France slaps 7 billion euros in taxes on rich, big firms [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : France slaps 7 billion euros in taxes on rich, big firms


Ruble Noon
07-04-2012, 07:25
http://news.yahoo.com/french-budget-adds-7-billion-euros-taxes-rich-100603279--business.html

beforeobamabans
07-04-2012, 07:27
AH, French Socialists taking a page from their American brethren.

aircarver
07-04-2012, 08:50
Just point the gun and say "Hand over your money" ... :upeyes:

.

gwalchmai
07-04-2012, 09:05
Just point the gun and say "Hand over your money" ... :upeyes:

.You mean "Hand over our money"... ;)

aircarver
07-04-2012, 09:34
You mean "Hand over our money"... ;)

I considered that, but it's your money until it's in their hand ..... :frown:

.

JFrame
07-04-2012, 09:44
I guess France has its own Kulaks... :whistling:


.

callihan_44
07-04-2012, 09:46
tax em out of existence, france needs to learn a lesson about "other people's money"

evlbruce
07-04-2012, 10:22
Funny how an enlightened socialist state loves regressive taxation.

gwalchmai
07-04-2012, 10:37
I considered that, but it's your money until it's in their hand ..... :frown:

.Only people like you and me are under that delusion... :crying:

aircarver
07-04-2012, 10:51
:rofl:

.

eracer
07-04-2012, 11:11
All they did was roll back their own 'Bush Tax Cuts."

GT4494
07-04-2012, 11:18
Anybody catch this part?

The law, which also includes increases in taxes on stock options and dividends and the scrapping of tax exemptions on overtime, should easily win parliamentary approval before a July 31 deadline, given the Socialists' comfortable majority.

This is a sacred cow for unions in this country...

Lethaltxn
07-04-2012, 12:10
And did that fix any of their financial problems?

Brucev
07-04-2012, 16:28
Hum... so the French raise taxes of multinational businesses, the wealthy, etc., etc., etc. rather than giving them welfare ala tax cuts, etc., etc., etc. Well, the tax cuts didn't work for the U.S. did they? The job creators so-called have not been producing the jobs that were supposed to be produced. Looks like the job creators took their welfare checks and ran. So, let the French tax them. If they don't like it, they can always move to china... where they can enjoy living with their fellow job creators.

certifiedfunds
07-04-2012, 16:35
Hum... so the French raise taxes of multinational businesses, the wealthy, etc., etc., etc. rather than giving them welfare ala tax cuts, etc., etc., etc. Well, the tax cuts didn't work for the U.S. did they? The job creators so-called have not been producing the jobs that were supposed to be produced. Looks like the job creators took their welfare checks and ran. So, let the French tax them. If they don't like it, they can always move to china... where they can enjoy living with their fellow job creators.

Spoken like a true "non-creator" and most likely not a net taxpayer.

Bruce H
07-04-2012, 16:42
Hum... so the French raise taxes of multinational businesses, the wealthy, etc., etc., etc. rather than giving them welfare ala tax cuts, etc., etc., etc. Well, the tax cuts didn't work for the U.S. did they? The job creators so-called have not been producing the jobs that were supposed to be produced. Looks like the job creators took their welfare checks and ran. So, let the French tax them. If they don't like it, they can always move to china... where they can enjoy living with their fellow job creators.


Gee whiz, are you really that stupid?

fortyofforty
07-04-2012, 16:43
Hum... so the French raise taxes of multinational businesses, the wealthy, etc., etc., etc. rather than giving them welfare ala tax cuts, etc., etc., etc. Well, the tax cuts didn't work for the U.S. did they? The job creators so-called have not been producing the jobs that were supposed to be produced. Looks like the job creators took their welfare checks and ran. So, let the French tax them. If they don't like it, they can always move to china... where they can enjoy living with their fellow job creators.

So, exactly who pays the taxes when taxes are raised on businesses? Think a little.

I will gladly take the George W. Bush unemployment rate (along with a lot of other economic measures) over the Barack Odumbo unemployment rate. Bush inherited a terrible economy and fixed it, before the Democrats took control of Congress and it tanked again. How's it working out now? :rofl:

rj1939
07-04-2012, 19:26
Maybe this will bring a quick death to the economy of France, instead of a painfully long death watch like we have going on. I get tired of "death by a thousand cuts".

This will put more pressure on Germany to be the first to opt out of the EU, due to France likely lining up for bailout.

Brucev
07-04-2012, 19:46
So, exactly who pays the taxes when taxes are raised on businesses? Think a little.

I will gladly take the George W. Bush unemployment rate (along with a lot of other economic measures) over the Barack Odumbo unemployment rate. Bush inherited a terrible economy and fixed it, before the Democrats took control of Congress and it tanked again. How's it working out now? :rofl:

Reality is that companies pass taxes on to consumers. So what? There is a level of price beyond which product sales decline. If the company wants to sell product, they will cut the price or be forced out of the market. If the demand exist, someone else will produce the product.

Every president has to deal with the economy. I voted for Bush both times. But, I do not consider that he was much of a success in dealing with the economy. If someone wants to argue employment rates, etc., fine. I don't like it, but those under klinton were much better. I don't like it, but current rates under the squatter are significantly better that those that prevailed after the economy crashed. While I will blissfully enjoy the squatter being blamed for the crashed economy, such a charge is tenuous at best. If such accusation will help make people vote against him in Nov., then I'd say everyone needs to get out and tell anybody and everybody that he is responsible.

I say tax the tar out of multinational corporations. Tax them till they squeal like pigs... or until they actually become the supposed job creators they like to style themselves as. As long as they are only creating $1/day jobs in china, etc., I don't care how much they are taxed. If it ruffles the feathers of the stockholders, fine. Maybe they'll get off their dead behinds and vote out the board/chairman and put in people who are not the equivalent of smash and grab criminals.

fortyofforty
07-04-2012, 20:12
Reality is that companies pass taxes on to consumers. So what? There is a level of price beyond which product sales decline. If the company wants to sell product, they will cut the price or be forced out of the market. If the demand exist, someone else will produce the product.

Every president has to deal with the economy. I voted for Bush both times. But, I do not consider that he was much of a success in dealing with the economy. If someone wants to argue employment rates, etc., fine. I don't like it, but those under klinton were much better. I don't like it, but current rates under the squatter are significantly better that those that prevailed after the economy crashed. While I will blissfully enjoy the squatter being blamed for the crashed economy, such a charge is tenuous at best. If such accusation will help make people vote against him in Nov., then I'd say everyone needs to get out and tell anybody and everybody that he is responsible.

I say tax the tar out of multinational corporations. Tax them till they squeal like pigs... or until they actually become the supposed job creators they like to style themselves as. As long as they are only creating $1/day jobs in china, etc., I don't care how much they are taxed. If it ruffles the feathers of the stockholders, fine. Maybe they'll get off their dead behinds and vote out the board/chairman and put in people who are not the equivalent of smash and grab criminals.

Or you could get off your arse and create the ideal company you seek. You would be a hero. You could charge low prices, employ thousands of people, pay super high wages, shower your employees with fabulous benefits, and have a holiday named in your honor. People would line up around the block to have the privilege of shopping in your stores. Or, you can just ***** about how companies owned and run by people that actually own and run companies aren't being owned and run the way you want. Whatever. Your choice. :wavey:

The economy crashed beginning in 2000, before Bush came into office. Then he got hit with the Clinton-Gore recession that started immediately after he was inaugurated, long before any of his policies were in place. Then he got hit with September 11, due to the failed Clinton-Gore national security policies. Yet, he didn't whine about how he "inherited" anything. He just tried to fix it. And I would gladly go back to the Bush unemployment rate or Bush gasoline prices. After two years of Democrats running the White House, Senate (60 vote fillibuster-proof majority), and House, our economy was in shambles. If the House and Senate do not go solidly conservative this time around, it will be much worse down the road, no matter what happens in the White House.

It was Democrats that turned a normal, cyclical depression into the Great Depression. It was Democrats that turned a normal, cyclical recession into the Great Recession.

Brucev
07-04-2012, 20:35
[QUOTE=fortyofforty;19163496]Or you could get off your arse and create the ideal company you seek. You would be a hero. You could charge low prices, employ thousands of people, pay super high wages, shower your employees with fabulous benefits, and have a holiday named in your honor. People would line up around the block to have the privilege of shopping in your stores. Or, you can just ***** about how companies owned and run by people that actually own and run companies aren't being owned and run the way you want. Whatever. Your choice. :wavey:

I sit when I am working at my desk. Otherwise, I am busy doing my job. Hopefully you are also employed instead of just sitting around on your arse.

If a company can't produce a product at a salable price, they go under. Fine. Let them. Someone else will decide to produce that or another produce as they understand the demand of the market. If they want to operate in a community, they have to abide by the law as established by that community through its representative government. The community does not exist to serve the business. The business exist to serve the community. If it can't do that, it is not needed and can go elsewhere. If owners don't like it, they can invest elsewhere.

The economy crashed beginning in 2000, before Bush came into office. Then he got hit with the Clinton-Gore recession that started immediately after he was inaugurated, long before any of his policies were in place. Then he got hit with September 11, due to the failed Clinton-Gore national security policies. Yet, he didn't whine about how he "inherited" anything. He just tried to fix it. And I would gladly go back to the Bush unemployment rate or Bush gasoline prices. After two years of Democrats running the White House, Senate (60 vote fillibuster-proof majority), and House, our economy was in shambles. If the House and Senate do not go solidly conservative this time around, it will be much worse down the road, no matter what happens in the White House.

It was Democrats that turned a normal, cyclical depression into the Great Depression. It was Democrats that turned a normal, cyclical recession into the Great Recession.

When it comes to the demokrats... and the squatter, go right ahead and say anything you want to say. You'll get no objection from me. Even if what is said is basically a rehash of mythology, I will not object. I want the squatter ejected from the white house... so that the place can be fumigated and returned to the nation for occupancy by a President who loves this nation... or at least doesn't hate it or applaud those who do hate it.

certifiedfunds
07-04-2012, 21:11
Reality is that companies pass taxes on to consumers. So what? There is a level of price beyond which product sales decline. If the company wants to sell product, they will cut the price or be forced out of the market. If the demand exist, someone else will produce the product.

Every president has to deal with the economy. I voted for Bush both times. But, I do not consider that he was much of a success in dealing with the economy. If someone wants to argue employment rates, etc., fine. I don't like it, but those under klinton were much better. I don't like it, but current rates under the squatter are significantly better that those that prevailed after the economy crashed. While I will blissfully enjoy the squatter being blamed for the crashed economy, such a charge is tenuous at best. If such accusation will help make people vote against him in Nov., then I'd say everyone needs to get out and tell anybody and everybody that he is responsible.

I say tax the tar out of multinational corporations. Tax them till they squeal like pigs... or until they actually become the supposed job creators they like to style themselves as. As long as they are only creating $1/day jobs in china, etc., I don't care how much they are taxed. If it ruffles the feathers of the stockholders, fine. Maybe they'll get off their dead behinds and vote out the board/chairman and put in people who are not the equivalent of smash and grab criminals.

So you mean tax the hell out of the people. Right? That's essentially what you're saying with complete ignorant disregard for the shareholders which are without exception pensioners and retirees as much as they are hedge funders.

Marxist revolution just can't come fast enough for ya can it?



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

aircarver
07-04-2012, 21:17
It's always about increasing the gubbermint's percentage of your action .....:upeyes:

.

427
07-04-2012, 23:01
I sit when I am working at my desk. Otherwise, I am busy doing my job. Hopefully you are also employed instead of just sitting around on your arse.

If a company can't produce a product at a salable price, they go under. Fine. Let them. Someone else will decide to produce that or another produce as they understand the demand of the market. If they want to operate in a community, they have to abide by the law as established by that community through its representative government. The community does not exist to serve the business. The business exist to serve the community. If it can't do that, it is not needed and can go elsewhere. If owners don't like it, they can invest elsewhere.



The purpose of business is to make money. Are you blind to where you can't or won't see what happens to communities when businesses pack up and leave?

When business thrive, the communities do, too, through payroll and taxes.

Tax a business enough and it packs up and goes to place where it can make money. It takes it's jobs along with them, too. Then, what? The community is screwed. Why do you think so many businesses and wealthy individuals are leaving heavily taxed states like California? Why?

A country cannot be taxed into prosperity.

What percentage of profit being confiscated to the .gov is acceptable for you? 50%? 60%? If x% is good, then %100 ought to make everything great!

BTW, if I'm running a business and taxes are eating into my profit, I'm not paying the tax, my customers are - the community pays. I'll make my profit or I'll move business out to friendlier waters. Either way, the community pays.

muscogee
07-04-2012, 23:11
Hum... so the French raise taxes of multinational businesses, the wealthy, etc., etc., etc. rather than giving them welfare ala tax cuts, etc., etc., etc. Well, the tax cuts didn't work for the U.S. did they? The job creators so-called have not been producing the jobs that were supposed to be produced. Looks like the job creators took their welfare checks and ran. So, let the French tax them. If they don't like it, they can always move to china... where they can enjoy living with their fellow job creators.

Well said. If tax cuts were the answer then the economy wouldn't have crashed under Bush. If tax cuts are good for the economy then eliminating them would be great for the economy. Why don't we do that?

muscogee
07-04-2012, 23:24
It was Democrats that turned a normal, cyclical depression into the Great Depression. It was Democrats that turned a normal, cyclical recession into the Great Recession.

No it was not. It was the Republicans cutting taxes and borrowing money to keep everything running that brought the economy down. You can't borrow money indefinitely without going broke. The nation ate its seed corn under the Republicans. Now we're dealing with hard times because of their fecklessness. Instead of pitching in and trying to help fix the mess they made, they have pouted and demanded more of the same things that got us here in the first place. How can anyone believe that's the solution?

427
07-04-2012, 23:36
No it was not. It was the Republicans cutting taxes and borrowing money to keep everything running that brought the economy down. You can't borrow money indefinitely without going broke. The nation ate its seed corn under the Republicans. Now we're dealing with hard times because of their fecklessness. Instead of pitching in and trying to help fix the mess they made, they have pouted and demanded more of the same things that got us here in the first place. How can anyone believe that's the solution?
January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress. At that time:

DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77

GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%

Unemployment rate was 4.6%

Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!


***ON THAT DAY, JANUARY 3RD 2007:

Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee. Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!!!

