Venture Capitalism at its best Cancel The title field is required!

1. Sandy Clark

   

   0 posts
   
   2/3/2012 8:02 AM

   Facebook has created a few new billionaires and many millionaires. This idea developed by college students in a dorm room was made possible because venture capitalists were willing to take a chance and provide the seed money to make this company grow. Would they have been willing to give it a go if they were paying 35% taxes versus the 15%? A company like Facebook may have never come to fruition if Obama and the class warfare group had its way. Facebook is also proof that the economy isn't a zero sum game. Started just 8 years ago, it expanded the economic pie without reducing the value of other companies. Have any of us lost money or been adversely impacted because these people have made so much? It is the same with the idea of taxing the so-called rich and making them pay their fair share. If everyone over $250,000 of income is taxed more, will anybody making less benefit? The answer is NO! Give the government more money and more money will simply disappear down the hungry throat of government to feed its already bloated belly. Do any of you in favor of higher taxes on the successful really believe you or the masses will benefit in any way, shape or form? If so, how.

   
   
   
   
2. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   2/3/2012 9:02 AM

   Sandy,
   
   One way I would benefit is the bridge I'm driving across will not fall out from under me.
   
   I don't think the tax rate plays a part in what investment groups decide to invest in. It might make them a little more cautious but, with all that money they made off Facebook, quite honestly the taxes they pay at 15% or 35% is a drop in the bucket. That's just my opinion, but investment groups are in the business to make money off those investments. If they didn't invest, what are they in business for, what do those people do, if they aren't making investments, they would be working other jobs wouldn't they? I think the one question is this, do they invest in American businesses or in businesses elsewhere because of the tax rate? Now that is a debate that can be had, but resources, labor pools, markets and other issues are still going to play a part in that equation.
   
   Of course what do I know, I don't have the money to invest and don't think like those people do. But that is what makes sense to me.
   
   Mel

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
3. Stephen Okula

   

   3 posts
   
   2/3/2012 5:02 PM

   Sandy, you make me laugh.
   
   According to Forbes, Mark Zuckerburg, the founder of Facebook, is worth 17.5 billion dollars. And that's assuming net worth after paying 15% taxes for the past eight years.
   
   Let's say he was paying 35% taxes instead. How much would he be worth today? $14 billion? $12 billion?
   
   So your premise is that back in college, if Zuckerburg knew he'd be liable for a 35% tax rate, he would have looked at the numbers and said, "You know, $12 bilion, it's not worth the heartache."
   
   You couldn't spend 12 billion dollars in a lifetime if you tried. Even 1% interst would bring in $120 million per year. But then that' just pretax. Under Obama's scheme he would be left with only 78 million take hometo add on to the other 12 billion. He could probably make ends meet by taking on some speaking engagements.
   
   You really need to come up with a better example to make your point.

   
   
   
   
4. James Schmid

   

   1 posts
   
   2/4/2012 11:02 AM

   Sandy Clark, CGCS said: Facebook has created a few new billionaires and many millionaires. This idea developed by college students in a dorm room was made possible because venture capitalists were willing to take a chance and provide the seed money to make this company grow. Would they have been willing to give it a go if they were paying 35% taxes versus the 15%? A company like Facebook may have never come to fruition if Obama and the class warfare group had its way. Facebook is also proof that the economy isn't a zero sum game. Started just 8 years ago, it expanded the economic pie without reducing the value of other companies. Have any of us lost money or been adversely impacted because these people have made so much? It is the same with the idea of taxing the so-called rich and making them pay their fair share. If everyone over $250,000 of income is taxed more, will anybody making less benefit? The answer is NO! Give the government more money and more money will simply disappear down the hungry throat of government to feed its already bloated belly. Do any of you in favor of higher taxes on the successful really believe you or the masses will benefit in any way, shape or form? If so, how.

   
   
   
   Facebook sucks anyway, who cares.
   
   What are venture capitalists going to do with their money if they don't invest it? What are investors going to do with their money, not invest, sit on it? Move to Somalia and run a business where there are no taxes? But seriously though - what do you suppose these investors would do with their money under a higher tax rate? And where did 15% come from anyway? Why is that such a magic number?
   
