1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

$2330 per tax payer

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Dawkinsrocks, Sep 25, 2008.

  1. Dawkinsrocks

    Dawkinsrocks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,322
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Earth
    That is what the US taxpayers have got to give to the banks.

    All of those of you who hate giving any of your taxes to help the poor, how do you feel about giving lots lots more to the filthy rich?
     
  2. foggedinn

    foggedinn New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    335
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I just "did the math".

    That's 2330 per resident, not per taxpayer. That's every man, woman, and child in the United States; legal resident or illegal alien.
     
  3. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, they're in effect giving it to all the deadbeat borrowers who never paid their loans back, and never will.

    People borrowed money, they didn't pay it back. So everyone's mad at the BANKS?? That's like being mad at Paris Hilton because Osama blew up the WTC. :p
     
  4. foggedinn

    foggedinn New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    335
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sounds like a case of blame the victim. The borrowers, in large part, are still going to lose their homes. Some small number of them may be helped, but not many. Their credit is still going to be ruined.

    I'm not even in agreement with the premise that the mortgage defaults are the primary cause of the credit crises. People tend to look for simple explanations that simple solutions can be applied to. The sub-prime fiasco is one of many causes of the current situation. If we deal with it as "the" cause of the credit meltdown, we'll be right back in the same situation,(only worse) in the very near future.
     
  5. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let me get this straight: a lot of people took out loans they couldn't pay, betting on ever-rising home prices to cover their ass, something any dunce should know is economically impossible. As a result of their stupid gambling, they've clobbered the values of the houses of every responsible, bill-paying home-owner, and sent the country into financial crisis. And THEY are VICTIMS???!! Yeahhhhh, sure, right. :rolleyes:

    What dreck. Give me the list of reputable economists who agree with that. :rolleyes:
     
  6. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,924
    Likes Received:
    493
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    This morning, El Rushbo was ranting about how the Democrats expected this $700 billion bailout to actually enrich the treasury when all of those bad loans were paid back, and how all of that unexpected money would fund Obama's new social programs.

    Has anyone heard about anyone, Democrat or Republican, saying that the feds would actually make money on this deal? I haven't.

    It would be great if he were right. Just think: That $2330 per person (not per taxpayer, as foggedinn pointed out) actually paying dividends back to the taxpayers! The federal bureaucracy could actually be fiscally responsible, and pay back the taxpayers with interest! Just imagine! Imagine pigs flying, Hell freezing, and San Francisco voting a straight Republican ticket. We can imagine anything, can't we?
     
  7. foggedinn

    foggedinn New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    335
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As one of those responsible, bill-paying, homeowners(payed off the mortgage 12 yrs ago), I'm grateful that I didn't run into one of these sleezy mortgage brokers 32 yrs ago.

    The people who got sucked into these sub-prime mortgages were, for the most part, just trying to buy into the American dream of home ownership. The brokers who sold them these mortgages are, IMHO, a bunch of con men. As they then sold off these sub-prime mortgages to the financial genuses of Wall Street as investment grade securities, the financially ignorant first time home buyers didn't stand a chance.

    Yes, they are the victims who got hit first and hardest. Because we failed to protect those least able to protect themselves from predatory lenders, you and I are victims too.

    Man's first question to God as recorded in scripture was asked by Cain. "Am I my brother's keeper?" I was taught early on that God's reaction to Cain's question represented a very loud and unqualified YES!

    As for your request that I supply you with a list of economist; do your own grunt work.
     
  8. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA

    You must realize how little people have learned from this whole experience.

    Countless people are now calling for federal down payment assistance so they can purchase a home they have no business being in.

    So if the loans you cannot afford go away, demand down payment assistance to get the same house you cannot afford. People never cease to be idiots.
     
  9. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    Why? You can read... do you not read about the APR% on your credit cards? I bet you know what they are at and a Home Mortgage is by far more important to keep track of.

    Please, provide us ONE example of someone who was actually conned into taking a Sub-Prime loan.... I haven't seen ONE example yet, despite the Media's efforts in finding one. Even if there were one, a single example would simply be anecdotal considering 96% of sub-prime borrowers are making their payments and just 4% have fallen into foreclosure.

    Once again you give Government a pass:

    Barney Frank is the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
    In 2003, Frank opposed Bush administration and Congressional Republican efforts for the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis.

    Fannie and Freddie were his personal play things and he rejected any attempt to reform the CRA regulations that lead to this crisis... even after it became public in 2005 that these companies were cooking the books and going the way of Enron, Frank denied and denounced the truth:

    "These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis," Frank said. He added, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

    Barney Frank still has his job... as well as all the money funneled to him through Fannie and Freddie - for Congressional services rendered. He's either horribly incompetent or, more likely, horribly corrupt.... either way, he should not be allowed to retain his position as Chairman of Financial Services - Much less remain in Congress! But he's a Democrat, he won't get jailtime, he will get re-elected.
     