THANK YOU DEMOCRATS for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac!

BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was Financially risky for the US economy. McCain asked Congress to reform Fannie and Freddie several times too . . . and the Democrats howled every time.

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? Obama
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? Obama.

Those are facts.

beforeobamabans
07-05-2012, 03:48
We should immediately offer any French company who wishes to re-locate to the US a five year exemption on all taxes.

Better yet, fix the corporate tax environment so that the US is permanently the most attractive country in the world for capital formation.

There is no reason why all those IPads and iPhones should be made in China, or France or anywhere else.

Cavalry Doc
07-05-2012, 04:56
Maybe this will bring a quick death to the economy of France, instead of a painfully long death watch like we have going on. I get tired of "death by a thousand cuts".

This will put more pressure on Germany to be the first to opt out of the EU, due to France likely lining up for bailout.

When the going gets tough, give up?


I sure hope the coming depression toughens some people up.

gwalchmai
07-05-2012, 05:06
We should immediately offer any French company who wishes to re-locate to the US a five year exemption on all taxes. We don't have enough perfume, cheese, and white flags already?

fortyofforty
07-05-2012, 05:22
Well said. If tax cuts were the answer then the economy wouldn't have crashed under Bush. If tax cuts are good for the economy then eliminating them would be great for the economy. Why don't we do that?

Unless you are a fool, or completely ignorant of history, human behavior and economics, you'd realize that a total elimination of taxes would immediately cause the economy to boom. Now, since government has made promises and commitments to spend more and more money, we can't eliminate taxes. However, every reduction means more money in the pockets of the people. What's wrong with that? Every dollar paid in taxes is a dollar taken at gunpoint out of the economy and redistributed or redirected (inefficiently, so minus a substantial “handling” charge) somewhere else.

fortyofforty
07-05-2012, 05:33
No it was not. It was the Republicans cutting taxes and borrowing money to keep everything running that brought the economy down. You can't borrow money indefinitely without going broke. The nation ate its seed corn under the Republicans. Now we're dealing with hard times because of their fecklessness. Instead of pitching in and trying to help fix the mess they made, they have pouted and demanded more of the same things that got us here in the first place. How can anyone believe that's the solution?

Your understanding of history is sadly wrong. The Democrats took control of both houses of Congress. Bush never once enjoyed a 60 vote Republican Senate. Bush had to work with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and the other corrupt members of the Democrat Party to get anything done. Odumbo thinks more taxing and spending is the answer. Sure. We're going to spend our way out of debt. Why don't you see how that works in your own household?

It was endless Democrat meddling in the economy that exacerbated and prolonged the Depression. Instead of the Depression of 1929 (as was the sharp and short Depression of 1920 that led to the Roaring ‘20s, and dozens like it in past history), we got the decade long Great Depression. How’d that strategy of taxing and spending work out? Now they want to do the same thing. Go ahead. Turn a Recession into a Depression. That will be the result. Show me a command economy that has worked. Just one. I'll wait.

fortyofforty
07-05-2012, 05:34
Reality is that companies pass taxes on to consumers. So what?

This should be the motto of the Democrat Party. Thanks. :cool:

Bruce H
07-05-2012, 05:36
The tax cuts were only part of the deal. They would have worked without any problem except for one minor detail. The regulatory environment added so many new rules that the tax cuts became mute.

When added new regulations make it very difficult to produce a product at a profit, business won't mess with it. This product is moved to a new production location and the jobs that were here are now gone.

Lethaltxn
07-05-2012, 06:01
Those are facts.

Don't confuse muscogee with facts. He prefers blind emotion to rational thought.

rj1939
07-05-2012, 06:55
When the going gets tough, give up?


I sure hope the coming depression toughens some people up.

Not at all. It is time to finally admit that Keynesian economics is crap.......all the incarnations of Keynes idiotic theories have brought us to complete ruin (check out John Law economist, Keynes schemes are nothing original)

As for Germany, no reason they should/could play sugar daddy to the rest of Europe, self preservation dictates they opt out.

certifiedfunds
07-05-2012, 07:46
No it was not. It was the Republicans cutting taxes and borrowing money to keep everything running that brought the economy down. You can't borrow money indefinitely without going broke. The nation ate its seed corn under the Republicans. Now we're dealing with hard times because of their fecklessness. Instead of pitching in and trying to help fix the mess they made, they have pouted and demanded more of the same things that got us here in the first place. How can anyone believe that's the solution?

:rofl:That's it. The Bush tax cuts did us in.

In an environment where every dollar of $2.2T in federal tax revenue is consumed by "mandatory" spending to support welfare social programs of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, et al, yeah, sure, it was the Bush tax cuts that crashed the economy.

certifiedfunds
07-05-2012, 07:48
Unless you are a fool, or completely ignorant of history, human behavior and economics, you'd realize that a total elimination of taxes would immediately cause the economy to boom. Now, since government has made promises and commitments to spend more and more money, we can't eliminate taxes. However, every reduction means more money in the pockets of the people. What's wrong with that? Every dollar paid in taxes is a dollar taken at gunpoint out of the economy and redistributed or redirected (inefficiently, so minus a substantial “handling” charge) somewhere else.

right on all 4

JFrame
07-05-2012, 08:03
I recall that Woodrow Wilson (another progressive luminary) left the country in a depression, with 20 percent unemployment and rampant inflation.

A program largely based on tax cuts, begun by Harding and carried through by Coolidge, calmly and quietly brought the nation back to prosperity, and then some.


.

muscogee
07-05-2012, 09:23
January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress. At that time:

DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77

GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%

Unemployment rate was 4.6%

Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!


***ON THAT DAY, JANUARY 3RD 2007:

Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee. Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!!!

In 2005 people could borrow more money on a 5 year ARM then they could ever pay back. That was great in the short term. Home builders could sell houses before they were finished and it was all bankrolled by the Republican led government. Many of those who maxed out their income couldn't pay their mortgages when the ARM rates adjusted. That started the economic collapse. That's a fact. Frank and Dodd didn't do it.


BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was Financially risky for the US economy. McCain asked Congress to reform Fannie and Freddie several times too . . . and the Democrats howled every time. Who controlled both Houses of Congress and the Presidency at that time? It wasn't the Democrats. Why didn't the Republicans fix the problem? In fact, there was no public discussion from either party until the bailout.

muscogee
07-05-2012, 09:49
Unless you are a fool, or completely ignorant of history, human behavior and economics, you'd realize that a total elimination of taxes would immediately cause the economy to boom. Now, since government has made promises and commitments to spend more and more money, we can't eliminate taxes.
So you get my point? Good.

However, every reduction means more money in the pockets of the people. What's wrong with that? Every dollar paid in taxes is a dollar taken at gunpoint out of the economy and redistributed or redirected (inefficiently, so minus a substantial “handling” charge) somewhere else.

So how do we finance government? How do we get out from under our debt? The government is not taking in enough money to pay for Social Security, defense, and the interest on the debt. The last time we were in this situation was after the Reagan/Bush debacle. Clinton fixed it by raising taxes and cutting Government. Bush II reversed that and ran the deficit through the roof.

What's your solution? Do you want to cut defense? Do you want to default on the debt? I doubt that. Many people in this forum want to default on Social Security and throw millions of retired people into in the streets? Good luck with that.

