In reply to TAX DAY, and 47 percent of all adult Americans pay NO Federal Income Taxes

      Government in debt = his friends get richer by the second.
      Obama got saddled with cleaning up the mess AND trying to get to do something else than damage control. But I guess that’s worth getting rid of the monkey before it blew up something even more vital than the world economy:p

      • #2828456
        • #2828315

          Yes.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Is that why

          All your candidates are corporate-owned. Some of them just have minds of their own.
          Now dubya… he wasn’t one of those.
          As for Obama, time will tell.
          One things for certain though, republicans wailing about the economy are showing severely selective memory.

        • #2828292

          It’s also why…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Is that why

          http://www.opensecrets.org/pres04/contrib.php?cycle=2004&cid=N00008072

          Notice:

          Of the 20-some major banks who Bush started the initiative of bailing out before he left…just by eyeballing it.

          8 or so are on Bush’s list.

          4 or so are on Obama’s list.

          So who was more in bed with banking, Tony?

          As far as I can see, most of Obama’s top contributors were members of the academic community and the technology industry.

          Almost all of Bush’s had to do with banking, finance, lending, mortgages, etc.

          I’d question Bush’s intentions more than Obama’s based on that.

        • #2827143

          Does

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It’s also why…

          Clinton forcing them to loan money to people who couldn’t afford to pay it back count?

        • #2827140

          You are joking ,right?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Does

          I have dug and searched and yet find no legislation was passed that forced banks to lend money, it’s as stupid as suggesting people are forced to use Windows.

          No one can force a bank to lend any money they don’t wish to. The door was opened and they took advantage of it simply because of greed. They all knew it was high risk business, banks know finance (or at least we hope they do), yielding extremely high interest rates, but they also knew the tax payers would ultimately cover the losses.

          It had nothing to do with political FORCE, it was financial greed of bank CEO’s to seek opportunity, at the tax payers expense.

        • #2826953
        • #2826928

          Your links don’t support your point at all!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Your digger and searcher needs work.

          First of all, I did try not to laugh too hard, I mean “hotair” and “CNN”, REEEEEEAAAALLY? That’s what you now consider proof? lol 😀

          Secondly your links don’t show, in ANY way, tha the banks were “forced” to offer loans. One link merely illulstrates how someone pulled the race discrimination card to support his validity for a loan, BUT that link does not illustrate how Clinton was responsible in any way shape or form, bot does it support your stand here.

          So what you consider factual proof of yoru bizarre comment is merely horsecrap with no relevance to your claims at all. Get real.

        • #2826906

          Not legislation

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Your digger and searcher needs work.

          Or the legislation in question does not directly require such loans. You know that’s how Oz will argue it, Tony.

          The whole thing reminds of Tom Lehrer’s intro to his Army song, words to the effect that the Army has not only banned discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, gender, and national origin, but also on the basis of ability.

        • #2826889

          If you’d paid atention

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Your digger and searcher needs work.

          It was a video from C-SPAN of Mr. Cuomo’s own words.

          “[u]They would not have qualified[/u] but for this affirmative action on the part of the bank, yes.”

          It’s just like the rest of the leech mentality. “I have the right to take whatever risk I want (whether risk to health or risk to financial stability) and force everyone else to pay the consequences.”

          And no, it has nothing to do with race. There were ten times as many loans given to white people who normally would not have qualified, and there is no statistical anomaly in the racial makeup of those foreclosed on. Just more tripe from those who can’t get ahead even when given a crutch, so they have to blame someone else for their failure.

        • #2826873

          I know, James

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Your digger and searcher needs work.

          It’s just like there was no legislation requiring a national 55 MPH speed limit in the 70s either. But the feds told the states if they didn’t change their law, they would find great difficulty in obtaining federal highway grants for their states.

          It’s the strong asserting its will on the less strong, and many are fine with it… so long as it’s not their ox being gored, and sometimes they’re OK with it even then… content to kiss the ass of whoever is in charge 🙂

        • #2826871

          Now you’ve done it

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Your digger and searcher needs work.

          If you were thinking I was Oz, I feel insulted…..

        • #2826863

          Not a chance of that James (nt)

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Your digger and searcher needs work.

          .

        • #2826856

          Actually, James

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Your digger and searcher needs work.

          From the flow of posts, it appears Tony was thinking I was you.

          I’m not going to complain about that. B-)

        • #3033026

          It’s not a matter of HOW you read it

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Your digger and searcher needs work.

          There was a regiulation set in place in 1964, that regulation was updated by Carter in 1977 to focus on banks that were redlining neighbourhoods, literally drawing a boundary where they will not offer loands based on demographic survey’s. However that law had been all but been ignored, Clinton said that he was going to make sure that banks were adhering to the standards set out that say banks canot redline a neighbourhood.

          For THAT, you come up with saying the banks were FORCED to hand out loans to people who were otherwise unqualified for a loan.

          Of course that was plastered all over the right wing media and was taken out of context to the point that people now parrot teh media without actually investigating what regulations the banks were told to adhere to. Absolute BS!

          They were just told they couldn’t redline and thus be refusing loans to otherwise qualified applicants and that such loans were protected by Fanny Mae and Feddie Mac.

          It had nothing to do with being forced to offer shady loans at all, in fact it didn’t even HINT at such. The banks which are just fat pockets out for more money, took advantage of the promise of recovery and offered loans ON THEIR OWN TERMS to unqualified applicants, that was 100% THEIR CHOICE, not force of any sort.

          Just try looking for facts with support instead of news headlines and party propaganda.

        • #3033022

          You might not have a stick of dynamite

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Your digger and searcher needs work.

          up your ass, but that won’t make it any less painful if someone decides to search for one.

          The very compliance with the investigations, whether or not anything was found, would lose the bank money.

          It’s roughly equivalent to a cop pulling you over and saying “If you don’t donate to the policeman’s fund, I’m going to pull you over and run your license every time I see you driving. I might not find anything, but it’s going to be awfully inconvenient.”

          I truly find it hard to believe that the worldly Oz is that naive to not understand that.

        • #3033021

          Oz, at heart

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Your digger and searcher needs work.

          Is a teddy bear.

        • #3033020

          As am I

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Your digger and searcher needs work.