   How can you say that it hasn't reduced the value of other companies? With the ridiculous amount of time that people piss away on their facebook pages there are millions of other things that are being done less. How about marbles? When is the last time you saw someone playing marbles, or shooting off model rockets? Nobody does that stuff anymore because they are too busy updating their status.
   
   Jim

   
   
   
   
5. Stephen Okula

   

   3 posts
   
   2/4/2012 11:02 AM

   That's right James. The problem with America today is that it's lost its marbles.

   
   
   
   
6. Peter Bowman

   

   11 posts
   
   2/4/2012 11:02 AM

   James Schmid said:

   Sandy Clark, CGCS said: Facebook has created a few new billionaires and many millionaires. This idea developed by college students in a dorm room was made possible because venture capitalists were willing to take a chance and provide the seed money to make this company grow. Would they have been willing to give it a go if they were paying 35% taxes versus the 15%? A company like Facebook may have never come to fruition if Obama and the class warfare group had its way. Facebook is also proof that the economy isn't a zero sum game. Started just 8 years ago, it expanded the economic pie without reducing the value of other companies. Have any of us lost money or been adversely impacted because these people have made so much? It is the same with the idea of taxing the so-called rich and making them pay their fair share. If everyone over $250,000 of income is taxed more, will anybody making less benefit? The answer is NO! Give the government more money and more money will simply disappear down the hungry throat of government to feed its already bloated belly. Do any of you in favor of higher taxes on the successful really believe you or the masses will benefit in any way, shape or form? If so, how.

   
   
   
   How about marbles? When is the last time you saw someone playing marbles, or shooting off model rockets? Nobody does that stuff anymore because they are too busy updating their status.
   
   Jim

   
   
   Marbles? Thank the trial attorneys. This, from a child's game that includes marbles. WARNING: CHOKING HAZARD - Toy contains marbles
   and small parts. Not for children under 3 years of age.
   Can't sue us now if, as a parent, you're stupid enough to let your child under 3 play the game unsupervised.
   
   Model rockets? Blame the need for "stricter regulation," and "improving the labelling" acoocording to the rocket study.
   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8040589

   
   
   
   
7. Steven Kurta

   

   2 posts
   
   2/5/2012 7:02 AM

   All the cool kids are on G+ anyways

   
   
   
   
8. Wahlin Scott B

   
   2/6/2012 7:02 AM

   Just in case you missed it, a film by conservatives about conservatives.
   
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLWnB9FGmWE

   
   
   
   
9. McCallum David K

   
   2/6/2012 8:02 AM

   Marbles...........nobody plays stinkin marbles anymore.........I double dog dare you to find any kid 10 years old or younger that even know what marbles are let alone the purpose of the game...........I was a quite skillful marble player in my ute..........and very good at screaming razoooooooooo when the bell rang and you grabbed all the marbles you could and shoved them in your marble bag and ran like hell.........and I don't think James can get away any longer with language such &$#*^@..........absolute filth.....ban him from the fourm.
   
   Some school in NJ I belived just banned ALL BALLS from the school grounds.......to dangerous.......a parent was hit in the head by a soccer ball.............hmmmmmmm aren't soccer balls supposed to hit with ones head....thus the term "header" as well as ones feet?
   
   And yes Mel as much as it may surprise you investers do wish to reap a profit off of their investments. I have that same burning desire with my 401k and stock portfolio as well.........for me it's called retirment at some point.

   
   
   
   
10. Sandy Clark

    

    0 posts
    
    2/6/2012 11:02 AM

    Lets not get too confused guys. My comment about 15% versus 35% was only geared to the venture capitalists themselves. Many firms would not receive seed money if the venture company had to pay a great deal higher tax rate. They are already taking a big risk that something will come from the money invested. With a 35% tax rate, venture capitalists would only invest in an ideas that were very sure things. Also, people screwing around at work with Facebook had nothing to do with my point. The point is simple. The economy is not a zero sum game. Nobody has to lose so that someone else will win. New ideas and new industries expand the pie. They do not reduce anyone's piece of the economic pie!