  10. contained

    contained New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For some of these institutions the gov gets like an 80% market share. If things turn around then perhaps in some cases we can recover some of it. I dunno who the victim is.... the homeowner hedging, the bank hedging. Ultimately it's the bank's fault for loans without enough personal backing it would seem. Why would i loan $100 to a friend if there wasn't a good chance I'd get it back or telling him 'hey you will owe me a boatload in a couple of years for balloon payments'.
     
  11. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So if you jump off the Sears Tower, and go splat on the pavement, your the victim? If you drive your car 100 mph in the rain, and hydroplane off the road into a tree... your the victim? If you eat McDonald's every day until your 600 lbs and die of heart attack... your the victim?

    No, these people are not victims. They made a direct thought out choice to borrow money that they could not pay back. Their credit is ruined, and should be. They did the deed, and it rightfully should go on their record. And in all honesty, if they are being foreclosed on... maybe they shouldn't be using credit anyway... ya think? I have no problem with someone who can't afford a home to lose it. I have no clue how you can look at someone, trying to buy something they can't afford, and getting caught on it, as being a victim.

    I'd wager good money if a buddy of yours borrowed a chunk of cash from you, blew it all, and couldn't pay you back, you wouldn't be thinking awww... he's just a victim.

    Well duh... the problem is people borrowing money. Don't borrow money and you'll never get caught in a 'credit meltdown'. It's very simple.... people who don't borrow money, don't end up in bankruptcy. Please don't tell me you can't survive without borrowing money either, our nation thrived for nearly 200 years when 'credit' didn't exist.

    China is booming, and the idea of borrowing is nearly non-existent. In fact I wager that's one of the reasons China is growing at the massive rate it is. Business don't have burden of paying interest on the credit they use to run. People don't have monthly payments causing them to live paycheck to paycheck.
     
  12. Dawkinsrocks

    Dawkinsrocks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,322
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Earth
    Funny how Libs and Gen think that banks should lend to anyone and that losses due to default are just the responsiblity of the debtor.

    I suppose they are the type of people who would lend money to a stranger in the street who promised to pay them back tomorrow and then be surpirsed when the person didn't show up.

    Well actually I don't suppose that because the meanness of spirit they display suggests that they wouldn't even lend money to themsleves.
     
  13. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Actually yes I have. The AIG bail out, is really just a socialist take over. It's not a bail out because in the long run, the contracts AIG has are still worth as much as they ever were. The problem is the accounting standards the government enforces, has changed how those contracts are valued on a budget.

    In other words, the 'loses' companies are posting, are all on paper. In reality, no actual money has been lost. But because budgets are what get posted to share holders, and because share holders cause the price of company stocks to go up or down, the company has lost stock value, and this is what government is banking on.

    Their going to take over this company, whose value dropped due to their own policies, and then reap the benefit of the assets and future contracts the company has.

    Let's assume he is right. Here's what is going to happen. Government is going to loot the company and take the "wind-fall profits" and blow them on government programs which won't help anyone, or at most a special selected few voting groups, and of course pay backs to political supporters. For Obama that would be Chase and Goldman Sachs. Of course, no one is going to get a dividend check, and Federal government will never be 'responsible'.

    Even when Bill Clinton raided Social Security to make it look like he had 'balanced the budget' even when we were actually borrowing more money than ever... what did they do with the supposed 'surplus'? Savings? Pay off debt? Nope, they spent it on crap. Obama will do the same.
     
  14. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You just lied. When did anyone say that banks should lend to anyone? I never supported this. I don't support excusing people of responsibility for their choices either. If you choose to shoot yourself in the foot, I don't think others should pay for your hospital stay. Nor do I think if you borrow money that you can't afford to pay back, that we should bail you out, or that your credit shouldn't be harmed.

    It is mean to not want to pay for other peoples choices? You know, about 5 years ago, I borrowed a ton of money I couldn't pay back. I have spent the last 5 years dealing with that mistake. If you are not mean spirited, then I'd like you to pay off the remaining $1,500 I owe. Please send a check, made out to me. If you don't pay off my debt, you are not only mean spirited, and also a hypocrite and a jerk. Are you going to literally put your money where your mouth is, or not? I fully expect you to pay my debt now, by virtue of how you treat people here and the statements you've made.

    you can contact me on MSN at aekleber@yahoo.com, I'll give you my home address so you can send the check. If you are a man of your word, then you had better pay. If not, then I know what kind of hypocrite I am talking with.
     
  15. vyo476

    vyo476 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Yes, yes, and yes, although not in the way you're thinking.

    Look closer. Look at people's families. Look at people who've never had a whole lot, who just wanted to have a house of their own.

    These people are victims of circumstance. Yes, they're victims of their own actions - but those actions are the result of something. It's simplistic to look at them and just say, "Well, that's it, then."

    That isn't to say that they should not have to deal with the consequences of their actions. They should. But at the same time, those of us who are in better positions should have a heart and not turn up our noses at them. Everyone messes up.

    I'm afraid there are a lot of people out there without your financial acumen. When told the exact opposite of what you just said, they'd believe it. And as a result...here we are.
     
Loading...

Share This Page