- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Who is to blame for this alleged disappearance of the middle class?
Posted on 1/30/14 at 3:32 pm to doubleb
Posted on 1/30/14 at 3:32 pm to doubleb
quote:
The notion that the same folk are always stuck in one economic level is flat out wrong.
I get that it's fluid and people are moving up and down all the time
quote:
People rise to the middle class, fall into poverty,; people become wealthy and people go bankrupt.
No doubt
0
Posted on 1/30/14 at 4:50 pm to Powerman
quote:No might about it. I am correct.
You might be correct
quote:What more do you want? Do you think the Feds wrote a regulation that says "You must make loans to people under $35K/year"? That's not how they do it. If they did that, it would be too obvious that those loans are on the Fed's hands when they go bad.
you haven't posted anything that's very concrete. Just more vagueness.
They do it by zip code and income level within the zip codes, concentrating on zip codes with lower income average levels. If they find a bank is not making a certain % of loans within that zip code, the banks' CRA rating suffers.
There are multiple cases where a bank wanted to buy or merge with another bank but their CRA was low and the regulators denied the purchase/merger application.
I get it. Nothing I post will ever satisfy you because then you would have to admit you're wrong. But that really doesn't matter. Everyone who has been posting in and reading this thread knows you've been shown to be the dumbass you are.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 4:44 am to BugAC
quote:
You do realize, that the financial crisis of 08 was caused by the government incentivizing and in some cases, forcing banks to extend loans to those who do not qualify for them, right?
Riiigghhhhttttt....and of course the banks did this unwillingly and the leaders of these poor, put upon financial institutions, who were forced by the heavy hand of government to make loans against their better judgement, suffered incredible financial hardship and eventually wound up selling pencils and apples on the corner to support themselves. This is the biggest crock of shite that has ever been perpetrated against the American People....banks BEGGED for the ability to make sub-prime mortgages....no one forced them into it....and the executives of the banks who participated and their shareholders enjoyed a windfall the likes of which could only be dreamt of....of course the entire system came crashing down but the bankers knew full well that they were to big to fail and that they would be bailed out for their gambling ways....and sure as frick the American people found a way to blame the poor and the middle class while admiring the robber barons for their statesmanship in the eye of a over bearing government storm.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 4:49 am to BugAC
quote:
Obamacare forces small businesses to either pay for their employees health insurance, or get penalized. This increased cost of insurance is then past on to the consumer, via higher product costs. These higher costs in turn, cause consumers to cut back on their spending, and reduce the amount of product they buy. That company must now make cut backs via lower wages, or laying off employees to try to maintain a steady profit margin. That in turn reduces the output of the company, resulting in less product, resulting in less profit, resulting in less pay to the employee , resulting in less economic spending freedom for that employee. And for what? To force Americans into a socialist health care program they do not want, that was passed in the name of affordable, which it is not; healthcare, which is lesser that before because good doctors/hospitals rightly refuse to accept socialist healthcare due to the problems with getting paid for the existing socialist healthcare program we are still paying for (medicare).
SOOOOOOO.....more people are going to wind up paying more for their health insurance and the only impact is that those people are going to have less disposable income. SO I guess you are saying that those higher and more numerous premiums are simply vanishing out of the economy on the whole, the same way a tax $ simply vanishes from the economy once it is remitted to the IRS. God you people are simple, and not in a good way.
SO you are convinced that there will be no expansion of medical services, no expansion of hospitals and clinics and hiring of staff and construction people and administrative and maintenance people when more and more people are paying more and more for health insurance? Your convinced that at the least the executives and share holders one insurance companies aren't going to buy more jets and yachts and fifth and sixth homes due to the increase in their personal wealth???? WTF is wrong with you people....you act as if buying a TV injects money into the economy but buying a mandated TV does not. That is simply insane or simple minded....
Posted on 1/31/14 at 7:04 am to germandawg
quote:"WTF is wrong" is, unlike you, some of us actually understand "WTF" we are talking about. In fact "there will be no expansion of medical services, no expansion of hospitals and clinics and hiring of staff and construction people and administrative and maintenance people."
SO you are convinced that there will be no expansion of medical services, no expansion of hospitals and clinics and hiring of staff and construction people and administrative and maintenance people when more and more people are paying more and more for health insurance? Your convinced that at the least the executives and share holders one insurance companies aren't going to buy more jets and yachts and fifth and sixth homes due to the increase in their personal wealth???? WTF is wrong with you people
Why?