    
    
    
    
11. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    2/6/2012 1:02 PM

    David McCallum said:
    And yes Mel as much as it may surprise you investers do wish to reap a profit off of their investments. I have that same burning desire with my 401k and stock portfolio as well.........for me it's called retirment at some point.

    
    
    That is the point I have tried to make sometimes, (but I'm sure not successfully) about how maybe too much of everything is tied together, we want our companies to make the most profit to benefit our retirement vehicles, yet in some cases in order to make those profits the company will ship jobs overseas to make the profits that will help our retirement vehicles. Which in turn puts people out of work in the states, taking away possible paying customers for the goods that are being made for the company's profit. Maybe if we didn't rely on the company making that kind of profit and keeping jobs here.....
    
    but I wonder also, and I saw this on Stewart last week (which might make some of my numbers fuzzy), a health device maker in Florida called Davie, (I think it was a device maker) had Bain Capital invest into the company, they restructured, closed a couple of plants and then when the company wasn't profitable they filed for bankruptcy, Bain walks out with 300+ million in fees and charges, (I think they had invested 100 million or so into the company according to the story), Stewart basically said, if Bain hadn't invested into the company the 300 million that Bain received probably would have kept them from bankruptcy.
    
    I guess what the big question is, has their always been some sort of firms that invest capital into businesses or in the old days, (take your pick what old is to you) was it just the banks, or wealthy people or companies that would try risky or maybe not risky investments, Is venture capitalism a relatively new way of making money? Is it the relatively new investment vehicle of 401K's and the like for our retirement that has created the venture capitalism?
    
    Sorry, got on a roll and veered away from the original starting point of this post.
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
12. McCallum David K

    
    2/7/2012 7:02 AM

    It's a never ending circle Mel.......unfortunately. Like all the talk of Clint Eastwood's Super Bowl ad. I personally did not find it poltical, it was a very well done ad in my opinion. It got your attention without quesiton. I chuckled when it was over and my wife asked what that was about.............."the entire irony of the ad gets me" Two American icons.......Dirty Harry and Chrysler Corp talking about the second half comeback of America, owned (59%) by a foreign company (Fiat of Italy) with much of their production of their vehicles in Canada and Mexico( that's jobs Mel) still taking stimulus money from the government. Hell maybe it did have a political message buried in there somewhere but I missed it........just made me laugh.

    
    
    
    
13. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    2/7/2012 7:02 AM

    I thought the same thing about the ad, until I remembered someone at our neighborhood Super Bowl party had said earlier the next neighborhood party would be next Jan. when the president is leaving office. (we are the abnormal ones in our neighborhood) it was only then I thought it could have had a political bent because of the bail out of them. If it wasn't for the president these people so much want to get out, Chrysler would have been gone, and a lot of jobs as well. It's too bad as part of the bail out that factories and jobs should have been restarted here in the states, but it did save what jobs Chrysler had in the states. Any way I don't think the ad was meant to be political but if it is thought of that way, let someone put up Gov. Romney's take that the car companies should have been let to fail, or was that the banking or housing industry?
    
    The ads that our group wasn't getting was the Polar Bear coke ads, I thought it was football references myself.
    
    As to your first commeant Dave, something we can agree on.
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
14. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    2/7/2012 2:02 PM

    Oh wait what was I thinking, the government telling Chrysler, "sure we will bail you out but we don't dare dictate what you have to do to get the money" (I had mistakenly suggested that Chrysler should have been asked to open up plants here in the states). Although I'm sure some private company that invest into a business can and will tell that business what to do or they don't get the money. Maybe that's why I can see the government shouldn't be bailing out businesses, but I unfortunately think there wasn't much other choice or we probably would have gone into a depression, we might never know.
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
15. Dennis Cook

    

    1 posts
    
    2/14/2012 10:02 AM

    Stephen Okula, CGCS said: Sandy, you make me laugh.
    
    According to Forbes, Mark Zuckerburg, the founder of Facebook, is worth 17.5 billion dollars. And that's assuming net worth after paying 15% taxes for the past eight years.
    
    Let's say he was paying 35% taxes instead. How much would he be worth today? $14 billion? $12 billion?
    
