A government that can take from the Rich

Can you explain how the rich are exploiting the poor? Seems the opposite is more true. All those defaulted mortgages. Rich people provided the money. Poor people took the money. Rich people have lost their own money. Poor people lost rich people's money.

:lol:

You have no..and I really mean no..idea what you are talking about. None.

Rich people didn't provide the money. Rich people use your money and my money to make money.

They never ever risk their own assets. That's for suckers.

Obviously you don't know a thing about finance.
....And, you know (just) enough to deflect from the subject-at-hand.....and, it was the various mortgage-hu$tle$, that were a direct-result o' the Phil Gramm $CAM, and the enhanced Class System, resultant of the.....

 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #42
The poor rich people, they just don't have a thing. Pretty soon, they are going to be forced to eat their polo ponies.

We had our greatest prosperity when the wealthy paid their fair share.

We had our greatest prosperity when all men and women were secure in their rights to their property.

And this would be when exactly? Was this way back when women were the property?

Women were never property. Can't even be honest with yourself can you?
 
Ummm, no, not really.

We had our greatest prosperity when we had a fair distribution of the rewards of labor.

You realize that it doesn't matter what you earn if everything you earn can be taken away from you, right?

Our forefathers fight and died to secure our right to keep our property from an over intrusive government. And you want to hand it to them because you are jealous of others. How screwed up is that?

I want us to pay our bills and meet our commitments.

When taxes are cut on the wealthy, they are inevitably raised on the rest of us. Better them than us.

If given a choice between Mitt Romney buying another mansion and paying for feeding hungry kids, I think any humane person knows what the right thing to do is. Definitely what Jesus would do.

I always find it amusing that people who claim to be "Christian" would probably call Jesus a dirty stinking socialist.

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. -- Matthew 19:23-24

Fifty percent of Americans pay ZERO taxes.. Let them start paying something then we can talk about raising it on the other set.. Everyone should have some skin in this game. It isn't the rich's responsibility to satisfy your every damn need.
 
Ummm, no, not really.

We had our greatest prosperity when we had a fair distribution of the rewards of labor.

You realize that it doesn't matter what you earn if everything you earn can be taken away from you, right?

Our forefathers fight and died to secure our right to keep our property from an over intrusive government. And you want to hand it to them because you are jealous of others. How screwed up is that?

I want us to pay our bills and meet our commitments.

When taxes are cut on the wealthy, they are inevitably raised on the rest of us. Better them than us.

If given a choice between Mitt Romney buying another mansion and paying for feeding hungry kids, I think any humane person knows what the right thing to do is. Definitely what Jesus would do.

I always find it amusing that people who claim to be "Christian" would probably call Jesus a dirty stinking socialist.

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. -- Matthew 19:23-24








did the obama's go on lavish vacations or did they feed some hungry kids?
 
just think of how many food stamps those lavish vacations would have paid for,, why are the obama's so damn selfish?
 
:lol:

You have no..and I really mean no..idea what you are talking about. None.

Rich people didn't provide the money. Rich people use your money and my money to make money.

They never ever risk their own assets. That's for suckers.

Obviously you don't know a thing about finance.

I guess you think everything they do is in as total vacuum. They don't have to pay any overhead for their offices, their employees, utilities, state and federal taxes, licenses, worker's compensation, etc.

You claim they have no risk. The fact that more and more people defaulted on loans from 2003 to 2009 than just about any time in our history. The folks that defaulted walked sticking the banks with the bill.

I used to loan money and I had a list of at least 50 names of people that never paid me back. The poor are not the helpless sucks you claim they are. The reason some of them are poor is because of waste and lack of accountability.

Again.

Rich people, do NOT use their own money. If a loan is defaulted on..that comes from the other investors..or if it's a bank..it's taken out in fees.

None of the people that engineered the collapse..had any skin in the game. They were ready to walk away. Look at Dick Fuld from Lehman. He presided over the collapse of an institution that was around for over a century. He walked out of the office with a 20 million dollar golden parachute while employees and investors got bupkis.

That's why President Bush..and the rest of the conservative cowboys had to cobble together TARP. Because the kings of wallstreet were all planning on doing the very same thing.
....And, who knows more about banking-"risks" than.....

 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #47
Ummm, no, not really.

We had our greatest prosperity when we had a fair distribution of the rewards of labor.

You realize that it doesn't matter what you earn if everything you earn can be taken away from you, right?

Our forefathers fight and died to secure our right to keep our property from an over intrusive government. And you want to hand it to them because you are jealous of others. How screwed up is that?

I want us to pay our bills and meet our commitments.

When taxes are cut on the wealthy, they are inevitably raised on the rest of us. Better them than us.

If given a choice between Mitt Romney buying another mansion and paying for feeding hungry kids, I think any humane person knows what the right thing to do is. Definitely what Jesus would do.

I always find it amusing that people who claim to be "Christian" would probably call Jesus a dirty stinking socialist.

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. -- Matthew 19:23-24

Mitt Romney has given more to charity than any other candidate in recent history and has done so consistantly throughout his life. How much did you give to the poor recently?

