Spread the wealth???
 

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should
do for themselves.
Abraham Lincoln

cm

Spread the wealth???
 

"cm" wrote:

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should
do for themselves.
Abraham Lincoln

So you are saying the government shouldn't be helping the big
corporations with tax breaks and bailouts?

Spread the wealth???
 

On Nov 3, 8:49*pm, Richard Evans wrote:
"cm" wrote:
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should
do for themselves.
Abraham Lincoln

So you are saying the government shouldn't be helping the big
corporations with tax breaks and bailouts?

Oh that cm... he's been asking. So: Give him a break!

Spread the wealth???
 

On Nov 3, 8:30*pm, "cm" wrote:
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should
do for themselves.
Abraham Lincoln

cm

Life is going to be great - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

Spread the wealth???
 

On Nov 3, 9:26*pm, "Dave - Parkville, MD"
wrote:
On Nov 3, 8:30*pm, "cm" wrote:

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should
do for themselves.
Abraham Lincoln

cm

Life is going to be great *-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

I'm John McCain, and I approved that message.

Spread the wealth???
 

Richard Evans wrote:
"cm" wrote:

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should
do for themselves.
Abraham Lincoln

So you are saying the government shouldn't be helping the big
corporations with tax breaks and bailouts?

That's correct. They should not.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Spread the wealth???
 

I'm John McCain, and I approved that message.

Now that's funny!

cm

Spread the wealth???
 

Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

Richard Evans wrote:
"cm" wrote:

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could
and should do for themselves.
Abraham Lincoln

So you are saying the government shouldn't be helping the big
corporations with tax breaks and bailouts?

That's correct. They should not.

Finally something we can agree on.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Spread the wealth???
 

Han wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

Richard Evans wrote:
"cm" wrote:

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could
and should do for themselves.
Abraham Lincoln

So you are saying the government shouldn't be helping the big
corporations with tax breaks and bailouts?

That's correct. They should not.

Finally something we can agree on.

So "the big corporations" should be allowed to go out of business?
Then where will their former employees work?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Spread the wealth???
 

J. Clarke wrote:

So "the big corporations" should be allowed to go out of business?
Then where will their former employees work?

Why should a big corporation go out of business? Why should /any/
corporation go out business?

Maintaining a corporate shell with tax revenues in order to deliver
paychecks sounds a lot like escalation of welfare to include
white-collar workers and executives...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Spread the wealth???
 

Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

cm wrote:

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and
should do for themselves.
Abraham Lincoln

cm

Given The One's history of taking care of his relatives, it is apparent
that his philosophy is: "I'm my brother's keeper and I'm going to tax the
crap out *you* to help my brother with what was your money".

-
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough


Mark and/or Juanita, you are tougher than boiled owl.

Spread the wealth???
 

Morris Dovey wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

So "the big corporations" should be allowed to go out of business?
Then where will their former employees work?

Why should a big corporation go out of business? Why should /any/
corporation go out business?

Because it was in financial trouble and nobody bailed it out?

Maintaining a corporate shell with tax revenues in order to deliver
paychecks sounds a lot like escalation of welfare to include
white-collar workers and executives...

Same argument was raised against the Chrysler bail out, which it
turned out never cost the taxpayer a single cent.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Spread the wealth???
 

J. Clarke wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

So "the big corporations" should be allowed to go out of business?
Then where will their former employees work?
Why should a big corporation go out of business? Why should /any/
corporation go out business?

Because it was in financial trouble and nobody bailed it out?

I think that's pretty superficial. Corporations encounter financial
trouble when they adopt non-viable business strategies, mismanage
finances, elect incompetent boards who hire/retain top execs who make
bad business decisions, attempt to end-run the legal system, or alienate
their marketplace.

You might find it interesting that I gave notice and left a former
employer of yours when I saw some of those same behaviors become
acceptable within that corporate culture. I'm disinclined to be sympathetic.

Maintaining a corporate shell with tax revenues in order to deliver
paychecks sounds a lot like escalation of welfare to include
white-collar workers and executives...

Same argument was raised against the Chrysler bail out, which it
turned out never cost the taxpayer a single cent.

