Half of U.S. pays no federal income tax

[billvon 3,119]

>people took out loans in good faith . . .

. . . without the means to pay for them. Foolish people.

>it is up to the bankers to get the money supply right.

Apparently since they did indeed give people the money, they had the money supply right.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

people took out loans in good faith - it is up to the bankers to get the money supply right. they didn't and much too much got created. the bankers fucked up and they got bailed out.

of course... It's not anyone's fault they didn't do elementary school math on their income and expenses (my first grader is learning greater-than and less-than). It's the banker's fault.

what??

BOTH parties are at fault. to deny consumer fault is ignorance.

it's the bankers job to get the money supply right. they didn't so it's no-ones fault but theirs. you blaming the victims is silly.

your gov planned and then supported those "victims" silly

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

people took out loans in good faith -

I understand using good faith to make a loan-what the fuck is good faith in taking out a loan? Praying that you can pay it back without the needed income? Come on-That was just an idiotic position to take.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

I have no objection at all to the possession of large sums of money come by honestly, preferably by hard work, skill and talent.

Interesting. You're okay with people having lots of money if they earn it by honestly working, but object to people just given it for doing nothing. Yet support government programs that give people money for doing nothing.

So it's a quantity thing?

How would you deal with a hard worker who lost his job in the recession (caused by wealthy bankers) through no fault of his/her own? Let him/her and family starve?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

but to them it's an unearned gift. bit like winning the lottery. not a good way to run a modern economy

Interesting. You object to unearned gifts of lots of money to people yet support government programs that give people money for doing nothing.

you talking about the military again

I think he's talking about the Wall St. execs who gave us credit default swaps.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I have no objection at all to the possession of large sums of money come by honestly, preferably by hard work, skill and talent.

Interesting. You're okay with people having lots of money if they earn it by honestly working, but object to people just given it for doing nothing. Yet support government programs that give people money for doing nothing.

So it's a quantity thing?

How would you deal with a hard worker who lost his job in the recession (caused by wealthy bankers) through no fault of his/her own? Let him/her and family starve?

No. Both the company and the employee contributed to the unemployment fund so they are due that.

These people are not doing nothing either. They are searching for a job, doing part time work, freelance, taking a pay cut for another job, etc.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

but to them it's an unearned gift. bit like winning the lottery. not a good way to run a modern economy

Interesting. You object to unearned gifts of lots of money to people yet support government programs that give people money for doing nothing.

you talking about the military again

I think he's talking about the Wall St. execs who gave us credit default swaps.

Which IMO should not have been bailed out.

No welfare payments. Corporate or personal.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I have no objection at all to the possession of large sums of money come by honestly, preferably by hard work, skill and talent.

Interesting. You're okay with people having lots of money if they earn it by honestly working, but object to people just given it for doing nothing. Yet support government programs that give people money for doing nothing.

So it's a quantity thing?

How would you deal with a hard worker who lost his job in the recession (caused by wealthy bankers) through no fault of his/her own? Let him/her and family starve?

So only people who lost their jobs due to illegal banking deserve welfare. Are you saying the tax refunds to people who didn't pay taxes should stop?

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

>Did the folks running Washington Mutual EARN their money?

Yes. They got a good education, worked hard at their first jobs, negotiated a good employment offer from WaMu, and did what they thought their bosses wanted.

They also screwed up royally, perhaps criminally. If it was just a screwup that cost WaMu money I'd expect them to be fired. If they broke the law I'd expect them to go to jail.

Well said.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

but to them it's an unearned gift. bit like winning the lottery. not a good way to run a modern economy

Interesting. You object to unearned gifts of lots of money to people yet support government programs that give people money for doing nothing.

you talking about the military again

Go stand in their boots for a year, then come back and tell us how they're 'doing nothing'.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,119]

>Go stand in their boots for a year, then come back and tell us how
>they're 'doing nothing'.

I spent a year working on a project at McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento. There were a lot of people there doing nothing (or doing a very good simulation of nothing.)

But it did keep them employed and off welfare/food stamps.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

>people took out loans in good faith . . .

. . . without the means to pay for them. Foolish people.

>it is up to the bankers to get the money supply right.

Apparently since they did indeed give people the money, they had the money supply right.

when they took out loans they had the money to repay - but the banks never had the real money to lend them in the first place. if the banks lend out too much it is physically impossible to repay that money without increasing the money supply. the banks fucked up the one thing they're supposed to do. instead the government was forced to start printing money to bail the bankers out.

meanwhile the banking victims get pulled apart by forces they have no control over.

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

people took out loans in good faith -

I understand using good faith to make a loan-what the fuck is good faith in taking out a loan? Praying that you can pay it back without the needed income? Come on-That was just an idiotic position to take.

people didn't take out loans they didn't intend to repay. the banks lent out far too much fiat money (with nothing real to back the lending). it was not physically possible to repay the loans - there wasn't enough money in the economy, forcing the government to print more - not so that people could then repay those loans but so that the banks could stay solvent.