    So your premise is that back in college, if Zuckerburg knew he'd be liable for a 35% tax rate, he would have looked at the numbers and said, "You know, $12 bilion, it's not worth the heartache."
    
    You couldn't spend 12 billion dollars in a lifetime if you tried. Even 1% interst would bring in $120 million per year. But then that' just pretax. Under Obama's scheme he would be left with only 78 million take hometo add on to the other 12 billion. He could probably make ends meet by taking on some speaking engagements.
    
    You really need to come up with a better example to make your point.

    
    Steven,
    First off Mark Zuckerberg pays 35% corporate tax on income. Its when he takes the money he already paid taxes on and reinvests it is when he pays the 15% capital gain tax on the return. The point is that a lot of people would not take the risks of investing in something if their return on investment drops dramatically. They could safely sit on their fortunes, continue making money from their own company and pay the 35% corporate tax. If they do invest it they risk losing it all, which is why we have set up a system that rewards investment. If we did not reward people taking chances then not as many people would. Working capital in this country comes from people like Mark Zuckerburg who invest it, then that money is used to allow other companies to borrow and grow their business. Investing is the backbone of growth in this country, if you tax it more you will get less of it, which mean less growth

    
    
    
    
16. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    2/14/2012 12:02 PM

    Dennis Cook said:

    Stephen Okula, CGCS said: Sandy, you make me laugh.
    
    According to Forbes, Mark Zuckerburg, the founder of Facebook, is worth 17.5 billion dollars. And that's assuming net worth after paying 15% taxes for the past eight years.
    
    Let's say he was paying 35% taxes instead. How much would he be worth today? $14 billion? $12 billion?
    
    So your premise is that back in college, if Zuckerburg knew he'd be liable for a 35% tax rate, he would have looked at the numbers and said, "You know, $12 bilion, it's not worth the heartache."
    
    You couldn't spend 12 billion dollars in a lifetime if you tried. Even 1% interst would bring in $120 million per year. But then that' just pretax. Under Obama's scheme he would be left with only 78 million take hometo add on to the other 12 billion. He could probably make ends meet by taking on some speaking engagements.
    
    You really need to come up with a better example to make your point.

    
    Steven,
    First off Mark Zuckerberg pays 35% corporate tax on income. Its when he takes the money he already paid taxes on and reinvests it is when he pays the 15% capital gain tax on the return. The point is that a lot of people would not take the risks of investing in something if their return on investment drops dramatically. They could safely sit on their fortunes, continue making money from their own company and pay the 35% corporate tax. If they do invest it they risk losing it all, which is why we have set up a system that rewards investment. If we did not reward people taking chances then not as many people would. Working capital in this country comes from people like Mark Zuckerburg who invest it, then that money is used to allow other companies to borrow and grow their business. Investing is the backbone of growth in this country, if you tax it more you will get less of it, which mean less growth

    
    
    Dennis, while in theory I get what you are pointing out, but I don't think that no matter what you taxed capital gains or whatever you want to call the revenue one gets from investing, it would matter what it gets taxed at, if that was the case investors would be loading up on investments now to take advantage of the 15% rate before it might become 35%. In my opinion, investors are going to invest because they want to make money. Those that might sit on their money probably would sit on it regardless. Also wouldn't it depend on the investment? Say a capital investment in new equipment could be written off until it gets depreciated, doesn't that fit a long term growth strategy? I do think there are two ways to look at investments, some are made for that long term growth of a company and there is those that are looking for a quick return on their investment. I just don't think people are investing because they don't see a quick turn on their investment, I don't think it has anything to do with tax rates. And while I understand what your saying about taxing capital gains only at 15% because it was already taxed at 35%, and we can debate the tax code until we are blue in the face, but I would say any new revenue made after the investment is paid back should be taxed at 35% since it is "new" revenue? I know is some ways we make this too complicated then it is, but I also know it isn't simple because of the bigger picture and how things are tied together.
    
    I know if I had the money to invest I would be more worried about making a sound decision and not make a risky one, then if I had to pay 15% or 35% on my investment, heck I'm coming out ahead is all I'm worried about. But that is just me, maybe that is why I don't have the money to invest.
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
17. Dennis Cook

    

    1 posts
    
    2/14/2012 12:02 PM

    Mel, people are not gonna run out right now and take advantage of the 15% tax rate because they are afraid that the govt is not far from trying to confiscate as much wealth as possible.
    
