Obameconomy :: Free Realms

#27 REDACTED, Posted: Dec 08 2009 at 1:38 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Tulip,

#28 REDACTED, Posted: Dec 08 2009 at 1:40 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Debo,

Quote Reply

#29 Dec 08 2009 at 1:42 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

Fannie Mae didn't do all of the lending, Varrus. Four quotes about one company that happens to be owned by a Democrat does not mean that Democrats forced all of the banks to participate in sub-prime lending. Nice try, though.

publiusvarus wrote:

Tulip,

Wrong...Dems only want the rich (people who file over 250k on their personal tax returns) to pay for it. Incidentally most small business owners file their business on their personal tax returns.

Well, let's think about this. Who has the most disposable income?

That's right, the rich.

We are all paying for it, but you can't expect someone who has no job to pay as much as someone who's got a million dollars sitting in the bank. That makes no sense.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#30 Dec 08 2009 at 1:43 PM Rating: Good

AshOnMyTomatoes

View User Forum

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

Fannie and Freddie were probably, indeed, a large problem.

Here's the thing though: if it was just left at that, the problem would have ended there. Lots of poor people would have suffered through foreclosures brought on by the combination of houses they couldn't afford and unrealistic interest.

But the problem didn't end there. Some Wall Street genius saw the interest on these things and decided it would be a good idea to turn these high-risk loans into a tradeable commodity.

So let's look at cause/effect.

Effect: many low-income people were sold houses they couldn't afford.

Cause: predatory loan officers, new regulations from the US government.

OK.

Effect: the economy collapses

Cause: a large portion of a high risk derivative on Wall Street known as the "mortgage-backed security" became worthless as a massive amount of home loans were defaulted on.

Notice, these were two separate incidents that are tied together in a one-way relationship. These home loans were not created with the intention of making them into commodities. These people didn't buy their houses in order to create a commodity. Some schmuck on Wall Street decided to make them into a commodity.

____________________________

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

▲ Page top

#31 REDACTED, Posted: Dec 08 2009 at 1:50 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Tulip,

Quote Reply

#32 Dec 08 2009 at 1:51 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

I'm starting to think Varrus doesn't want to talk about the "war tax" he brought up.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#33 Dec 08 2009 at 1:52 PM Rating: Good

AshOnMyTomatoes

View User Forum

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

Tulip,

Quote:

Well, let's think about this. Who has the most disposable income?

That's right, the rich.

Do you think someone who files over 250k on their personal taxes is rich?

Yes?

____________________________

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#34 Dec 08 2009 at 1:53 PM Rating: Good

Timelordwho

View User Forum

Unplanned

13,240 posts

Quote:

Tulip,

Wrong...Dems only want the rich (people who file over 250k on their personal tax returns) to pay for it. Incidentally most small business owners file their business on their personal tax returns.

If you are running a small business where you personally are compensated in excess of 250k you are either not a small business or are doing well enough to be able to afford a couple of percentage points.

____________________________

Just as Planned.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#35 Dec 08 2009 at 1:56 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1618186764728

Sage

5,684 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

Tulip,

Quote:

Well, let's think about this. Who has the most disposable income?

That's right, the rich.

Do you think someone who files over 250k on their personal taxes is rich?

not once you subtract the costs of taking floozies out for expensive meals everyday in the high hopes that they will put out, thereby keeping up your charade of heterosexuality.

▲ Page top

#36 REDACTED, Posted: Dec 08 2009 at 1:57 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,

Quote Reply

#37 Dec 08 2009 at 1:59 PM Rating: Excellent

Timelordwho

View User Forum

Unplanned

13,240 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

Joph,

The war tax was just one part. And we are talking about it.

Ash,

So I file 250k on my personal tax returns with includes the salaries of 5 employees and you think i'm rich?

Nope. It sounds like you should learn how to properly run a business. Or how to properly do your taxes.

____________________________

Just as Planned.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#38 Dec 08 2009 at 2:00 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

publiusvarus wrote:

The war tax was just one part. And we are talking about it.

Excellent. So let's talk. How do you feel about the way funding for the two wars was handled under the previous administration? And do you think it had any effect on our current situation?

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#39 Dec 08 2009 at 2:00 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

Tulip,

Quote:

Well, let's think about this. Who has the most disposable income?

That's right, the rich.

Do you think someone who files over 250k on their personal taxes is rich?

Rich enough to afford more in taxes than someone who makes, say, $50k.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#40 Dec 08 2009 at 2:01 PM Rating: Decent

bsphil

Edited by bsphil

21,739 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

Tulip,

Quote:

Oooh. I didn't know that healtcare reform made the banks give out sub-prime mortgages and caused banks to fail. Thank you for enlightening us, Varrus!