Saved by the K car, indeed. I wish I could say /that/ never cost /this/
taxpayer a single cent. My bad, because I made the purchase decision -
but I have some first-hand experience how that loan was paid back - and
I resolved (and /kept/ that resolution!) to never buy another Chrysler
product. For me, your example is unconvincing.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Spread the wealth???
 

Morris Dovey wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

So "the big corporations" should be allowed to go out of business?
Then where will their former employees work?

Why should a big corporation go out of business? Why should /any/
corporation go out business?

Maintaining a corporate shell with tax revenues in order to deliver
paychecks sounds a lot like escalation of welfare to include
white-collar workers and executives...


Exactly. For this reason neither the corporations, banks, OR the
individuals who spent money they did not have should be bailed out
by the rest of us who live within our means and/or by jacking up
the Federal debt to even more stratospheric levels.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Spread the wealth???
 

Morris Dovey wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

So "the big corporations" should be allowed to go out of
business?
Then where will their former employees work?
Why should a big corporation go out of business? Why should /any/
corporation go out business?

Because it was in financial trouble and nobody bailed it out?

I think that's pretty superficial. Corporations encounter financial
trouble when they adopt non-viable business strategies, mismanage
finances, elect incompetent boards who hire/retain top execs who
make
bad business decisions, attempt to end-run the legal system, or
alienate their marketplace.

You might find it interesting that I gave notice and left a former
employer of yours when I saw some of those same behaviors become
acceptable within that corporate culture. I'm disinclined to be
sympathetic.

The reason the company went under is irrelevant to the person who is
out of work with bills to pay.

Maintaining a corporate shell with tax revenues in order to
deliver
paychecks sounds a lot like escalation of welfare to include
white-collar workers and executives...

Same argument was raised against the Chrysler bail out, which it
turned out never cost the taxpayer a single cent.

Saved by the K car, indeed. I wish I could say /that/ never cost
/this/ taxpayer a single cent. My bad, because I made the purchase
decision -
but I have some first-hand experience how that loan was paid back -
and
I resolved (and /kept/ that resolution!) to never buy another
Chrysler
product. For me, your example is unconvincing.

So you didn't like the product. So what?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Spread the wealth???
 

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

So "the big corporations" should be allowed to go out of business?
Then where will their former employees work?
Why should a big corporation go out of business? Why should /any/
corporation go out business?

Maintaining a corporate shell with tax revenues in order to deliver
paychecks sounds a lot like escalation of welfare to include
white-collar workers and executives...


Exactly. For this reason neither the corporations, banks, OR the
individuals who spent money they did not have should be bailed out
by the rest of us who live within our means and/or by jacking up
the Federal debt to even more stratospheric levels.

First...while I'm not from the US, I'm still impacted by the issue.

I'm generally in favour of letting the impacted businesses collapse
under the weight of their own collective stupidity/greed. However, I
think there's probably a kernel of truth to the "too big to fail"
sentiment. (Of course, as one economist put it, that just means that
they were "too big".)

Hypothetically suppose the US government (and all the other world
governments) did let the impacted corporations collapse. It seems quite
possible that domino effects would throw basically the entire developed
world into a recession.

I'm Canadian and arguably our banking system has been one of the least
impacted in the G8 due to stricter regulation. Even so, if the US and
Europe were to have major problems, we'd be screwed as well because
we're primarily an export nation.

Because of this, I'm currently in the "reluctantly bail them out and
then try hard to make sure it can't happen again" camp.

Of course the downside of the bailout is that the next time the bankers
see an opportunity for a quick buck via a risky move, all they have to
do is make sure they're "too big to fail" and they've got an instant
security blanket.

Chris

Spread the wealth???
 

J. Clarke wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

So "the big corporations" should be allowed to go out of
business?
Then where will their former employees work?
Why should a big corporation go out of business? Why should /any/
corporation go out business?
Because it was in financial trouble and nobody bailed it out?
I think that's pretty superficial. Corporations encounter financial
trouble when they adopt non-viable business strategies, mismanage
finances, elect incompetent boards who hire/retain top execs who
make
bad business decisions, attempt to end-run the legal system, or
alienate their marketplace.

You might find it interesting that I gave notice and left a former
employer of yours when I saw some of those same behaviors become
acceptable within that corporate culture. I'm disinclined to be
sympathetic.

The reason the company went under is irrelevant to the person who is
out of work with bills to pay.

