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

[dave p]

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

First they are not necessary in a strong economy
Second, we raised the deficit to pay for them
Third, the money is pulled from our economy

Why not demand less .GOV spending...doesn’t that make more sense?

Liberals can’t deal with that concept

 

[BrokeLoser]

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

First they are not necessary in a strong economy
Second, we raised the deficit to pay for them
Third, the money is pulled from our economy

Why not demand less .GOV spending...doesn’t that make more sense?

Liberals can’t deal with that concept

EXACTLY

 

[dave p]

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

Lol sure. The government forced banks to issue subprime mortgages. Think this can be categorized as a loan people want to believe.

It's a fact, asshole.

Come back when you grow up enough to talk to me without calling me names. I don't feel the need to teach someone else the correct way to talk to a person. I already have a toddler at home, that's enough.

Let me get this straight: you insult anyone who voted for Trump, but you think you're entitled to be treated with respect?

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.

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.

You seem to think that everyone should have someone to blame. I am sorry if you are unable to read a contract, if you are unable to fiqure out the math necessary to tell if a ballon payment may be too big for you to handle. Those who are adults read contracts, do math, even consider all the alternatives. If you need someone to hold your hand might I suggest you have a parent or adult guardian walk you through all the ins and outs. Have them explain fiscal responsibility to you in simple enough language that you fully understand it.

It is not others responsibility to make sure that you do not do something stupid.

Many first time home buyers were told they could refinance before the payment is due, and actually get money back from the equity they would accrue.

You must know this to be true, so why lie by omission?

If their house went up in value, then yes they could. However the basic premise applies, if you can’t adford it, don’t buy it. Any idiot that goes out on a limb thinking they may be able to alleviate their problem in the future deserves to lose their ass.

 

[justinacolmena]

Pretty simple point. The OP assumes that the only people that some want to have higher taxes on that are rich, are those that work hard for their money and are more productive. That simply isn't true.

No one wants higher taxes just for the sake of having higher taxes. City hall already spent the money, and is deep in debt. Investors are coming in droves to collect on their bullet bonds.

 

[bripat9643]

At a minimum, you can take your mortgage agreement to a real estate lawyer who can explain any problems with it.

There's no mortgage agreement. That slick realtor-lawyer has you pegged for an easy mark and he'll fleece you for everything you own.

There's no mortgage agreement? Then what the hell are you signing?

 

[Lewdog]

Pretty simple point. The OP assumes that the only people that some want to have higher taxes on that are rich, are those that work hard for their money and are more productive. That simply isn't true.

No one wants higher taxes just for the sake of having higher taxes. City hall already spent the money, and is deep in debt. Investors are coming in droves to collect on their bullet bonds.

Uh... no way? No one wants taxes just to have higher taxes?!?!?!

 

[bripat9643]

Lol sure. The government forced banks to issue subprime mortgages. Think this can be categorized as a loan people want to believe.

It's a fact, asshole.

Come back when you grow up enough to talk to me without calling me names. I don't feel the need to teach someone else the correct way to talk to a person. I already have a toddler at home, that's enough.

Let me get this straight: you insult anyone who voted for Trump, but you think you're entitled to be treated with respect?

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.

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.

You seem to think that everyone should have someone to blame. I am sorry if you are unable to read a contract, if you are unable to fiqure out the math necessary to tell if a ballon payment may be too big for you to handle. Those who are adults read contracts, do math, even consider all the alternatives. If you need someone to hold your hand might I suggest you have a parent or adult guardian walk you through all the ins and outs. Have them explain fiscal responsibility to you in simple enough language that you fully understand it.

It is not others responsibility to make sure that you do not do something stupid.

Many first time home buyers were told they could refinance before the payment is due, and actually get money back from the equity they would accrue.

You must know this to be true, so why lie by omission?

If their house went up in value, then yes they could. However the basic premise applies, if you can’t adford it, don’t buy it. Any idiot that goes out on a limb thinking they may be able to alleviate their problem in the future deserves to lose their ass.

I've always found it's smart to buy far less house than you can afford. I once had a realtor trying to convince my to buy a house that would required $4000/mo in payments. No thanks.