Because the Obamacaid exchange plans reimburse at such low rates that none of those additions can be funded. Fairly simple really.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 7:17 am to Powerman
quote:I haven't read the entire thread but frankly, it's damned hard to place blame for a thing that didn't happen and is a complete myth. Maybe a "who invented that myth and how do they support it" thread might be in order?
Who is to blame for this alleged disappearance of the middle class?
Posted on 1/31/14 at 7:18 am to LSURussian
quote:Hell. I thought that at least among those that try to be informed, this was common knowledge. It all started with the whining about "red lining".
They do it by zip code and income level within the zip codes, concentrating on zip codes with lower income average levels. If they find a bank is not making a certain % of loans within that zip code, the banks' CRA rating suffers.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 7:20 am to germandawg
quote:Has anyone EVER asserted this? And you call the other guys simple?
the same way a tax $ simply vanishes from the economy once it is remitted to the IRS
Posted on 2/1/14 at 7:49 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
"WTF is wrong" is, unlike you, some of us actually understand "WTF" we are talking about.
No you don't, you are repeating what you have been told and it jibes nicely with your narrative. Other than that it is complete and utter bullshite.
SO what is going to happen to all of the money that Obama and company is re-distributing?
The first thing that must be asked is who is getting the money. Is it going to be insurance companies? If so they will have to hire fricking people to count the windfall and truck it to the bank. But of course once it is taken from the person who earned it originally, at the point of a gun no less (and for dramatic effect) it will completely disappear from the economy without a trace or a ripple, just like all tax $ do.
Maybe it will be people who had little or no covereage prior to Obamacare. Of course their newfound access to healthcare means they won't go to the doctor or use their access so there will be NO spike in the number of PAYING patients and no demand for more facilities and more employees. Once again, when that $ is stripped away from the sweaty and oft times bloody paw of the hard working, rugged individual job creator who earned it it has no further value at all....it simply vanishes into thin air and no one benefits in the least.
This is what ya'll understand about WTF your talking about....of course it is completely and utterly wrong and so easy to prove that a Clemson grad can do it but ya'll must adhere to this myth because for some reason you are not willing or able to admit that you simply do not like paying taxes and thus something more sinister is going on with taxation. Just man the frick up and state unequivocally that you will work less if you have to pay more taxes (you won't do it of course because you have that option now and choose not to take it) and the reason is simply that you don't want to pay more in taxes.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 7:58 am to SettleDown
quote:
quote:
the same way a tax $ simply vanishes from the economy once it is remitted to the IRS
Has anyone EVER asserted this? And you call the other guys simple?
Yes...ya'll claim it happens all the time. That $ is removed from the economy. This is the basis of supply side economics...
Now I know that all of you know better than this and know also that taxation has little or no effect on the economy. I know ya'll like to crow about how you will quit producing as your tax rates go up but not a single one of you practice what you preach because with the current tax system in the US you have complete control over how much or how little you owe the IRS every year, and yet most of us climb out of bed every morning and work our asses off to earn as much as possible knowing full well that it will increase our tax burden.
Ya'll contend that when a person pays taxes they no longer have the money to invest or buy something....yet that money is spent before it is collected....there are contractors with employees and creditors billing for those $'s every 30 days....the effect on the economy is identical to that of the tax payer investing that money (she will do so with vendors and contractctors and creditors) or put it in the bank where the bank will do the same thing...loan it to people who are going to dole it out to vendors and contractors and creditors. One sbtle difference is that in the latter situation the bank does not get a fee for their part in the transaction when the government is doing the banking...and that is probably where the anti-tax sentiment stems from....
Posted on 2/1/14 at 8:01 am to germandawg
quote:Well let's hike that fricker to 70% acrossed the board, problem fixed.
taxation has little or no effect on the economy.
quote:No shite by earniong as little or as much as you want, fricking brilliant Forrest.
have complete control over how much or how little you owe the IRS every year
Posted on 2/1/14 at 8:19 am to Jbird
quote:
Well let's hike that fricker to 70% acrossed the board, problem fixed.
It has been even higher than that and was not a barrier to commerce. I don't think it needs to be that high, hell I don't even know that it needs to be as high as it is...but I do know that if we are going to insist on doing the shite that we insist on doing, like providing the world with a "Global Force For Good" in the form of the US Navy then we should pay as we go....but of course that would mean increasing tax revenues and that is not going to happen because it is political suicide due to our psychological aversion to paying for citizenship.
quote:
No shite by earniong as little or as much as you want, fricking brilliant Forrest.