    Bar none the biggest problem this country faces is that 58% of people do not pay income tax, but yet that 58% consumes far more of the entitlements from the govt. When the majority of the people are getting handouts they can continue to vote themselves money and demand that the rich keep paying more taxes, so there handouts dont end. Our govt is not giving trillions of dollars to rich people and continue to run up the national debt. What they are doing is giving trillions of dollars to people who are not contributing to this country being productive. Rich people or even middle class taxpayers use far less govt resources than those who pay no income taxes because they are providing for themselves and their families. What happens when you run out of others peoples money to confiscate and buy votes with

    
    
    
    
18. Stephen Okula

    

    3 posts
    
    2/14/2012 3:02 PM

    Dennis, Dennis, Dennis,
    
    Mark Zukerberg came from nothing. It was other people's money that started Facebook, none of his. In fact, there are people who claim it wasn't even his own original idea, but that he had the programing genius to make it happen. Explain to me please how tax rates were a consideration in that business endeavor.
    
    "Bar none the biggest problem this country faces is that 58% of people do not pay income tax, but yet that 58% consumes far more of the entitlements from the govt. " (your words)
    
    Where do you get these numbers? You never say. Do those 58% include the dependents of affluent people who do pay taxes? If I'm the sole breadwinner for a family of four, does that mean that 75% of the people are not paying taxes? By logical extension then, the 75% of non-tax-paying dependents are reaping 75% of the benefits of taxes, use of roads, police and fire departments, public schools, libraries, county agricultural extension agencies, national and state parks, and all the other socialist swag from the big government sugar daddy.
    
    The number one problem in the U.S.A. today is that an elite, privileged, few have so many of you gullible voters duped into believing that the highest one per cent of income earners are the most oppressed faction in the country.

    
    
    
    
19. Wahlin Scott B

    
    2/14/2012 6:02 PM

    Stephen Okula, CGCS said: Dennis, Dennis, Dennis,
    
    Mark Zukerberg came from nothing. It was other people's money that started Facebook, none of his. In fact, there are people who claim it wasn't even his own original idea, but that he had the programing genius to make it happen. Explain to me please how tax rates were a consideration in that business endeavor.
    
    "Bar none the biggest problem this country faces is that 58% of people do not pay income tax, but yet that 58% consumes far more of the entitlements from the govt. " (your words)
    
    Where do you get these numbers? You never say. Do those 58% include the dependents of affluent people who do pay taxes? If I'm the sole breadwinner for a family of four, does that mean that 75% of the people are not paying taxes? By logical extension then, the 75% of non-tax-paying dependents are reaping 75% of the benefits of taxes, use of roads, police and fire departments, public schools, libraries, county agricultural extension agencies, national and state parks, and all the other socialist swag from the big government sugar daddy.
    
    The number one problem in the U.S.A. today is that an elite, privileged, few have so many of you gullible voters duped into believing that the highest one per cent of income earners are the most oppressed faction in the country.

    
    
    I think the 58% are those working people who have to submit a tax return, but either have enough tax deductions with their mortgage, medical bills, education expenses, etc. or do not make enough to get out of what is considered poverty to pay taxes. I completely agree with your last paragraph.
    
    We have too many people listening to right wing extremist radio and Fox News who do not question what they hear. If their method of governing were appropriate for America we should be up to our eye balls in jobs, but we are not. I think those on the left have to realize that you are never going to convince hardcore believers of the Hannity, Hedgecock or Beck and it is a waste of time and energy trying.

    
    
    
    
20. Peter Bowman

    

    11 posts
    
    2/14/2012 7:02 PM

    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said:
    
    I think those on the left have to realize that you are never going to convince hardcore believers of the Hannity, Hedgecock or Beck and it is a waste of time and energy trying.

    
    
    So I hope this means you promise to stop linking left-wing videos here?