          But I am an alert teddy bear 🙂

        • #3033019

          You are both

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Your digger and searcher needs work.

          Straight from the brush of Margaret Keane.

        • #3032980

          You can go right ahead and believe what you choose

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Your digger and searcher needs work.

          There’s nothing I will say that I would expect to change your choice to buy into slanted media, it’s how you’ve always lived your lives and always will. You are Americans and, without attempting to downplay that, it is a well known world fact that Americans love to live their politics their hard stance and their media.

          BUT…all you’d have to do to look into what regulations they were told ot adhere to, is look up those very regulations and see exactly how they don’t FORCE bbad loans, they FORCE banks to consider each and every application as individual, without using regional demographics to close all possibilties for worthy applicants. If they make loans that are bad, it’s not their problem because FMFM had agreed to insure them against their financial losses. IN otehr words, choose who you want to make loans for, don’t worry about the demographics and just use your own discretion. Of COURSE the banks jumped on the opportunity, it made them money and banks seek money. Of COURSE banks knew very well taht they were lending money to people they shouldn’t, they had a choice not to, but they did of course to make money, again, that’s what banks do.

          Don’t for one second fool yourself into believing that they were forced to offer loans to unqualified applicants. If they were guaranteed loan insurance before, they would have done so 10 years earlier. Being reassured they could make as much money as they wanted, without risk, just made it a sure thing for them. Banks are in the loan business for one reason and one reason only, to make money. the more they lend, the more they make. Of course they initially protected themselves against bad loans, who wouldn’t? Of course they took advantage of the fact they were backed regardless, who wouldn’t?

          ‘Hey, it’s not our fault, we used to block those people from getting loans, but now we have to accept their applications. We are protected no matter what happens.’

          It doesn’t mean they have to give them loans though. Choice, not Force.

        • #3032914

          That’s kinda the point Oz

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Your digger and searcher needs work.

          The LAWS don’t force… but those charged with upholding the law often DO.

          The law, for example, does not say that the federal government can force a state to change the level at which a driver is considered drunk, but the federal government threatened states with loss of federal highway money if they didn’t change their laws to reflect the new level.

        • #3032857

          Okay, so you gave an irrelevant example

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Your digger and searcher needs work.

          of how force is used on drinking and driving law enforcement.

          Now, how EXACTLY, regarding the CRA/HCDA, does your argument apply? What in those specific documents, which they were told ot adhere to, “forces them” to make bad loans?

          You can even pick out one specific srticle in the act itself if you like, I know from reading it that no such FORCE was ever imparted beyond adherring to regional profiling limitations. Yourself, I assume that you will NEVER have the patience to read such facts’ you have always illustrated the “he said she said” game instead of researching the facts, as most others here do too.

          As Nick commented: [i]Or the legislation in question does not directly require such loans. You know that’s how Oz will argue it, Tony[/i]

          Well seeing as that is EXACTLY your debate, of COURSE that is what I will reply with. You say they ARE forcing banks into bad loans. I am saying they are forcing banks to adhere to a regulation, that does NOT “force” then into making bad loans, it just restricts demographic profiling as a means of qualification.

          Housing ReDevelopment Act of 1974, clearly states, right in its opening article”

          “[i]No person in the United States shall on the ground of race, color,
          national origin, religion, or sex be excluded from participation in, be
          denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any
          program or activity[/i]

          Banks were told that they can not redline, therefore they were told they had to adhere to CRA regulations that restrict such practices, it does NOT force them to make bad loans. It forces them to accept all applications for proper consideration without restricting them solely by area of residence.
          The banks just use it as a scapegoat for knowingly offering bad loans to unqualified applicants. FM & FM couldn’t afford to back all the bad loans they were supposed to and the government assured them they would be covered in such a case (which I agree is an oversight on the part of government, not recognizing the banks would see it as a way to make money by offering sketchy loans). The banks had a field day making money by offering what they KNEW were bad loans that they didn’t have to back themselves. They then blamed the shortfall of insurance payouts on FM&FM and, when they were asked why they had issued the bad loans, they said they were forced to do it, which they clearly were not.

          The banks are the real crooks here.

          What is redlining anyway(predatory lending)?

          [i]Redlining is the practice of denying, or increasing the cost of, services such as banking, insurance, access to jobs, access to health care, or even supermarkets to residents in certain, often racially determined,areas. The term “redlining” was coined in the late 1960s by John McKnight, a Northwestern University sociologist and community activist.It describes the practice of marking a red line on a map to delineate the area where banks would not invest; later the term was applied to discrimination against a particular group of people (usually by race or sex) no matter the geography. During the heyday of redlining, the areas most frequently discriminated against were black inner city neighborhoods. Through at least the 1990s this practice meant that banks would often lend to lower income whites but not to middle or upper income blacks.[/i]

          So they took a lengthy set of regulations they know had to be dug for and would never be read by most people, abbreviated it to mean what it didn’t and used THAT, through the magic of headline grabbing media, to pass the blame to someone else.

          A white paper on the practice of redlining dating back to 2004, that also ilustrates that banks would not lend to such people due them being less likely to have Private Mortgage Insurance, regardless of who they were and based solely on the region.

          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WMG-4B22X9V-1&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1308096124&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ae01f63e37bbbb1ce0a07266c0ba31a4

          Of course your instant, knee jerk defence said that it wasnt racially based, which I never said was the case to begin with, but that racism was the common result of demographic profiling.

          They were merely ‘forced’ to adhere to a regulation that restricted them from profiling which was most often seen as racial profiling. The regulation had been around for years, yet ignored, Carter just said he would see that the practice of redlining stopped and that he would force banks to adhere to laws, just as anyone should be.

          About the CRA:
          http://www.ffiec.gov/cra/

        • #3032849

          Slanted media?

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Your digger and searcher needs work.

          None of us is truly objective, Oz. Our world-views are based on our experiences, the core beliefs we have picked up through our lives, and our current situations. Whose definition of “slanted” are we using? Yours? Mine? Tony’s?

          Many Europeans of my acquaintance consider [u]all[/u] American media to be excessively conservative. Many Americans consider the media to be too liberal and Europeans to be Socialsts.

