U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-05-2011, 01:47 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,765,857 times
Reputation: 9357

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj View Post
Uh no it doesn't depend on how YOU look at it. YOU claimed that it was a loan and then YOU said it was a sale. Just that alone tells us that you have no idea what you're talking about.
I love how someone who asks so many questions, then they run around telling others that they have no idea what they are talking about.. ooh and your evidence.. you offer none.. you say so, therefore it must be true.. FACT.. Yes, it was a loan, and it was a sale.. DEPENDING ON THE COMPANY BEING DISCUSSED.. Again, there were at least 362 companies in question.. Are you going to sit here and tell me that they ALL had the same agreement?
Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj View Post
YOU were the one who made the point of initially saying that the FEDs were making loans and so the taxpayers didn't need to concern themselves with this arrangement,
Again, I made no such statement.. I said the DID get their money back, not that there was no reason to be concerned about it before the repayment took place.. My objection to TARP is very well recorded on these forums, so stop pretending like I supported it..
Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj View Post
But then it suddenly became sales of assets. Well you see you cant sell what you don't own. If the FEDS sold the assets then it means that business entities couldn't make payments of loans.
HELLO? ANYONE HOME OVER THERE?
1) You very well can sell what you dont own.. I'm in the process of selling a franchise I dont yet own.. Its called an option to sell to an assignee..
2) And if the FEDS sold the assets, then there was no repayment of the loan by the entity, they were repaid by the individuals/investors who bought the assets off the feds.. GM is a PRIME example.. the government sold their stock, which repaid GM debt..
Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj View Post
Otherwise what need would the FEDs have of selling f collateral if those companies were making payments.
There was no agreement for some of the companies to make payments.. they were INVESTMENTS for the government.. Again, GM stock being a prime example.. it was a loan, and then when it was determined that GM would file for bk, GM loan became stock which was SOLD by the federal government regaining the debt.. This paid off the debts..

AIG was making payments on their debt as they sold off individual branches of their business.. Again EVERY BUSINESS WAS DIFFERENT..
Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj View Post
So it seems that YOU painted yourself into a corner and you keep thinking if you slosh more paint it'll sort of hide the predicament you seem to be in.
Or more likely you dont have a foggy clue about what took place and you are too busy trying to play "gotcha" than to listen whats being said.. All of this information is widly publicized and you can simply google for verification.. But no.. you'd rather pretend you have a clue while clearly you dont..
Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj View Post
Of course you have to ignore the point that the FED had to inject themselves into this "market" which didn't exist for the banks assets because if it did, they could have made the sales on their own.
They could have made it on their own.. There were MANY companies that did.. There are millions of businesses in this nation, and 362 +/- needed support.. Are you telling me the world would fall apart if 362 companies went under? You really think other companies wouldnt have picked up the business? Ooh the humor.. I get it.. you think if GM went out of business, people would stop buying cars and start walking..
Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj View Post
In fact the gov was the only entity buying this stuff which they in fact wouldn't tell the public just what it was that they were buying.
Wrong.. there was lots of investment groups formed to buyup the assets.. In fact many of those "bailed out" bought toxic assets of other entities bailed out..
Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj View Post
Your claim of a profit is plain specious because no market existed without the FEDS.
What are you smoking? Seriously.. What are you smoking that you think markets dont exist without the FEDS? Ooh my god.. how did we survive before there was "the government"..
Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj View Post
So unless you post what was paid for the assets and what was received for them, then your claim of profit is as specious as your "buddie's wife" making 75k in her second year teaching.
So you have evidence that indicates that profits were not made, despite all of the reports indicating that they were?
TARP bailout returns solid profits to federal government | Houston Business Journal
Please educate me on your level of involvement with the TARP bill, the financial outlay and income, so we can validate your experience and knowledge on the subject.. Until then, I'll belive those much more knowledgable on the topic over some anonymous internet poster..

I mean seriously.. this was publicized very well with Democrats trying to take credit for the bill, even though it was signed into law by Bush..
Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj View Post
And it seems that you have no idea of what you posted re: Enron. Yes they were lying, just as many Wall Street houses lied to the buyers of their CDS/MBS of the efficacy of the investments.
Wrong again.. Seriously, at this point one would think you would stop embarassing yourself.. The buyers of their CDSs were buying the assets because they were guaranteed by the federal government.. Without that federal government guarantee those investments were garbage.. Its not Wall Streets fault that government got involved where they shouldnt have been involved.. No lying was needed.. Person A sells crap to person B, with a guarantee by the government, then its no longer crap.. if you dont understand this, then maybe you need to research the credit rating of the US Govt because they have the best credit rating in the world..
Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj View Post
You really need to be much better informed of why this whole thing went down the toilet, directly because of the fact that stuff that WS was peddling was in fact junk.
Junk guaranteed by the government is not junk.. I'm sorry you dont know this, but you need to educate yourself before you start telling others who seem to know better..
Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj View Post
That was one of the reasons that the FED had to intervene in the market because WS had lied re; what they sold. In fact one of the WS houses took out insurance (swaps) which were pegged to the fact that the stuff they were selling was going to blow up.
Wrong again bucko.. While some took out insurance that the securities were going to default, others took out securities that they werent.. You cant have one without the other.. The result is a revenue neutral transaction.. Obviously there was a winner, and a loser, but that doesnt change the fact that person A gave person B, $x for insurance, and the $x is the same regardless who's holding the bag.. If it blows up on you and its a $1B debt, then its the same if it blows up on someone else with $1B debt.. The net effect is $1B...
Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj View Post
Of course they didn't bother to tell the buyers of what they were doing, because that would have probably put the kaboosh on the sale in the first place.
There was no reason to tell the buyers because they were GUARANTEED BY THE GOVERNMENT.. Do you understand that? I'd loan money to my brother if it was guaranteed by the government, and if you knew him, that would be very very foolish..
Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj View Post
And if you're waiting for profits to arrive, that means that you're accruing expenses faster than you are income.
No it doesnt.. Please learn basic accounting.. Last year I bought a $4M property.. My monthly payments on that property, after the downpayment is $25,204 a month.. my income on that property is $25,204 a month.. The fact that I'm not making money off the property doesnt mean I'm accruing expenses faster than income.. I'm waiting for profits to arrive as the building debt drops to the point I can sell the property and get my profit out of it. The structure of the deal was designed so I can build up equity (i.e. profit) and not pay taxes on it because none exist on a yearly basis. That doesnt mean I'm not making any money off of it because every month the debt on the property drops. This is elementary accounting.. jees..
Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj View Post
Maybe in your world that can be booked as profit, because imaginary income can offset real losses.
The yearly equity buildup is not booked as a profit but that doesnt mean its not building up equity and I'm waiting for the profits to increase. It becomes equity that you can cash in to buy other properties.. Tell me where you got your economics degree because you need to ask for a refund.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj View Post
And you have an internet company as much as you have a buddy who has a wife who makes 75k in her second year of teaching. But for the sake of argument lets just pretend that your fictional company had ten years of expenses > income. Did you pay an income tax on income that you were hoping on getting in the by and by? Did you not list your expenses or did you claim an income based on what you believed would be coming any day? If so, then please post copies of your tax returns to show that you ran a business in that way.
You ask a lot of questions for someone who pretends to know it all.. You dont pay taxes on net worth, you pay taxes on PROFITS.. Just because you show a net profit of zero, it doesnt mean you didnt profit.. Just like the property example above.. Just because my net profit in my pocket a year from that building is $0, this does not mean I dont pay down the mortgage by $150,000 a year which increases my net worth. Taxes wouldnt become liable and due until i sell the property and pocket the cash.. Even if I borrow the equity and blow it on a new car, its still not taxed.. Borrowed money isnt taxed.. Only when I sell the property and thus realize a gain is it taxed.. or I can take the profits and put it into another property and thus avoid paying taxes yet again..
Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj View Post
And you can't really seem to help yourself can you. You finish off your canard by now saying that you were re-investing your profit in your company, while trying to claim that a company can wait on profits even if burning through cash. Man take this in a good way, that is just plain stupid. Sorry, but if you're claiming that you're making profits while waiting on profits, you honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about. I know I need to keep this civil, and I'm really trying to do that. But it is just straight up apparent that you honestly don't have a clue what you're posting.
You clearly live a sheltered life and havent been out in the real world.. Lots of companies burn through cash and reinvest yielding zero profits.. Its done on purpose to minimize tax liabilities.. Warren Buffet for example became a billionaire by doing so.. He gains a profit and before it becomes taxable he reinvests and buys another business with it.. Others buy properties and when the equity builds up, they sell the property, rolling them over into a 1031, thus putting their profits to work earning more profits tax free.. You see here is the basic elementary math you are forgetting..

$100K earned - 30% in taxes yields $70K.. $70K a year invested at 7% over 10 years would yield $1,172,552.55 This is your way of thinking

now my way
$100K a year earned - 0% in taxes, because you pocket none of it, yields $100K. Invest this $100K a year at 7% over 10 years yields $1,675,075.07.. then you cash it out and pay your 15%.. yes its only 15% because its capital gains taxes, not income taxes.. this yields a minimum of $1,423,813.81. (its actually higher because its compounded profits).