You say you want to pay our obligations yet you are going to vote against the one person who in public and private life has a record of paying obligations, eliminating waste, and making sure there was still profit at the end of it. That makes alot of sense.

You quote Jesus, yet you ignore His counsels. You live contrary to them and are proud of it.

Christ also said the following:

4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him,

5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?

6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.

8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always. (John 12:4-8)

Does it bother you at all that your words echo the Son of Perdition?
 
and besides which,, just paying more taxes doesn't guarantee us a damn thing cause we know they waste a hellavua lot of it up in dc.. those rich selfish damn politicians and bureaurcats . let them pay more, they're the ones who piss it all away.
 
We had our greatest prosperity when all men and women were secure in their rights to their property.

And this would be when exactly? Was this way back when women were the property?

Women were never property. Can't even be honest with yourself can you?
FYI
Women had more legal rights in Ancient Egypt than in Colonial America.

You have asked a complex question. It's complex because no single law was ever passed at a certain date. A complete answer would involve a comprehensive survey of laws in early America, laws that controlled inheritance and property. There was no single law that stated, "Women are the property of their husbands". A woman's place in the world was carved out by ancient legal principals and traditions that evolved over centuries such as:


  • Women were denied a separate legal status from their husbands.
  • A husband and wife were considered one person under the law and that one person was the husband.
  • Women were denied rights of inheritance.
  • Women were denied the right to own property in their own right.
  • Men could be compensated for the loss of a wife due to another man's negligence.
  • Men paid a bride price to the parents of his wife in the same way he purchased livestock.
When were US women no longer the property of their husbands
 
You're absolutely right, a government can do that. Who would pretend otherwise? We have a government right now that supports the rich exploiting the poor.

.

Can you explain how the rich are exploiting the poor? Seems the opposite is more true. All those defaulted mortgages. Rich people provided the money. Poor people took the money. Rich people have lost their own money. Poor people lost rich people's money.

Um. No. What happened was that Rich People manipulted the real estate market, then gave poor people loans they probably never should have gotten. They then called those loans assets, sold them to other people as securities, overstating their value.

Which all worked fine, until the whole system collapsed, and the poor folks had to bail out the rich with TARP and such.

So rich people begged poor people to take their money, traded those loans among each other (poor people dont buy CDOs), and then poor people defaulted on those loans and lost houses they never bought with their own money. TARP did nothing to bail out mortgage holders.
 
You're absolutely right, a government can do that. Who would pretend otherwise? We have a government right now that supports the rich exploiting the poor.

.

Can you explain how the rich are exploiting the poor? Seems the opposite is more true. All those defaulted mortgages. Rich people provided the money. Poor people took the money. Rich people have lost their own money. Poor people lost rich people's money.

:lol:

You have no..and I really mean no..idea what you are talking about. None.

Rich people didn't provide the money. Rich people use your money and my money to make money.

They never ever risk their own assets. That's for suckers.

Rich people don't invest their money? Got it. They just leave it under the mattress, right?
 
And this would be when exactly? Was this way back when women were the property?

Women were never property. Can't even be honest with yourself can you?
FYI
Women had more legal rights in Ancient Egypt than in Colonial America.

You have asked a complex question. It's complex because no single law was ever passed at a certain date. A complete answer would involve a comprehensive survey of laws in early America, laws that controlled inheritance and property. There was no single law that stated, "Women are the property of their husbands". A woman's place in the world was carved out by ancient legal principals and traditions that evolved over centuries such as:


  • Women were denied a separate legal status from their husbands.
  • A husband and wife were considered one person under the law and that one person was the husband.
  • Women were denied rights of inheritance.
  • Women were denied the right to own property in their own right.
  • Men could be compensated for the loss of a wife due to another man's negligence.
  • Men paid a bride price to the parents of his wife in the same way he purchased livestock.
When were US women no longer the property of their husbands

That doesnt prove what you think it does. Women were never property.
And "Colonial America" is a joke. There were 13 colonies all with different laws.
 
Mitt Romney has given more to charity than any other candidate in recent history and has done so consistantly throughout his life. How much did you give to the poor recently?

Not relevent, as even Jesus said the meager contribution by the poor was greater than the rich man giving what he could spare.

Mark 12:42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
12:43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
12:44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.



You say you want to pay our obligations yet you are going to vote against the one person who in public and private life has a record of paying obligations, eliminating waste, and making sure there was still profit at the end of it. That makes alot of sense.

He has a record of enriching himself at the expense of those who are barely scraping by. It's not only moral or right, it's self-destructive.

He did not need a fourth mansion, but those AmPad folks really could have used jobs.



You quote Jesus, yet you ignore His counsels. You live contrary to them and are proud of it.

Damn straight. I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy.
 
Obviously you don't know a thing about finance.

I guess you think everything they do is in as total vacuum. They don't have to pay any overhead for their offices, their employees, utilities, state and federal taxes, licenses, worker's compensation, etc.

You claim they have no risk. The fact that more and more people defaulted on loans from 2003 to 2009 than just about any time in our history. The folks that defaulted walked sticking the banks with the bill.