 

[bripat9643]

Pretty simple point. The OP assumes that the only people that some want to have higher taxes on that are rich, are those that work hard for their money and are more productive. That simply isn't true.

No one wants higher taxes just for the sake of having higher taxes. City hall already spent the money, and is deep in debt. Investors are coming in droves to collect on their bullet bonds.

Actually, lefties want higher taxes on the rich just to make them pay for the envy lefties experience.

 

[dave p]

It's a fact, asshole.

Come back when you grow up enough to talk to me without calling me names. I don't feel the need to teach someone else the correct way to talk to a person. I already have a toddler at home, that's enough.

Let me get this straight: you insult anyone who voted for Trump, but you think you're entitled to be treated with respect?

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.

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.

You seem to think that everyone should have someone to blame. I am sorry if you are unable to read a contract, if you are unable to fiqure out the math necessary to tell if a ballon payment may be too big for you to handle. Those who are adults read contracts, do math, even consider all the alternatives. If you need someone to hold your hand might I suggest you have a parent or adult guardian walk you through all the ins and outs. Have them explain fiscal responsibility to you in simple enough language that you fully understand it.

It is not others responsibility to make sure that you do not do something stupid.

Many first time home buyers were told they could refinance before the payment is due, and actually get money back from the equity they would accrue.

You must know this to be true, so why lie by omission?

If their house went up in value, then yes they could. However the basic premise applies, if you can’t adford it, don’t buy it. Any idiot that goes out on a limb thinking they may be able to alleviate their problem in the future deserves to lose their ass.

I've always found it's smart to buy far less house than you can afford. I once had a realtor trying to convince my to buy a house that would required $4000/mo in payments. No thanks.

It’s no body’s fault but the buyers for over extending themselves. Shit happens when you are stupid. Consequences suck. Anyone who says the bank made them buy too much house is a moron.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they are the most productive. Lots of rich people got their money off the work of their parents or the parents of their parents or the parents of their parents parents.

Nobody finds much interest in discussing the micro percentages of anything. Further, my wealth is my children’s wealth...isn’t that how it’s suppose to work?

 

[justinacolmena]

There's no mortgage agreement? Then what the hell are you signing?

It's a copy-and-paste signature. They'll have to foreclose on it with a copy-and-paste mail merge notary, just like Wells Fargo did in 2008.

 

[bripat9643]

There's no mortgage agreement? Then what the hell are you signing?

It's a copy-and-paste signature. They'll have to foreclose on it with a copy-and-paste mail merge notary, just like Wells Fargo did in 2008.

That's illegal.

 

[Lewdog]

Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they are the most productive. Lots of rich people got their money off the work of their parents or the parents of their parents or the parents of their parents parents.

Nobody finds much interest in discussing the micro percentages of anything. Further, my wealth is my children’s wealth...isn’t that how it’s suppose to work?

If you say that, then the welfare a poor person collects comes from the tax dollars that their previous family members paid in.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Come back when you grow up enough to talk to me without calling me names. I don't feel the need to teach someone else the correct way to talk to a person. I already have a toddler at home, that's enough.

Let me get this straight: you insult anyone who voted for Trump, but you think you're entitled to be treated with respect?

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.

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.

You seem to think that everyone should have someone to blame. I am sorry if you are unable to read a contract, if you are unable to fiqure out the math necessary to tell if a ballon payment may be too big for you to handle. Those who are adults read contracts, do math, even consider all the alternatives. If you need someone to hold your hand might I suggest you have a parent or adult guardian walk you through all the ins and outs. Have them explain fiscal responsibility to you in simple enough language that you fully understand it.

It is not others responsibility to make sure that you do not do something stupid.

Many first time home buyers were told they could refinance before the payment is due, and actually get money back from the equity they would accrue.

You must know this to be true, so why lie by omission?

If their house went up in value, then yes they could. However the basic premise applies, if you can’t adford it, don’t buy it. Any idiot that goes out on a limb thinking they may be able to alleviate their problem in the future deserves to lose their ass.

I've always found it's smart to buy far less house than you can afford. I once had a realtor trying to convince my to buy a house that would required $4000/mo in payments. No thanks.

It’s no body’s fault but the buyers for over extending themselves. Shit happens when you are stupid. Consequences suck.

Oh shit...LefTard Kryptonite....CONSEQUENCES and ACCOUNTABILITY

 

[BrokeLoser]

Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they are the most productive. Lots of rich people got their money off the work of their parents or the parents of their parents or the parents of their parents parents.

Nobody finds much interest in discussing the micro percentages of anything. Further, my wealth is my children’s wealth...isn’t that how it’s suppose to work?

If you say that, then the welfare a poor person collects comes from the tax dollars that their previous family members paid in.

You’ll need to make better sense bud.
Are you attempting to tie an analogy together here?

 

[Lewdog]

Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they are the most productive. Lots of rich people got their money off the work of their parents or the parents of their parents or the parents of their parents parents.

Nobody finds much interest in discussing the micro percentages of anything. Further, my wealth is my children’s wealth...isn’t that how it’s suppose to work?

If you say that, then the welfare a poor person collects comes from the tax dollars that their previous family members paid in.

You’ll need to make better sense bud.
Are you attempting to tie an analogy together here?

Try to keep up. If your kids wealth is hard earned and productive by association because of what you did, then a person's welfare isn't something they didn't earn and coming out of YOUR tax dollars... it could very well be money THEIR family worked hard for and paid in... by the same association. So if you think your answer is a valid point, the same can be argued on the other side.

 

[dave p]

Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they are the most productive. Lots of rich people got their money off the work of their parents or the parents of their parents or the parents of their parents parents.

Nobody finds much interest in discussing the micro percentages of anything. Further, my wealth is my children’s wealth...isn’t that how it’s suppose to work?

If you say that, then the welfare a poor person collects comes from the tax dollars that their previous family members paid in.

Unless they are third generation welfare which is not uncommon.

 

[dave p]

Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they are the most productive. Lots of rich people got their money off the work of their parents or the parents of their parents or the parents of their parents parents.

Nobody finds much interest in discussing the micro percentages of anything. Further, my wealth is my children’s wealth...isn’t that how it’s suppose to work?

If you say that, then the welfare a poor person collects comes from the tax dollars that their previous family members paid in.

You’ll need to make better sense bud.
Are you attempting to tie an analogy together here?

Try to keep up. If your kids wealth is hard earned and productive by association because of what you did, then a person's welfare isn't something they didn't earn and coming out of YOUR tax dollars... it could very well be money THEIR family worked hard for and paid in... by the same association. So if you think your answer is a valid point, the same can be argued on the other side.

Following your train of thought, their family only paid ina percentage of why they would get. Logically the second generation welfare recipient would get a very small amount. However they are getting full benefit which their parents didn’t pay.

 

[Lewdog]

Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they are the most productive. Lots of rich people got their money off the work of their parents or the parents of their parents or the parents of their parents parents.

Nobody finds much interest in discussing the micro percentages of anything. Further, my wealth is my children’s wealth...isn’t that how it’s suppose to work?

If you say that, then the welfare a poor person collects comes from the tax dollars that their previous family members paid in.

You’ll need to make better sense bud.
Are you attempting to tie an analogy together here?

Try to keep up. If your kids wealth is hard earned and productive by association because of what you did, then a person's welfare isn't something they didn't earn and coming out of YOUR tax dollars... it could very well be money THEIR family worked hard for and paid in... by the same association. So if you think your answer is a valid point, the same can be argued on the other side.

Following your train of thought, their family only paid ina percentage of why they would get. Logically the second generation welfare recipient would get a very small amount. However they are getting full benefit which their parents didn’t pay.

What? If their parents of other members of their family paid in and never drew anything out of their own... especially counting interest, then they are more than covering the little amount of welfare the people are getting.

 

[dave p]

Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they are the most productive. Lots of rich people got their money off the work of their parents or the parents of their parents or the parents of their parents parents.

Nobody finds much interest in discussing the micro percentages of anything. Further, my wealth is my children’s wealth...isn’t that how it’s suppose to work?

That is how it works in a rational society.