Page 72 of 98 FirstFirst ... 2262707172737482 ... LastLast
Results 711 to 720 of 972

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

  1. #711
    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
    You realize I guess that the First Amendment exists in part to PROTECT liberals' right to "shout you down" in a debate (to the extent that can even occur in a written debate forum).

    Maybe I should have said, "Missing the entire point of the First Amendment Alert!!"
    LOL. The point of you libs shouting down anyone with an opposing viewpoint is so that maybe theirs DOESN'T get heard. But I think people see that for what it is; an attempt to silence opposition. It's pretty transparent.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  2. #712
    Sage
    KevinKohler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    CT
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,971
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    BFD-the wealthy receive THE LEAST value for each tax dollar they pay. The wealthy pay more actual dollars and get NOTHING extra in return

    You all forget about that all the time
    They have an educated work for available to them through those tax dollars, without which, they would not be wealthy.

    They have subsidized poverty, without which, they would have to pay higher wages, or face violent revolt at some point.
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Reports indicate that everyone knew he was hauling a bunch of guns up there. But, since you brought it up, there's something which should be illegal: guns that breakdown.

  3. #713
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,730

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    LOL. The point of you libs shouting down anyone with an opposing viewpoint is so that maybe theirs DOESN'T get heard. But I think people see that for what it is; an attempt to silence opposition. It's pretty transparent.
    Still has nothing to do with the First Amendment....

    Attempting to "silence opposition" - LOL. If that's our attempt, it's failing miserably. I can turn on my radio any time of the day and on talk radio all I hear is right wing viewpoints, right wing callers agreeing with that viewpoint, Fox News does pretty well, last I heard GOPers still had town hall meetings, lots of right wing blogs, conservative newspapers, etc. Conservative candidates are extremely well funded. Winning plenty of elections too! Doesn't SEEM to be a problem for conservatives to get their message out there....

    But I get it. Conservatives are the victims... poor things. Liberals are just meanies!

  4. #714
    Sage
    whysoserious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Last Seen
    12-29-16 @ 03:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,170

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I don't think you understand what really happened. The bad "securities" were homes they couldn't sell for enough to cover the defaults. And AIG insured them and those swaps were all over the world. If AIG was allowed to go bankrupt, the swaps would have become worth exactly zero and then the damage is global and unrecoverable. Loan AIG and other institutions enough to cover their obligations and the crash doesn't hit the whole world (and pensions and retirement plans for everyone). And the thing is.... All those financial instruments made sense and would never have been a problem in any normal circumstances.

    But circumstances weren't normal. People bought into the idea that a home will only go up in value and so they bought whatever they could at any price asked and felt all fat and happy. The market overheated and housing prices dropped and now they're not so happy and figure that since they paid more than the house is worth, they just walk, take the credit hit and stick the banks (and ultimately, all the rest of us) with the losses. THAT was the basis of the crash.
    Right, but it wasn't the homes that caused it (mostly) - it was the leveraging via securities that did it. As I recall:

    1) You have the loan
    2) Then you have an insurance against that loan
    3) Then you have a security that essentially betting on that insurance

    Yes, it sucks for the bank if the loan wasn't paid back, but they are insured against failure via #2. Yes, it sucks to have to pay the insurance to the banks, and Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG may have still been in trouble. However, the mortgage backed security that bet on the insurance that could be leveraged as many times as the market was willing... that's where the damage was done.

    If you take a loan and insurance on those loans, they are easily calculatable maximum losses. That means you can easily hedge it or keep enough equity to pay off losses. However, the mortgage-backed securities had unlimited loss and profit potential. And those who were long on those securities ****ing lost their asses. They were supposed to be AAA-rated, near guaranteed return on investment, so you can go long as **** on those, not be terribly hedged, leverage the **** out of it, and feel good about getting a nice ROI.

    Except they didn't. They lost everything. Everyone went under. The stock market plunged. Banks stopped lending. It was a **** show. I could be wrong, Papa Bull, but I would bet the actual money lost on housing was a small percentage of the money compared to that which was lost on the mortgage-backed securities.
    Last edited by whysoserious; 01-22-15 at 05:45 PM.
    Ted Cruz is the dumbest person alive.