          It all comes down to opinions, Oz, and in this case, the opinions of a non-resident non-citizen are as meaningless as .

        • #3032830

          Utter BS Nick.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Your digger and searcher needs work.

          We are discussing how banks were FORCED to adhere to an existing Act.

          That act is NOT a matter or personal, political interpretation at all, look it up and read the bloody thing for yourself, instead of being lazy and going on with your completely irrelevant commentary.

          Adhereing to The Community Reinvestment Act (1977) is directly considering the Housing and Community Development Act (1974).

          A Federal Gpvernment Overview is offered here for the reading impaired.
          http://www.federalreserve.gov/dcca/cra/

          Which also clearly states: [i]”Neither the CRA nor its implementing regulation gives specific criteria for rating the performance of depository institutions. Rather, the law indicates that the evaluation process should accommodate an institution’s individual circumstances. Nor does the law require institutions to make high-risk loans that jeopardize their safety. To the contrary, the law makes it clear that an institution’s CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner.:[/i]

          You guys just can’t be bothered to investigate and just go with what the media spews at you. If you are left you buy the left’s spew, if yuo are on th eright you believe what the right spews at you. It’s 100% pure political bias.

          As I don’t believe EITHER side without fact finding and reading the Acts and refulations put in place, I am definitely seeking the reality and not the media spin, I have nothing to gain or lose either way. Being from OUTSUDE and not having a political agenda actually makes me able to look for facts without bias. The absolute extreme opposite of what you ‘claim’.

        • #3032823

          Actually,

          by puppybreath ·

          In reply to Your digger and searcher needs work.

          being forced to follow CRA guidelines wasn’t the issue. CRA was used as a reason for bogus lawsuits or the threat of lawsuits against certain banks.

          In these lawsuits and threats, ACORN and other “community organizers” made bogus claims of Redlining (denying poor people loans because of their ethnic heritage). They protested and got the local media to support their “cause”. This meant that the banks faced thousands of misinformed people closing their accounts. Local and Federal politicians also started to lobby to stop the banks from doing some future business, expansions and mergers.

          If the bank had gone to court, they would have won, but the damage would have already been done to the bank?s reputation and any expansion plans would have been shelved for years costing them millions.

          The banks handled it like so many other frivilous and nuisance lawsuits: they settled out of court because it was cheaper than fighting it. In these cases, it was easier and cheaper to give loans that they knew would never be repaid rather than go through the lengthy legal process.

          So, they weren’t technically “forced” to give the loans, but it was in their best interest long term to do so.

        • #3032801

          FINALLY !!!!!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Your digger and searcher needs work.

          someone gets it, well done, puppybreath. Tony said Clinton “forced” banks to offer loans to people who couldn’t pay it back. I corrected that by saying Clinton merely “forced” adherence to the CRA.

          They were only forced to abide by fair practices and consider each application as valid, without redlining. I never argued the validity of the applications or lawsuits resulting from redlining; of course the race card was played many times. But that’s also because there WERE people who should have qualified but weren’t even allowed to apply due to demographic profiling.

          ie: “If you live there, you must be a risk, we won’t even consider your application.”

          In many cases I am sure they were right in refusing such loans, and in others they were not. So they were merely told to adhere to guidelines and use their OWN discretion on a per applicant basis to qualify loans. Don’t discriminate regionally based on financial demographics.

          Of course the thing that made it easier was that they were told FM&FM would cover any losses, which the banks instantly took advantage of and abused by offering loans to anyone and then saying they were forced to do so.

          The result though, and as you have attested yourself, Tony’s claim that Clinton “forced” banks to loan money to people who were unable to repay loans is completely and entirely FAlSE. In fact they were told to follow a set of guidelines that specifically stated how the banks should [i]use their normal cautions[/i] to offering loans, just as they would anyone else.

          It is 100% the bank’s fault, and of course the promise of FM&FM to not forsee the inadequate resulting actions of the banks that they could not insure.

          Nobody was FORCED to do anything, except technically FM&FM who were then under contract to cover delinquent loans.

          They (FM&FM) could have had forsight to ask for more specific criteria to QUALIFY the loans in the first place, beyond stopping simple redlining which could step on people’s rights.[i](of course that would mean the government stepping in and actually controlling hwo got loans though, in which case Tony could have actually been correct, but that wasn’t the case)[/i] By making it the bank’s responsibility, then removing any financial responsibility and repercussions by offering to cover them; they ultimately gave the banks a free ride into haplessly lending money. They should have foresaw the bank’s greed and assumed they would not act accordingly.

          Either way you slice it, Clinton never forced banks to loan money to anyone, that’s pure BS.

          Tony’s comment that started this entire segue:
          [b][i]”Does Clinton forcing them to loan money to people who couldn’t afford to pay it back count? “[/i][/b]
          Posted: 04/21/2010 @ 03:13 PM (PDT)

          To answer that one more time; No, it doesn’t count because it never happened.

          It’s really no different than a parent telling a bank that if they loan his kid money, the parent will cover it (a cosigner of sorts), except with a LOT of delinquent kids to cover.

        • #3032787

          OK Mr Literal

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Your digger and searcher needs work.

          Reno didn’t tell them TO violate the CRA. She told them that if more loans weren’t made in these areas, she would see to it that every one of the applications was vigorously investigated. I can’t imagine that you couldn’t imagine what the banks would do to stave off these investigations. It seems that you are being intentionally obtuse.

        • #3032759

          Oh, go get another life, Tony.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Your digger and searcher needs work.

          This one certaionly isn’t working out for you.

          You made a firm statement that I questioned, you then argued it with mroe firm statements. When I prove those statements false, now I am being literal. Well if we are not supposed to be literal, why do we even bother with such discussions? You even went as far as to post links to media spins in order to try and prove your point.

          Whether you feel it was Reno, Clinton, Obama or even Lincoln, makes no difference at all. They were NOT, at any time, never once, not at all, not now, not then, not before, EVER forced to offer loans to unqualified applicant, N.E.V.E.R.

          Just did not happen, okay? You have absolutely no recourse, no possibility of correcting your false claim, no hint of truth in your links, no nothing. Your assertion is incorrect, no matter how you try to twist and turn to make it what it wasn’t. Give up and move on with your life.