Then let's be honest and smart enough to make the welfare payments to
that person instead of those who've already demonstrated that they can't
manage money.

Maintaining a corporate shell with tax revenues in order to
deliver
paychecks sounds a lot like escalation of welfare to include
white-collar workers and executives...
Same argument was raised against the Chrysler bail out, which it
turned out never cost the taxpayer a single cent.
Saved by the K car, indeed. I wish I could say /that/ never cost
/this/ taxpayer a single cent. My bad, because I made the purchase
decision -
but I have some first-hand experience how that loan was paid back -
and
I resolved (and /kept/ that resolution!) to never buy another
Chrysler
product. For me, your example is unconvincing.

So you didn't like the product. So what?

So our taxes paid for a bailout loan that was repaid by foisting cheap
crap on people who expected reasonable value for their money. If that's
acceptable to you, then you got what you paid for. It isn't acceptable
to me because I didn't get the value I paid for.

Ah! I get it - your sympathy doesn't extend to those who get stiffed to
make the bailouts work. Strikes me as a bit parochial...

....but as you said - so what?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Spread the wealth???
 

Chris Friesen wrote:

Because of this, I'm currently in the "reluctantly bail them out and
then try hard to make sure it can't happen again" camp.

I'm really, really hoping that you're still in that camp a year from now...

....I worry that we might be trying to put out a fire by smothering it
with petrol.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Spread the wealth???
 

Morris Dovey wrote:
Chris Friesen wrote:

Because of this, I'm currently in the "reluctantly bail them out and
then try hard to make sure it can't happen again" camp.

I'm really, really hoping that you're still in that camp a year from now...

You and me both. :)

It sticks in my craw that there don't seem to be any effective penalties
for the industry people involved. Sure, a lot of people took on much
higher mortgages than they could reasonably pay off, but their bankers
led them on, or at least didn't dissuade them.

...I worry that we might be trying to put out a fire by smothering it
with petrol.

That is the risk. However, the alternative seems to be that a
significant portion of the global banking system implodes because it was
overextended.

Whoever thought that a developed nation (Iceland) could basically go
bankrupt? It's crazy, but it happened.

Chris

Spread the wealth???
 

Chris Friesen wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

So "the big corporations" should be allowed to go out of business?
Then where will their former employees work?
Why should a big corporation go out of business? Why should /any/
corporation go out business?

Maintaining a corporate shell with tax revenues in order to deliver
paychecks sounds a lot like escalation of welfare to include
white-collar workers and executives...


Exactly. For this reason neither the corporations, banks, OR the
individuals who spent money they did not have should be bailed out
by the rest of us who live within our means and/or by jacking up
the Federal debt to even more stratospheric levels.

First...while I'm not from the US, I'm still impacted by the issue.

I'm generally in favour of letting the impacted businesses collapse
under the weight of their own collective stupidity/greed. However, I
think there's probably a kernel of truth to the "too big to fail"
sentiment. (Of course, as one economist put it, that just means that
they were "too big".)

Hypothetically suppose the US government (and all the other world
governments) did let the impacted corporations collapse. It seems quite
possible that domino effects would throw basically the entire developed
world into a recession.

I'm Canadian and arguably our banking system has been one of the least
impacted in the G8 due to stricter regulation. Even so, if the US and
Europe were to have major problems, we'd be screwed as well because
we're primarily an export nation.

Because of this, I'm currently in the "reluctantly bail them out and
then try hard to make sure it can't happen again" camp.

Of course the downside of the bailout is that the next time the bankers
see an opportunity for a quick buck via a risky move, all they have to
do is make sure they're "too big to fail" and they've got an instant
security blanket.

Chris

One point: This was NOT "caused" by the bankers ... or at least not
primarily. The banks are just the place where the problem finally
showed up. This was caused by generations of deficit spending by an
overweening and growing government. At some point, that government had
a debt it could not service easily and thus dropped interest rates,
thereby reducing the cost of the debt AND devaluing the currency to
pay off old debts with new, less valuable money. In the mean time,
that same government - in the true spirit of communism - forced banks
to extend mortgages to people that had no business owning a house. The
banks - guaranteed that they would never lose money thereby - jumped
in enthusiastically and then went to the next level: If the government
is making money cheap, why not start lending to ALL risky borrowers.
Like I said, the banks are not blameless here, but the larger
population and its government, both of whom spent madly with money
they could not repay, bear the bulk of the blame.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Spread the wealth???
 