Actually that would the Democrats who FORCED banks to give out sub-prime mtg's which caused the banks to fail and the US govn to gobble them up like a fat kid on thanksgiving.

[Citation needed]

You don't seriously think that's the primary cause of banking crisis, do you?

Ah who am I kidding, of course you do.

____________________________

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

gbaji wrote:

I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.

▲ Page top

#41 REDACTED, Posted: Dec 08 2009 at 2:01 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Timey,

Quote Reply

#42 Dec 08 2009 at 2:03 PM Rating: Excellent

Timelordwho

View User Forum

Unplanned

13,240 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

Timey,

Quote:

If you are running a small business where you personally are compensated in excess of 250k you are either not a small business or are doing well enough to be able to afford a couple of percentage points.

That's what you're missing. Most small businesses file their employees salaries on their personal tax return. I could be making 100k annually and paying out 150k in payroll and by your reckoning I'm rich. Now in my case that's not so bad considering i'm single, no children. But for a family of 5 with one working parent 100k doesn't go near as far.

I'd reckon that you should learn how to properly file your taxes. Or enjoy paying higher taxes due to incompetence.

____________________________

Just as Planned.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#43 Dec 08 2009 at 2:04 PM Rating: Good

paulsol

View User Forum

Sage

4,158 posts

Quote:

But for a family of 5 with one working parent 100k doesn't go near as far.

You shouldn't have more kids than you can afford. IMO.

____________________________

"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#44 Dec 08 2009 at 2:06 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1618186764728

Sage

5,684 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

i'm single, no children.

y'don't say?

▲ Page top

#45 REDACTED, Posted: Dec 08 2009 at 2:14 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Timey,

Quote Reply

#46 Dec 08 2009 at 2:19 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

Timey,

That's how most llc small businesses file.

In light of the new taxes, perhaps they shouldn't. They don't have to file that way, and if it'll keep them from paying more taxes, perhaps they should file separately.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#47 Dec 08 2009 at 2:26 PM Rating: Good

KTurner

Terrorfiend

12,905 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

That's what you're missing. Most small businesses file their employees salaries on their personal tax return. I could be making 100k annually and paying out 150k in payroll and by your reckoning I'm rich. Now in my case that's not so bad considering i'm single, no children. But for a family of 5 with one working parent 100k doesn't go near as far.

Thats 250k gross, are they applying these taxes to people who make 250k gross or 250k after adjustments? Serious question, I dont know the specifics.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#48 Dec 08 2009 at 2:30 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1630282721753

View User Forum

Sage

14,174 posts

KTurner wrote:

publiusvarus wrote:

That's what you're missing. Most small businesses file their employees salaries on their personal tax return. I could be making 100k annually and paying out 150k in payroll and by your reckoning I'm rich. Now in my case that's not so bad considering i'm single, no children. But for a family of 5 with one working parent 100k doesn't go near as far.

Thats 250k gross, are they applying these taxes to people who make 250k gross or 250k after adjustments? Serious question, I dont know the specifics.

It's supposed to be 250k net profit (before tax, obviously). Varus is just being retarded, as he is wont to do.

▲ Page top

#49 gbaji, Posted: Dec 08 2009 at 2:33 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Or... wait for it... how about we not spend so much in the first place? Just a crazy thought...

Quote Reply

#50 Dec 08 2009 at 2:34 PM Rating: Decent

bsphil

Edited by bsphil

21,739 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

But for a family of 5 with one working parent 100k doesn't go near as far.

I'll take a cue from the conservative agenda and say that's too bad, deal with your problems on your own.

And suck less at filing taxes.

____________________________

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

gbaji wrote:

I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#51 Dec 08 2009 at 2:34 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1680481127345

View User Forum

Sage

21,262 posts

Quote:

But for a family of 5 with one working parent 100k doesn't go near as far.

Then people shouldn't have kids they can't afford, amirite?

I grew up in a family of six with one working parent and my father made $45,000 a year. (Granted, that was in the 70s-80s and inflation adjusted it's the equivalent of twice that today.) But I didn't feel underprivileged; I didn't even realize we were considered "poor" until I was in high school and couldn't afford to go to England or Mexico with my classmates.

$100,000 for a family of 5 isn't poor. It's comfortable middle class. Stop complaining.

Edited, Dec 8th 2009 3:38pm by catwho

▲ Page top

ObameconomyFollow