I used to loan money and I had a list of at least 50 names of people that never paid me back. The poor are not the helpless sucks you claim they are. The reason some of them are poor is because of waste and lack of accountability.

Again.

Rich people, do NOT use their own money. If a loan is defaulted on..that comes from the other investors..or if it's a bank..it's taken out in fees.

None of the people that engineered the collapse..had any skin in the game. They were ready to walk away. Look at Dick Fuld from Lehman. He presided over the collapse of an institution that was around for over a century. He walked out of the office with a 20 million dollar golden parachute while employees and investors got bupkis.

That's why President Bush..and the rest of the conservative cowboys had to cobble together TARP. Because the kings of wallstreet were all planning on doing the very same thing.

I'm sure they were all trying to rob us. All it takes is one or two highly publicized examples and you libs paint the entire industry with the same brush.

You keep forgetting that there are startup expenses, and if enough people default on their loans, which is renigging on a promise, the bank goes under.
Gee.....could you (possibly) be any more-obvious about who (it is) you think.....


.....the most-often?

handjob.gif
 
Mitt Romney has given more to charity than any other candidate in recent history and has done so consistantly throughout his life. How much did you give to the poor recently?

Not relevent, as even Jesus said the meager contribution by the poor was greater than the rich man giving what he could spare.

Mark 12:42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
12:43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
12:44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.



You say you want to pay our obligations yet you are going to vote against the one person who in public and private life has a record of paying obligations, eliminating waste, and making sure there was still profit at the end of it. That makes alot of sense.

He has a record of enriching himself at the expense of those who are barely scraping by. It's not only moral or right, it's self-destructive.

He did not need a fourth mansion, but those AmPad folks really could have used jobs.



You quote Jesus, yet you ignore His counsels. You live contrary to them and are proud of it.

Damn straight. I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy.
And you've already announced your bigotry. You hate Romney because he's a Mormon. That is the definition of bigotry.
 
Can you explain how the rich are exploiting the poor? Seems the opposite is more true. All those defaulted mortgages. Rich people provided the money. Poor people took the money. Rich people have lost their own money. Poor people lost rich people's money.

Um. No. What happened was that Rich People manipulted the real estate market, then gave poor people loans they probably never should have gotten. They then called those loans assets, sold them to other people as securities, overstating their value.

Which all worked fine, until the whole system collapsed, and the poor folks had to bail out the rich with TARP and such.

So rich people begged poor people to take their money, traded those loans among each other (poor people dont buy CDOs), and then poor people defaulted on those loans and lost houses they never bought with their own money. TARP did nothing to bail out mortgage holders.

Tarp bailed out the banks. A lot of those poor folks lost their houses, anyway. which is why the housing market hasn't recovered. Too many foreclosed on homes the banks can't sell.

The bankers didn't "beg", they tricked them with sub-prime loans, knowing if they defaulted, the government would bail them out or they could resell the houses. And that was the problem. We capitalized gains and socialized risk. It was a no-lose situation for the banksters, and you wonder why they acted badly.
 
Can take from the poor much easier.

When we allow politicians and bureaucrats divide us because of envy and covetousness, we weaken our own rights and potential.

You're absolutely right, a government can do that. Who would pretend otherwise? We have a government right now that supports the rich exploiting the poor.

As a twist to Mitt Romney's words... I'm not really concerned about the rich, they have their own safety net. The rich don't struggle in the ways the poor do. If they did, they wouldn't be rich.


Also what the fuck? Why are you trying to make the poor as a point of your argument? You guys have pointed out time and time again you don't rightly give a fuck about the poor. This thread is the equivalent of someone like me showing concern for the rich.
Just because you are butt hurt doesnt make your words true.
 
The poor rich people, they just don't have a thing. Pretty soon, they are going to be forced to eat their polo ponies.

We had our greatest prosperity when the wealthy paid their fair share.

We had our greatest prosperity when all men and women were secure in their rights to their property.

And this would be when exactly? Was this way back when women were the property?

And when in your lifetime was this the case?
 
Um. No. What happened was that Rich People manipulted the real estate market, then gave poor people loans they probably never should have gotten. They then called those loans assets, sold them to other people as securities, overstating their value.

Which all worked fine, until the whole system collapsed, and the poor folks had to bail out the rich with TARP and such.

So rich people begged poor people to take their money, traded those loans among each other (poor people dont buy CDOs), and then poor people defaulted on those loans and lost houses they never bought with their own money. TARP did nothing to bail out mortgage holders.

Tarp bailed out the banks. A lot of those poor folks lost their houses, anyway. which is why the housing market hasn't recovered. Too many foreclosed on homes the banks can't sell.

The bankers didn't "beg", they tricked them with sub-prime loans, knowing if they defaulted, the government would bail them out or they could resell the houses. And that was the problem. We capitalized gains and socialized risk. It was a no-lose situation for the banksters, and you wonder why they acted badly.

They tricked those people into those loans.

They wanted 25 cents on the dollar instead $3.00 on the dollar due to compound interest.

Do you realize how dumb you sound????

IDIOT!!!!
 

Forum List

Back
Top