[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;27209207]I'm not a liberal, so fuck you too.
Cool, that's not the discussion, nor was that even fucking relevant to what you quoted from me.
And cool, free market works, I know, i've looked in the history books and seen how well that's gone over, it worked great for 5% of the population.[/QUOTE]
What 5%? And don't say CEOs. I tend to disagree with Glaber on basic arguments, but he is right that just because someone is the CEO of a company does not mean they have a different Mercedes for every day of the week.
My father was the CEO of his own company, which consisted of a half acre warehouse that he worked on furniture in. We've never been rich. We've never even been upper middle class. But he was a CEO, and quite possibly did spend that magical $200,000 a year between supplies and business payments and payroll for his employees. And that would make him and my family "rich" by the standards of this government, which would put us in a higher tax bracket, one that we would not be able to afford.
My parents eventually did lose our house, and we were forced to move to a cheaper state. That's how rich my family is. We went bankrupt and had to leave our home and friends and family because of it.
[editline]4th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=JDK721;27209274]uhh, what?[/quote]
Government creates jobs the same way me farting causes global warming.
[quote]examples[/QUOTE]
ATF
DHS
CIA
[QUOTE=Ridge;27209140]Money doesn't just sit in the bank. The bank puts it in the stock market. That is how and why interest is paid.[/QUOTE]
no again you suck hard really hard actually banks loan money out to other people with higher interest rates using your money, when they get the returns for that loan, say 30% interest rate, the bank will take 25% or something and you get the remainder which goes back into your account as interest i don't know what the fuck you are talking about, that's some wierd ass shit you probably heard on O' Hanneck
[QUOTE=Glaber;27207342][B]you're just repeating what left wing bloggers and politicians say[/B][/QUOTE]
Well at least HumanAbyss can spell.
[QUOTE=Ridge;27209276]What 5%? And don't say CEOs. I tend to disagree with Glaber on basic arguments, but he is right that just because someone is the CEO of a company does not mean they have a different Mercedes for every day of the week.
My father was the CEO of his own company, which consisted of a half acre warehouse that he worked on furniture in. We've never been rich. We've never even been upper middle class. But he was a CEO, and quite possibly did spend that magical $200,000 a year between supplies and business payments and payroll for his employees. And that would make him and my family "rich" by the standards of this government, which would put us in a higher tax bracket, one that we would not be able to afford.
My parents eventually did lose our house, and we were forced to move to a cheaper state. That's how rich my family is. We went bankrupt and had to leave our home and friends and family because of it.
[editline]4th January 2011[/editline]
Government creates jobs the same way me farting causes global warming.
ATF
DHS
CIA[/QUOTE]
Yay, ignorance of history. Look back at completely free markets(Industrial age England springs to mind) How many people actually benefitted from those conditions and that structure? Only the people at the very top. Every one else was in various states of... doing far less well.
Yeah, I understand what you mean by that, and I should be more specific when I say CEO, because I don't mean your dad, and you should really know this by context, but whatever, I meant and only EVER mean CEO's as people who's annual income is over 2 million dollars. I don't mean you. I never fucking have. The terms of rich should be changed. That's clear, thanks for pointing that out again, it's totally a new concept.
[editline]4th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Habsburg;27209314]Well at least HumanAbyss can spell.[/QUOTE]
I even stated earlier though that I don't even like liberal media and he still ignored it. But that's glaber for you.
[QUOTE=Ridge;27209276] My father was the CEO of his own company, which consisted of a half acre warehouse that he worked on furniture in. We've never been rich. We've never even been upper middle class. But he was a CEO, and quite possibly did spend that magical $200,000 a year between supplies and business payments and payroll for his employees. And that would make him and my family "rich" by the standards of this government, which would put us in a higher tax bracket, one that we would not be able to afford.
[/QUOTE]
ok first of all you can claim those as business expenses and not have to worry about them when it came to taxes second of all, you pay taxes at the end of a tax year, which is the net money you earned that financial year so uh again u suc
[QUOTE=thisispain;27209313]no again you suck hard really hard actually banks loan money out to other people with higher interest rates using your money, when they get the returns for that loan, say 30% interest rate, the bank will take 25% or something and you get the remainder which goes back into your account as interest i don't know what the fuck you are talking about, that's some wierd ass shit you probably heard on O' Hanneck[/QUOTE]
Who the fuck is O'Hanneck? I don't listen to talk radio, nor do I watch 24 hour news stations. I actually HAVE worked at a bank, and can tell you that the money people put into savings accounts and IRAs and CDs all are used by the bank to invest in the stock market. Why do you think so many banks have been failing the past couple years? The stock market went to shit and they lost all the money they were investing.
[QUOTE=thisispain;27209365]ok first of all you can claim those as business expenses and not have to worry about them when it came to taxes second of all, you pay taxes at the end of a tax year, which is the net money you earned that financial year so uh again u suc[/QUOTE]
I knew I was missing something about claiming them as expenses.
I find it ironic ridge is so bad at business and yet has such a hard on for libertarianism.
ban outsourcing ban imports
[QUOTE=Ridge;27209372]Who the fuck is O'Hanneck? I don't listen to talk radio, nor do I watch 24 hour news stations. I actually HAVE worked at a bank, and can tell you that the money people put into savings accounts and IRAs and CDs all are used by the bank to invest in the stock market. Why do you think so many banks have been failing the past couple years? The stock market went to shit and they lost all the money they were investing.[/QUOTE]
To quote thisispain
oh again u suc
No, the banks failed for a LOT of reasons, one of the biggest was the whole fucking debacle around mortgages...
Bill [b]O'[/b], Sean [b]Han[/b]nity, Glen B[b]eck[/b].
[QUOTE=thisispain;27209365]ok first of all you can claim those as business expenses and not have to worry about them when it came to taxes second of all, you pay taxes at the end of a tax year, which is the net money you earned that financial year so uh again u suc[/QUOTE]
Except the $250,000 and then $200,000 number mentioned was gross income, which is before taxes are taken out. It would be harder for them to bleed the small business man dry if they limited the number of "rich" by counting after taxes had already been taken out. Business expenses are written off during tax time as well, so that is out of gross and into net income.
[QUOTE=Ridge;27209372]Who the fuck is O'Hanneck? [/QUOTE]
O'Reilly + Beck + Hannity = O'Hanneck
[QUOTE=Ridge;27209372]I don't listen to talk radio, nor do I watch 24 hour news stations. [/QUOTE]
that's probably not a good thing, hint hint
[QUOTE=Ridge;27209372]I actually HAVE worked at a bank, and can tell you that the money people put into savings accounts and IRAs and CDs all are used by the bank to invest in the stock market.[/QUOTE]
no they get given out as loans
stock market is different, stock market refers to people buying shares of the company and earning money from selling and buying bits of a company, ergo a stock
that's different from how a bank actually earns money, it doesn't earn money from a stock market
[QUOTE=Ridge;27209372] Why do you think so many banks have been failing the past couple years? The stock market went to shit and they lost all the money they were investing.[/QUOTE]
no that's the housing market that has failed. people were unable to pay back their loans, leading to the bank to run out of money, etc.
you are out of your league donny
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;27209411]To quote thisispain
oh again u suc
No, the banks failed for a LOT of reasons, one of the biggest was the whole fucking debacle around mortgages...[/QUOTE]
It would seem as you are having trouble understanding how intertwined the stock market and banking is. Here is a simplified example:
1-Banks make loans
2-Banks invest money
3-People default on loans
4-Banks lose loaned money
5-Stock market suffers
6-Banks lose invested money
7-Banks have no money
8-Banks fail
9-Stock market suffers
10-Cascading effect ensues
[QUOTE=Ridge;27209422]It would be harder for them to bleed the small business man dry if they limited the number of "rich" by counting after taxes had already been taken out.[/QUOTE]
but that's what happens in your head, not in reality
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;27208994]Destructive spending? The fuck does that mean? You know WHY spending isn't a bad thing Glaber? Because spending brings jobs. Not spending brings stagnation. No, this isn't my imagination, literally, if the government didn't drop the money they do into the economy, it would be stagnant. AKA, Dead. [/QUOTE]
The economy is dying because of all that spending on stuff like Bridges to Nowhere, Unemployment for 3 years (Should be called Welfare at that point), Cash for Clunkers (took a bunch of good usable cars off the road), and that war on drugs.