If the government can cut the largest retirement program in the nation, then it can cut all the rest of its retirement programs, including military retirement. If the federal government can do that then the states can too. If federal and state governments can default on their retirement programs, so can private business. Do you think your 401K is safe? If the government takes away Social Security do you expect those who are have lost their pensions to support you when the government decides to tax your 401K at 90%?

They only way out of this mess is higher taxes. Anything less will just dig us deeper into the hole.

fortyofforty
07-05-2012, 09:58
So you get my point? Good.



So how do we finance government? How do we get out from under our debt? The government is not taking in enough money to pay for Social Security, defense, and the interest on the debt. The last time we were in this situation was after the Reagan/Bush debacle. Clinton fixed it by raising taxes and cutting Government. Bush II reversed that and ran the deficit through the roof.

What's your solution? Do you want to cut defense? Do you want to default on the debt? I doubt that. Many people in this forum want to default on Social Security and throw millions of retired people into in the streets? Good luck with that.

If the government can cut the largest retirement program in the nation, then it can cut all the rest of its retirement programs, including military retirement. If the federal government can do that then the states can too. If federal and state governments can default on their retirement programs, so can private business. Do you think your 401K is safe? If the government takes away Social Security do you expect those who are have lost their pensions to support you when the government decides to tax your 401K at 90%?

They only way out of this mess is higher taxes. Anything less will just dig us deeper into the hole.

I like your idea. We should tax everybody at 100% of income until all our problems are solved. Great idea. Brilliant. :faint:

JFrame
07-05-2012, 10:04
I like your idea. We should tax everybody at 100% of income until all our problems are solved. Great idea. Brilliant. :faint:


That person's brilliant observations crop up on this forum every couple of months. I am left with doing this: http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/facepalm.gif


.

aircarver
07-05-2012, 10:48
That person's brilliant observations crop up on this forum every couple of months. I am left with doing this: http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/facepalm.gif


.

Scary thing is: he could run as a Democrat and win ...... :alex:

.

Sam Spade
07-05-2012, 11:09
That person's brilliant observations crop up on this forum every couple of months. I am left with doing this: http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/facepalm.gif


.

Quoted just so I could have a link to the smilie.

As to muscogee...try this thought experiment: Imagine an economy that *grows*, and whether that would generate more, or less, revenue than what we have. Now imagine what the government could do to encourage growth....

427
07-05-2012, 11:52
In 2005 people could borrow more money on a 5 year ARM then they could ever pay back. That was great in the short term. Home builders could sell houses before they were finished and it was all bankrolled by the Republican led government. Many of those who maxed out their income couldn't pay their mortgages when the ARM rates adjusted. That started the economic collapse. That's a fact. Frank and Dodd didn't do it.

Here you go. Everything you wanted to know and then some. I took the time to dig up all the check all the links for a paper I'd written on the crisis in 2008. The facts are there, from varied sources.

Barney Frank (D) Denying Problems With / Blocking Oversight of Fannie-Freddie in 2003 @ 1:00
Fox News Special Report on The Banking Crisis - YouTube

Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie
How the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history gave birth to the mortgage crisis
http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-08-05/news/how-andrew-cuomo-gave-birth-to-the-crisis-at-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac/

What Are the Origins of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae?
http://hnn.us/articles/1849.html

HOUSE OF CARDS
LIBERALS FUELED WALL ST. WOES
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_S6MsT275m3Ybbsm3TdxIxN#ixzz1zlk0FsNB

Bill Clinton Blames Dems For Mortgage Crisis
http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/da_kings_men/2008/10/bill-clinton-blames-dems-for-mortgage-crisis/

Fannie and Freddie: GOP Cleaning up Democrat Messes
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/fannie_and_freddie_gop_cleanin.html

Pressured to Take More Risk, Fannie Reached Tipping Point
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/business/05fannie.html?pagewanted=all

How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0

Raines says housing bubble won't burst
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2003/06/02/daily37.html

Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines
Don't blame him for the mortgage giant's scandal … yet.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2004/10/fannie_mae_ceo_franklin_raines.html

Franklin Raines to pay $24.7 million to settle Fannie Mae lawsuit
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004358433_webraines18.html

Franklin Raines, Business Week, Jan. 2005.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_02/b3915646.htm

Blame Fannie Mae and Congress For the Credit Mess
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212948811465427.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Friends of Fannie and Freddie
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/16/AR2008071602433.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

McCain’s attempt to fix Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac in 2005; Update: Obama can’t get AIG right
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/17/mccains-attempt-to-fix-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-in-2005/

Media Mum on Barney Frank's Fannie Mae Love Connection
Democratic House Financial Services Committee Chair promoted GSEs while former 'spouse' was Fannie Mae executive
http://www.mrc.org/node/25910


Who controlled both Houses of Congress and the Presidency at that time? It wasn't the Democrats. Why didn't the Republicans fix the problem? In fact, there was no public discussion from either party until the bailout.

Here are a couple of bills in the Republican Controlled Congress that died - all republican sponsored.
S. 190 (109th): Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190

S. 1100 (110th): Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2007
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s1100

H.R. 1461 (109th): Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-1461

muscogee
07-05-2012, 13:00
I like your idea. We should tax everybody at 100% of income until all our problems are solved. Great idea. Brilliant. :faint:

One more time, what's your solution?

muscogee
07-05-2012, 13:02
Quoted just so I could have a link to the smilie.

As to muscogee...try this thought experiment: Imagine an economy that *grows*, and whether that would generate more, or less, revenue than what we have. Now imagine what the government could do to encourage growth....

Define growth. The Mitt Romneys of the world are doing great. Most of the rest of us aren't.

certifiedfunds
07-05-2012, 13:04
They only way out of this mess is higher taxes. Anything less will just dig us deeper into the hole.

So short-sightedly WRONG. A perfectly socialist solution.

The only way out of this mess is growing the economy that Obama has been doing his best to kill. You can't tax your way out of this mess.

certifiedfunds
07-05-2012, 13:04
Define growth. The Mitt Romneys of the world are doing great. Most of the rest of us aren't.

Based on your posting history, that's due to your own shortcomings.

fortyofforty
07-05-2012, 13:06
One more time, what's your solution?

Cut. Spending. How's that? Or, even failing that, freeze spending. Even that would work, only much more slowly.

So, back to you:

How much do you think Will Smith should be allowed to keep, in dollars?

How much do you think Oprah Winfrey should be allowed to keep, in dollars?

How much do you think Venus Williams should be allowed to keep, in dollars?

If we all must sacrifice for the good of the country, how much money should these famous celebrities be permitted to keep and how much of their obscene fortunes (OWS lingo here) should be taken for redistribution?

Cavalry Doc
07-05-2012, 13:18
One more time, what's your solution?

Cap spending to 80% of revenues. Period. No more borrowing. Pay off the debt with the remaining 20%. That means that a lot of promises will have to be broken, because we are broke.