Which is more your $1,172,552.55, or my $1,423,813.81? But remember.. my way is stupid, even though it earns $250,000 more than yours.. Ooh and want to hear the best part? Mine gets re-invested YEARLY, so it grows.. that $4M property for example, I'll owe $2.2M on in 10 years, so I'll earn $1.8M from ONE deal, and since its a buildup of equity, I'll continue to grow and reinvest that $150,000 a year again, and again, and again.. which will yield about $3M in profits, which will be TAX FREE because it'll be rolled over into a 1031..

You keep your $1.17M, I'll keep what I end up with, which is 2 1/2 times your total.. Dont worry.. I'm laughing at you calling me stupid

Last edited by pghquest; 03-05-2011 at 01:58 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-05-2011, 01:50 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
29,010 posts, read 19,085,905 times
Reputation: 7774
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Not only has those surveys been disputed, but the answers they were looking for has been proven to be incorrect. I'm not sure if I should laugh at you for posting them again or if I should feel sad that you fell for the obvious bs errors that they represent..

No need to look at the calender; it's 1984 again. What are referred to as "correct answers" at these sites are the officially approved answers of the Obama Administration and liberals everywhere and are based solely on their wishful opinion of what the truth might be. Just more evidence of liberals longing for the day when conservatives will no longer be allowed to prove retarded leftist ideas wrong and only official, state-approved opinions will be acceptable.

Must take just a boat load of self-righteousness to be a liberal. And while I wish I could say I was surprised to see these "quizzes" again, I wasn't. I won't be surprised to see them again either. They are just like the stories circulating in the liberal ether that Fox News Corp sued in federal court for the right to lie. Of course it's completely false and has been proven to be a baseless fabrication many times, yet the same story will be referenced again and again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 02:09 AM
 
Location: Sarasota, Florida
15,400 posts, read 19,087,465 times
Reputation: 11053
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post

I agree but I call it: "Sanctimonious Hypocrisy"!!!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 07:14 AM
 
Location: New Mexico
8,388 posts, read 8,118,329 times
Reputation: 4070
Thumbs down Fox derides again...

According to Fox and other far right extremist sources (Limbaugh, etc) public school teachers are living high on the hog at taxpayer expense and we'd darn well better get ready for substantial pay cuts.

On the other hand, they say Wall St thieves who sank the economy are certainly entitled to huge bonuses after sucking in hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in 2008.

Furthermore, contracts with Wall St shysters are sacred. Contracts with school teachers should be considered guidelines.

Wake up, people. We teachers are not your enemy. Wall St brokers are not your ally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 07:45 AM
 
Location: Boston, MA
10,990 posts, read 7,768,461 times
Reputation: 5335
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
Hey quite refreshing admission from a "conservative". Good on you.

Fox News by your admission has a conservative bias and opposes progressive forms of taxation which we have had in the Country for well over 200 years and is the basis of taxation policy in every single Western style Democracy.

If only other right wingers were as honest as you.

We could put you and Fox's radical vision to pay for Government up for a vote and see how popular you really are.
Oh I agree. Why on Earth would the 50% of the American population who pay no federal taxes at all vote themselves a tax increase. That 50% plus another 20% (All the Liberals in the country) would certainly make a vote for an equitable tax structure go down in flames.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 08:14 AM
 
Location: USA - midwest
5,945 posts, read 4,727,082 times
Reputation: 2606
Thumbs down Count on Fox...

Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post

For naked hypocrisy and anti-worker bias.

Their motto: "If you work, you suck."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 08:39 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
7,215 posts, read 7,599,543 times
Reputation: 7722
I just don't get how an average gross salary (people keep forgetting that isn't take home) of about $50,000 plus good benefits for someone with a qualifying degree and multiple years of relevant experience came to be considered "lavish" in this country. We give lip service about providing a quality education for our children, but we don't want to pay anyone a decent salary to do it, apparently.

Maybe instead of half assing our public educations system if all these proposed budget cuts go through (I'm talking about Wisconsin specifically), we should privatize it all. Then the Republicans can have their wish and let the private sector completely dictate what people get paid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 08:41 AM
 
5,697 posts, read 5,300,547 times
Reputation: 1937
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post



if you get your news from a comedy show, I would not admit it in public~~
hahahahahaha
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 08:43 AM
 
Location: USA - midwest
5,945 posts, read 4,727,082 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by georgia dem View Post
if you get your news from a comedy show, I would not admit it in public~~
hahahahahaha

That comedy show had a whole lot more solid content than the Fox stuff it parodied, which was almost 100% biased opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 08:50 AM
 
745 posts, read 752,288 times
Reputation: 726
Quote:
if you get your news from a comedy show, I would not admit it in public~~
I wouldn't call Fox News hypocrisy news.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top