Chris Friesen wrote:

Whoever thought that a developed nation (Iceland) could basically go
bankrupt? It's crazy, but it happened.

Well, clearly, they hadn't gone far /enough/ into debt. :-b

I'm off to the polls to exorcise my frustrations.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Spread the wealth???
 

Chris Friesen wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
Chris Friesen wrote:

Because of this, I'm currently in the "reluctantly bail them out and
then try hard to make sure it can't happen again" camp.

I'm really, really hoping that you're still in that camp a year from
now...

You and me both. :)

It sticks in my craw that there don't seem to be any effective penalties
for the industry people involved. Sure, a lot of people took on much
higher mortgages than they could reasonably pay off, but their bankers
led them on, or at least didn't dissuade them.

This is nonsense. The "people to blame" are the big spending politicians
and their mooching constituents who all wanted what they could not
afford. The bankers - while not blameless - are the *last* place the
problem was born. You want to punish someone? How about millions
of Western/US citizens that bought stuff/houses/cars/boats they could not
actually afford and then whined that they couldn't make the payments.



...I worry that we might be trying to put out a fire by smothering it
with petrol.

That is the risk. However, the alternative seems to be that a
significant portion of the global banking system implodes because it was
overextended.

Whoever thought that a developed nation (Iceland) could basically go
bankrupt? It's crazy, but it happened.

Chris


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Spread the wealth???
 

On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 10:34:56 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:

It sticks in my craw that there don't seem to be any effective penalties
for the industry people involved. Sure, a lot of people took on much
higher mortgages than they could reasonably pay off, but their bankers
led them on, or at least didn't dissuade them.

Just remember that roughly one third of the US mortgages in default, at
least from what I've read, were held by owners who never lived in the
house, i.e. speculators. They got no or low down loans and just walked
away when the market declined.

I know that for the last several years, I was surprised by the number of
"for rent" signs on brand new houses.

Spread the wealth???
 

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

This is nonsense. The "people to blame" are the big spending politicians
and their mooching constituents who all wanted what they could not
afford. The bankers - while not blameless - are the *last* place the
problem was born. You want to punish someone? How about millions
of Western/US citizens that bought stuff/houses/cars/boats they could not
actually afford and then whined that they couldn't make the payments.

Sure, there are many people who took on more debt than they could pay
back. However, a responsible banker should say "no, you can't have that
loan since the odds are that you won't be able to repay it".

If the loan officers had been doing their jobs, people would never have
been able to get the loans to buy all that stuff. Instead, the banks
were coming up with exotic mortgages to try and entice people to borrow
more money. (I bought a house 2 years ago, and my bank was perfectly
willing to give me a mortgage almost twice as big as what I was prepared
to take on--and that's in Canada where the industry is more tightly
regulated.)

The Fed made it so cheap (1% interest!) for large institutions to borrow
money that it was extremely tempting for organizations to leverage
themselves to the hilt in order to borrow from the Fed so they could
turn around and lend it out at higher rates.

Chris

Spread the wealth???
 

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 10:34:56 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:

It sticks in my craw that there don't seem to be any effective penalties
for the industry people involved. Sure, a lot of people took on much
higher mortgages than they could reasonably pay off, but their bankers
led them on, or at least didn't dissuade them.

Just remember that roughly one third of the US mortgages in default, at
least from what I've read, were held by owners who never lived in the
house, i.e. speculators. They got no or low down loans and just walked
away when the market declined.

I know that for the last several years, I was surprised by the number of
"for rent" signs on brand new houses.


And thus, we the taxpayers, are offsetting the losses of gamblers. I
have no objection to other people gambling/speculating. I have an
objection to paying for their bad choices (as I do anyone else's bad
choices). More interesting is that the actual mortgage default rate is
still pretty low, it's just not as low as it has been historically.
Why on earth we should bail out the dummies behind all this (the
borrowers or the lenders) is still beyond me. Let the credit markets
seize up and thereby clean out the crud from the financial system. In
relatively short order (a few years) the system would be back to
healthy operations. All we've done with the bailout is further
collectivize the economy and delay a true, healthy recovery. Then
again, it won't make much difference anyway. When His Holiness, Our
Savior And Lord, Comrade Obama gets done with the US economy, there's
not going to be much worth saving.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Spread the wealth???
 