Pensions? cut them. (yes, even mine)
Welfare and all forms of public assistance? Cut them until a family can live better with one person working a 30 hour a week job at minimum wage.
Food Stamps/EBT? Trash it. Replace it with soup kitchens and meals on wheels programs.
Defense, 20 to 30 % cut, with focus on smaller more lethal forces. Announce that we are ready to use ordnance that we have already paid for that have a shelf life. Yep, that means nukes.
Allow people to fail. If they buy game consoles, new cars, big houses, and don't have the money for health care, tough, don't give them any.
Repeal the 17th Amendment.
Term limits.
Prohibit politicians to profit from being a politician.
Make every law passed by congress, immediately applicable to congress.
Flat tax, with no minimum or maximum income. No loopholes. No deductions.
Get E-Verify up and running, then fine any business knowingly hiring an illegal alien $50,000 per count. Cut off all forms of welfare, education benefits, or other public assistance to illegals.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Once the debt is paid, cap spending to 95% of revenues. Put the remaining 5% into a "rainy day fund", that is only spendable if a specific amount is removed, with the signatures of 75% of both houses of congress, the President, and a majority of the supreme court signing the check.

JFrame
07-05-2012, 13:22
Based on your posting history, that's due to your own shortcomings.


Well -- I suppose he wouldn't be a true leftist if he didn't blame others for his own failures. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/cray2.gif


.

muscogee
07-05-2012, 13:26
Cut. Spending. How's that? Or, even failing that, freeze spending. Even that would work, only much more slowly.

So, back to you:

How much do you think Will Smith should be allowed to keep, in dollars?

How much do you think Oprah Winfrey should be allowed to keep, in dollars?

How much do you think Venus Williams should be allowed to keep, in dollars?

If we all must sacrifice for the good of the country, how much money should these famous celebrities be permitted to keep and how much of their obscene fortunes (OWS lingo here) should be taken for redistribution?

Clinton raised taxes on everyone making over $24,000 per year. We should repeal the Bush tax cuts which allow nearly half the population to pay no federal tax.

muscogee
07-05-2012, 13:29
Cap spending to 80% of revenues. Period. No more borrowing. Pay off the debt with the remaining 20%. That means that a lot of promises will have to be broken, because we are broke.

Pensions? cut them. (yes, even mine)
Welfare and all forms of public assistance? Cut them until a family can live better with one person working a 30 hour a week job at minimum wage.
Food Stamps/EBT? Trash it. Replace it with soup kitchens and meals on wheels programs.
Defense, 20 to 30 % cut, with focus on smaller more lethal forces. Announce that we are ready to use ordnance that we have already paid for that have a shelf life. Yep, that means nukes.
Allow people to fail. If they buy game consoles, new cars, big houses, and don't have the money for health care, tough, don't give them any.
Repeal the 17th Amendment.
Term limits.
Prohibit politicians to profit from being a politician.
Make every law passed by congress, immediately applicable to congress.
Flat tax, with no minimum or maximum income. No loopholes. No deductions.
Get E-Verify up and running, then fine any business knowingly hiring an illegal alien $50,000 per count. Cut off all forms of welfare, education benefits, or other public assistance to illegals.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Once the debt is paid, cap spending to 95% of revenues. Put the remaining 5% into a "rainy day fund", that is only spendable if a specific amount is removed, with the signatures of 75% of both houses of congress, the President, and a majority of the supreme court signing the check.

Great ideas. Especially "no loopholes". How about no government subsidies for businesses as well.

fortyofforty
07-05-2012, 13:29
Clinton raised taxes on everyone making over $24,000 per year. We should repeal the Bush tax cuts which allow nearly half the population to pay no federal tax.

One more time.

So, back to you:

How much do you think Will Smith should be allowed to keep, in dollars?

How much do you think Oprah Winfrey should be allowed to keep, in dollars?

How much do you think Venus Williams should be allowed to keep, in dollars?

If we all must sacrifice for the good of the country, how much money should these famous celebrities be permitted to keep and how much of their obscene fortunes (OWS lingo here) should be taken for redistribution?

427
07-05-2012, 13:30
So you get my point? Good.



So how do we finance government? How do we get out from under our debt? The government is not taking in enough money to pay for Social Security, defense, and the interest on the debt. The last time we were in this situation was after the Reagan/Bush debacle. Clinton fixed it by raising taxes and cutting Government. Bush II reversed that and ran the deficit through the roof.

What's your solution? Do you want to cut defense? Do you want to default on the debt? I doubt that. Many people in this forum want to default on Social Security and throw millions of retired people into in the streets? Good luck with that.

If the government can cut the largest retirement program in the nation, then it can cut all the rest of its retirement programs, including military retirement. If the federal government can do that then the states can too. If federal and state governments can default on their retirement programs, so can private business. Do you think your 401K is safe? If the government takes away Social Security do you expect those who are have lost their pensions to support you when the government decides to tax your 401K at 90%?

They only way out of this mess is higher taxes. Anything less will just dig us deeper into the hole.

How's California doing with higher and higher taxes? They taxed themselves out of debt and into prosperity, right?

Politicians have made more promises than it can fund. It's not a tax problem, it's spending. Look at the numbers.

Since you are for higher taxes/fees, how much of a person's income and business profit should be confiscated to fund the .gov at all levels? What percentage? How did you come up with that number?

series1811
07-05-2012, 13:33
Hum... so the French raise taxes of multinational businesses, the wealthy, etc., etc., etc. rather than giving them welfare ala tax cuts, etc., etc., etc. Well, the tax cuts didn't work for the U.S. did they? The job creators so-called have not been producing the jobs that were supposed to be produced. Looks like the job creators took their welfare checks and ran. So, let the French tax them. If they don't like it, they can always move to china... where they can enjoy living with their fellow job creators.

One again, proving how somebody like Obama gets elected (yes, Virgina, there are socialists in America).

eracer
07-05-2012, 13:35
Bush inherited a terrible economy and fixed it...

Thanks for the laugh. I needed it this afternoon.

:rofl:

certifiedfunds
07-05-2012, 13:39
Why is it that people who have proven themselves to be abject failures in life believe they need the government to penalize the achievers?

JFrame
07-05-2012, 13:45
A lot of people forget that the U.S. was entering a recession at the end of Clinton's second term -- that, in spite of Slick Willie benefiting from the New Economy (the dot.com bubble which was bursting by the time W was set to start his first term); and the collapse of the Soviet Union, which restored some 4 percent of GDP into the economy throughout the 1990's that had been going to military spending.


.

certifiedfunds
07-05-2012, 13:46
A lot of people forget that the U.S. was entering a recession at the end of Clinton's second term -- that, in spite of Slick Willie benefiting from the New Economy (the dot.com bubble which was bursting by the time W was set to start his first term); and the collapse of the Soviet Union, which restored some 4 percent of GDP into the economy throughout the 1990's that had been going to military spending.


.

Ah yes. The Clinton Recession. I remember it well.

Ruble Noon
07-05-2012, 13:57
In 2005 people could borrow more money on a 5 year ARM then they could ever pay back. That was great in the short term. Home builders could sell houses before they were finished and it was all bankrolled by the Republican led government. Many of those who maxed out their income couldn't pay their mortgages when the ARM rates adjusted. That started the economic collapse. That's a fact. Frank and Dodd didn't do it.


Who controlled both Houses of Congress and the Presidency at that time? It wasn't the Democrats. Why didn't the Republicans fix the problem? In fact, there was no public discussion from either party until the bailout.

You might want to look into what and who caused those ARM's to adjust.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/shocking-details-barclays-epic-lie-bor-fraud-duuuude%E2%80%A6whats-ur-guys-345-3m-fix%E2%80%A6tell-him-get-it

muscogee
07-05-2012, 13:59
One more time.

