Hey Libs...why do tax cuts for our most productive suck?

[justinacolmena]

What tax cuts? And who is supposed to get them?

They are irrelevant. Tax cuts are not helping us, because we are not allowed to work or go in business or make any money to be taxed on at any rate.

Jews, social undesirables, mental defectives, homosexuals, turn in your guns! It's no better than Depression-era Germany under Adolf Hitler.

 

[JBond]

It seems there’s still lots of whining going on with regard to the tax cuts.
I’m curious, why do tax cuts suck?

This should be interesting. Liberals were fiercely defending states suing over SALT changes. They want that subsidy back to lower their effective tax rate.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Or one could question the lack of regulation that allows banks to give out mortgage loans to people without enough income to sustain them? The way I see it, if a bank gives people a chance to own a house in the knowledge that they will get in financial trouble down the line in an effort to pay for that house it is the bank that is at fault. Not for nothing I'm European, my wife is American and in 2007 I personally saw her best friend being capable of borrowing over 200k when she was in a financial situation that would have caused her to be laughed out of my bank in Europe if she would have asked for that kind of money. So who's fault is it that she goes bankrupt? Hers or the fault of a system that allows borrowing like that?

If you are stupid enough to borrow more then you can comfortably pay back? Then you are the one at fault. Even a six year old can understand that you can not pay someone two dollars if you only have one.

The bank can foreclose and sell the house. If you are older then six then do you really feel that you need someone to hold your hand all the time?

The big difference is between a Broker and a Fiduciary. The Broker is a salesperson who wins when s/he makes a sale, even if the product purchased by the buyer is likely not to his or her benefit.

The bank is the broker, and they will make a loan without full disclosure to the buyer. A fiduciary would not omit telling the buyer that real estate is not a sure thing, and the balloon payment due in 5 years might not be able to be payed off if the home has gone underwater.

The bank then will bundle all the likely failures to payoff the balloon payment and sell them, they they profit twice, and screw both the buyer and those who bought the bundle.

Everyone who has purchased a home, and signed the loan papers signs a large number of documents with large amount of fine print, and is rushed to sign them even when they are not sure; and trust the loan officer who is a broker, not a fiduciary.

I call BULLSHIT right now.
A licensed Loan Officer is in fact a Fiduciary. He/she is regulated by the Department Of Real Estate and is required to adhere to all legal mandates set forth by the DRE.
Further, you’re doing exactly what Lefties do...deflect blame and self accountability.
You wackos will never change.

I've bought several houses, and sat through the process many times. No where does the loan officer explain anything a fiduciary provides, such as the example in my post.

The outcome of this may not be an illegal act, but it is a moral obligation ignored, since the loan itself is the goal of the bank and loan officer.

A licensed Loan Officer is legally obligated and required by DRE mandate to thoroughly explain the details and guidelines of a mortgage loan.
Obtaining the loan is the goal of the borrower more so than the LO and or the bank...no? After all, the borrower probably originated said loan with an initial inquiry.

Consider this:

Brokers Face a New Fiduciary Duty - Scotsman Guide

 

[my2¢]

The tax cuts would have sucked if Trump and the House got its way and repealed the Johnson Amendment.

 

[sartre play]

Because they did not need a tax cut, how many billions do you need to feel secure

 

[dave p]

I’m curious, why do tax cuts suck?

That depends on wether you're rich or or not and what your views are on things like equality, the national debt, welfare etc.

So, if you're in love with the 1% and think people like Bill Gates, Zuckerberg or the Koch Brothers are bigly productive you probably think it's a wonderful idea

On the other hand, if you already have a $20 trillion debt and a yearly deficit of hundreds of $billions you might think that it would be a good idea to do something about that first before handing out more tax cuts to the 'productive' oligarchy

Bigly?

 

[dave p]

Cutting taxes to billion dollar corporations, some of which hire thousands of workers

You're so close to getting it. Just think a little harder.

If you are going to quote me, don't LIE by omission. My point for the reader was that many of the employees at Amazon are in need of aid, and receive food stamps.