        • #2827080

          Forced?

          by jck ·

          In reply to Does

          They had guidelines for federally backed mortgages. Not those they lended against their own assets.

          Then, banks weren’t “forced” to falsify the income levels of their applicants to greater amounts as tons of them were shown to have done as well.

          They weren’t forced to lend to everyone.

          Banks in fact, much of the time, pushed loans out to people with reduced incomes who still didn’t qualify by falsifying information about the borrower themselves, then selling the loan off quickly to get their money and screw someone else in the process.

          So no, Clinton didn’t force banks to falsify information.

          Nor did Clinton require banks to lend to people who already held 3 other mortgages and whom were flipping houses for profit in a speculative market.

          Banks hurt themselves by not sticking to the plan.

          However, it is still ironic all those banks were practicing bad/unscrupulous business throughout the Bush administration without the FDIC, FSLIC, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac looking into the widespread, rampant lending.

          Guess even when lending increases over 200% in just one year, there’s no possibility of anything wrong happening.

          Especially when it is mostly Bush’s top campaign donors doing it.

          Right?

        • #2826952

          Here’s another

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Forced?

        • #3032943

          And here’s some examples…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Here’s another

          courtesy of the IRS:

          http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforcement/article/0,,id=213770,00.html

          Most have to do with rampant bank and mortgage fraud.

          There’s thousands of examples of this.

          So, where was:

          Freddie Mac?
          Fannie Mae?
          Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation?
          Securities and Exchange Commission? (where the mortgages became “bundled” and a commodity they allowed traded on their markets)
          HUD?
          FBI?

          Anyone?

          Plain and simple: The past administration did not make it a point to make or rigorously enforce banking and lending regulation.

          Like I said, don’t think it could have to do with who were the majority of the Bush campaign’s top financial backers? Could it?

        • #2826951

          And

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Forced?

          Providing context, Richman said government policy laid the foundation of this crisis more than 30 years ago when Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. This law forced banks to loan money to low-income borrowers as a way to ensure that financial institutions would “meet the credit needs of the local community.”

          Under the Clinton administration, federal regulators began using the act to combat “red-lining,” a practice by which banks loaned money to some communities but not to others, based on economic status. “No loan is exempt, no bank is immune,” warned then-Attorney General Janet Reno. “For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement.”

          The Clinton-Reno threat of “vigorous enforcement” pushed banks to make the now infamous loans that many blame for the current meltdown, Richman said. [u]”Banks, in order to not get in trouble with the regulators, had to make loans to people who shouldn’t have been getting mortgage loans.”[/u]

          http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/36048

        • #2826923

          Try again

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to And

          Maybe read it a bit slower so that you actually understand what CRA regulation entails. There is no FORCE to offer unqualified applicants loans. They are merely regulated to meet CRA/HDCA criteria for low income or racial minority neighbourhoods. Such practice of blank discrimination, without proper consideration of the applicant’s suitability for a loan, is called redlining.

          It can also be easily seen as protection from modern day racism.

          All the act does, is ensure there is no bold discrimination based solely on area of residence, race etc. The banks were merely urged to adhere to laws pertaining to equality.

          It does NOT, in any way, state that banks are forced to offer loans to unqualified applicants.

          They were previously blocking ANY loans at all, to ANY applicant in a geographic area (redlining) based solely on the racial or financial demographics of the area instead of based upon the individual’s financial qualifications.

          An applicant, that does not meet the standard criteria for obtaining a loan, can still be refused that loan without any FORCE placed upon the lending institution.

          Your argument is like saying that because a company cannot refuse to hire a person based on their minority race, that employers are thus forced to hire any people of minority race regardless of their qualification for the job they are applying for. LUDICRIS!

          Your baseless argument is pure garbage. Unsupported and completely false.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining”

          The act was also put into power in 1977, under Carter, not Clinton. Clinton just saw to it that the act was being adhered to.

          Or are you suggesting that companies should be allowed to discriminate based solely on regional demographics?

          Instead of repeating news bits, that you took well out of context and make you look quite stupid, try looking up legislations and finding out exactly what they were urged to comply with instead.

        • #3032941

          Kind of ironic, Tony.

          by jck ·

          In reply to And

          At the time of the housing market collapse (about 3 years ago), Clinton hadn’t been in office for about…6 or 7 years?

          How would he and Reno enforce squat?

          And if those people could not have paid their mortgages, they would have been foreclosed on much earlier than 2007.

          The housing collapse had to do banks rampantly lending money to ANYONE (not just low income) and not assuring there were sufficient means and that debt/credit wasn’t already too high for even people with money.

          Trust me, Tony. I watched my neighborhood get filled with houses in 4 years.

          Then, I have seen it fold because of them letting all the spec builders come in and fill the lots and build crackerbox houses because they were selling so quick.

          Banks were out for sheer profit, and because of their unfettered and irresponsible lending (and the government’s lax oversight), we have the situation we do today.

        • #3032912

          I think you need to look at

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to And

          [i]At the time of the housing market collapse (about 3 years ago), Clinton hadn’t been in office for about…6 or 7 years?[/i]

          the ORIGINATION date on those loan papers 🙂

          (I’m just glad I decided to deal in cash… a bird in the hand…)

      • #2827156

        China vs the US – The Battle for oil

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Bush deliberately screwed over the US economy…

        7 YouTube clips:
        Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HylCsiH-s88
        Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CvkhPlqYrc&feature=related
        Part3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E58sxakgqus&feature=related
        Part4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0Y86_RpUZ8&feature=related
        Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHi9LWKKKwI&feature=related
        Part6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HKpOk_Et8I&feature=related
        Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSS0zckyDco&feature=related

        Unfortunately the NatGeo Special shot by US soldiers and commanders in Iraq is not on YouTube yet, but if you manage to find the latest National Geographic “Inside Iraq”, it’s worth a watch, it is very well balanced, both very supportive and very condemning of both sides.

        Here’s a cip or two:http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/inside-the-iraq-war-4377/Overview#tab-Videos/07540_00
        But timelines and truths about propaganda in the US and Iraq are, for once, illustrated very clearly for once.