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

it was not physically possible to repay the loans

12 years ago when my wife and I bought our house it took me 6 seconds without a calculator to know that I couldn't afford what the lender told me I could so we bought what we could afford. If I had gotten myself in a mortgage beyond my means who's fault is it if I defaulted the first time I had to put tires on a car? Not the bank's.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

it was not physically possible to repay the loans

12 years ago when my wife and I bought our house it took me 6 seconds without a calculator to know that I couldn't afford what the lender told me I could so we bought what we could afford. If I had gotten myself in a mortgage beyond my means who's fault is it if I defaulted the first time I had to put tires on a car? Not the bank's.

it was obvious, without a calculator, that the banks had pumped as much debt money into the economy as it could handle. yet still they carried on, creating so much debt money (that could never, ever be repaid out in the real economy) that it crashed the entire global system. yet it was the banks that got bailed out. don't you find that strange?

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

creating so much debt

Oh-You're right!!!! I forgot about the guy with a gun pointed at me trying to force me to sign the note.

Silly me

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Are you saying the tax refunds to people who didn't pay taxes should stop?

you can't give a 'refund' to someone that didn't pay anything - what does that mean? you mean welfare?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

people didn't take out loans they didn't intend to repay. the banks lent out far too much fiat money (with nothing real to back the lending). it was not physically possible to repay the loans - there wasn't enough money in the economy, forcing the government to print more - not so that people could then repay those loans but so that the banks could stay solvent.

in DD world, printing gobs more money is a good thing - so this was a 'win'?

I'm just trying to keep track of your wacky economic theories

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

it was obvious, without a calculator, that the banks had pumped as much debt money into the economy as it could handle. yet still they carried on, creating so much debt money (that could never, ever be repaid out in the real economy) that it crashed the entire global system. yet it was the banks that got bailed out. don't you find that strange?

and those banks were required by leftist laws to give out much of those loans, the government, via leftist laws was required to guarantee those bad loans

it was a cage of political correctness that made the whole mess - right?

but it's a good thing, right? since more money was printed to devalue the dollar

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mirage62 0]

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I have no objection at all to the possession of large sums of money come by honestly, preferably by hard work, skill and talent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Interesting. You're okay with people having lots of money if they earn it by honestly working, but object to people just given it for doing nothing. Yet support government programs that give people money for doing nothing.

So it's a quantity thing?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


How would you deal with a hard worker who lost his job in the recession (caused by wealthy bankers) through no fault of his/her own? Let him/her and family starve?


Kallen how would you deal with a hard worker that made money during the recession (caused by HIS or HER HARD WORK in there small business) would you take even MORE of there money to bail out others who made mistakes?

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[billvon 3,119]

>when they took out loans they had the money to repay - but the
>banks never had the real money to lend them in the first place.

You may not understand how loans work, then. When you get a loan (say, a mortgage) the bank writes a check to the previous owner/developer. They then deposit the check and the bank transfers the money. They do this because they actually HAVE the money. Why do they have the money? Because everyone else is paying their mortgages back.

> if the banks lend out too much it is physically impossible to repay
>that money without increasing the money supply.

If the banks lend out too much then their checks bounce and the person does not get the house (and therefore does not have to pay the mortgage.) That didn't happen.

>meanwhile the banking victims get pulled apart by forces they have no
>control over.

Which forces are those? If you pay your mortgage you get to keep your house. If you don't pay your mortgage you don't get to keep it. Your responsibility - and your fault if you screw up, don't make your payments and lose your house.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

If the banks lend out too much then their checks bounce and the person does not get the house (and therefore does not have to pay the mortgage.) That didn't happen.

yes it did happen - but then the government printed out the money to pay all those checks that were about to bounce
(my analogy wot i just thought of - is that it is a bit like an airline double-booking seats. the banks lent out too much money and there were never going to be the number of seats on the plane to get everyone on)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[billvon 3,119]

>but then the government printed out the money to pay all those
>checks that were about to bounce.

Again, that's irrelevant. If a loan check bounces, the consumer does not get the loan and does not have to pay it back. They are not left "holding the bag."

>my analogy wot i just thought of - is that it is a bit like an airline double-
>booking seats.

Sure, that's a good analogy - with the exception that, in the case of your airline, you don't have to pay anything until you are actually sitting in your seat. I'd be all for an airline like that if prices were good enough.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

>but then the government printed out the money to pay all those
>checks that were about to bounce.

Again, that's irrelevant. If a loan check bounces, the consumer does not get the loan and does not have to pay it back. They are not left "holding the bag."

not sure what your point is. the economy didn't have the money to repay the bank loans (ie the banks created too much money). the banks were about to collapse (their checks to each other were bouncing) and the worry was massive deflation. up popped keynes who said print more money to stave off a depression.

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[billvon 3,119]

>not sure what your point is. the economy didn't have the money to
>repay the bank loans . . .

The economy doesn't repay loans. People do. They fucked up and took out bigger mortgages than they could repay. Thus they defaulted on their mortgages, and some lost their homes (although most did not.)

>ie the banks created too much money

Banks don't create any money, any more than you do when you use your credit card to get cash from an ATM.