higgmond Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Play on their ignorance and tell them that’s why > you decided not to call their mortgage and cancel > all their credit cards last month. Why stop there, why not raise their interest rate retroactively, delay posting any payments until after the due date, why not charge them fees for the time you spent discussing these issues with them…
nuppal Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hello Mister Walrus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Well, to be fair, these people do “pay our > > bonuses” when they comprise banks’ customer > bases. > > However, without banks, no one would have jobs, > > houses, savings or education. The whole point > of > > social contract is that everyone reciprocates > > everyone else’s contributions. > > > This I can understand, the frustrating part is > that they don’t know that. They are only saying is > to follow the herd of people being mad at banks > because it’s fashionable. > > You wan’t to read some scaray stuff, go to > Digg.com and read the comments underneath articles > that bash banks. > > I was reading the comment written by someone > yesterday who was pissed at BoA because of his > overdraft fee’s. He said “I went to the movies, > bought popcorn, then went to Fridays (something > along those lines). Then we had to pick up my > wifes meds which I knew would over draft me, > however, since they are vital to her health, I > figured I could handle a 35 fee…” > > What I want to know is that, if this guys knows > his account is low, why the hell is he dropping 30 > dollars to see a movie and another 30 to get > dinner? Why can’t he watch cable and throw a > hungry man in the microwave? haha. this is hilarious. he went and spent the money, fully knowing he would have to accept overdraft fees, and then he gets mad at the banks for the overdraft fees. classic. i can’t believe i share the planet with organisms like this guy.
Almost as brilliant as the people who took on a mortgage that was 10x more than they could afford just because it was available to them. Take some personal responsibility people!
ahahah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why stop there, why not raise their interest rate > retroactively, delay posting any payments until > after the due date, why not charge them fees for > the time you spent discussing these issues with > them… It seems I’m not as devious as I thought. That’s one of the great things about AF, helps us identify our weaknesses and address them. So, how about we add whipping out the corporate AMEX and thanking the nice people for the lunch and drinks they are about to buy for you?
CzarHC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Almost as brilliant as the people who took on a > mortgage that was 10x more than they could afford > just because it was available to them. Take some > personal responsibility people! Almost as brilliant as the bank gave the mortgage.
Hello Mister Walrus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well, to be fair, these people do “pay our > bonuses” when they comprise banks’ customer bases. > However, without banks, no one would have jobs, > houses, savings or education. The whole point of > social contract is that everyone reciprocates > everyone else’s contributions. We pay their salaries/bonuses too. Afterall, the world economy is a zero sum game at the end of the day.
higgmond Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > We pay their salaries/bonuses too. Afterall, the > world economy is a zero sum game at the end of the > day. Not zero sum. You get *more* wealth for everyone by participating in a collaborative society. No economic interaction between banks/companies/people means everyone will be sitting under a tree in the forest and die when they are 30 years old.
I’m not sure I understand the context fully, but it is a misrepresentation to say that the crisis was caused by people buying houses that they couldn’t afford, and that bankers/mortgage brokers/etc., were innocent bystanders whose bonuses are now unfairly in jeopardy. It’s a bit like a doctor who amputates a leg instead of setting a splint, charges the insurance company for the (much more expensive) procedure, and then tells the patient, “well, if you hadn’t broken your bone in the first place, this wouldn’t have happened and I wouldn’t have been charged with malpractice.” Financial officers have much more financial knowledge than the people they are selling their products to. Ms. Homemaker wants a nice home, sure; isn’t sure she can afford it. But Mr. Mortgage Broker and Mme. Real Estate Agent say, sure you can, lots of people are doing it. See, it only costs you $XXX. I’ve watched it happen. I’ve had real estate agents try to sell me houses that I was sure I couldn’t afford, and they tell me all the reasons that I’m able to afford it. Now, I’m on the more informed side, and it *still* took me a while to figure out that they were just full of sh*t. Plenty of ordinary folks who need a place to live cannot legitimately be expected to figure this out, particularly when the products are DESIGNED to have all sorts of conditions and resets and things. It’s pump-and-dump writ large, except that the bankers didn’t handle the “dump” part right. So, yes, people bought houses that they couldn’t afford, but people who were in a better position to know known that they couldn’t afford it should not have lent them the money, made very good money for themselves in the process, and are in a much weaker position to complain that they’re just being scapegoats for the greed of others.
Don’t get me wrong here, the point of that post was just a show of frustration for people who are financially irresponsible. I’m not placing blame entirely on the people taking the mortgages, they were to blame as were the banks for issuing mortgages they shouldn’t have. I just think that personal responsibility is paramount in any situation.
^ Agreed. Though, it’s frustrating when one side points fingers and does nothing to do their part (or at least look like they are trying to do their part) to rememedy the sitation. While the other side looks introspectively at what casued it and cuts the fat out of the process and turns a profit while paring down business.