        Watch the Fight for Oil links above, and note the actual time line between when they met in Venuzeual to be told that they could be cut off from their oil there and the US’s quick and globally questioned turn to Iraq. Then note that both heads of government appointed by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan were former UNESCO employees. I am not makign accusations but the facts will speak for themselves.

        The problem with China, they refuse to get politically involved when looking for oil contractsm they just offer money for product.

        The problem with the US, they insist on getting politically involved when looking for oil contracts, they seek to control government in exchange for product. We even see it in Canada when they want to rape our nation of its resources. They will seek out rules that suit their needs, then balk on their half of the bargain. We also trade with China, without such restrictions and the Chinese actually pay their bills.

        With China, now being second in NEED to the US, the fight is on and it seems that US money means less and less to the producers.

        I am not saying the war is strictly over oil, but the timeline, the political relationships and personal relationships they have, certainly have expedited the issue. And AGAIN, the US just had to enforce political changes in a foreign nation, which was the number one turning point of insurgent violence in Iraq. Removin Saddam was broadly accepted even by his own government, removing the government started WWIII.

        Before toppling the government, and after the initial invasion, there was a hope for peace. The change of government, ousting thousands of Shiites, caused so much unrest that it instantly began a civil war in Iraq where as soon as one dies, another two take up arms.

        The US wanted it all and actually believed they could have it (I think many still do), resources and money, which requires control of foreign governments.

        But we are finding out that beggars cannot also be choosers, well THEY are finding out anyway, the hard way.

      • #2827093

        Bush sold us out

        by av . ·

        In reply to Bush deliberately screwed over the US economy…

        His fabricated justification of the war in Iraq was all about oil and lucrative contracts for his corporate oil buddies. Sure, the Clinton administration talked about regime change in Iraq, but Bush made it happen and it was all a big lie.

        Maybe thats why Bush can barely show his face nowadays.

        He doesn’t deserve all the blame though. Our Democratic Congress at the time, and most are still there, allowed the financial wizards on Wall St. to make all kinds of risky investments that eventually caused the collapse of our economy.

        And after that, taxpayers had to bail the “too big to fail” companies out. That was the ultimate kick in the pants to us taxpayers.

        Obama got handed the “bag”. I think he’s doing an admirable job, given what he has to face. I don’t agree with everything he did, but our economy didn’t collapse.

        AV

        • #2827078

          The Democratic Congress

          by jck ·

          In reply to Bush sold us out

          was sworn in in January 2007.

          The first 6 years of the Bush administration was a Republican majority in both houses, which was when all the rampant lending practice was happening unfettered.

          I agree with you tho.

          Obama may not be doing a perfect job, but at least we’re not all waiting in line for a “chicken in every pot”.

        • #2826934

          At least be thankful democrats were handling the bailout…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Bush sold us out

          As far as I’ve heard they insisted on government stakes in the rescued companies, right?
          That means that the bounceback can be pretty lucrative for the US govt economy, in fact, it’s the only way to get a fair return on the rescue money. If the economy turns around, then that can make a big difference in the future.
          Temporary partial nationalization is just a way (the only one) to get your money back.

        • #2826855

          There are bright spots from TARP

          by av . ·

          In reply to At least be thankful democrats were handling the bailout…

          This is pretty lucrative for the taxpayers

          http://www.buffalonews.com/2010/03/30/1003596/governments-sale-of-citi-stock.html

          But there’s still the 800 lb. Gorilla in the room

          http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-22/u-s-said-to-weigh-aig-exit-through-two-years-of-share-sales.html

          You don’t always get your money back from government backing. If we can offset some of the “too big to fail” losses in any way, that would be the best we can expect.

          I think the Dems are doing a good job with managing the bailouts, but really, the debt will be paid by future generations.

          AV

      • #3032826

        WOW, George W. Bush is the most powerful man EVER!!

        by theprofessordan ·

        In reply to Bush deliberately screwed over the US economy…

        To think that one man would have the power to do all of that. Wow, I am just shocked. What an evil genius.(if you aren’t catching my sarcasm then I am not laying it on thick enough).

        We have been round and round about this. Bush didn’t do this. Clinton didn’t do this. Bush Sr. didn’t do this and Obama can’t undo this.

        • #3032821

          Deregulation did it.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to WOW, George W. Bush is the most powerful man EVER!!

          Bush facilitated it, as did the republican majority.
          If you take off the hand-brake of a car parked on a hill, then you can’t blame gravity. It’s the guys who released the brakes on loaning that caused this.
          And yes. Re-regulating can prevent it from happening again, at least in that way.
          The economy is fragile because it’s synergistic; if something gets skewed all out of shape, then the rest will suffer too, it’s a snowball effect. It’s not an act of God. It’s not Karma. It’s just stupidity and trusting in robber-baron-economists like Friedman.

        • #3032790

          Have you been living in a cave?

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Deregulation did it.

          Where were you when Clinton threatened the banks into making the risky loans.

          Ostensibly, Clinton was trying to get more money into low income neighborhoods… by threatening “redlining” investigations… but an unintended consequence was that once the banks lowered standards for inner-city applicants, they couldn’t very well turn away poor applicants from rural areas without clearly violation of equal opportunity housing laws. The banks were stuck between a rock and a hard place, and begged Fannie and Freddie to lower the requirements on the mortgages they were willing to purchase. That was in 1999, over a year before Bush took office.

          In 2003 Bush recommended putting Fannie under the supervision of the Treasury Department, to set reserve requirements and to ensure that the agency was properly managing its risk, but that was opposed by the Democratic controlled Congress…

          From http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?pagewanted=all

          [i]”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”[/i]

          I guess the Republicans weren’t exaggerating after all, were they?

        • #3032758

          Where were you when Clinton threatened the banks into making the risky loan

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Have you been living in a cave?

          I was on Earth, don’t know what planet you or your Clinton were living on. By the way, we are talking about Bill Clinton, the president who was impeached for getting a BJ and saying he didn’t.

          Please, post links to the exact terms that he forced the banks to adhere to (as I have also done).
          As he forced them to adhere to CRA regulations, you would need to post the exact verbage from that regulation that proves your invalid point, not just some hogwash a the media or some right wing weblog came up with.

