Page 67 of 98 FirstFirst ... 1757656667686977 ... LastLast
Results 661 to 670 of 972

Thread: The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

  1. #661
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Sure, and I get that in the circumstances, the "loan" WAS a handout? It was a lifeline, without which, in the FREE MARKET they'd have collapsed to rubble.

    Again, we have someone who calls himself a "conservative" defending crony capitalism - government picking winners and losers. I'd think you'd be embarrassed. As you said, many banks DID go under. How many could have made it if they got a loan from Uncle Fed for whatever it took to get them through the rough spots? Hundreds? That's my guess....
    Dude, you really don't get what happened here at all. We didn't send them a lifeline. Not really. What we did was to save the banking industry from collapse. We only loaned these banks money to keep them above water so they could make good on THEIR obligations. Granted, these corporations remained in business because of these loans, but it wasn't keeping them in business that we cared about. We loaned them money so that THEY could absorb the losses. Why let them go bankrupt and eat all their losses when we could loan them the money to pay their obligations and get it back with interest? I understand why the bailout happened and maybe you'd be happier now if the global recession would have been a global depression instead, but I think we're actually much better off than we would have been if we hadn't bailed them out (and richer, too, since we're getting really good interest rates off these loans - enough to make them want to sue for how unfair the terms were. Poor little dears.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  2. #662
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,282

    Re: The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    It's not one of their many roles. US corporations have lost properties, factories, plantations, etc., numerous times due to instability of foreign governments and the military isn't there to protect their properties. We might send in the military to extract US citizens if war breaks out around them but they don't have to be factory owners for that. You need to use a different argument if you want to ply Obama's retarded "you didn't build that" pinkoism.
    First of all, I said "reduced the risk" not "eliminated all risk."

    U.S. foreign policy isn't tied to the hip to corporate interests? Give me a break. Of course it is, there is nothing wrong with that, and obviously the world's largest military is an integral part of our foreign policy apparatus. And there was a lot more to my comment that you ignored.

    Bottom line is the needs of corporate America are at the very top, if not #1 on the list of the constituencies our government serves. You have to be naive to pretend otherwise, and we can all acknowledge that without necessarily condemning this fact of life. Our economy affects the well being of citizens so what serves the best interests of business can and often if not generally does serve all our interests.

  3. #663
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    First of all, I said "reduced the risk" not "eliminated all risk."
    The US military does precious little, if anything, to "reduce the risk" of their factories, properties and even money being seized by foreign governments. It sounds like a good argument just to say it but when you really try to point to examples where the US military stopped a revolution because it was bad for a US corporation, you come up with no examples to make the case. You're better off with "you didn't build that" even though the rich and the corporations really did "build that" since they pay the vast majority of all the taxes in this country. Arguing that "your success is only because of the infrastructure built primarily with YOUR tax dollars" isn't a very compelling argument for "we the 47% who pay no income taxes" raising YOUR taxes however it pleases us to pay for whatever WE want.

    You, too, live in the country protected by that military, and the fact that you can't do a highly profitable business here isn't anyone else's fault and it is no excuse to stick those that are the most successful with all the bill for something that benefits you just as much, whether you took full advantage of it or not.
    Last edited by Papa bull; 01-22-15 at 10:13 AM.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  4. #664
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,282

    Re: The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Dude, you really don't get what happened here at all. We didn't send them a lifeline. Not really. What we did was to save the banking industry from collapse. We only loaned these banks money to keep them above water so they could make good on THEIR obligations. Granted, these corporations remained in business because of these loans, but it wasn't keeping them in business that we cared about. We loaned them money so that THEY could absorb the losses. Why let them go bankrupt and eat all their losses when we could loan them the money to pay their obligations and get it back with interest? I understand why the bailout happened and maybe you'd be happier now if the global recession would have been a global depression instead, but I think we're actually much better off than we would have been if we hadn't bailed them out (and richer, too, since we're getting really good interest rates off these loans - enough to make them want to sue for how unfair the terms were. Poor little dears.
    I get what happened quite well. The first thing I understand clearly is the direct loans ($45 billion in the case of BoA that wasn't available at any price in the "free market") were just the tip of the iceberg of the $TRILLIONS spent, loaned, granted, guaranteed for free, etc. that was necessary to stabilize the system and prevent BoA and others from disappearing as going concerns. Much of it continued for YEARS.

    But I don't really care to debate whether or not the loans and the other $trillions injected into the system were a "lifeline" or "bailout" or not - of course they were. Even bankers admit this much.

  5. #665
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    I get what happened quite well. The first thing I understand clearly is the direct loans ($45 billion in the case of BoA that wasn't available at any price in the "free market") were just the tip of the iceberg of the $TRILLIONS spent, loaned, granted, guaranteed for free, etc. that was necessary to stabilize the system and prevent BoA and others from disappearing as going concerns. Much of it continued for YEARS.