So you have no idea how to get out of this mess. That's what I thought. It's easy to sit in the cheap seats and *****. It's a lot harder to come up with a workable solution.

fortyofforty
07-05-2012, 14:00
Thanks for the laugh. I needed it this afternoon.

:rofl:

Then check your facts. It will wipe the smile off your face. Care to tell me when the stock market nosedive began? Care to tell me exactly when the recession of 2001 started? You Natsos are always good for some entertainment. Just make stuff up, shout it at your protests, and hope nobody with a brain ever shows up to challenge you. Good strategy. It's worked in high schools and colleges for decades now.

fortyofforty
07-05-2012, 14:03
So you have no idea how to get out of this mess. That's what I thought. It's easy to sit in the cheap seats and *****. It's a lot harder to come up with a workable solution.

I answered you. Learn to read. Now answer me, genius.

How much do you think Will Smith should be allowed to keep, in dollars?

How much do you think Oprah Winfrey should be allowed to keep, in dollars?

How much do you think Venus Williams should be allowed to keep, in dollars?

If we all must sacrifice for the good of the country, how much money should these famous celebrities be permitted to keep and how much of their obscene fortunes (OWS lingo here) should be taken for redistribution?

Or, more likely, you'll keep dodging and running away from what you really would like to say because it would reveal you to be the envious failure you turned out to be. :wavey: Have a nice day.

certifiedfunds
07-05-2012, 14:08
So you have no idea how to get out of this mess. That's what I thought. It's easy to sit in the cheap seats and *****. It's a lot harder to come up with a workable solution.

The problem with you folks is you DQ ever solution presented as "unworkable".

At some point you people need to stop expecting others to give you money. Period. There isn't any more.

Cavalry Doc
07-05-2012, 14:16
Great ideas. Especially "no loopholes". How about no government subsidies for businesses as well.

Sure, I can see that. Tariffs for foreign goods can be added too to protect American businesses without taking money out of the treasury...... But tariffs can be misused too. That would have to be done with great care, and in a minimal way, and hopefully only to offset foreign subsidies.

JFrame
07-05-2012, 14:21
Having "been there, done that" with musco a few times until he put me on his "ignore" list, I sort of get a perverse entertainment from reading these exchanges. It's like watching a bunch of grown-up trying to reason with some fat little brat who is sitting with his eyes shut and his hands cupped over his ears, saying, "Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah..."

http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/snoozer/disobedient.gif


.

Bren
07-05-2012, 14:24
Great ideas. Especially "no loopholes". How about no government subsidies for businesses as well.

What is a "loophole"?

Income tax is a system of laws that say what should be taxed and how. Best I can tell, any time a liberal doesn't like it that the laws don't tax someone he wants to see taxed, in the amount he thinks he should be, that is a "loophole." Laws don't have "loopholes" that just have applications that some people don't like.

engineer151515
07-05-2012, 14:26
I agree that OUR government has a spending problem, not a revenue collection problem.

Can't speak for France but I sure am glad I don't live there.

Cavalry Doc
07-05-2012, 14:30
What is a "loophole"?

Income tax is a system of laws that say what should be taxed and how. Best I can tell, any time a liberal doesn't like it that the laws don't tax someone he wants to see taxed, in the amount he thinks he should be, that is a "loophole." Laws don't have "loopholes" that just have applications that some people don't like.

I said loopholes first. I guess I should clear that up.

I should have said exemptions.

Flat and/or Fair tax, without a minimum income, no exemptions, no exceptions.

I was a pretty big fan of the 9/9/9 plan, with the reservation that I don't really want to give congress a national sales tax that they could raise.

I'm not sure about the rate, but I'd like to see revenue projections if it were applied to all income brackets for a 15% tax.

I probably don't have a nearly perfect idea of what to do about taxes, but I am perfectly willing to state that the current system is a special interest ridden pile of doo doo that needs to be scrapped. A tax return for an individual should fit on a postcard.

muscogee
07-05-2012, 15:49
You might want to look into what and who caused those ARM's to adjust.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/shocking-details-barclays-epic-lie-bor-fraud-duuuude%E2%80%A6whats-ur-guys-345-3m-fix%E2%80%A6tell-him-get-it

Our advice to anyone who had an adjustable rate mortgage in the period between 2005 and today: speak to a lawyer immediately about suing the living feces out of Barclays, and all other banks who crawl out of the woodwork with purported settlements.Wrong. Read the contract and put the pencil to it before you sign. I could have bought twice the house I did and had lower payments in the short term. I didn't do that because it would have driven me into bankruptcy in the long term.

These loans should never been made in the first place. They wouldn't have been if those making the loans were loaning their own money instead of the governments (ours). Instead, they make the loans, and sell the paper which eventually gets back to Fanny or Freddie. The people making the loans don't care what happens after they make their profit because they're home free. The rest of us have to deal with the aftermath.

muscogee
07-05-2012, 15:55
I answered you.

Not that I could tell. Would you mind repeating your answer?

Learn to read. Now answer me, genius.

How much do you think Will Smith should be allowed to keep, in dollars?

How much do you think Oprah Winfrey should be allowed to keep, in dollars?

How much do you think Venus Williams should be allowed to keep, in dollars?

If we all must sacrifice for the good of the country, how much money should these famous celebrities be permitted to keep and how much of their obscene fortunes (OWS lingo here) should be taken for redistribution?

Or, more likely, you'll keep dodging and running away from what you really would like to say because it would reveal you to be the envious failure you turned out to be. :wavey: Have a nice day.

They should pay the same percentage as everyone else with no loopholes or special consideration. Romney should not get away with 15% tax when so many others are paying 25-35%. He should not be allowed write off his cars, gasoline, maintenance on his cars, his homes, maintenance on his homes, utilities, or anything that the rest of us do not get to write off.

JFrame
07-05-2012, 15:59
These loans should never been made in the first place.

Yet again, the empty echo chamber fails to recognize the laws and regulations enacted by Jimmuh Carter and Bill Clinton that virtually mandated that lending institutions shell out risky loans. Once the lending universe had been defined by these luminaries, it was not up to the institutions NOT to act on the mandate. Said institutions were answerable to their shareholders, and they could hardly go back to their respective board rooms and justify why other firms were making money hand over foot (on paper), and they weren't.

Sub-prime lending is not an inherently bad idea. If applied as it was intended -- for the, say, 2 percent of loans between parties who knew and trusted each other -- it would have worked out fine. But to bump it up to 15 percent (or whatever) of all home loans, on the whim of a couple of presidents, was a recipe for disaster -- as we saw in 2007.


.

certifiedfunds
07-05-2012, 16:05
Wrong. Read the contract and put the pencil to it before you sign. I could have bought twice the house I did and had lower payments in the short term. I didn't do that because it would have driven me into bankruptcy in the long term.

These loans should never been made in the first place. They wouldn't have been if those making the loans were loaning their own money instead of the governments (ours). Instead, they make the loans, and sell the paper which eventually gets back to Fanny or Freddie. The people making the loans don't care what happens after they make their profit because they're home free. The rest of us have to deal with the aftermath.

Starting to see the problem yet?

Of course the quality of the paper doesn't matter.....the government buys it no matter what.