          Man, how can you possibly expect to be taken seriously when yoru support comes in the form of online blogs and BS from the media?

          Don’t you know by now that you can’t trust them but you can look up and qualify their sources for yourself in order to find the truth?

          Don’t let them summarize and take out of context exactly what was said in an act, read the act for yourself.

          That’s why these things run politically rampant, people are just too lazy to do their own homework and they settle for whatever their preferred media outlet tells them.

          I KNOW as a fact that you won’t go through it, you never do, so any further commentary and posturing on your part is purely, unqualified political bias.

        • #3032699

          I quote duly elected representatives and their appointees.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Where were you when Clinton threatened the banks into making the risky loan

          You can choose to claim that they meant other than what they said, but that’s entirely YOUR chosen ignorance.

          Good luck with that, really.

        • #2828247

          You quote but don’t understand what they are talking about

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I quote duly elected representatives and their appointees.

          Clinton FORCED banks to abide by CRA regulations. That is a FACT.

          But…those regulations do not force banks to make loans to unqualified applicants, THAT is also a fact.

          Thus your use of the qoute out of context and ASSUMING yuo knew what that force was, is simply “YOUR chosen ignorance.”

        • #3032744

          @tony: Is that being forced?

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Have you been living in a cave?

          So, they were being *forced* to issue large amounts of subprime credit, with time-delay skyrocket rates, and package them into “derivatives” to be sold like crack-cocaine high and wide?!?
          The derivatives are what cracked open the economy… the loans in and of themselves and the fannie and mac crap would just have been business as usual, snafu if you will.
          This was beyond snafu, and that all happened under Bush, and during the republican controlled house.
          Bush probably just tried to undercut Fannie Mae back then to drop some poor people out of the voting registries.

        • #3032742

          My dear ansugeisler

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to @tony: Is that being forced?

          I would prefer to see you exercise your analytical and linguistic prowess on something other than partitioning a platter of shilt.

          Leave it to the scatologists here.

        • #3032726

          Hahahahaha

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to My dear ansugeisler

          Sorry, I was having a quixotic moment? :p

        • #3032723

          Naw

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to My dear ansugeisler

          Youthful ebullience, more like.

        • #3032708

          Don, forever young

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to My dear ansugeisler

          Cervantes just made him = old.

        • #2828245

          Well versed?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to My dear ansugeisler

          How is it that you are so well versed on scatology? Fetish? Personal practice?

        • #2828241

          He reads your posts.

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to My dear ansugeisler

          ;\

        • #2828237

          My dear Oz

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to My dear ansugeisler

          Find consolation in that you did — at length and in detail, as I see it — successfully delineate and separate the hows and the whys of redlining, vis a vis “government”, the banks, and the sub-primers.

          May it please you to know, further, I have read every word here that you have written about the matter. I am also old enough to have lived through the times and to have paid attention. I still do.

          If that is what you mean by my “fetish” about shilt, then, so be it.

        • #2828220

          Ohhhhhhhhhh yuk yuk yuk!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to My dear ansugeisler

          Guffaw! Knee slapper! Don’t quit your day job though. it’s funny how pissed off people get when their heresay is countered with facts.

        • #2828217

          No that’s not what I meant

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to My dear ansugeisler

          But I applaud your wit all the same.

          You seem to miss the focus of my debate. One person CLAIMED that someone forced something upon banks. That person FORCED regulation, that had been in place for years already and simply ignored. So what was it exactly that they were being forced to do? Lend money to people without the proper qualifications? As a result of looking at exactly what they were forced to comply with, most obviously not. That’s all.

          I didn’t say it was right or wrong, just that the half-cocked media spin that was presented as fact simply wasn’t fact at all.

          I don’t care if you were president or guru of banking finance, the regulations are printed in black and white. The regulations also made publicly available, children in Botswana can look it up. Regardless of someone’s personal feelings and interpretation, regulation was being enforced, regulations did not state what the poster stated.

          I have sat in on many cases where people feel they understand the way the law should apply (especially corporately) or who is responsible, based on simple logic or common sense, but it often results in people saying “that’s just not right, I shouldn’t be at fault because…”, because the letter of the law is completely different than they see it.

          End of, full stop. Like it or lump it, facts are facts.

        • #2828117

          The letter of the law

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to My dear ansugeisler

          and the intent of the same law are quite often two different things. The results of enforcing that law are often a third thing.

          Pity the law can’t be written in plain language…

        • #2828098

          Definitive law

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to My dear ansugeisler

          When I first started studying law I thought that laws should be far more definitive, clearly worded and precise to ease in execustion and justice. Then I realzed that it had actually been done long ago, back in the Tudor years for example, law was extremely definitive and clear. However, due to that, it was easier for lawyers to circumvent it and find loopholes than with looser definition. So now broader definition is appropriate and often just stacked on top of each other to provide more room for conviction with less room for specific loopholes. In one sense it is better for society because lawyers get fewer breaks for true criminals, in other ways it leaves too many open questions in cases such as politics (not that politicians aren’t criminals).

          But that’s why I try to leave emotion or political bias aside in these cases and merely look for specifics in written laws or regulatory bodies, there was no federal law passed in this case particular to force such actions as people are trying to suggest. Politicians might be pricks but they usually do a good job of legally covering their butts. I’m not supporting or codemning Clinton’s actions, I am merely saying that no such “force” was directly applied, as was suggested.

        • #2828246

          ansugeisler

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to @tony: Is that being forced?

          You will soon learn that Tony gets the most warped ideas from little snippets he is able to read. However he never looks into what is actually being said, in this case what he was forcing them to abide by. As a result he parrots US media and even when unquestionably proven wrong, he will argue until you finally give up.

          In the many years I have proven such things completely out of context, he has ceded, even after being shown the proof in White House Transcripts etc., perhaps twice. His usual effort is to simply ignore the facts and just carry repeating nonsense in another part of the thread, hoping to convince someone that he knows what he is on about.

          He’s not stupid by any means, he just has an issue with reading and researching facts. He make up his mind based on what he hears on the news, taken comletely out of context or not. When offered in complete context, he simply refuses to acknowledge it.

          It’s sad and often rather pointless to debate beyond that point.