    But I don't really care to debate whether or not the loans and the other $trillions injected into the system were a "lifeline" or "bailout" or not - of course they were. Even bankers admit this much.
    They saved some banks. Others didn't fare so well. But in no case was it a "handout" and we didn't save banks because of some love for them. It was a matter of patching up the big-ass hole in the boat that we're all in so that WE didn't drown. And getting a better return on OUR investment for our loan to them than they got for their loans to deadbeats seems to even the score pretty well. It was punitive and the punishment was deserved. But we got our pound of flesh by way of double digit interest rates on the bailout money in a time when most investors would have killed to get double digit interest on their money.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  6. #666
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,282

    Re: The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    The US military does precious little, if anything, to "reduce the risk" of their factories, properties and even money being seized by foreign governments. It sounds like a good argument just to say it but when you really try to point to examples where the US military stopped a revolution because it was bad for a US corporation, you come up with no examples to make the case.
    OK, you're right, we have history''s most powerful military force that projects its power across the planet and this does nothing to add to the stability that businesses interests rely on for investment, functioning markets, etc.

    Come on, you can't even believe that. If you want to argue degrees, or that the benefits they receive pale in comparison to the taxes they pay, fine. But to pretend that business interests aren't at or near the very top of the concerns of our entire foreign policy establishment, of which the military is a core component, just is incredible.

    You're better off with "you didn't build that" even though the rich and the corporations really did "build that" since they pay the vast majority of all the taxes in this country. Arguing that "your success is only because of the infrastructure built primarily with YOUR tax dollars" isn't a very compelling argument for "we the 47% who pay no income taxes" raising YOUR taxes however it pleases us to pay for whatever WE want.
    It's not just infrastructure - goodness.

    You, too, live in the country protected by that military, and the fact that you can't do a highly profitable business here isn't anyone else's fault and it is no excuse to stick those that are the most successful with all the bill for something that benefits you just as much, whether you took full advantage of it or not.
    No need to make this personal, especially when you know nothing about me. You may find this hard to believe, but disagreeing with you on these matters doesn't mean the person is some kind of failure. It might make you feel better to think that, but you're just kidding yourself.

  7. #667
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,282

    Re: The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    They saved some banks. Others didn't fare so well. But in no case was it a "handout" and we didn't save banks because of some love for them. It was a matter of patching up the big-ass hole in the boat that we're all in so that WE didn't drown.
    Of course it was a handout - crony capitalism at its finest. But I agree that it was necessary. Doesn't change what it was.

    And getting a better return on OUR investment for our loan to them than they got for their loans to deadbeats seems to even the score pretty well.
    If they didn't get a good return on their loans to deadbeats, which they were begging the deadbeats to take, then they have no one to blame but the idiots in their organizations who made those loans, paid out record bonuses on the "profits" of those loans while the bubble was inflating, then came running to Uncle Sam for a bailout when the loans went bad.

    It was punitive and the punishment was deserved. But we got our pound of flesh by way of double digit interest rates on the bailout money in a time when most investors would have killed to get double digit interest on their money.
    Wrong - investors wouldn't loan to the banks at ANY price at that point because without the MASSIVE and coordinated GOVERNMENT rescue of those banks, the loans would never have been repaid.

  8. #668
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Of course it was a handout - crony capitalism at its finest. But I agree that it was necessary. Doesn't change what it was.



    If they didn't get a good return on their loans to deadbeats, which they were begging the deadbeats to take, then they have no one to blame but the idiots in their organizations who made those loans, paid out record bonuses on the "profits" of those loans while the bubble was inflating, then came running to Uncle Sam for a bailout when the loans went bad.



    Wrong - investors wouldn't loan to the banks at ANY price at that point because without the MASSIVE and coordinated GOVERNMENT rescue of those banks, the loans would never have been repaid.
    OK. You're convinced that Obama engaged in crony capitalism and no amount of explanation to the contrary is going to change your mind so I leave you to your opinion on that. But...... gotta say.... if a little odd to argue that it was necessary AND it was crony capitalism. Crony capitalism, by it's very "meme" indicates that it wasn't necessary but gratuitous. But nevermind. I've got work to do.
    Last edited by Papa bull; 01-22-15 at 11:35 AM.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  9. #669
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    09-27-16 @ 12:59 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    5,189

    Re: The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    you DISHONESTLY quoted what I said

    i said I GET NOTHING EXTRA in return for all those tax dollars forced out of them
    You poor ****ing baby. All you do is bitch about the small amount of money you spend in taxes. Why not grow a pair and deal with it. You have more left over than a vast majority of the rest of the country so shut up already!

  10. #670
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    42,058

    Re: The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    the same way they did.
    save and invest, save and invest. it has nothing to do with luck.

    I look to double my salary over the next 5 years or so. it won't have anything to do with luck but being good at what I do.
    I have been to places with real wage gap. America is nothing.
    So have I.
    And, I don't think I'd like to see the rest of the world become like those places, would you?
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

Page 67 of 98 FirstFirst ... 1757656667686977 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •