"Banks got Bailed Out We got Sold Out" reason for US Marches

MachZer0 said:

Yes, and that's why I carry insurance

Click to expand...

So you accept that you are responsible for being robbed in the scenario I outlined?

MachZer0 said:

There's a legal process involved. What I do is follow the legal process and accept the consequences. That wasn't done in the mortgage crisis

Click to expand...

But now you are shifting the goal posts. You claimed that people can't decide things for others, now you are claiming that I should live with the conseqences that my friend (who did no cooperate in getting back my property), his friend (who stole my property) and now the police (who get to decide if I can get my property back) decided for me.

Every day, people make decisions that affect the lives of others. I know libertarians like to pretend that every person is solely responsible for everything that happens in their lives. My daughter likes to dress up like Repunzel. Her pretend time makes her feel good and I'm sure yours does to.

I believe a few months ago you and I (if it wasn't you I appologize) had a discussion on on this topic. Some crime was committed and I proposed that others around the crime, including the victim, bore some responsiblity. You argued the the criminal was soley to blame. Today you state that my actions let to my property getting stolen which basically says that I am to blame. Now while I freely admit that I bear responsibility for my role (leaving my property there in the first place) a number of decisions where made by others that prevented me from getting my property back.

Your stance seems to be, correct me if I'm wrong, that once a decision is made that the consequences of following decisions, regardless of who made them, are bore the the original person. That would mean that a person who is layed-off from their job is repsonsible for that decision because the chose to work there in the first place.

MachZer0 said:

Yes, and that's why I carry insurance

Click to expand...

But isn't insurance passing on the financial cost of your decisions on to someone else?

kermit said:

But now you are shifting the goal posts. You claimed that people can't decide things for others, now you are claiming that I should live with the conseqences that my friend (who did no cooperate in getting back my property), his friend (who stole my property) and now the police (who get to decide if I can get my property back) decided for me.

Click to expand...

When did I say that?

Every day, people make decisions that affect the lives of others. I know libertarians like to pretend that every person is solely responsible for everything that happens in their lives. My daughter likes to dress up like Repunzel. Her pretend time makes her feel good and I'm sure yours does to.

I believe a few months ago you and I (if it wasn't you I appologize) had a discussion on on this topic. Some crime was committed and I proposed that others around the crime, including the victim, bore some responsiblity. You argued the the criminal was soley to blame. Today you state that my actions let to my property getting stolen which basically says that I am to blame. Now while I freely admit that I bear responsibility for my role (leaving my property there in the first place) a number of decisions where made by others that prevented me from getting my property back.

Click to expand...

Apology accepted

Your stance seems to be, correct me if I'm wrong, that once a decision is made that the consequences of following decisions, regardless of who made them, are bore the the original person. That would mean that a person who is layed-off from their job is repsonsible for that decision because the chose to work there in the first place.

Click to expand...

My stance is that there was a legal process in place when the mortgage crisis began. If a homeowner defaulted on his mortgage, he lost the home in foreclosure. If a bank defaulted on it's financial obligations, it filed bankruptcy and either reorganized or went out of business. The bailouts changed that process after the fact whereas the process should have been allowed to play itself out. If the government takes the risk out of the process, it only encourages more irresponsible behavior. And in this case, the protests, the protesters appear to me to be liberals protesting liberalism

MachZer0 said:

When did I say that?

Click to expand...

If that's not what you are saying then why are you arguing against my claim that others can make decisions that affect our lives?

If the government takes the risk out of the process, it only encourages more irresponsible behavior.

Click to expand...

Risk mitigation is part of the world. You stated that you have insuranace which is risk mitigation. Does that mean that you drive in anything other than a safe manner? Banks have been FDIC insured for years, and I don't see them lowering security.

And in this case, the protests, the protesters appear to me to be liberals protesting liberalism

Click to expand...

You keep calling it liberalism, but the goverment choosing who wins in business is not liberalism it's corporatism.

kermit said:

If that's not what you are saying then why are you arguing against my claim that others can make decisions that affect our lives?

Click to expand...

So I didn't say that after all. Thanks for admitting it

Risk mitigation is part of the world. You stated that you have insuranace which is risk mitigation. Does that mean that you drive in anything other than a safe manner?

Click to expand...

No, and it also doesn't mean that I look to the government to bail me out beyond the claim on my insurance

Banks have been FDIC insured for years, and I don't see them lowering security.

Click to expand...

Yes, and those were the processes in place that should have played out

You keep calling it liberalism, but the goverment choosing who wins in business is not liberalism it's corporatism.

Click to expand...

Looks like liberalism to me when the government steps in to protect entities from their own decisions

MachZer0 said:

When you take out a mortgage to buy a home, there is risk involved and it matters not what causes you to default on the loan. The appropriate result is foreclosure.And what I'm saying is that the banks should have gone through the bankruptcy process.

Click to expand...

Right right right, it's always the victim's fault. They should have thought twice before allowing that economy to fail and their jobs to disappear, it's all their fault. This line of reasoning allows someone not to feel sympathy for anyone. It must feel pretty great not needing to care about a single person. Though the feeling when it's your turn to lose out must hurt, since it is solely your fault whatever happens.

Large banks failing has a much larger effect on the economy than simply hanging a few million people out to dry. The knock-on effects of having huge portions of personal savings, checking accounts, retirement funds etc. simply disappear are massive and can easily lead to a crippled economy (see: The Great Depression), but why on earth should anyone care about the destitution of a huge percentage of people when there is a chance to enforce some childish notion of responsibility.

acropolis said:

Right right right, it's always the victim's fault. They should have thought twice before allowing that economy to fail and their jobs to disappear, it's all their fault. This line of reasoning allows someone not to feel sympathy for anyone. It must feel pretty great not needing to care about a single person. Though the feeling when it's your turn to lose out must hurt, since it is solely your fault whatever happens.

Large banks failing has a much larger effect on the economy than simply hanging a few million people out to dry. The knock-on effects of having huge portions of personal savings, checking accounts, retirement funds etc. simply disappear are massive and can easily lead to a crippled economy (see: The Great Depression), but why on earth should anyone care about the destitution of a huge percentage of people when there is a chance to enforce some childish notion of responsibility.

Click to expand...

If a borrower defaults on a loan, the victim is the lender, not the borrower

MachZer0 said:

If a borrower defaults on a loan, the victim is the lender, not the borrower

Click to expand...

These events do not happen in a vacuum, but in the context of the national and global economy. Is it your fault if your entire life savings disappears because the bank failed because too many people couldn't pay their mortgage because too many people lost their jobs because the economy was in a real estate bubble because too much risk was assumed by banks because the regulations allowed that risk to be taken because congressmen were paid off by businessmen because there is a lack of oversight regarding corruption in politics because etc.? The issue of finding fault is not trivial, every event is part of a chain of events which are themselves complex and non-linear.

Just because it's simple to let the victim suffer (whether you consider the victims to be the banks or the lenders), that doesn't mean it makes any sense to do so, nor is it best for the welfare of the people who will suffer if the victims are left out to dry. Is it fair to punish a child by robbing them of medical care and proper nutrition because their parents got laid off? How on earth could a child be held responsible for the misfortune or poor decisions of their parents? And yet, those children are left to rot, or would be if conservatives had anything to say about it. For all your waxing righteous about fairness you seem capable of only applying this idea selectively, and only in accordance with the conservative political doctrine.

MachZer0 said:

If a borrower defaults on a loan, the victim is the lender, not the borrower

Click to expand...

That's debatable. The borrower gets ruined credit and the lender get the collateral.

To me it depends upn the circumstances as to whether or not the borrower is a victim. If the bower loses their job and then defaults in the loan they are a victim. If they just stop paying their mortgate then they are not a victim.

kermit said:

That's debatable. The borrower gets ruined credit and the lender get the collateral.

To me it depends upn the circumstances as to whether or not the borrower is a victim. If the bower loses their job and then defaults in the loan they are a victim. If they just stop paying their mortgate then they are not a victim.

Click to expand...

The borrower gets ruined credit but of whom is he the victim. Of his own choices. The lender is the one who suffers the greater loss and is thus the real victim

acropolis said:

These events do not happen in a vacuum, but in the context of the national and global economy. Is it your fault if your entire life savings disappears because the bank failed because too many people couldn't pay their mortgage because too many people lost their jobs because the economy was in a real estate bubble because too much risk was assumed by banks because the regulations allowed that risk to be taken because congressmen were paid off by businessmen because there is a lack of oversight regarding corruption in politics because etc.? The issue of finding fault is not trivial, every event is part of a chain of events which are themselves complex and non-linear.

Just because it's simple to let the victim suffer (whether you consider the victims to be the banks or the lenders), that doesn't mean it makes any sense to do so, nor is it best for the welfare of the people who will suffer if the victims are left out to dry. Is it fair to punish a child by robbing them of medical care and proper nutrition because their parents got laid off? How on earth could a child be held responsible for the misfortune or poor decisions of their parents? And yet, those children are left to rot, or would be if conservatives had anything to say about it. For all your waxing righteous about fairness you seem capable of only applying this idea selectively, and only in accordance with the conservative political doctrine.

Click to expand...

Well, it appears the goalposts moved. But why would I lose my life savings because others defaulted on their loans. Noting that others did default and I did not lose my life savings

MachZer0 said:

Well, it appears the goalposts moved. But why would I lose my life savings because others defaulted on their loans. Noting that others did default and I did not lose my life savings

Click to expand...

When banks fail, they become insolvent. If you're money was in that bank, sorry for you, guess you should have thought about that before the bank failed. Or do you want those evil socialists to redistribute other person's money to you just because you let the bank fail? You have correctly noted that banks 'failed' and you didn't lose your life savings, but that was because their solvency was supported by the FDIC and the bailout. Any given bank that fails is totally unable to make good on whatever remaining debts they have, including any accounts held there. If your own notion of personal responsibility had played out, and it was your bank that failed, you too would be left out in the dark.

Another issue with letting a bank fail is that the majority of people put out of work directly are just rank and file folks who had nothing to do with whatever decisions could have led to the bank failing, yet are still punished for the failings of others. Your ideas of responsibility and fairness are not well applied, since you ignore all unfair situations which do not conform to the political beliefs dictated to you, including those who suffering the loss of livelihood and then loss of shelter due to a situation they could not control or foresee.

MachZer0 said:

The borrower gets ruined credit but of whom is he the victim. Of his own choices. The lender is the one who suffers the greater loss and is thus the real victim

Click to expand...

Are you claiming that people are choosing to lose their jobs?

If you are saying that someone defaulted because they took on to much (which does happen) where is your criticism of the lender for taking the risk? When that loan defaults is the bank a victim or do they have to live with their choices?

kermit said:

Are you claiming that people are choosing to lose their jobs?

If you are saying that someone defaulted because they took on to much (which does happen) where is your criticism of the lender for taking the risk? When that loan defaults is the bank a victim or do they have to live with their choices?

Click to expand...

The bank is a victim and should indeed have to live with its choices, just Ike everyone else

MachZer0 said:

The bank is a victim and should indeed have to live with its choices, just Ike everyone else

Click to expand...

But people who lose their jobs and their homes are not victims?

kermit said:

But people who lose their jobs and their homes are not victims?

Click to expand...

There is no guarantee that people get to keep their jobs, but when you take out a mortgage, you are making a promise to repay the loan

kermit said:

You know what the top 1% the bottom 51% and everyone in the middle share? The shame overall tax rate. This is one of those facts that top 1% guy on the radio or TV doesn't want you to know. All Americans pay roughly 40% in taxes. So next time you imply that the bottom 51% should pay income tax remember what you are really sayings is that those with the least should pay the highest rate.

Click to expand...

I skimmed the thread and see no one asked about this. Where is this number coming from?

State sales tax, maybe 8%
real estate tax can be huge but I can't see how it could be more than 20%, otherwise they couldn't afford the house.
State income tax is usually flatter, maybe 4 or 5%
Fica is 7%

That's 40 but only if pay state income tax on 100% of the income, which no one does, you're real estate tax is outrageous, and you spend your entire paycheck on taxable goods - which no one does. The sales tax maybe applies to 25% of the income.

And the lower the income, the more likely they receive aid like medicaid or food stamps, which doesn't count as taxable income, but should be for this sort of discussion. Same with EIC.

I'd guess a married with 2 kids guy working for upper 20s and renting probably pays less than 15% total tax.

DieHappy said:

I skimmed the thread and see no one asked about this. Where is this number coming from?

State sales tax, maybe 8%
real estate tax can be huge but I can't see how it could be more than 20%, otherwise they couldn't afford the house.
State income tax is usually flatter, maybe 4 or 5%
Fica is 7%

That's 40 but only if pay state income tax on 100% of the income, which no one does, you're real estate tax is outrageous, and you spend your entire paycheck on taxable goods - which no one does. The sales tax maybe applies to 25% of the income.

And the lower the income, the more likely they receive aid like medicaid or food stamps, which doesn't count as taxable income, but should be for this sort of discussion. Same with EIC.

I'd guess a married with 2 kids guy working for upper 20s and renting probably pays less than 15% total tax.

Click to expand...

A major contributing factor to the quoted statistic is that capital gains tax is only 15%, and the highest income earners earn the majority of their income from capital gains, effectively lowering their tax rate. The effective tax rate, that is, the total percentage of income lost to taxes, for the richest 1% has hovered around 20% for the last thirty years or so.