This is quite a breakthrough for. Proves that even socialists stumble on the truth eventually.

For someone so versed in the facts I would have expected you to spell it correctly: Fannie not Fanny :rofl:

ETA: You also stumbled on yet another truth, an accident though it may be: Personal Responsibility

Read the contract and put the pencil to it before you sign.

There might be hope for you just yet.

Cavalry Doc
07-05-2012, 16:47
Wrong. Read the contract and put the pencil to it before you sign. I could have bought twice the house I did and had lower payments in the short term. I didn't do that because it would have driven me into bankruptcy in the long term.

These loans should never been made in the first place. They wouldn't have been if those making the loans were loaning their own money instead of the governments (ours). Instead, they make the loans, and sell the paper which eventually gets back to Fanny or Freddie. The people making the loans don't care what happens after they make their profit because they're home free. The rest of us have to deal with the aftermath.

I can't help it, I'm going to nitpick. Most people sign contracts with pens.

Other than that, the fact is the people approving the loans have no skin in the game. They knew they would be long gone, and not culpable when the stuff hit the fan.


Personal greed strikes again.

427
07-05-2012, 17:11
Wrong. Read the contract and put the pencil to it before you sign. I could have bought twice the house I did and had lower payments in the short term. I didn't do that because it would have driven me into bankruptcy in the long term.

These loans should never been made in the first place. They wouldn't have been if those making the loans were loaning their own money instead of the governments (ours). Instead, they make the loans, and sell the paper which eventually gets back to Fanny or Freddie. The people making the loans don't care what happens after they make their profit because they're home free. The rest of us have to deal with the aftermath.

Did you read any of the links I posted just for you?

If you had you'd know that the Justice Department had threatened the banks if they hadn't gone along with the Community Reinvestment Act and the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act and the role Fannie and Freddie played.

Here's a current article. Please read it.

Justice's New War Against Lenders
The Obama administration repeats mistakes of the past by intimidating banks into lending to minority borrowers at below-market rates in the name of combatting discrimination.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904199404576538283776006582.html

I know it goes against your ideology, but please, please, read the links in my other post to understand what really happened.

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19165218&postcount=46

fortyofforty
07-05-2012, 17:31
Not that I could tell. Would you mind repeating your answer?

Cut. Spending. Simple as that.

They should pay the same percentage as everyone else with no loopholes or special consideration. Romney should not get away with 15% tax when so many others are paying 25-35%. He should not be allowed write off his cars, gasoline, maintenance on his cars, his homes, maintenance on his homes, utilities, or anything that the rest of us do not get to write off.

Will Smith writes off hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. So does Halle Berry. And Oprah Winfrey. Why are they allowed to pay so low a tax rate, just because they have money in the bank, real estate investments, corporations, and capital gains? Why don't you go after their money? They are sitting on piles of it, and people are starving. Is that fair? How many people could fit inside Venus Williams's mansion? Why don't you call for seizing her mansion for the public good? She doesn't need it, does she?

Now, let me hear you go after Warren Buffett. Have a go at it. He's much wealthier than Romney, and uses artificial means to lower his personal taxes (allowing his company to pay him $100,000 per year, far below his market value), while sitting on billions of dollars in investments. What will you do about Buffett?

muscogee
07-05-2012, 18:50
Cut. Spending. Simple as that.

Where?

Will Smith writes off hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. So does Halle Berry. And Oprah Winfrey. Why are they allowed to pay so low a tax rate, just because they have money in the bank, real estate investments, corporations, and capital gains? Why don't you go after their money? They are sitting on piles of it, and people are starving. Is that fair? How many people could fit inside Venus Williams's mansion? Why don't you call for seizing her mansion for the public good? She doesn't need it, does she?

Now, let me hear you go after Warren Buffett. Have a go at it. He's much wealthier than Romney, and uses artificial means to lower his personal taxes (allowing his company to pay him $100,000 per year, far below his market value), while sitting on billions of dollars in investments. What will you do about Buffett? I haven't gone after these people because they're not running for president, but we have no disagreement here. Buffet says taxes should be raised for people like him. As I said, everyone should pay the same percentage. Everyone should be able to take the same deductions.

muscogee
07-05-2012, 19:17
Did you read any of the links I posted just for you?

If you had you'd know that the Justice Department had threatened the banks if they hadn't gone along with the Community Reinvestment Act and the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act and the role Fannie and Freddie played.

Here's a current article. Please read it.

Justice's New War Against Lenders
The Obama administration repeats mistakes of the past by intimidating banks into lending to minority borrowers at below-market rates in the name of combatting discrimination.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904199404576538283776006582.html I'm not sure what this had to do with my response to Ruble Noon. Minorities should have meet the same standards as anyone else to borrow money and pay the same rates.


I know it goes against your ideology, but please, please, read the links in my other post to understand what really happened. My ideology is that everyone should play by the same rules. Democrats should not give minorities special privileges. Republicans should not give the wealthy special privileges. Government should not raise taxes to bail out lending institutions or guarantee loans that people probably cannot pay them back.

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19165218&postcount=46

OK, I read them. I have heard the Fox News/Republican talking points before. I used to watch Fox news all the time. After the election they became too biased for me to take seriously. There's news and there's propaganda. Fox news is propaganda. I don't believe Frank and Dodd did it all any more than I believe Bush or Obama did it all. I've watched the standard of living drop for most people since Reagan's trickle down economics. I will not vote for more of the same.

JFrame
07-05-2012, 19:23
I see that you folks are enjoying having a conversation with a door knob... http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/grin.gif


.

fortyofforty
07-05-2012, 19:46
Where?

Everywhere.

I haven't gone after these people because they're not running for president, but we have no disagreement here. Buffet says taxes should be raised for people like him. As I said, everyone should pay the same percentage. Everyone should be able to take the same deductions.

Everyone can take the same deductions. I don't see any laws preventing me from taking any deductions if my situation warrants it.

Buffett pays a relatively low tax rate because he earns very little income. He decides to run his company that way, in order to pay low taxes. If he was not a hypocrite, he'd get paid a much larger salary and pay much more in taxes. He chooses not to. Hypocrite.

Many on GT would be all for a flat tax rate on earned income, with few if any deductions, as long as it is flat across the board. You earn a million, you pay X percent. You earn $20,000, you pay X percent. Lower figure, but the identical percent.

Do you admit that there is a problem now because people can and do vote themselves free stuff (by proxy), paid for by other people, without paying much if anything into the federal tax system? Do you think everybody should have skin in the game?

427
07-05-2012, 20:17
I'm not sure what this had to do with my response to Ruble Noon. Minorities should have meet the same standards as anyone else to borrow money and pay the same rates. But they don't. BTW, I'm considered one of them minorities.


My ideology is that everyone should play by the same rules. Democrats should not give minorities special privileges. Republicans should not give the wealthy special privileges. Government should not raise taxes to bail out lending institutions or guarantee loans that people probably cannot pay them back. I'm not wealthy and I don't want more and more of my income confiscated making it more and more difficult for me or other hard working Americans to accumulate wealth.



OK, I read them. I have heard the Fox News/Republican talking points before. I used to watch Fox news all the time. After the election they became too biased for me to take seriously. There's news and there's propaganda. Fox news is propaganda. I don't believe Frank and Dodd did it all any more than I believe Bush or Obama did it all. I've watched the standard of living drop for most people since Reagan's trickle down economics. I will not vote for more of the same.