The reason you (and those like you) discount this notion so qucikly and easily is because the cloak of victim-hood is warm and comforting. I, on the other hand, refuse to be a victim and thus accept the fact that I am solely responsible for my tax burden...and I do everything I can every day to increase that burden.
I suspect that you do the same thing, only you are doing so with the warm and cozy that the government is somehow playing a hand in your having to labor so hard because it is difficult at times to believe you would do it to yourself....I know, I feel the same way some days. But the fact remains that you and I are solely responsible, the difference being that I am fully aware while you and yours want to live in a fantasy where the evil hand of government is forcing you....each to his own, but I find the truth will set you free....
Posted on 2/1/14 at 8:26 am to germandawg
quote:
That $ is removed from the economy. This is the basis of supply side economics...
No it isn't. No one claimed the money is completely removed.
Try to process this - if the government takes the dollar and spends it on food stamps - Wal-Mart makes an additional fraction of a dollar sale. The government worker makes his salary.
Of course turnover happens - but it is not directed at economic improvement - that's for sure - it is a drag on the economy. Not even all government spending does this (infrastructure can be a win-win - as long as it is efficient and expands economic opportunity).
What supply side says - if you let a man keep more of what he earns, he will spend it - ya'll act like any dollar untaxed is a missed opportunity. A business owner with more money in his pocket might expand the business to make more money - meaning he hires more people. He might pay his people more or charge his customers less (or both). In no way does lower taxes put a "drag" on the economy - at worst it is a push - if the guy sits on his cash (which should be his right), at least it is the guy who earned it.
This is also true for non-business owners - people working for wages who have lower taxes (and therefore, more disposable income) buy nicer cars, bigger televisions, go on more vacations, etc.
But the difference is these people have the FREEDOM to choose what to do with their money - in the economy. When the government takes, it is almost always a targeted, inefficient redirection of resources - even in a best case scenario - rather than fueling the free market.
And the more the government takes, the closer we get to socialism.
This post was edited on 2/1/14 at 8:27 am
Posted on 2/1/14 at 8:32 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
But the difference is these people have the FREEDOM to choose what to do with their money - in the economy. When the government takes, it is almost always a targeted, inefficient redirection of resources - even in a best case scenario - rather than fueling the free market.
Bingeaux. Everyone makes their own decisions about what they need, and the most efficient and productive use of resources occurs when you aggregate all of those individual decisions.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 8:32 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
He might pay his people more
Arbitrarily? Why wouldn't they just pay market value?
quote:
In no way does lower taxes put a "drag" on the economy
Lower tax revenue can cause fiscal problems. Particularly when we're already running deficits and have a debt load that is in excess of annual GDP. If you're going to take the stance that lower taxes are better for the economy and ignore any fiscal consequences you might as well take that logic and double down and support quantitative easing too for the sake of consistency.
quote:
And the more the government takes, the closer we get to socialism.
We aren't close to socialism.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 8:33 am to germandawg
quote:Where is the "victimhood"? You love the penalizing effect of taxes I get it.
The reason you (and those like you) discount this notion so qucikly and easily is because the cloak of victim-hood is warm and comforting. I, on the other hand, refuse to be a victim and thus accept the fact that I am solely responsible for my tax burden...and I do everything I can every day to increase that burden.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 8:34 am to Jbird
quote:
Where is the "victimhood"? You love the penalizing effect of taxes I get it.
Do you really feel like you are being penalized by paying taxes?
Posted on 2/1/14 at 8:35 am to Powerman
quote:When one is taxed while another is given money what do you call it?
Do you really feel like you are being penalized by paying taxes?
Posted on 2/1/14 at 8:36 am to Jbird
quote:
When one is taxed while another is given money what do you call it?
Why are you worried about the other guy?
Do you really feel penalized?
Posted on 2/1/14 at 8:37 am to germandawg
quote:Only if you count, along with personal experience, "being told" the same thing by hospital administrators, practice managers, managed care contractors, insurers, patients, medical providers, both of our US Senate offices, etc. That is what I'm repeating.
No you don't, you are repeating what you have been told
So, what are your sources, again?
quote:you mean what happens to $1000 if it is taken in varying amounts from 100 people, and then evenly redistributed back to them at $10/person?
SO what is going to happen to all of the money that Obama and company is re-distributing?
The $1000 remains $1000. Did you think it would magically turn in to $2000?
Page 11 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News