The perceived richest man in the history of the world exploits the poorest peoples labor.

That you are okay with this, defines you as a Callous Conservative and evil.

He has the right to pay them more. His not paying them has nothing to do with tax cuts.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Hey Libs...why do tax cuts for our most productive suck?
It seems there’s still lots of whining going on with regard to the tax cuts.
I’m curious, why do tax cuts suck?

Tax cuts for the most productive suck because in America's sick labor-union-driven economy, it is definitely not the most productive who are earning the most money.

Wages are DOE. You are fired if you work too hard or do your job too well or make the next guy look bad. Notice I said "guy." Women need not apply. The "guys" expect pussy-on-demand to be available for their union-boy DOE wages.

Women don't get "experience" under the DOE system. They just get "old."

In LibTardia the most productive are those individuals stacking bricks in the sweltering heat...not highly educated, high iQ executives sitting at desks in air conditioned offices delegating work out.
I can’t make this shit up people.

 

[dave p]

Apparently you believe we should just accept it since it's a "fact of life."

Well, it's simply a fact that you can't have a society without some common things that everybody needs and everybody has to share (like roads, drinking water, a police force, fire department) and those have to be paid for so that implies taxes

Try to be honest. Those aren’t the things that people complain about. Every time someone like you goes over simplistic it makes you look like an idiot. Until government is more responsible, not giving out huge amounts of welfare, stealing from the social security fund and all the other silly grants the government gives out.taxes should not be raised. Get rid of the bad programs, monitor and reduce the fraud.

 

[dave p]

Slavery was a fact of life until the 19th Century.

It still is, do you know there are now slave markets in Libya again after the psycho princess put the jihadis in power?

We arent

 

[dave p]

I’m curious, why do tax cuts suck?

That depends on wether you're rich or or not and what your views are on things like equality, the national debt, welfare etc.

So, if you're in love with the 1% and think people like Bill Gates, Zuckerberg or the Koch Brothers are bigly productive you probably think it's a wonderful idea

On the other hand, if you already have a $20 trillion debt and a yearly deficit of hundreds of $billions you might think that it would be a good idea to do something about that first before handing out more tax cuts to the 'productive' oligarchy

Yes you should. First thing is to reduce the amount of giveaways you are doing, get tough on the fraud.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Cutting taxes to billion dollar corporations, some of which hire thousands of workers

You're so close to getting it. Just think a little harder.

If you are going to quote me, don't LIE by omission. My point for the reader was that many of the employees at Amazon are in need of aid, and receive food stamps.

The perceived richest man in the history of the world exploits the poorest peoples labor.

That you are okay with this, defines you as a Callous Conservative and evil.

He has the right to pay them more. His not paying them has nothing to do with tax cuts.

Wrong. Consider the new tax law and how it impacts middle class homeowners. When the thousands of workers rely on state aid to eat or pay rent, taxes are sure to be raised to take care of the needy. Real Estate taxes and mortgage interest have been cut back as deductions and as fees & taxes rise, the standard deduction remains static. It's three card monte and those who voted for the Republicans will lose more each year, as owners of commercial real estate continue with their business deductions (DJT benefits, you lose).

 

[dave p]

During the recession my bankruptcy business was booming with people losing homes.

I have to say, in most cases they did it to themselves. Once someone starts using their homes as an atm, its iver. The borrowing against equity caused values to rise setting of a new round of borrowing. After the new furniture is purchased, the vacations taken, the silly investments failed, the properties were refinanced just to make the huge new mortgage payments. That's just about the time the value gets tapped out and the refinance money train stops. Naturally the loss of the home is going to be a disaster.

Or one could question the lack of regulation that allows banks to give out mortgage loans to people without enough income to sustain them? The way I see it, if a bank gives people a chance to own a house in the knowledge that they will get in financial trouble down the line in an effort to pay for that house it is the bank that is at fault. Not for nothing I'm European, my wife is American and in 2007 I personally saw her best friend being capable of borrowing over 200k when she was in a financial situation that would have caused her to be laughed out of my bank in Europe if she would have asked for that kind of money. So who's fault is it that she goes bankrupt? Hers or the fault of a system that allows borrowing like that?