Fox news? Republican talking points? I posted one video, one video, showing barney frank defeding fannie and saying everything is OK in his own words, and you consider all the other cites propaganda? Those written sources were from all over, and you're saying it's all biased and propaganda? OK.

Vote for whom ever you want, but at least know the facts of what led up to crash of '08. It's not like you've stated in your posts on this thread.

Ruble Noon
07-05-2012, 20:26
Wrong.

Not so much

The Biggest Financial Scam In World History



http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-07-05/biggest-financial-scam-world-history

Ruble Noon
07-05-2012, 20:28
I'm not sure what this had to do with my response to Ruble Noon. Minorities should have meet the same standards as anyone else to borrow money and pay the same rates.


My ideology is that everyone should play by the same rules. Democrats should not give minorities special privileges. Republicans should not give the wealthy special privileges. Government should not raise taxes to bail out lending institutions or guarantee loans that people probably cannot pay them back.



OK, I read them. I have heard the Fox News/Republican talking points before. I used to watch Fox news all the time. After the election they became too biased for me to take seriously. There's news and there's propaganda. Fox news is propaganda. I don't believe Frank and Dodd did it all any more than I believe Bush or Obama did it all. I've watched the standard of living drop for most people since Reagan's trickle down economics. I will not vote for more of the same.

Did you watch this?

Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown - YouTube

fortyofforty
07-05-2012, 20:29
Open-minded people who can read know full well it was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and Janet Reno that forced banks to loan money to people who had no chance in hell of paying it back. Frank-Dodd-Reno caused the housing collapse by encouraging insane levels of borrowing backed by government coerced lending. We saw how government forces banks to act more recently when the government forced banks to accept government bailout money, then demanded increased government control over the banks' operations. Government has all the answers, doesn't it?

certifiedfunds
07-05-2012, 20:40
You folks are arguing with someone who has come out and said on this very forum that he wants the U.S. to fully adopt "Democratic Socialism".

aircarver
07-05-2012, 21:15
You folks are arguing with someone who has come out and said on this very forum that he wants the U.S. to fully adopt "Democratic Socialism".

Too late !

We've already arrived at 'Democratic Communism' .... :frown:

.

kirgi08
07-05-2012, 22:44
:animlol:

My solution would be brutal and simple.'08.

muscogee
07-06-2012, 07:14
Not so much

The Biggest Financial Scam In World History



http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-07-05/biggest-financial-scam-world-history

You seem to have reversed your earlier position. You mean businesses can't do whatever they want to increase their profits? I thought that was a Holy Writ with you. Are you now telling me that individuals are not responsible for the decisions they make and the government should step in and protect them from bad decisions? Are you saying businesses manipulate the market? Are you telling me markets and companies are corrupt? Are you telling me the average person has the deck stacked against them by the rich and powerful? Are you telling me that's immoral rather than "just good business"? What's next? Are you moving to France?

muscogee
07-06-2012, 07:27
Did you watch this?

Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM)

So you're saying we need more government regulation of business? Good to see you're coming around. I have never been a fan of Frank or Dodd, but the President rest of Congress do not get a free pass. I do not believe they were helpless and being run over by two people. This impending crisis did not get near the coverage that the run up either of the wars in Iraq did. It did not get near the coverage that the health care bill has continually received since the last Presidential election. Why was this never an election issue until everyone got caught? Am I to believe that the entire time the Republican were in power they were helpless to do anything about this? I don't buy that.

muscogee
07-06-2012, 07:34
Too late !

We've already arrived at 'Democratic Communism' .... :frown:

.

Not yet, but we're getting there. :)

http://money.msn.com/retirement-plan/us-retirement-trails-other-nations-cnbc.aspx

JFrame
07-06-2012, 07:34
So you're saying we need more government regulation of business?


Of course, it was the imposition of government regulations -- notably by two Democrat presidents -- that sent the housing market into its spiraling trajectory.

The law of unintended consequences...I do believe it was unintended in the case of Jimmuh Carter, because he was too stupid to think otherwise.

Musco's epic fail lives on long after he abandons the forum for a couple of months to lick his wounds and hope that everyone forgets his idiotic rants from the last go-around... :whistling:


.

aircarver
07-06-2012, 10:15
Not yet, but we're getting there. :)


We got there the day the regime seized the auto companies from their owners, and gave them to the unions .....

.

fortyofforty
07-06-2012, 11:30
We got there the day the regime seized the auto companies from their owners, and gave them to the unions .....

.

And rewrote centuries of bankruptcy law (http://www.freeadvice.com/law/bankruptcy-law/business_bankruptcy/paid_bankruptcy.htm), screwing bondholders (http://am.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/01/bondholder-furious-over-gm-bankruptcy/) out of their money.

brickboy240
07-06-2012, 13:12
Buffett said he wanted tax rates bumped up for people in his tax bracket. When he said this, he was owing millions in back taxes and trying to find a way to weasel out of it!

As for the rest of your comments on tax cuts and the like....did you sleep through Economics 101 or just never set foot in the classroom?

- brickboy240

series1811
07-06-2012, 14:31
Not that I could tell. Would you mind repeating your answer?



They should pay the same percentage as everyone else with no loopholes or special consideration. Romney should not get away with 15% tax when so many others are paying 25-35%. He should not be allowed write off his cars, gasoline, maintenance on his cars, his homes, maintenance on his homes, utilities, or anything that the rest of us do not get to write off.

He's getting off with it the same reason Buffett is getting off with it. Because, the law taxes capitol gains at a lower rate than regular income.

And, you should notice that Buffett is not asking to have capitol gains rates raised at all, but rather is asking that income tax rates be raised, which would affect him very little.

You're being played.

certifiedfunds
07-06-2012, 21:33
Buffett said he wanted tax rates bumped up for people in his tax bracket. When he said this, he was owing millions in back taxes and trying to find a way to weasel out of it!

As for the rest of your comments on tax cuts and the like....did you sleep through Economics 101 or just never set foot in the classroom?

- brickboy240

Buffett doesn't owe back taxes. One of Berkshire's companies has its tax liability in dispute.

Berkshire's tax attorney's likely know the relevant tax code better than the IRS so, Berkshire is likely right. Either way, Buffett has a fiduciary duty to dispute those taxes on behalf of the shareholders. If he doesn't he exposes himself to personal liability.

certifiedfunds
07-06-2012, 21:36
Not that I could tell. Would you mind repeating your answer?



They should pay the same percentage as everyone else with no loopholes or special consideration. Romney should not get away with 15% tax when so many others are paying 25-35%. He should not be allowed write off his cars, gasoline, maintenance on his cars, his homes, maintenance on his homes, utilities, or anything that the rest of us do not get to write off.

1. Your tax return can be just like Romney's.

2. Have you examined his tax return to know what he is and isn't writing off?

3. I deduct many of the things you list and would venture to bet I pay a ****load more taxes than you, as does Romney.

cowboywannabe
07-06-2012, 21:43
:rofl::rofl: French people, losing what was theirs since the fall of Napoleon.:rofl::rofl:

robertoh
07-07-2012, 08:42
Well that should last them about another 6 months,then what?:upeyes: