- This topic has 378 replies, 43 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 5 months ago by
CardiffBaseball.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 14, 2011 at 4:44 PM #730727October 14, 2011 at 5:18 PM #730728
Anonymous
Guest[quote=AN]Is it just me that keep referring to a notion of “fairness” or is this who protest about it not being fair? Why don’t you show your work? Mine is simple, we all pay a fixed % of what we make (no deduction, no nothing). You make more, you pay more, you make less you pay less. You might not agree with my definition of fairness but it is what it is.[/quote]
I don’t recall making any reference to a standard of fairness in my posts.
So you are in favor of a flat tax. You are willing to pay more taxes in the interest of fairness?
October 14, 2011 at 5:19 PM #730729briansd1
Guest[quote=bearishgurl]
Just like signing up for a “subprime,” I/O or exploding ARM mtg (or all 3 in one pkg, lol), it is the consumer’s responsibility to decide if they want to borrow money on the terms offered. By using a cc, one is either borrowing money or “floating” money (short term loan). In the end, the responsibility for wise cc usage lies entirely with the consumer. A “competent adult,” (no matter WHAT their income and obligations) shouldn’t sign up for one if they don’t fully understand the terms.[/quote]As someone mentioned before, there is information asymmetry and economic power asymmetry between large corporation and ordinary consumers.
As a society, we should not make it a practice to dump sophisticated financial products on less-educated poor people.
Of course, there is the matter of choice and personal responsibility. But if the data show what the most vulnerable of Americans are consuming toxic financial products, to their own detriment, then we as a society have a responsibility to do something about it.
The aggregate data show that people who take on adjustable mortgages don’t really understand the consequences of their actions and can’t plan for when the rates adjust up.
The financial crisis is partly a result of bad underwriting and putting the wrong people into the wrong financial products.
October 14, 2011 at 6:14 PM #730730an
Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=AN]Is it just me that keep referring to a notion of “fairness” or is this who protest about it not being fair? Why don’t you show your work? Mine is simple, we all pay a fixed % of what we make (no deduction, no nothing). You make more, you pay more, you make less you pay less. You might not agree with my definition of fairness but it is what it is.[/quote]
I don’t recall making any reference to a standard of fairness in my posts.
So you are in favor of a flat tax. You are willing to pay more taxes in the interest of fairness?[/quote]
I don’t recall responding to you or saying you made references to fairness. I was responding to davelj and Brian. Then you responded to me, saying I keep referring to the notion of “fairness”.Yes, I’m in favor of a flat tax.
October 14, 2011 at 6:33 PM #730732
CoronitaParticipant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=briansd1] . . . Interesting documentary on the credit card industry:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/…
[/quote]I DID listen to this (circa 2004) video, brian. It’s very interesting. However, on May 19, 2009, the Senate DID pass a “credit card reform bill” and gave issuers about nine months to comply with it. Not only did it require cc issuers to tell consumers on each statement how long it would take to pay their balances off if they made the minimum payment every month, it did away with “universal default” unless the borrower was behind on the “other account(s)” for >60 days.
I was aware of “universal default” after hearing friends talk about it when it apparently became a practice among issuers around 2003 or so. My own few cc’s are older than that so I don’t have any with the “universal default” provision and wouldn’t sign up for any that do.
Elizabeth Warren had some valid complaints back then as to the “business practices” of the cc issuers. I agree with the person in the video who stated that the issuers MUST use all that legalese to comply with the law in their “contracts” given to new consumers along with their new card. I don’t know if it can be explained any simpler but the requirement for the “min pymt” disclosure on the first page of the bill is a start.
Just like signing up for a “subprime,” I/O or exploding ARM mtg (or all 3 in one pkg, lol), it is the consumer’s responsibility to decide if they want to borrow money on the terms offered. By using a cc, one is either borrowing money or “floating” money (short term loan). In the end, the responsibility for wise cc usage lies entirely with the consumer. A “competent adult,” (no matter WHAT their income and obligations) shouldn’t sign up for one if they don’t fully understand the terms.[/quote]
I think there are two parties to blame for lost jobs… Exccessive comps for CEO’s are just one…B
Same could be said about unions and all this talk about restoring wage concessions….Ford’s CEO taking 10 million bonus didn’t help matters, obviously. But neither is this….
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/10/14/uaw-seems-headed-for-a-catastrophic-confrontation/#continued
….
In the weeks leading up to the mid-summer launch of contract talks with Detroit’s Big Three, United Auto Workers Union President Bob King stressed that he was pushing for “creative problem solving.” The best way to read that statement was that he was looking for a way to keep the automakers competitive in return for more jobs – while also seeking a way to sell new contracts to workers who were damned and determined to win back the concessions they’d made in recent years…..Indeed, trouble appears to be the case as the voting proceeds on Ford’s tentative contract.
A number of key Ford plants have turned thumbs down on the contract.
That settlement is the most lucrative of them all, with an up-front “signing bonus” that’s $1,000 more than what GM workers got and $2,500 more than the deal at Chrysler. Other features also favor Ford workers. But the contract does not come close to restoring those concessions and, if anything, opens the door to putting even more new workers in the lower second-tier wage and benefit category.And that’s not sitting very well. As Autoblog and my own site, TheDetroitBureau.com, have been reporting, a number of key Ford plants have turned thumbs down on the contract. It very well could be rejected, even as frantic union leaders pull out all the stops hoping to lobby the rank-and-file at the plants yet to vote to give their approval.
……
Ford is the only one of the Detroit makers where the union would be able to strike. A walkout at GM and Chrysler is prohibited – at least for economic reasons – under the terms of their 2009 federal bailouts. As the only Detroit maker to struggle through the automotive depression Ford has no such protection.That would be ironic as Ford has traditionally had the best relations with the UAW of all the domestics – though that didn’t help it get all the same concessions its cross-town rivals got when they went bankrupt. Workers narrowly rejected additional givebacks for Ford to match those given GM and Chrysler.
…
If the contract does go down to a “no” vote, it’s not certain that a strike would immediately follow. Union leaders would still have the option to extend the old agreement as they returned to the bargaining table. But whether Ford negotiators would be willing to offer anything to sweeten the pot is anything but certain. Clearly, Ford doesn’t want to be put back in a disadvantaged position versus the Japanese – and even more so to resurgent rival General Motors.Meanwhile, a rejection of the Ford contract could see Chrysler employees emboldened to turn down their tentative contract, as well.
Why wouldn’t the union welcome the opportunity to go back for a bigger pot? For one thing, there’s no certainty it would get much – if anything – more, at least not without a bruising battle. And King and his senior leadership recognize all too well that Ford would likely respond by cutting back on future investments in the U.S., transferring more production – read jobs – out of the country.
…Anyone want to guess when Ford turns red ink again? God I really hope not. They really are putting good products out there now..
October 15, 2011 at 9:49 AM #730761
svelteParticipantForget nationwide, the occupation is now worldwide…
October 15, 2011 at 2:44 PM #730768Arraya
ParticipantTo repeat what I said in Feb.
[quote=Arraya]
All over the Arab world, as a precursor to, all over the world, the psychic locks that have held the populations in stasis have now been broken. [/quote]
October 15, 2011 at 5:11 PM #730769scaredyclassic
ParticipantDid it start with the Iraqi museum looting and rumsfelds freedom-praising approval?
October 15, 2011 at 5:42 PM #730770ParticipantNo, a revolutionary movement doesn’t spread by contamination, like rioting and looting, but by resonance.
October 15, 2011 at 6:22 PM #730772disimilar1
ParticipantUCGal that was a great youtube video. Watch.
October 15, 2011 at 6:49 PM #730773sdduuuude
Participant[quote=briansd1]The financial crisis is partly a result of bad underwriting and putting the wrong people into the wrong financial products.[/quote]
You mean the banking crisis that we turned into a financial crisis by making the taxpayers bail out the banks.
I say let those banks sell whatever products they want, just make sure the banks pay for the error.
Put the responsibility and pain of failure on them and they will be more careful. It isn’t really that complicated.
October 15, 2011 at 7:23 PM #730774Participant[quote=sdduuuude][quote=briansd1]The financial crisis is partly a result of bad underwriting and putting the wrong people into the wrong financial products.[/quote]
You mean the banking crisis that we turned into a financial crisis by making the taxpayers bail out the banks.
I say let those banks sell whatever products they want, just make sure the banks pay for the error.
Put the responsibility and pain of failure on them and they will be more careful. It isn’t really that complicated.[/quote]
+1. Not difficult at all. You can’t complain about wall street on one hand and support the bail out of banks on the other.October 15, 2011 at 7:47 PM #730775GuestIf you guys were so ready let the banks fail, then why are you so opposed to taxing them. Maybe we should tax them into failure. 😉
Like Mitt Romney said, you can’t have simple solutions to complicated problems.
Not that the protesters have immediate solutions. But if they can raise awareness and get young people to the polls in greater numbers, then we’ll all be for the better.
Good night y’all. I’m enjoying the Occupy protests in NYC and Philly. Beautiful, San Diego-like weather out here, at least for the weekend.
October 15, 2011 at 9:23 PM #730777Participant[quote=briansd1]If you guys were so ready let the banks fail, then why are you so opposed to taxing them. Maybe we should tax them into failure.[/quote]
Why do you want them to fail after spending $700B+ on them? I haven’t heard any tax proposal of taxing wall street. I heard of taxing the “rich” though.October 15, 2011 at 9:44 PM #730778GH
ParticipantI have to say for the first time since I moved to the US in 1980 I see Americans behaving like Americans.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.