Redistribution Of Wealth Question?
 

With all this talk about the redistribution of wealth I have an opinion poll I'd like to take?

Isn't this 700 billion dollar bail out the biggest redistribution of wealth in history except going in the opposite direction with the government taxing you to bail out the banks and corporations.

It strikes me as the biggest socialist republican move ever, and I don't get why don't dumb ass republicans don't mind getting it up the ass in that redistribution as long as we keep the words "Capitalism" and "Free Enterprise" around, although it makes me kind of question the meaning to those words.

Exactly... Furthermore - taking taxpayer revenue and then cutting everybody in the fucking country a check to stimulate the economy is the very definition of "spreading the wealth around". Bush has championed this and done it a bunch of times and both candidates are saying we should do it again.

Under the CRA, the Carter and Clinton adminstrations forced banks to make shaky loans to minorities which gave us this crisis. Wall Street is not the primary culprit.

Yup, but don't try to convince the republicans or these so called economy experts here on GFY.
They think that the government covering a kid's hospital bill will immediately change the US from a republic to a socialist nation over night and they'll be.... I don't know actually what they're so afraid of.

But yes, they despise the idea of their extra 3% going to people who need it but are all for it going to people who already have billions.

Way to avoid the question and find something to hate democrats for all in the same breath. You're a real pro at this. Ever considered a career in politics? You and Palin would make a great team. :thumbsup

Do any of you even remotely comprehend what would have happened if the banks weren't bailed out?

Yeah it sucks to have the bailout, but the alternative wasn't pretty ;) Damned if you do, damned if you don't eh ?

The funny thing about this is, who cares how much you're taxed if you end up making more than you were making before because the economy grows. My point is, isn't it better to be making 2 grand a week with them taking 500 from your check then making 100 dollars a week and they only take 5 bucks.

I remember during the Clinton administration there were more jobs than there were people to fill the positions and personal wealth was growing (which I'm sure both things pissed off the big companies) even if we were spending like fools.

Suddenly the surplus is used to finance a war that makes oil, the prime product we invade for, more expensive. Only a republican administration could pull that off and then convince trailer trash republican voters who are surviving on "mayonaise-filled wish-meat sandwhiches" that there is anything left that could possibly be taken from them that they should vote republican to protect.

Yeah, a lot of fat overweight bastards would have had to figure a way to survive like the rest of us, and possibly kill themselves or maybe we could have met up with them in an alley and settled things on a more personal level LOL.

Actually... in testimony to the congress last week the economists said that the housing problem wasn't caused by any of that... it was caused by default swaps (derivatives).

Oh no not just that ;)

It trickles down much further than just a few fat bastards :)

:2 cents::2 cents:

The move, save banks not people. So how is that the biggest socialistic move ever?

Only 30% of all subprime mortages would have falled under the CRA. So no the law is not the main reason for the collapse.

Actually it's probably more communist than socialist since it was bipartisan (one party representing the people) and in (fake) theory that one party is supposed to know what's good for us and protect us from ourselves until we have the knowledge and skills able to do so for ourselves (the joke of the money coming back to us).

If they could have gotten us to pick up some weapons to support them (the violent overthrow of the government), it would have been completely Marxist.

You can spend these things in all types of directions

Seriously you are blaming CARTER for this? Ok if someone took a load out durring Carter's administration that 30 year loan should be pretty well paid off by now.

You are stupid. "forced"? yes because it should be ok for banks to say "no we don't lend money to no niggars". Gotcha. Make sure your sheets are clean for the next klan meeting.

You got a reliable link to back up that statement?

People forget Clinton lucked out witgh the dot com boom... Not like he created shit, govt whether republican or democrat do not create jobs, the free market does.

The housing problem wasn't caused by default swaps. The financial crisis was caused by them, with the housing problem being part of it too.

What is unemployment? What is welfare? What is social security? What are food stamps? What is the government cheese program?

"redistribution of wealth" is a last gasp talking point, made to divide you from your reason, my friend.

Is it not obvious they don't?

They'd get it pretty damn fast though if the credit markets had completely seized up.

What republicans are you talking about? Every one I know (including myself), was TOTALLY against it. Hell, Wells Fargo and B of A didn't want anything to do with it, but they were basically forced into it by the gov. Any true conservative understands that this is going to result in massive government power over the whole banking system.

Speaking as a fiscal conservative/republican... me and my friends were completely against the bailout. We were all writing and faxing and calling our reps and senators like crazy to tell them to vote against it. It may have had an affect on the first vote, but the second go round went through... :disgust




:2 cents:

Again, more who don't answer the question and rather divert the subject.
The question wasn't whether it was necessary or not, or what would have happened. Try to keep up.

ummm yea.... I'm sorry but last time I checked low income minorities weren't buying $200k houses. The biggest foreclosure group are house in the $150k to $300k range, those are middle class families that over bought trying to keep up with the Jones. Not low income minorities.

Also don't forget that it was three Republicans whom sponsored and proposed that bill, if it wasn't for them it never would have been voted on. Not to mention that the bill was voted in by both parties in a "Republican" controlled Congress and Senate.

Pretty hard to keep up with someone as bright as you Stuart

:1orglaugh

I didn't ask the question, so it's not me you have to keep up with. See, still not keeping up. :winkwink:

touché :)

I actually don't believe any of that. It's just like the "weapons of mass destruction" scare tactic that got us into Iraq. Qualified financial advisors don't know the answers either or there wouldn't be a crises. They just know to stick their hands out for more and more

people who don't have money shouldn't be getting credit wether it seizes or not. criminal organizations thrive all the time on giving out credit to the correct people and taking care of losers who don't pay their bills all the time.