  5. #715
    Sage
    whysoserious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Last Seen
    12-29-16 @ 03:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,170

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    sure it is. he is funding a program he can't use. that the end of it.
    it has no benefit to him other than taking his money and giving it to someone else that did nothing for it.

    no you just don't care other people that like to keep what they earn do care.
    I can't use the schools in Montana either. I can't use the VA benefits that are paid to veterans. I can't use the ****ing space shuttle either.

    But I am a grown ass man who doesn't moan and bitch about it. It's called life, get over it. If you don't want to be a part of society, go live in the ****ing woods!
    Ted Cruz is the dumbest person alive.

  6. #716
    Sage
    whysoserious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Last Seen
    12-29-16 @ 03:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,170

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

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Your President sure did.
    It's like talking to a wall. J-mac, did you have something relevant or actually though out that you wanted to add, or should we just keep going in circles where you make a random accusation that is off topic and incorrect and I refute it?
    Ted Cruz is the dumbest person alive.

  7. #717
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,513

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    that isn't quantitative easing. that is something completely different.
    quantitative easing is the buying of assets by the federal reserve.

    when the economy has need of expansion and more money the federal reserve simply lets money come out of the reserve into the system.
    they are not the same thing.

    again define wealth. so far it seems to be thrown out there arbitrarily.
    Good point. Before we can have an intelligent discussion of wealth, first we must define just what it is.

    To me, wealth is an accumulation of income producing property, whether that is in t he form of real property, or part ownership in the means of production (stocks) or money that has been lent to others (bonds), all of it together is "wealth."

    That's just off the top of my head. Anything to add?
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  8. #718
    Villiage Idiot
    imagep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,580

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Good point. Before we can have an intelligent discussion of wealth, first we must define just what it is.

    To me, wealth is an accumulation of income producing property, whether that is in t he form of real property, or part ownership in the means of production (stocks) or money that has been lent to others (bonds), all of it together is "wealth."

    That's just off the top of my head. Anything to add?
    If that's how you want to define wealth, then that's fine, but my definition would be much more broad.

    The best definition I have seen is something to the effect of "anything which reduces discomfort"

    So there could be two economies which were identical, except that one had a more effective pain killer, or better tasting food, and that economy would be slightly more wealthy. Even the ability to get a haircut or a tattoo is wealth (at least to someone who desires a haircut or a tattoo).
    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    ...I'm not interested in debating someone who is trolling for an argument....
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I see a big problem with the idea that whatever the majority wants is OK.

  9. #719
    Sage
    whysoserious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Last Seen
    12-29-16 @ 03:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,170

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

    Quote Originally Posted by imagep View Post
    If that's how you want to define wealth, then that's fine, but my definition would be much more broad.

    The best definition I have seen is something to the effect of "anything which reduces discomfort"

    So there could be two economies which were identical, except that one had a more effective pain killer, or better tasting food, and that economy would be slightly more wealthy. Even the ability to get a haircut or a tattoo is wealth (at least to someone who desires a haircut or a tattoo).
    Yeah, but you could break that into two categories really:

    1) Wealth of the society (availability of goods and services)
    2) Wealth within the society (ability to get those goods and services which are available)
    Ted Cruz is the dumbest person alive.

  10. #720
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,513

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

    Quote Originally Posted by imagep View Post
    If that's how you want to define wealth, then that's fine, but my definition would be much more broad.

    The best definition I have seen is something to the effect of "anything which reduces discomfort"

    So there could be two economies which were identical, except that one had a more effective pain killer, or better tasting food, and that economy would be slightly more wealthy. Even the ability to get a haircut or a tattoo is wealth (at least to someone who desires a haircut or a tattoo).
    By that definition, an aspirin tablet or a warm sweatshirt would be wealth. If that's so, then virtually everyone is wealthy.

    Perhaps the ability to purchase goods and services?
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

Page 72 of 98 FirstFirst ... 2262707172737482 ... 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
  •