Joeybagadonuts
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 6, 2010
- Posts
- 9,202
Tax the fuckin’ billionaires!
and legalize weed!
and legalize weed!
Gallup: 71% of Democrats Say Government Should Redistribute Wealth
- Thread starter MeeMie
- Start date
LJ_Reloaded
バクスター の
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Posts
- 21,217
No, but apparently Warren Buffett is.
AngeloMichael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2003
- Posts
- 1,232
Fuck the rich, they use their money to find all the loopholes and avoid paying for shit the regular joe has to. The way a large chunk of them has gotten their money is not from working for it but by getting all their money handed down to them from mommy and daddy who had their money handed down to them from their mommy and daddy who made their money because they didn't have to pay for laborers because they had slaves. These are people who have had everything handed to them on a silver platter all their lives.
So fuck them.
Yes there are those who started out with modest or even low incomes and created self made fortunes, but if they feel they've joined some club now and they also get to screw the poor by hiding all their money in swiss bank accounts or overseas operations taking their wealth out of the country, fuck them too, I want the government coming after them.
I want the rich fuckers paying their share to support the country's infrastructure, government programs, and even
those less fortunate who need assistance.
If a few small time scumbag con artists sneak in and take advantage of these programs I'd rather that than the big time wall street scumbag con artists continuing to fuck all the little guys like they are doing now.
I'd rather support government redistribution as someone who works for a living than be one of those idiots who holds back wanting to support redistribution thinking they are going to be one of the lucky ones to make it to the top 1% of income earners.
I'll gladly take the risk of having government assistance and jobs in place at the cost of the uber-rich over the miniscule chance of becoming a millionaire or billionaire myself where I have to fork over my own money for said programs.
And you know, if I did happen to become super rich, I really don't think I'd be suffering the same way if the government took $4 million of the 10 million I've earned over the government not paying one cent for my healthcare when I'm making less than 20 grand and can't work as hard or at all due to debilitating illnesses.
So fuck them.
Yes there are those who started out with modest or even low incomes and created self made fortunes, but if they feel they've joined some club now and they also get to screw the poor by hiding all their money in swiss bank accounts or overseas operations taking their wealth out of the country, fuck them too, I want the government coming after them.
I want the rich fuckers paying their share to support the country's infrastructure, government programs, and even
those less fortunate who need assistance. If a few small time scumbag con artists sneak in and take advantage of these programs I'd rather that than the big time wall street scumbag con artists continuing to fuck all the little guys like they are doing now.
I'd rather support government redistribution as someone who works for a living than be one of those idiots who holds back wanting to support redistribution thinking they are going to be one of the lucky ones to make it to the top 1% of income earners.
I'll gladly take the risk of having government assistance and jobs in place at the cost of the uber-rich over the miniscule chance of becoming a millionaire or billionaire myself where I have to fork over my own money for said programs.
And you know, if I did happen to become super rich, I really don't think I'd be suffering the same way if the government took $4 million of the 10 million I've earned over the government not paying one cent for my healthcare when I'm making less than 20 grand and can't work as hard or at all due to debilitating illnesses.
LJ_Reloaded
バクスター の
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Posts
- 21,217
^^^^ This.
I've been saying this for years since my income skyrocketed into and above the middle class realm.
MeeMie
No Spam Here
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Posts
- 7,328
The mileage/gas consumption issue came much later.
The initial downturn in sales of American made vehicles was because of cost comparison to Japanese imports that could be purchased for much reduced prices.
MeeMie
No Spam Here
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Posts
- 7,328
Maybe it would be a good time to review a previous thread with these posts:
Detroit desecration is a prime example of what happens when government interferes with nanny state provisions for those only too willing to abuse the system.
Detroit desecration is a prime example of what happens when government interferes with nanny state provisions for those only too willing to abuse the system.
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Retired Republicans get Medicare. Medicare runs by taxation, and the rich get taxed more. Then it's redistributed to the needy. How many retired Republicans would like their Medicare taken away because it's redistribution of wealth?
Remind Republicans of this and re-ask the question.
MeeMie
No Spam Here
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Posts
- 7,328
Even recently, this liberal administration attempts to force history to repeat itself after all the warnings from the past:
Obama admin pushing banks to offer sub-prime mortgages again...