On Nov 4, 12:19*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


When His Holiness, Our
Savior And Lord, Comrade Obama ..........


That's getting stale, Daneliuk.

Spread the wealth???
 

Chris Friesen wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

This is nonsense. The "people to blame" are the big spending politicians
and their mooching constituents who all wanted what they could not
afford. The bankers - while not blameless - are the *last* place the
problem was born. You want to punish someone? How about millions
of Western/US citizens that bought stuff/houses/cars/boats they could not
actually afford and then whined that they couldn't make the payments.

Sure, there are many people who took on more debt than they could pay
back. However, a responsible banker should say "no, you can't have that
loan since the odds are that you won't be able to repay it".

Since when are people not responsible for themselves? The borrowers
were big boys and girls. The idea that they were somehow coerced into
borrowing is absurd on its face - it takes a LOT of paperwork and signing
to finish up a loan. The fact is that people got greedy and now want
to lay off their responsibility on the eeeeeeeevil bankers.


If the loan officers had been doing their jobs, people would never have
been able to get the loans to buy all that stuff. Instead, the banks

Not true. The Federal weasels forced the bankers to give loans to
people whose only "income" was welfare via the foolish lending
guidelines jammed down Freddie/Fannie. This was *government mandated*
not initiated via the banks.

were coming up with exotic mortgages to try and entice people to borrow
more money. (I bought a house 2 years ago, and my bank was perfectly
willing to give me a mortgage almost twice as big as what I was prepared
to take on--and that's in Canada where the industry is more tightly
regulated.)

Both borrower and lender are adults of sound mind. Why do I have to pay
to bail out either party of their respective stupidity?


The Fed made it so cheap (1% interest!) for large institutions to borrow
money that it was extremely tempting for organizations to leverage
themselves to the hilt in order to borrow from the Fed so they could
turn around and lend it out at higher rates.

Exactly. Now ask yourself *why* the Fed did this? Cheap money makes
servicing the existing debt less expensive. This means political
vermin can go into MORE debt to buy votes to get/stay elected. How
else is the ultimate political weasel, Obama, going to make good on
his many promises, for instance. More debt. Beyond that, artificially
reducing the interest rate has the effect of devaluing the dollar, at
least indirectly. This means that we get to pay off the old debt with
much less valuable dollars - another common ploy of the political weasels.
This works in the short term, but in the longer term, it corrupts the
economic foundations of the nation so badly, it comes back to haunt all of
us.

In short, the US economic has been destroyed not by that eeeeeeevil George
Bush, or the eeeeeeeeeevil oil companies, or the eeeeeeeeevil bankers. It
has been destroyed by *its people*. The mooching, lazy, something-for-nothing
losers who want what they want whether they've earned it or can afford it.
The political classes (all of 'em, left, right and center) and bankers were
just accessories to the murder perpetrated by the greedy, foul, and
malignant larger population.

Chris


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Spread the wealth???
 

Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 4, 12:19 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


When His Holiness, Our
Savior And Lord, Comrade Obama ..........


That's getting stale, Daneliuk.



It is truer than ever Robbie Baby. After he presides over the raping of
the wealthy, economic reality is *still* going to hit this political
gasbag (assuming he's elected). No amount of stealing (as his entire
platform demands) can replace the consequent loss of productivity that
will ensue. He's busy selling himself as the Sheeple's Messiah without
the remotest clue of how very badly his ideas will further undermine
the US, and thus all of Western, economic foundations. This weasel is
going to make Carter look like a genius. Hold on to your private parts
ladies and gentlement, we are about to see lots of unemployment (far
beyond what we see now), negative growth, stagnation, and ultimately
inflation. Meanwhile, the wealthy, the engine of new investment and
capital growth, will still be wealthy - it will just be denominated
in other currencies and stored in other nations.

Let Obama Communism begin - the people deserve it.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Spread the wealth???
 

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
Both borrower and lender are adults of sound mind. Why do I have to pay
to bail out either party of their respective stupidity?

Same old bull**** eh Tim? As usual, it's all about you.