I hate to break it to you but pretty much everyone you know would lose their home if the credit markets completely seized up. No new mortgages; at least not without putting 50%+ down with outrageous terms. Mortgage coming due and you want to refinance; forget about it. No auto loans; cash only. Say goodbye to your credit card. Want that new fridge, washer, dryer from Sears; pull out the paper. Etc... Welcome to the past

Unless you were cash rich, which most aren't; you would be shit out of luck for any large purchase.

People think things are bad now. Take away the average persons ability to acquire credit and the economy would drastically shrink.

What you're failing to grasp is that it was main street that was bailed out.

You should open notepad and type the words "Republicans good. Democrats Bad.". Save it as "GFYResponse.txt". That way you don't have to actually type a reply to anything. You can just copy and paste.

The bail our is not socialist. Socialism would involve nationalizing the banks, putting bad CEOs in jail, and nationalizing the profits. Government being beholden to banks, corporations and CEOs is not called socialism. If you look in history you'll find that the more appropriate term for that kind of thing is fascism.

corporate welfare rocks ... :thumbsup

I understand your theory. It's simply enough and that's the scare tactics they lose. But if you don't have the cash (or at least the promised cash) you shouldn't have the shit in the first place.

That aside, explain to me exactly why you would lose your home or car with exact procedure, step 1 and step 2, or rather how this bail out is going to allow you to keep them?

You don't actually think they're not going to want their monthly payments now do you? And you do realize unless you do what we do and operate you're own thing, you're probably losing your job anyway.

Also people with money will always loan to good investments and private investors because that's how they make money and that's actually free enterprise - private investments. Problem is there aren't many now.

So forgetting how it would have hurt, how does it now help anything - exactly how?

There will be no redistribution. Someone making $250k a year would only be taxed a little over $200 more a year. http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23780.html

It injects liquidity into the markets and removes toxic debt from the banks balance sheets thus freeing up capital and allowing them to start lending again.

Tell me which way Libor rates have been going since governments intervened?
They might not have returned to normal yet but rates are a hell of a lot better then if governments had done nothing and they continued to rise. What bizarro world do you live in where banks stop lending to each other but yet still lend to your average person?

As to how you would lose your home; its pretty simple. Your mortgage comes due but no one will refinance. Good credit; tough shit. You can't pay off the mortgage and the bank forecloses. You lose the home.

Of course if you could afford to take out a mortgage amortized over 5 years or less you might be in luck. Ask your friends and family if they have the financial capacity to pay of their mortgage in the next 5 years? I'm pretty confident the majority of responses will be a resounding NO.

You wish to buy a car but banks aren't lending money because they don't have any ergo you don't get the loan so you don't get the car. Pretty basic.

I won't even get into what those scenarios end up doing to the economy and employment.

Again you don't seem to grasp what is happening.

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

I totally grasp what's happening. Rich parasites are scared of a world were they might have to actually sweat or do something, or worse (what I love) live in the streets and have to survive like people who actually have to work for their money.

If I want a car, I pull out my wallet and put a good size down payment on it, just because I can.

You guys are livid in a world of liquidity, and when the shit hits the fan, your wives and daughters will be working for me in the streets because no matter how you want to play this, sooner or later, it's pay day!

Meanwhile, play with the books as much as you want.

Yes, lets take money from the smart people and give it to the dumb people. Yeah.. that'll work.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

I don't think you could ask for a better post to prove that you don't have a fucking clue what your talking about or how a credit freeze would affect the vast majority of the first world population.

I'd love nothing better then for you to stand up in a crowd of financially literate individuals and spout your drivel. A little humiliation would do you good.


You sir are a nutjob and the sad part is you don't even realize it; nuts rarely do though.

Fuck stupid people like you give me a headache.

Everyone would not loose their home if credit seized up. The majority did the right thing and do a fixed rate and one they could afford, even if they can not refinance.
No auto loans? Oh well that would just have to be some bad medicine we could swallow for awhile.
New appliances or whatever, have the cash ready for what you want to buy. Do this and do not have the want it now attitude and most would never end up in trouble anyways.
Less credit cards - Yup and would again be limited to those with very little risk and very high scores like it was before, unless they were secured.

Not saying it would not hurt, but few could rationally say that we should not have just swallowed our medicine and got over what made us as a country sick. Our economy grew and was huge before credit was common, no reason at all to think it would fall apart without easy credit- long term at least.

I've never read Smith's work. Is this quote out of context?

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor... The luxuries and the vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess...It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion" - Adam Smith, the Wealth of Nations.

we must maintain this artificial economy! consume on credit so american companies can meet profit predictions. achieve "the American Dream" because its your birthright.
$700 billion bailout funded by tax payers? what dilemma could possibly exist to warrant this? was it... those in charge realized that America couldnt afford to reveal its true weakness to the world; its addiction to credit and ultimate dependency on it to survive. if people stopped spending beyond their means businesses would fail on a massive scale. the average american cant afford the necessities AND a cell phone, flat-screen tv, cable/sat, two new cars, a $4k bedroom set, 500 dvds etc etc but they still possess these items because they were stupid enough to believe what marketing companies have spent their lifetime selling them. "the more you obtain, the better." want to make a killing? open a rent-a-center franchise. more and more people these days will buy anything expensive with a marketing campaign if you'll accept payments of $59/month for life. mmmmmm, flatscreen. ME WANT NOW

see sig