You know how I've been Ignoring it? I've also didn't have an opinion on it either until now.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;27208994]I think they should be taxed along the lines of 20% or more, but no where near 30% or above because that's just... the arbitrary line i decide to draw. And that's all taxes are anyways. [/QUOTE] Now that's actually Reasonable. When you actually use numbers like that, you stop people from thinking you want to tax the Rich to death. But Taxes alone can't solve the Government's spending problem. the US Government can and does spend way to much and needs to cut back on everything. Yes, that includes defense spending and education.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;27208994]They probably don't get coverage because it's impossible to spin "We just spent 500 billion to stop people smoking pot, and the amount of people smoking it is just climbing on a daily basis". The amount of money poured into a war on the citizens of the country you love is disgusting.
Glaber, for your own good, and I say this with no malice or ill-will, only the best intentions, [b]DON'T DO THAT.[/b] Not even because I disagree with you, it's just idiotic to lock yourself into a view point. It's childish, literally. It's just something we have to consciously fight. [/QUOTE]
Actually, closest Ive heard was opposition, or something close to that as many business have suffered because of smoking bans. Yes it may be bad for our health, and Old country Buffet is better because of it, but it should be up to the business on weather they allow smoking of any kind or not.
(That was a slightly different subject, wasn't it?)
My opinion on Pot right now is actually mixed because of people who abuse it to get high and people who use it for medicinal purposes. I rather not take any sides on that issue until I get some more info like is it addictive, do medical patients who use it stop using it when they don't need it, things like that.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;27208994]I disagree about how much the government should spend, and it's not a discussion worth having between us, but it's not sure fire on either side of that line. [/QUOTE] Well it certainty shouldn't be spending as much as it it now
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;27208994]I do too, maybe through the power of democracy, you can change it. Because it shouldn't be what it is.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, because right now, it makes talking about the rich confusing and winds up including the very people you don't want to raise taxes on.
[QUOTE=Ridge;27209448]It would seem as you are having trouble understanding how intertwined the stock market and banking is. Here is a simplified example:
1-Banks make loans
2-Banks invest money
3-People default on loans
4-Banks lose loaned money
5-Stock market suffers
6-Banks lose invested money
7-Banks have no money
8-Banks fail
9-Stock market suffers
10-Cascading effect ensues[/QUOTE]
OK YOU TOTALLY FUCKING LOST ME BUDDY what the fuck
what does the stock market have to do with loans
stock market suffers when the value of a stock decreases, ergo it becomes unwanted
microsoft isn't a bank (herp) but it still suffered in the stock market because its stock went down. people didn't buy their products so the stock value went down and people stopped buying the stock
your house has nothing to do with stocks
[QUOTE=thisispain;27209502]OK YOU TOTALLY FUCKING LOST ME BUDDY what the fuck
what does the stock market have to do with loans
stock market suffers when the value of a stock decreases, ergo it becomes unwanted
microsoft isn't a bank (herp) but it still suffered in the stock market because its stock went down. people didn't buy their products so the stock value went down and people stopped buying the stock
your house has nothing to do with stocks[/QUOTE]
Banks buy stock in private business. Kind of like [url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-05/goldman-sachs-sends-a-message-with-facebook-deal-the-magic-model-is-back.html]Goldman Sachs (a bank) invests in Facebook[/url]
As the financial news turns bad (by say, saying that millions of families are no longer paying the millions they owe to banks for their homes), people who want to protect their money sell their shares before the rush. Due to supply and demand, less demand means less cost per share. People or banks that are too slow to pull out the money, now get less because their shares are less valuable. Therefore, they lose money.
[QUOTE=Ridge;27209548]Banks buy stock in private business. [/QUOTE]
ok i am done you don't even know what a private business is
[QUOTE=Glaber;27209452]The economy is dying because of all that spending on stuff like Bridges to Nowhere, Unemployment for 3 years (Should be called Welfare at that point), Cash for Clunkers (took a bunch of good usable cars off the road), and that war on drugs.
You know how I've been Ignoring it? I've also didn't have an opinion on it either until now.
Now that's actually Reasonable. When you actually use numbers like that, you stop people from thinking you want to tax the Rich to death. But Taxes alone can't solve the Government's spending problem. the US Government can and does spend way to much and needs to cut back on everything. Yes, that includes defense spending and education.
Actually, closest Ive heard was opposition, or something close to that as many business have suffered because of smoking bans. Yes it may be bad for our health, and Old country Buffet is better because of it, but it should be up to the business on weather they allow smoking of any kind or not.
(That was a slightly different subject, wasn't it?)
My opinion on Pot right now is actually mixed because of people who abuse it to get high and people who use it for medicinal purposes. I rather not take any sides on that issue until I get some more info like is it addictive, do medical patients who use it stop using it when they don't need it, things like that.
Well it certainty shouldn't be spending as much as it it now
Agreed, because right now, it makes talking about the rich confusing and winds up including the very people you don't want to raise taxes on.[/QUOTE]
yeah, there's a lot of clout programs that are obviously either stupid, or have flaws in their real world form, but the ideas for [b]some[/b] of these programs aren't bad and should just get fixed to stop that leakage of money. One thing I will agree with you about on government(at least the US government) is wildly inefficient in the actual programs it carries out on a structural basis(The legislation leaves stupid loopholes and problems that could be fixed with some actual thinking or amendments).
Agreed, but that can be changed. And education should never, EVER, EVER be cut down. It barely has enough money as it is, it needs more, but it needs to be applied effectively. School boards need to be done away with and much more reasonable and intelligent approaches to the issues should be conjured up then what a bunch of soccer moms think, or what stagnant old men think just as ignorantly.
Well I agree with you on the choice should be with the owner of said restaurant or bar.
Well, it's been known to medical sources like the AMA and god knows how many others, and is not addictive. At all. Sure, weak willed people can be addicted to it, but there is no physical addiction to it possible. It shouldn't be illegal because the government has no say in your body and what you can put in it either way. The medicinal argument shouldn't even exist, it's a stupid one, sure, it can be used as a medicine, but just about anything can be in the right circumstances. It was banned for purely racist, ignorant, and corrupt(lumber and pharmaceutical were threatened by it, so forced it into a ban) reasons. Then brought back to make money for the war(WW2), then banned for totally different racist, ignorant, and corrupt reasons to before. As to the last part of that, I wouldn't know, but I would imagine some do, some don't, probably in equal numbers. It's like drinking(except alcohol is addictive) some people like it, some people don't.
I agree, it shouldn't be spending so much, it should be spending it more effectively, I don't know how the US government does it, but they fuck up so much shit in their legal foresight into actually making these programs work.
Rich isn't defined right by the government clearly, and I didn't remember how low it actually was in the US.
[editline]4th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ridge;27209548]Banks buy stock in private business. Kind of like [url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-05/goldman-sachs-sends-a-message-with-facebook-deal-the-magic-model-is-back.html]Goldman Sachs (a bank) invests in Facebook[/url]
As the financial news turns bad (by say, saying that millions of families are no longer paying the millions they owe to banks for their homes), people who want to protect their money sell their shares before the rush. Due to supply and demand, less demand means less cost per share. People or banks that are too slow to pull out the money, now get less because their shares are less valuable. Therefore, they lose money.[/QUOTE]
dear god...
It's like looking into a void.
buying stocks in private business
what the fuck man
[QUOTE=thisispain;27209676]buying stocks in private business
what the fuck man[/QUOTE]
Oh god, sorry I offended your senses.