        • #2828224

          There’s force of law

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to @tony: Is that being forced?

          and there’s force of innuendo by those sworn to uphold the law. (I know that Oz believes these people do not exist).

          She (Reno) indicated that she was going to investigate every refused application from those areas. In other words, the banks were going to be forced to expend a lot of time and money “proving their innocence”. It was cheaper for them (at the time) to simply cave in and to approve the loans, so they did. It’s similar to companies settling lawsuits even if they weren’t guilty of any wrongdoing… because the trial, even if they won, would be long and costly.

          They do the same thing in criminal trials. Did you ever hear of a defendant getting his legal fees back from the government after a not-guilty verdict?

        • #2828215

          So, you agree that they weren’t forced into anything

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to There’s force of law

          [i]She (Reno) indicated that she was going to investigate every refused application from those areas.

          It was cheaper for them (at the time) to simply cave in and to approve the loans, so they did.[/i]

          As you later state, it’s similar to out of court lawsuits due to cost and time.

          Are those companies are FORCED, to settle out of court OR do they simply make their own judgements and feel it is in their best financial interests to do so?

          I suggest that saying they are FORCED to settle out of court is merely silly, unless we are unclear on what the term FORCE means.

          What’s funny is that any time I have used teh term forced here, to illustrate urged, pressed to action etc. I get blasted that it was not force but ultimately a choice that was made. When the term suits you though, all of a sudden everyone has a different view of what ‘force’ means. Hypocrisy runs rampant amongst those with a mission of correction it seems.

          P.S. In most criminal trials, the government is not responsible for your legal fees. Only a VERY few states offer the defendant (such as an employee in a corporate trial)the common law right to reimbursement. Such fees are generally only awarded as a result of counter suit against the plaintiff.

          If a defendant files a suit against the city for wrongful arrest or detention, YES, I have seen such monies awarded on the odd occasion. As you should know, I have spent a LOT of time in courtrooms and watched a lot of misguided defendants try to recover costs that are not covered, as well as high profile trials where they are through counter claims, mostly corporate though as criminal trials put me to sleep real fast.

        • #2828213

          Apparently.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to There’s force of law

          [i]I suggest that saying they are FORCED to settle out of court is merely silly, unless we are unclear on what the term FORCE means.[/i]

          Using coercion (from a superior position of power and authority) to compel someone to do what they ordinarily wouldn’t do is included in my dictionary under the definition of “force”.

        • #2828187

          So on that same note

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to There’s force of law

          Companies are wrongly forced to hire women or African Americans.

          You also don’t seem to recognize that a GREAT portion of the homes in foreclosure were from people who would have normally qualified for loans without banks adhering to a regulating body. Sure, people who earn 40,000/yr shouldn’t have been granted loans for 300,000 homes, but neither should people earning 80,000/yr be granted loans for 500,000 homes.

          It’s not like it was just people in desciminated neighbourhood were the only people screwing over the banks. The banks were also, once again, not FORCED to offer loans, just FORCED (as per your definition) to properly consider each applicant. If someone was a high risk loan, the bank was not FORCED to lend them money, merely FORCED to accept and process their application, just as anyone else should be.

          If you feel that such descrimination was valid, then you will also accept other forms of descrimination. However that’s not such a stretch to accept from you, you have clearly separated yourself as being superior to and more worthy than your fellow man on more than one occasion.

        • #2828173

          Same principle, yes.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to There’s force of law

          [i]Companies are wrongly forced to hire women or African Americans. [/i]

          In my opinion hiring “because of” anything besides job qualifications is just as bad as NOT hiring “because of” anything besides job qualifications. Fire departments lowering required physical standards in order to hire more females, for example.

          [i]You also don’t seem to recognize that a GREAT portion of the homes in foreclosure were from people who would have normally qualified for loans without banks adhering to a regulating body. Sure, people who earn 40,000/yr shouldn’t have been granted loans for 300,000 homes, but neither should people earning 80,000/yr be granted loans for 500,000 homes.[/i]

          Right… they tried to mitigate their anticipated losses by expanding the pool…. Making it easier to slip a bad piece of paper in with some good ones when they sold them off. And I’ll even give you that BUSH had a significant hand in that! (The politicians in this country aren’t as different as they’d like us to think they are.)

          [i]It’s not like it was just people in desciminated neighbourhood were the only people screwing over the banks. The banks were also, once again, not FORCED to offer loans, just FORCED (as per your definition) to properly consider each applicant. If someone was a high risk loan, the bank was not FORCED to lend them money, merely FORCED to accept and process their application, just as anyone else should be. If you feel that such descrimination was valid, then you will also accept other forms of descrimination.[/i]

          I don’t recall any accusation that applications weren’t being accepted and processed… only that they weren’t being approved… Of course, there are those who think “consider” and “approve” are synonyms, and that if they weren’t “approved” it MUST be for some nefarious reason.

          [i] However that’s not such a stretch to accept from you, you have clearly separated yourself as being superior to and more worthy than your fellow man on more than one occasion. [/i]

          Well… I wouldn’t say “superior”… but I WOULD say I don’t regret not jumping into the mortgage fray… I waited until I had cash in hand… and because of that, can live better on a lot less and with fewer worries NOW, and that I now have more free time and resources to put toward the betterment of my community in a “non-enabling” way.

          Our goals really aren’t all that different, Oz… just our way of getting there… The difference is that my way doesn’t require the threat of force to beat people into submission. I’ve been “beaten”… both figuratively and literally… I didn’t like it… and I won’t do it to anybody else!

        • #2828124

          the threat of force to beat people into submission

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to There’s force of law

          And there you go again with bizarre, a rash generalizations that simply are NOT accurate in descriobing the actions taken.

          in order for government force to a be applicable, a federal law would need to be passed to enforce action. In teh case of your quick bash at Clinton, he passed no such federal law stating that banks had to offer loans ot unqualified applicants. They just saw an opportunity to make money and ran with it, end of.

          It can be somewhat funny to watch how you abhor any use of government force to support an agenda said to be in your best interests, but adamantly support the same force when directed towards a foreign nation in your best interests. It’s as if they are no good when aimed inward but good enough for control of others, you as do many others defend it as being in America’s best interests. Just a bit one sided with what you deem right and wrong there. You blindly oppose or blindly support. Investigation and fact being irrelevant.