Hers. She knows she can’t afford it. Blaming someone else for your stupidity is laughable.

 

[dave p]

Cutting taxes to billion dollar corporations, some of which hire thousands of workers

You're so close to getting it. Just think a little harder.

If you are going to quote me, don't LIE by omission. My point for the reader was that many of the employees at Amazon are in need of aid, and receive food stamps.

The perceived richest man in the history of the world exploits the poorest peoples labor.

That you are okay with this, defines you as a Callous Conservative and evil.

He has the right to pay them more. His not paying them has nothing to do with tax cuts.

Wrong. Consider the new tax law and how it impacts middle class homeowners. When the thousands of workers rely on state aid to eat or pay rent, taxes are sure to be raised to take care of the needy. Real Estate taxes and mortgage interest have been cut back as deductions and as fees & taxes rise, the standard deduction remains static. It's three card monte and those who voted for the Republicans will lose more each year, as owners of commercial real estate continue with their business deductions (DJT benefits, you lose).

No, you are the one that’s wrong. He can pay them anything he wants over minimum wage. If he did, they wouldn’t need the government assistance. The tax cuts or the mortgage interest has nothing to do with the wage discussion.

 

[forkup]

During the recession my bankruptcy business was booming with people losing homes.

I have to say, in most cases they did it to themselves. Once someone starts using their homes as an atm, its iver. The borrowing against equity caused values to rise setting of a new round of borrowing. After the new furniture is purchased, the vacations taken, the silly investments failed, the properties were refinanced just to make the huge new mortgage payments. That's just about the time the value gets tapped out and the refinance money train stops. Naturally the loss of the home is going to be a disaster.

Or one could question the lack of regulation that allows banks to give out mortgage loans to people without enough income to sustain them? The way I see it, if a bank gives people a chance to own a house in the knowledge that they will get in financial trouble down the line in an effort to pay for that house it is the bank that is at fault. Not for nothing I'm European, my wife is American and in 2007 I personally saw her best friend being capable of borrowing over 200k when she was in a financial situation that would have caused her to be laughed out of my bank in Europe if she would have asked for that kind of money. So who's fault is it that she goes bankrupt? Hers or the fault of a system that allows borrowing like that?

Hers. She knows she can’t afford it. Blaming someone else for your stupidity is laughable.

Even when said banks reassures her that she won't have to pay a lot at first,reassuring her that, surely her income would improve, making paying it back possible when her payments go up? If living under Trump has made one thing clear is that people believe ANY lie they want to believe. What you are saying is that the liar isn't responsible for telling lies but people who are dumb enough to believe them are?

 

[dave p]

During the recession my bankruptcy business was booming with people losing homes.

I have to say, in most cases they did it to themselves. Once someone starts using their homes as an atm, its iver. The borrowing against equity caused values to rise setting of a new round of borrowing. After the new furniture is purchased, the vacations taken, the silly investments failed, the properties were refinanced just to make the huge new mortgage payments. That's just about the time the value gets tapped out and the refinance money train stops. Naturally the loss of the home is going to be a disaster.

Or one could question the lack of regulation that allows banks to give out mortgage loans to people without enough income to sustain them? The way I see it, if a bank gives people a chance to own a house in the knowledge that they will get in financial trouble down the line in an effort to pay for that house it is the bank that is at fault. Not for nothing I'm European, my wife is American and in 2007 I personally saw her best friend being capable of borrowing over 200k when she was in a financial situation that would have caused her to be laughed out of my bank in Europe if she would have asked for that kind of money. So who's fault is it that she goes bankrupt? Hers or the fault of a system that allows borrowing like that?

Hers. She knows she can’t afford it. Blaming someone else for your stupidity is laughable.

Even when said banks reassures her that she won't have to pay a lot at first,reassuring her that, surely her income would improve, making paying it back possible when her payments go up? If living under Trump has made one thing clear is that people believe ANY lie they want to believe. What you are saying is that the liar isn't responsible for telling lies but people who are dumb enough to believe them are?