Spread the wealth???
 

Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
Both borrower and lender are adults of sound mind. Why do I have to pay
to bail out either party of their respective stupidity?

Same old bull**** eh Tim? As usual, it's all about you.



No, it's all about people unwilling to take personal responsibility.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Spread the wealth???
 

The workers will find jobs with whomever fills the void left when
their company folded. If they were doing anything that was of value to
anybody, there will arise a new company or companies to do what the
old company was doing. Any idea how many automobile companies have
come and gone in the U.S. since 1900?

How many automobile companies since the 1900s had to pay Obama's tax rate?

lukeluck

Spread the wealth???
 

J. Clarke wrote:

So you are saying the government shouldn't be helping the big
corporations with tax breaks and bailouts?
That's correct. They should not.

Finally something we can agree on.

So "the big corporations" should be allowed to go out of business?
Then where will their former employees work?

For the company that put them out of business, or the new company that
replaces the company that didn't know how to run the business, or, for a
company that sells something people actually want.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

Spread the wealth???
 

Richard Evans wrote:

So you are saying the government shouldn't be helping the big
corporations with tax breaks and bailouts?

Bailouts no, tax breaks on the other hand can be good. Corporations and
business never pay taxes, you give them the money, unless they have a
printing press in the basement. Business taxes sole purpose is to trick
dumb asses into thinking someone else is paying taxes for them and to
get the bottom half of society to actually pay something.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

Spread the wealth???
 

On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:01:54 -0500, Jack Stein
wrote:

Business taxes sole purpose is to trick dumb asses into thinking
someone else is paying taxes for them

Yeah, those businesses are no burden on the infrastructure at all. No
reason for them to pay taxes.

and to get the bottom half of society to actually pay something.

Damn bottom feeders. Spend what little they have on food and clothing
and then don't pay taxes. *******s!



--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

Spread the wealth???
 

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
Same old bull**** eh Tim? As usual, it's all about you.

No, it's all about people unwilling to take personal responsibility.

Actually, it is and always has been repeatedly about you. It always comes
back to you. You don't give a rat's ass about personal responsibility just
as long as you feel that it's not going to cost you anything.

Why do I have to pay to bail out either party of their respective
stupidity?

Add onto that your absolute refusal to admit that society has contributed in
a major way to your status quo and your ending comment that's always the
same ~ "why do I have to pay?" Your insistence that everything you have in
life was obtained solely by your own effort is a complete crock because it
just isn't true. 99% of the benefits our society enjoys were provided by the
people who came before us, people who worked, contributed and gave. That's
certainly not you, because it always come down to the same thing with you.
"why do I have to pay?" They're your words, repeated a large number of
times. You have absolutely no concern for anyone except yourself. That's
what it's like to be greedy, selfish and all consuming. Pitiful little world
you live in.

You call me a thief for receiving publicly funded assistance so I can stay
healthy enough to contribute back to society. I call you a liar, selfish and
greedy to the extreme.

You take anything and everything you can legally get from society without
giving back or stopping to wonder if you should be doing it in the first
place. It's obvious who is the real thief here.

Spread the wealth???
 

Oh come on Jack Don't throw good old common sense into this discussion. ;-}

lukeluck


"Jack Stein" wrote in message
...
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Chris Friesen wrote:

It sticks in my craw that there don't seem to be any effective penalties
for the industry people involved. Sure, a lot of people took on much
higher mortgages than they could reasonably pay off, but their bankers
led them on, or at least didn't dissuade them.

This is nonsense.

I agree with Chris. The "industry" should be penalized by going out of
business, or whatever happens to them as the result of making bad business
decisions.

The "people to blame" are the big spending politicians
and their mooching constituents who all wanted what they could not
afford. The bankers - while not blameless - are the *last* place the
problem was born. You want to punish someone? How about millions
of Western/US citizens that bought stuff/houses/cars/boats they could not
actually afford and then whined that they couldn't make the payments.

Of course they should be punished. They should lose whatever it is they
bought and didn't pay for and their credit rating should suck, and what
ever else naturally happens when someone makes poor borrowing decisions.
I, nor anyone in my family has ever welched on a loan, stuck anyone for
money duly owed, and never intend to do so.