Privately owned, publically traded business. That better?
[QUOTE=Ridge;27209766]Oh god, sorry I offended your senses.
Privately owned, publically traded business. That better?[/QUOTE]
you offended my sense of reality by not making any sense
[quote]As the financial news turns bad (by say, saying that millions of families are no longer paying the millions they owe to banks for their homes), people who want to protect their money sell their shares before the rush. Due to supply and demand, less demand means less cost per share. People or banks that are too slow to pull out the money, now get less because their shares are less valuable. Therefore, they lose money. [/quote]okay that's all true but what role do banks play you're still being incredibly unclear (reason is because you made it up heh)
the housing market has nothing to do with the stock market. if you put money into a bank it will not lose value, never ever ever ever because it's not a stock, it's money, legal tender. the banks don't have a reason to invest in the stock market anyway so the big question is:
why the fuck are we talking about the stock market, when we were talking about money a person puts into a bank.
and i don't even understand why this conversation is had why is a rich person putting 50 million in a bank
[QUOTE=thisispain;27209861]you offended my sense of reality by not making any sense
okay that's all true but what role do banks play you're still being incredibly unclear (reason is because you made it up heh)
the housing market has nothing to do with the stock market. if you put money into a bank it will not lose value, never ever ever ever because it's not a stock, it's money, legal tender. the banks don't have a reason to invest in the stock market anyway so the big question is:
why the fuck are we talking about the stock market, when we were talking about money a person puts into a bank.
and i don't even understand why this conversation is had why is a rich person putting 50 million in a bank[/QUOTE]
Your personal money will never lose value because it is insured by the federal government (FDIC), but the banks will have to deal with the loss themselves, which is what causes them to fold up.
Banks DO invest in the stock market, because when the market is good, the bank can turn a profit and do like said above, keep most of the profit for themselves and give you a bit. But if the market turns ugly, they are still obligated to give you the interest, and they are forced to eat the loss.
[QUOTE=Ridge;27209928]Your personal money will never lose value because it is insured by the federal government (FDIC), but the banks will have to deal with the loss themselves, which is what causes them to fold up.
Banks DO invest in the stock market, because when the market is good, the bank can turn a profit and do like said above, keep most of the profit for themselves and give you a bit. But if the market turns ugly, they are still obligated to give you the interest, and they are forced to eat the loss.[/QUOTE]
Maybe they should keep a buffer or something.
[QUOTE=Ridge;27209928]Your personal money will never lose value because it is insured by the federal government (FDIC), but the banks will have to deal with the loss themselves, which is what causes them to fold up.
Banks DO invest in the stock market, because when the market is good, the bank can turn a profit and do like said above, keep most of the profit for themselves and give you a bit. But if the market turns ugly, they are still obligated to give you the interest, and they are forced to eat the loss.[/QUOTE]
yeah i guess but that's not what they do
banks earn profit through loans and that has nothing to do with the stock market
[QUOTE=Habsburg;27209938]Maybe they should keep a buffer or something.[/QUOTE]
Ditto for the government, and for private citizens. But few of any do.
[editline]4th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=thisispain;27209960]yeah i guess but that's not what they do
banks earn profit through loans and that has nothing to do with the stock market[/QUOTE]
They go both ways, like a transexual.
but the banks closing had nothing to do with the stock market
[QUOTE=Ridge;27209964]They go both ways, like a transexual.[/QUOTE]
I think you mean bisexual.
[QUOTE=Habsburg;27209999]I think you mean bisexual.[/QUOTE]
Transexuals can go both ways for a time...
[editline]4th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=thisispain;27209992]but the banks closing had nothing to do with the stock market[/QUOTE]
Except for the part about the news reporting banks failing, and people get scared and get their money out of the stock market.
Ooh, look, a glaber thread.
:munch:
[QUOTE=Ridge;27210001]
Except for the part about the news reporting banks failing, and people get scared and get their money out of the stock market.[/QUOTE]
that still has nothing to do with loans
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