To that kind of tripe I usually respond with… “And I pay 60% of your kid’s education, your roads, police, firefighters, or any other tax-payer funded item you use in your life”. Usually they quip back…“well, I pay taxes also” To which I throw back “The top 1% pay 60% of the taxes, get off your high-horse”. A friend of mine complained about TARP and how much in taxes he pays. I asked him how much he made. He mentioned it, I then pointed out that my wife and I paid 50% more in taxes than his entire gross wage that year, and we don’t even make much money. Especially accounting for living in the NYC area. It shut him up pretty quickly.
You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. At the 1% level of wealth gov’t essentially has an equity stake and, therefore, is due a much higher percentage of revenue.
We should Teabag our way to equality! I call the models!
LBriscoe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. > At the 1% level of wealth gov’t essentially has an > equity stake and, therefore, is due a much higher > percentage of revenue. Yeah, and you simply can’t communicate anything worth learning since you make small one-liner trash posts. Do you sit around texting your friends also or do you actually do something for a living, like create create cases for business inside of banking? So you’re equating salaries of high-income earners to having an equity position in the value of the high income? As opposed to what? The “gov’t” isn’t “due” anything. The people vote for services rendered by the government, thus, the people are due those services. It has been determined through “social progress” that the “rich” should bear a progressive burden of those services, despite being the least likely user of those services. Thus, if the “rich” ask for a bailout, they are bailing themselves out. The non-rich shouldn’t take the position they are paying for the bailout, since they aren’t. It doesn’t matter what position the government is taking in the wage earners, it’s still the wage earner’s money.
Spierce, I agree that the wealthier pay more taxes, but it is also true that they enjoy a far larger share of the nice things that come from a society that has things like streets, air that isn’t toxic, contracts that can for the most parts be enforced, police protection, and things like that. What is equal is not necessarily the dollar amounts of the contribution, but how much utility is foregone in making that contribution. Remember that the little guys may not be paying with their income; rather, many are paying by losing their jobs (whether they were responsible or not), houses that are underwater, etc… Yes, many aren’t blameless, but it is not as if they aren’t paying a price too. It seems that having to pay some more tax if you work in an industry that profited enormously getting us into this mess is a small thing compared to learning how to live off of food stamps. Financiers unemployed? Well, they are in an uncomfortable situation, but they don’t have income that is going to be taxed, and if they were responsible, like they are saying everyone should be, they presumably have some funds from the boom years socked away for a rainy day.
spierce Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LBriscoe Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. > > > At the 1% level of wealth gov’t essentially has > an > > equity stake and, therefore, is due a much > higher > > percentage of revenue. > > Yeah, and you simply can’t communicate anything > worth learning since you make small one-liner > trash posts. Do you sit around texting your > friends also or do you actually do something for a > living, like create create cases for business > inside of banking? > > So you’re equating salaries of high-income earners > to having an equity position in the value of the > high income? As opposed to what? > > The “gov’t” isn’t “due” anything. The people vote > for services rendered by the government, thus, the > people are due those services. It has been > determined through “social progress” that the > “rich” should bear a progressive burden of those > services, despite being the least likely user of > those services. > > Thus, if the “rich” ask for a bailout, they are > bailing themselves out. The non-rich shouldn’t > take the position they are paying for the bailout, > since they aren’t. > > It doesn’t matter what position the government is > taking in the wage earners, it’s still the wage > earner’s money. Let’s be really honest about this. The rich are going to be fine…whether they are paying more in taxes or not paying more in taxes. The poor are taken care of…maybe not comfortably…but they are taken care of and have enough to survive even without lifting a finger to work. Us folks that are stuck making between $50K and $150K are pretty much getting screwed because we are at the margin and no one gives a sh!t about the people at the margin even though economic policy (tax cuts and rebates) will have the most effect at the margin.
spierce Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To that kind of tripe I usually respond with… > > “And I pay 60% of your kid’s education, your > roads, police, firefighters, or any other > tax-payer funded item you use in your life”. > > Usually they quip back…“well, I pay taxes also” > > To which I throw back “The top 1% pay 60% of the > taxes, get off your high-horse”. > > A friend of mine complained about TARP and how > much in taxes he pays. I asked him how much he > made. He mentioned it, I then pointed out that my > wife and I paid 50% more in taxes than his entire > gross wage that year, and we don’t even make much > money. Especially accounting for living in the > NYC area. > > It shut him up pretty quickly. What he said… Also New York is shutting down about 1/2 of its services because of lack of tax revenue… New York, CT and NJ are very upset that allot of bonus $$ is in stock they need the revenue now. Allot of small business were counting on a bounce back of the revenue but that will not happen since bonuses are evil and most of the real $$ is now in stock.
Middle class citizen: “We pay your bonus.” Me: “Well you must be a very generous person because my bonus was pretty d@mn big last year.” (pull out a wad of $100s and blow my nose on one for full effect)
SMIRK Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Middle class citizen: “We pay your bonus.” > > Me: “Well you must be a very generous person > because my bonus was pretty d@mn big last year.” > (pull out a wad of $100s and blow my nose on one > for full effect) Caveat, only works if wad you carry daily is bigger than their annualized income. Which, for everyone on AF is, post-AF discount too.
I refer them to this thread.