The bank told her she would get a raise? Doubtful. Nice how you figure out how to weave Trump I to a conversation which has nothing to do with him. The responsibility rests with the person. If you can’t afford something, dont buy it, it’s pretty simple. If you are too dumb to understand what you can and can’t afford, you deserve to go bankrupt. There are consequences to ones actions. When your decision doesn’t work out it is your responsibility no one else’s.

 

[forkup]

During the recession my bankruptcy business was booming with people losing homes.

I have to say, in most cases they did it to themselves. Once someone starts using their homes as an atm, its iver. The borrowing against equity caused values to rise setting of a new round of borrowing. After the new furniture is purchased, the vacations taken, the silly investments failed, the properties were refinanced just to make the huge new mortgage payments. That's just about the time the value gets tapped out and the refinance money train stops. Naturally the loss of the home is going to be a disaster.

Or one could question the lack of regulation that allows banks to give out mortgage loans to people without enough income to sustain them? The way I see it, if a bank gives people a chance to own a house in the knowledge that they will get in financial trouble down the line in an effort to pay for that house it is the bank that is at fault. Not for nothing I'm European, my wife is American and in 2007 I personally saw her best friend being capable of borrowing over 200k when she was in a financial situation that would have caused her to be laughed out of my bank in Europe if she would have asked for that kind of money. So who's fault is it that she goes bankrupt? Hers or the fault of a system that allows borrowing like that?

Hers. She knows she can’t afford it. Blaming someone else for your stupidity is laughable.

Even when said banks reassures her that she won't have to pay a lot at first,reassuring her that, surely her income would improve, making paying it back possible when her payments go up? If living under Trump has made one thing clear is that people believe ANY lie they want to believe. What you are saying is that the liar isn't responsible for telling lies but people who are dumb enough to believe them are?

The bank told her she would get a raise? Doubtful. Nice how you figure out how to weave Trump I to a conversation which has nothing to do with him. The responsibility rests with the person. If you can’t afford something, dont buy it, it’s pretty simple. If you are too dumb to understand what you can and can’t afford, you deserve to go bankrupt. There are consequences to ones actions. When your decision doesn’t work out it is your responsibility no one else’s.

I see. So you didn't mind bailing out the banks?

 

[dave p]

During the recession my bankruptcy business was booming with people losing homes.

I have to say, in most cases they did it to themselves. Once someone starts using their homes as an atm, its iver. The borrowing against equity caused values to rise setting of a new round of borrowing. After the new furniture is purchased, the vacations taken, the silly investments failed, the properties were refinanced just to make the huge new mortgage payments. That's just about the time the value gets tapped out and the refinance money train stops. Naturally the loss of the home is going to be a disaster.

Or one could question the lack of regulation that allows banks to give out mortgage loans to people without enough income to sustain them? The way I see it, if a bank gives people a chance to own a house in the knowledge that they will get in financial trouble down the line in an effort to pay for that house it is the bank that is at fault. Not for nothing I'm European, my wife is American and in 2007 I personally saw her best friend being capable of borrowing over 200k when she was in a financial situation that would have caused her to be laughed out of my bank in Europe if she would have asked for that kind of money. So who's fault is it that she goes bankrupt? Hers or the fault of a system that allows borrowing like that?

Hers. She knows she can’t afford it. Blaming someone else for your stupidity is laughable.

Even when said banks reassures her that she won't have to pay a lot at first,reassuring her that, surely her income would improve, making paying it back possible when her payments go up? If living under Trump has made one thing clear is that people believe ANY lie they want to believe. What you are saying is that the liar isn't responsible for telling lies but people who are dumb enough to believe them are?

The bank told her she would get a raise? Doubtful. Nice how you figure out how to weave Trump I to a conversation which has nothing to do with him. The responsibility rests with the person. If you can’t afford something, dont buy it, it’s pretty simple. If you are too dumb to understand what you can and can’t afford, you deserve to go bankrupt. There are consequences to ones actions. When your decision doesn’t work out it is your responsibility no one else’s.