          Anyway, have a nice weekend, you’ve flogged that dead horse for too long now, it is no longer amusing to watch you change, sidle, slither and slink as always, while you try and diffuse your original point of false contest.

        • #2827992

          Speaking of flogging…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to There’s force of law

          [i]in order for government force to a be applicable, a federal law would need to be passed to enforce action.[/i]

          I wonder what “law” enabled these officers to do this…

          Ah, but surely no government official would do ANYTHING unless there was a law in place specifically allowing it.

          [i]It can be somewhat funny to watch how you abhor any use of government force to support an agenda said to be in your best interests, but adamantly support the same force when directed towards a foreign nation in your best interests.[/i]

          An attempted diversion… If we can keep governments busy with each other, maybe they’ll leave their people alone.

          [i]Anyway, have a nice weekend, you’ve flogged that dead horse for too long now, it is no longer amusing to watch you change, sidle, slither and slink as always, while you try and diffuse your original point of false contest. [/i]

          (Every day’s the weekend for me now 🙂 )

          You too. And keep learning… Before you know it, you’ll achieve abject ignorance.

        • #2827939

          You missed my meaning there

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to There’s force of law

          With respect to federal law, yes there was a law passed. But to go full circle again, that law did not say that banks had to offer loans to people that weren’t normally qualified. I have proven that fact over and over again, without a single YouTube snippet, just the actual docs.

          With respect to your video demonstrating a police beating, we have had a problem with that here, and a good one in Victoria too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnwi6wO03As

          My point was not that the law isn’t bent by police though. My point was, Clinton did not pass a law stating that banks had to lend money to unqualified applicants(see the theme here yet?).

          As for government, it wasn’t an attempted diversion at all, it was just me realizing the futility of going in circles again.

          [i](Every day’s the weekend for me now)[/i] 🙂
          Me too, really. I think I am ready for another F/T gig soon though.

          [i]You too. And keep learning… Before you know it, you’ll achieve abject ignorance [/i]

          Not sure what to make of that, was it merely sarcasm or is a F-U-2 in order?

        • #2829192

          That’s called a straw man, Oz

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to There’s force of law

          Never did I claim that there was a “law stating that banks had to lend money to unqualified applicants”. Janet Reno (the “police”, so to speak) simply intimidated them into doing it.

        • #2829047

          Where were you when Clinton threatened the banks into making the risky loan

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to There’s force of law

          Clinton did no such thing, he threatened to have them investigated for not adhering to the CRA Laws restricting redlining.
          There is NOTHING in that law that states they must make risky loans, in fact it is quite the opposite, as I have already pointed out (if you had actually read the regulations set ou by the CRA),

          Clinton threatened banks who broke the law, he didn’t make them offer risky loans, if those applicants showed a fair risk (as with ANY other loan) the banks were NOT under any regulation to offer one anyway.

          Conversely, if they HAD offered risky loans, it was on their own accord, nothing to do with Clinton or Carter or Janet Reno, Bob Las Vegas, Emma Atlantic City.

          They simply used the excuse, of being restricted from breaking the law, for their irresponsible lending.

          If a bar is told to serve all legally aged customers, without prejudice, they can’t then turn around and say they were forced to serve minors because they were pressured to not check ID’s.

        • #2830224

          of which

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to There’s force of law

          [i]Clinton did no such thing, he threatened to have them investigated for not adhering to the CRA Laws restricting redlining.[/i]

          there was no credible evidence as to having occurred. It was an intimidation tactic, pure and simple.

        • #3025063

          Get real Tony

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to There’s force of law

          Redlining has been going on for decades! It’s a VERY common business practice for home or car loans, insurance sales even employers determining whether or not to hire.

          When I sold cars it was the same thing when we considered financing. EVERYONE does it, and the banks don’t even argue the practice, it’s simply a fact of life. now you are going to babble on for a few weeks about whether or not they were redlining?

          Give me a break, go find a hobby or something.

          http://syracusethenandnow.org/Redlining/Redlining.htm

          I know you REEEEEEEALLY want to make a point and you REEEEEEEALLY don’t want to conced by saying that your initial comment was over the top and a simple exaggeration based on a half truth, but Tony, you have nowhere to go with this. Your assertions was concise and firm, and incorrect, as proven time and time again. YOu posted with your typical emotional shot at government, it’s common for you, expedcted of you, no big deal, you were just off base and again YOU WERE SIMPLY WRONG! Get over it already. God! I don’t know why you even bother, then again I don’t know why I bother with replying to your circular BS.

        • #3025052

          Uh huh

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to There’s force of law

          “The results of a recent Harvard University study suggest that inner-city residents of all income levels are less likely to own a home than suburban residents of similar incomes.”

          Well, Dumbass, homes in cities are more expensive, because there are fewer of themthere’s only so much room.

          But some people LOOK for a chance to claim victimhood status any way they can…

        • #2816494

          Your true colours

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to There’s force of law

          So yoru true feelings is that because MANY peoeple living in suburban areas would not be qualified for a loan, then ANYONE livig in such an area should automtatically be disqualified from a loan due to their current region.

          That is redlining and MANY people living in such areas are VERY valid loan applicants, no different than you or anyone else.

          Your true discriminitive nature keeps shining through.

          Don’t you feel that the bank should make such decisions based on each applicants true credit history and potential?

          Or would you only oppose that when it was applied to yourself in a way that restricted you from following your beliefs and seeking your goals, as anyone living in ‘the great land of opportunity’ should?

    • #2826949

      Hey, let’s see how we can annihilate small business

      by tonythetiger ·

      In reply to TAX DAY, and 47 percent of all adult Americans pay NO Federal Income Taxes

      • #2828813

        I hope not

        by av . ·

        In reply to Hey, let’s see how we can annihilate small business

        I wouldn’t put it past them though. It would kill the economic recovery. People will stop buying.

        We do have unsustainable debt thats going to have to be addressed. Just think how much money we could save if we weren’t at war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

        AV

        • #2829195

          Problem is

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to I hope not

          they’re already taking the money from us. They’d find something else that is “of utmost importance” to spend it on 🙁

Viewing 20 reply threads