Renewed Enforcement of Redlining Laws
In the wake of the subprime implosion, the Obama Administration has stepped up its scrutiny of disadvantaged neighborhoods' credit access
Community activists in St. Louis became concerned a couple of years ago that local banks weren't offering credit to the city's poor and African American residents. So they formed a group called the St. Louis Equal Housing and Community Reinvestment Alliance and began writing complaint letters to federal regulators.
Apparently, someone in Washington took notice. The Federal Reserve has cited one of the group's targets, Midwest BankCentre, a small bank that has been operating in St. Louis's predominantly white, middle-class suburbs for over a century, for failing to issue home mortgages or open branches in disadvantaged areas. Although executives at the bank say they don't discriminate, Midwest BankCentre's latest annual report says it is in the process of negotiating a settlement with the U.S. Justice Dept. over its lending practices.
Lawyers and bank consultants say regulators and the Obama Administration are scrutinizing financial institutions for a practice that last drew attention before the rise of subprime lending: redlining.
The term dates from the 1930s, when the Federal Housing Administration drew up maps using red ink to delineate inner-city neighborhoods considered too risky for lending. Congress later passed laws banning lending discrimination on the basis of race and other characteristics. "The agencies have refocused on redlining because, in the wake of the subprime explosion and sudden implosion, they are looking at these disadvantaged neighborhoods and not seeing any credit access," says Jo Ann Barefoot, co-chair at Treliant Risk Advisors in Washington, D.C., which consults with banks on regulatory issues.
In 1977, President Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) required banks to make loans comparatively in all the areas they serve, not just the wealthy ones. A Bloomberg analysis found the percentage of banks earning negative ratings from regulators on CRA exams has risen from 1.45 percent in 2007 to more than 6 percent in the first quarter of this year.
At the Justice Dept., a new 20-person unit dedicated to fair lending issues received a record number of discrimination referrals from regulators in 2010 and has dozens of open cases, according to a recent agency report. Potential penalties can reach into the millions of dollars. "We are using every tool in our arsenal to combat lending discrimination," Thomas E. Perez, the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Div., told a conference of community development advocates in Washington in April.
To some banks the crackdown has come as a surprise, say consultants and lawyers representing financial institutions in discussions with regulators. Like Midwest BankCentre, some lenders are being cited for failing to operate in minority and low-income census tracts near their branches, even when they have never done business there before. "If you put your branches only in upper-income areas, the regulators are not accepting that anymore," says Warren W. Traiger, a lawyer at BuckleySandler in New York, which advises banks on fair lending issues.
Mortgage refinancing activity doubled in white neighborhoods but dropped sharply in minority neighborhoods in a sample of major U.S. cities in 2008 and 2009, according to Paying More for the American Dream, an April study by a group of seven community development nonprofits. "The pendulum has swung back too far the other way," says Kevin Stein, associate director of the California Reinvestment Coalition in San Francisco, one of the report's authors.
Bank lobbyists say the stepped-up government scrutiny could backfire if financial institutions decide to shrink their operations rather than yield to pressure to do business in areas that don't make sense for them. "It would do a disservice to communities for a bank to suddenly pull back," says Robert Rowe, vice-president and senior counsel at the American Bankers Assn.
The bottom line:
Lenders are again being forced by stepped-up enforcement of redlining laws which try to prevent discrimination, but result in defaulted mortgages by unqualified buyers, who cannot repay their loans. One does not need a crystal ball to see the same result will occur, just fast forward to the collapse of the present housing market and home equity devaluation.
The good news is that thankfully the BANKS learned the lessons from the past.
When attempts are made again to force them to give loans/mortgages to those who are not qualified, they learned that in the long run they were stuck with the losses.
Obama's administration even now tries to force a renegotiation of principle mortgage balances and forgiveness of debt.
The banks now will refuse to give out any mortgages to anyone instead of having to give a percentage of mortgages to unqualified borrowers. They will refuse to expand anywhere, rather than being forced into unsafe areas.
Eventually, the tightening of credit will be resolved with a change in administration.
Obama admin pushing banks to offer sub-prime mortgages again...
Renewed Enforcement of Redlining Laws
In the wake of the subprime implosion, the Obama Administration has stepped up its scrutiny of disadvantaged neighborhoods' credit access
Community activists in St. Louis became concerned a couple of years ago that local banks weren't offering credit to the city's poor and African American residents. So they formed a group called the St. Louis Equal Housing and Community Reinvestment Alliance and began writing complaint letters to federal regulators.
Apparently, someone in Washington took notice. The Federal Reserve has cited one of the group's targets, Midwest BankCentre, a small bank that has been operating in St. Louis's predominantly white, middle-class suburbs for over a century, for failing to issue home mortgages or open branches in disadvantaged areas. Although executives at the bank say they don't discriminate, Midwest BankCentre's latest annual report says it is in the process of negotiating a settlement with the U.S. Justice Dept. over its lending practices.
Lawyers and bank consultants say regulators and the Obama Administration are scrutinizing financial institutions for a practice that last drew attention before the rise of subprime lending: redlining.
The term dates from the 1930s, when the Federal Housing Administration drew up maps using red ink to delineate inner-city neighborhoods considered too risky for lending. Congress later passed laws banning lending discrimination on the basis of race and other characteristics. "The agencies have refocused on redlining because, in the wake of the subprime explosion and sudden implosion, they are looking at these disadvantaged neighborhoods and not seeing any credit access," says Jo Ann Barefoot, co-chair at Treliant Risk Advisors in Washington, D.C., which consults with banks on regulatory issues.
In 1977, President Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) required banks to make loans comparatively in all the areas they serve, not just the wealthy ones. A Bloomberg analysis found the percentage of banks earning negative ratings from regulators on CRA exams has risen from 1.45 percent in 2007 to more than 6 percent in the first quarter of this year.
At the Justice Dept., a new 20-person unit dedicated to fair lending issues received a record number of discrimination referrals from regulators in 2010 and has dozens of open cases, according to a recent agency report. Potential penalties can reach into the millions of dollars. "We are using every tool in our arsenal to combat lending discrimination," Thomas E. Perez, the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Div., told a conference of community development advocates in Washington in April.
To some banks the crackdown has come as a surprise, say consultants and lawyers representing financial institutions in discussions with regulators. Like Midwest BankCentre, some lenders are being cited for failing to operate in minority and low-income census tracts near their branches, even when they have never done business there before. "If you put your branches only in upper-income areas, the regulators are not accepting that anymore," says Warren W. Traiger, a lawyer at BuckleySandler in New York, which advises banks on fair lending issues.
Mortgage refinancing activity doubled in white neighborhoods but dropped sharply in minority neighborhoods in a sample of major U.S. cities in 2008 and 2009, according to Paying More for the American Dream, an April study by a group of seven community development nonprofits. "The pendulum has swung back too far the other way," says Kevin Stein, associate director of the California Reinvestment Coalition in San Francisco, one of the report's authors.
Bank lobbyists say the stepped-up government scrutiny could backfire if financial institutions decide to shrink their operations rather than yield to pressure to do business in areas that don't make sense for them. "It would do a disservice to communities for a bank to suddenly pull back," says Robert Rowe, vice-president and senior counsel at the American Bankers Assn.
The bottom line:
Lenders are again being forced by stepped-up enforcement of redlining laws which try to prevent discrimination, but result in defaulted mortgages by unqualified buyers, who cannot repay their loans. One does not need a crystal ball to see the same result will occur, just fast forward to the collapse of the present housing market and home equity devaluation.
The good news is that thankfully the BANKS learned the lessons from the past.
When attempts are made again to force them to give loans/mortgages to those who are not qualified, they learned that in the long run they were stuck with the losses.
Obama's administration even now tries to force a renegotiation of principle mortgage balances and forgiveness of debt.
The banks now will refuse to give out any mortgages to anyone instead of having to give a percentage of mortgages to unqualified borrowers. They will refuse to expand anywhere, rather than being forced into unsafe areas.
Eventually, the tightening of credit will be resolved with a change in administration.
Joeybagadonuts
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 6, 2010
- Posts
- 9,202
I’ve always been curious to know how many wealthy people collect social security benefits.
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
You should be curious about how many people get SS that never paid a dime into it.
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Plenty do. This is one way to throw social security's solvency out another 50 years by the way - have the wealthy receive reduced benefits.
Since the amount of social security one gets is dependent on how much income you had during your working years, just how much do you think non-contributors are drawing?
(not counting disability of course)
Last edited:
MeeMie
No Spam Here
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Posts
- 7,328
Remind the loonies that those receiving those benefits PAID for them their entire work lives. Today's generation is providing for current retirees in the same manner that current retirees provided for previous generations ... the scale is proportionate.
Additionally, had the funds not been squandered on unrelated budget expenses, Social Security benefits would be available for those who contributed to it.
The scare tactics are not working on the informed. None of the proposed provisions for Medicare & Social Security threaten to "take away" benefits to retirees. The amendments do not affect anyone over the age of 55. For those under the age of 55, different plan options would be available.
These modification will protect those retirees, not "take away" benefits. Without amendments, the current system will go belly up, along with the rest of our economy.
Let's talk about the ObamaCare free health care recipients that are added to the Medicare expenses, shall we?
...
Last edited:
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
No, no, totally wrong. Medicare is just a tax. There's no "paying into it". There are no accounts, nothing. It's redistribution of wealth in its purest form.
Last edited:
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
The_Trouvere
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2008
- Posts
- 11,189
Another copy and paste job by a preposterously stupid joke.
If you can't write your own material MeeMie, stop wasting computer memory.
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Correct, the mentally retarded and severely mentally ill do not work (much) and contribute to social security. Are you saying they should?
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
MeeMie
No Spam Here
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Posts
- 7,328
Of course they are both mandatory taxes which employers "paid into" to support the retirees of their generation, while expecting those entitlements do the same for their retirement.
Tax / entitlement / program / domestic aid = all the same result without mincing words.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2001
- Posts
- 66,708
All of which has very little to do with your initial point about "car manufacturers were driving up the prices of vehicles, and thus driving the market to Japanese models, because of union expenses."
Given that yearly vehicle (car only) sales in the U.S. (U.S. manufacturers only) bounced around from 5.94M to 10.67M from '61 to '79, your ability to pinpoint "an initial downturn" is very much a figment of your vivid imagination.
The only correlation to be found - which doesn't support your BS point in any event - is that total sales by year do correlate exactly and inversely to the oil crises of '70 and '73 during the period noted above.
Given further that all Japanese cars were imported during the time period above, this would largely negate any markup in U.S. car prices associated with higher manufacturing costs due to the use of union labor. Given this further point, yours quickly moves from being a product of your vivid imagination to something you pulled out of your ass.
Had you bothered to look beyond the bullet points you were ordered to memorize, you would have learned that the U.S. car industry in the '60s and '70s was fraught with mis-management, an ongoing and poor understanding of what the consumer wanted and an inability to adapt to an economy that required higher mileage vehicles.
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
And hence they are redistributing wealth. A high income person is going to pay way more into medicare than they're every going to draw. A low income person will pay way less into it than they will draw. Therefore wealth is being redistributed.
MeeMie
No Spam Here
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Posts
- 7,328
Bullet points? HAHAHA! How about 'been there' points.
As my memory serves me best ... yes, the mileage per fuel consumption issue was a concern, afterthefact ... the initial issue to decimate the US car manufacturers' market was the cost of the vehicle.
Talk about 'talking points' ... yours completely dismiss known facts that prove my theory now. Maybe you can tell us why Obama bailed out GM - and the effect that had on union benefits.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2001
- Posts
- 66,708
I have data and you have memory....
Let's see if this jogs your memory:
Bush Administration provided GM and GMAC with ~$14.4B in TARP funds in December 2008. The Obama Administration oversaw a continuation of this strategy.
Facts...I got your facts right here.
LJ_Reloaded
バクスター の
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Posts
- 21,217
Japanese cars cost more than American cars for years before the US car manufacturers almost went belly-up.
How does this not contradict your claim that "cost of the vehicle" decimated US manufacturers?
Last edited:
JenAltArmy
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2011
- Posts
- 2,504
of course they do, cuz 71% of democrats work for obama and they want a bigger piece of the pie (someone else’s cut)
just like all the left wing nuts that feel entitlements are a good thing, or the classic Sean that said “there should be a stigma when one takes welfare”
FACT, obama is leading us to a double dip recession and most democrats are too f-ing stupid to see that.
Redistribution of wealth, means that Democrats are too lazy to work and want someone elese money for FREE
just like all the left wing nuts that feel entitlements are a good thing, or the classic Sean that said “there should be a stigma when one takes welfare”
FACT, obama is leading us to a double dip recession and most democrats are too f-ing stupid to see that.
Redistribution of wealth, means that Democrats are too lazy to work and want someone elese money for FREE
Similar threads