I see. So you didn't mind bailing out the banks?

Nope.

 

[forkup]

Or one could question the lack of regulation that allows banks to give out mortgage loans to people without enough income to sustain them? The way I see it, if a bank gives people a chance to own a house in the knowledge that they will get in financial trouble down the line in an effort to pay for that house it is the bank that is at fault. Not for nothing I'm European, my wife is American and in 2007 I personally saw her best friend being capable of borrowing over 200k when she was in a financial situation that would have caused her to be laughed out of my bank in Europe if she would have asked for that kind of money. So who's fault is it that she goes bankrupt? Hers or the fault of a system that allows borrowing like that?

Hers. She knows she can’t afford it. Blaming someone else for your stupidity is laughable.

Even when said banks reassures her that she won't have to pay a lot at first,reassuring her that, surely her income would improve, making paying it back possible when her payments go up? If living under Trump has made one thing clear is that people believe ANY lie they want to believe. What you are saying is that the liar isn't responsible for telling lies but people who are dumb enough to believe them are?

The bank told her she would get a raise? Doubtful. Nice how you figure out how to weave Trump I to a conversation which has nothing to do with him. The responsibility rests with the person. If you can’t afford something, dont buy it, it’s pretty simple. If you are too dumb to understand what you can and can’t afford, you deserve to go bankrupt. There are consequences to ones actions. When your decision doesn’t work out it is your responsibility no one else’s.

I see. So you didn't mind bailing out the banks?

Nope.

Ok as long as we are clear. Only private persons have to take responsibility?

 

[bripat9643]

During the recession my bankruptcy business was booming with people losing homes.

I have to say, in most cases they did it to themselves. Once someone starts using their homes as an atm, its iver. The borrowing against equity caused values to rise setting of a new round of borrowing. After the new furniture is purchased, the vacations taken, the silly investments failed, the properties were refinanced just to make the huge new mortgage payments. That's just about the time the value gets tapped out and the refinance money train stops. Naturally the loss of the home is going to be a disaster.

Or one could question the lack of regulation that allows banks to give out mortgage loans to people without enough income to sustain them? The way I see it, if a bank gives people a chance to own a house in the knowledge that they will get in financial trouble down the line in an effort to pay for that house it is the bank that is at fault. Not for nothing I'm European, my wife is American and in 2007 I personally saw her best friend being capable of borrowing over 200k when she was in a financial situation that would have caused her to be laughed out of my bank in Europe if she would have asked for that kind of money. So who's fault is it that she goes bankrupt? Hers or the fault of a system that allows borrowing like that?

If you are stupid enough to borrow more then you can comfortably pay back? Then you are the one at fault. Even a six year old can understand that you can not pay someone two dollars if you only have one.

The bank can foreclose and sell the house. If you are older then six then do you really feel that you need someone to hold your hand all the time?

The big difference is between a Broker and a Fiduciary. The Broker is a salesperson who wins when s/he makes a sale, even if the product purchased by the buyer is likely not to his or her benefit.

The bank is the broker, and they will make a loan without full disclosure to the buyer. A fiduciary would not omit telling the buyer that real estate is not a sure thing, and the balloon payment due in 5 years might not be able to be payed off if the home has gone underwater.

The bank then will bundle all the likely failures to payoff the balloon payment and sell them, they they profit twice, and screw both the buyer and those who bought the bundle.

Everyone who has purchased a home, and signed the loan papers signs a large number of documents with large amount of fine print, and is rushed to sign them even when they are not sure; and trust the loan officer who is a broker, not a fiduciary.

I call BULLSHIT right now.
A licensed Loan Officer is in fact a Fiduciary. He/she is regulated by the Department Of Real Estate and is required to adhere to all legal mandates set forth by the DRE.
Further, you’re doing exactly what Lefties do...deflect blame and self accountability.
You wackos will never change.

What is better for a society. the government putting out rules that prevent mortgage loans being issued to people who can't pay for it? Or not doing so and having to pay out billions of tax payers money when the system goes bust?

The federal government forced banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them, you fucking dumbass.