I remember when I was shopping for my first house in 1975 the realtor told
me what amount of money the bank would lend me based on my income. I
thought it was stupid, as I sure didn't think I could live on what was
left after paying my taxes and mortgage. Not being totally stupid, I
borrowed what *I* thought I could afford, not what anyone else was willing
to lend me. My next house was even worse, around 1985 the realtor told me
what I could borrow and it was insane. I can only imagine what people
were borrowing in 2000+? I think you would have to be insane, stupid or
trying to rip someone off from the get go to borrow huge sums of money
that you had no real way of paying off. My guess is most of the loans
went to dumb asses buying second houses and flipping them quickly for fast
"easy" money. Nothing wrong with that but if you want to gamble big,
with big potential returns, you are taking a big risk, if you lose, you
lose, if the banks willing participate lose, they lose. No way should
anyone else be asked to bail them out. You win, good, you lose, tough
cookies.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

Spread the wealth???
 

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Chris Friesen wrote:

It sticks in my craw that there don't seem to be any effective penalties
for the industry people involved. Sure, a lot of people took on much
higher mortgages than they could reasonably pay off, but their bankers
led them on, or at least didn't dissuade them.

This is nonsense.

I agree with Chris. The "industry" should be penalized by going out of
business, or whatever happens to them as the result of making bad
business decisions.

The "people to blame" are the big spending politicians
and their mooching constituents who all wanted what they could not
afford. The bankers - while not blameless - are the *last* place the
problem was born. You want to punish someone? How about millions
of Western/US citizens that bought stuff/houses/cars/boats they could not
actually afford and then whined that they couldn't make the payments.

Of course they should be punished. They should lose whatever it is they
bought and didn't pay for and their credit rating should suck, and what
ever else naturally happens when someone makes poor borrowing decisions.
I, nor anyone in my family has ever welched on a loan, stuck anyone for
money duly owed, and never intend to do so.

I remember when I was shopping for my first house in 1975 the realtor
told me what amount of money the bank would lend me based on my income.
I thought it was stupid, as I sure didn't think I could live on what
was left after paying my taxes and mortgage. Not being totally stupid,
I borrowed what *I* thought I could afford, not what anyone else was
willing to lend me. My next house was even worse, around 1985 the
realtor told me what I could borrow and it was insane. I can only
imagine what people were borrowing in 2000+? I think you would have to
be insane, stupid or trying to rip someone off from the get go to borrow
huge sums of money that you had no real way of paying off. My guess is
most of the loans went to dumb asses buying second houses and flipping
them quickly for fast "easy" money. Nothing wrong with that but if
you want to gamble big, with big potential returns, you are taking a big
risk, if you lose, you lose, if the banks willing participate lose, they
lose. No way should anyone else be asked to bail them out. You win,
good, you lose, tough cookies.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

Spread the wealth???
 

LRod wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:01:54 -0500, Jack Stein
wrote:

Business taxes sole purpose is to trick dumb asses into thinking
someone else is paying taxes for them

Yeah, those businesses are no burden on the infrastructure at all. No
reason for them to pay taxes.

I think his point was that businesses don't generally pay the cost of
taxes out of their pocket, instead they pass it on to customers.

Increase the business tax, and the prices of the product will generally
go up at least as much (or else quality/quantity decreases). This
doesn't really get any more money out of the businesses, but it does
shift additional cost onto those people that are purchasing products
made by those businesses.

Chris

Spread the wealth???
 

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
J. Clarke wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

So "the big corporations" should be allowed to go out of business?
Then where will their former employees work?
Why should a big corporation go out of business? Why should /any/
corporation go out business?

Because it was in financial trouble and nobody bailed it out?

I think that's pretty superficial. Corporations encounter financial
trouble when they adopt non-viable business strategies, mismanage
finances, elect incompetent boards who hire/retain top execs who make bad
business decisions, attempt to end-run the legal system, or alienate their
marketplace.

Precisely, a company that refuses to change its strategy is doomed.

Spread the wealth???
 

"lukeluck" wrote:

How many automobile companies since the 1900s had to pay Obama's tax
rate?

Rookie, get someone to wipe your nose and change your diaper, then
come on back.

You are obviously not old enough to remember the days of a 50% tax
rate on net profits.

Talk about creative accounting.

Lew