    
    
    
    
21. Curtis Nickerson

    

    0 posts
    
    2/15/2012 5:02 AM

    I grow weary hearing how if the government didn't bail out the auto industry "they would be gone, all the jobs...blah, blah) Chrysler, Chevy, neither would have gone away, they like so many other business, would have filed for bankruptcy, been forced to reorganize and then back to work. Yes some people would have lost their jobs, but the tax payers wouldn't be holding the bag.
    
    Bush started the bailouts with tarp and Obama has continued it and we continue to dig a deeper hole...

    
    
    
    
22. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    2/15/2012 7:02 AM

    Curtis, you might be right about the auto bailout, but I wonder what would have happen to consumer confidence and what that would have done to the country, not that consumer confidence has been high. Also all the ancillary business that would have been affected. Also I do think the government would have been still holding the bag for something, unemployment payouts and food stamps, probably wouldn't have cost us the money we spent propping up the auto industry.
    
    I did see a good story (well I thought it was) on yahoo yesterday that explained the difference between what would have happened with Chevy or Chrysler had filed for bankruptcy and compared it to the airlines. The airlines can still fly and generate some revenue, the automakers would have stopped production and by the time it got ramped back up they would have been behind.....I guess compare it to what happened with Honda and some of the other Japaneses automakers when the earthquake and tsunami disrupted their manufacturing. Although I wonder if they had government assistance to help them rebound from that?
    
    I did hear that the government got back all their money and then some on one of the bailouts, I think it was the banks?
    
    That's just my opinion,
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
23. Dennis Cook

    

    1 posts
    
    2/15/2012 12:02 PM

    Well I wrote a long winded response tho this earlier but it got blown away when I hit submit
    
    Stephen, I was thinking one thing and typing another when I posted that and it should have read that 58% of people are getting some type of govt assistance. The number of people that do not pay taxes is more like 46%. In 2007 the number of people getting assistance was 52%, so it continues to grow. My point is that the more the dems try to get people on the dole, the more they can buy votes. All they have to say is that us evil repubs want to take away their assistance and take away their birth control and whatever other lies they want to perpetrate. If you want more of something subsidize it and Obama and the dems have looked for every way they can to get more people dependent on govt when the repubs want to get people to become more self reliant. My point about rich people was that they are not the ones receiving all these benefits and causing the country to go furthur into debt, but they are the ones paying for it. But you think that some rich guy has his foot on some poor guy down in the ditch saying, "no you cant come out". Thats total BS. Repubs want everyone to achieve the american dream and prosper. If it wasnt for all the rich people paying the majority of all the taxes in this country we would not have all these assistance programs for everyone else, but yet the dems cry that its always the fault of the rich guy for not giving enough. All americas problems will go away if all the rich guys just paid a little more in taxes, according to Obama. Americas problems will never go away if the govt does not fix itself and quit overspending. But it wont do that because the more people dependent on the govt means more votes for the guy that says I will give you free stuff, like free birth control. I dont see anything wrong with people paying for their own birth control. If they wanna screw around, then by god, buy a damn condom yourself. Dont pass the buck on to someone else just because you think it should be free and that some other rich guy should pay for it. That rich guys money is not yours, its not the govt's, its not mine, but our govt sure does want to dictate that it can confiscate whatever it wants.
    
    Govt needs to get back to keeping up the military, infrastructure, law enforcement and do the things that our founders set this govt up to do. They need to quit buying votes, because its bankrupting this country. Its not the rich people who are bankrupting it, its the crooks in washington who are giving this country away for votes.

    
    
    
    
24. Stephen Okula

    

    3 posts
    
    2/15/2012 3:02 PM

    Dennis,
    
    Where do you get your numbers? It's not enough to state them, you need to back them up. Provide a link or a source.
    
    If you want to talk about government benefits, look no further than the Bush insituted TARP bailouts, providing a cozy cushion for wealthy American bankers who wreaked havoc on the economy through sheer, unalduterated avarice, coupled with a criminal stupidity. We have a system where profits are privatized and losses are socialized, and where the beneficiaries of billions of tax dollars have the unmitigated audacity to complain about the government providing health care to save an impoverished orphan's life.
    
    It shines and stinks like a dead fish under a full moon.

    
    
    
    
25. Dennis Cook

    

    1 posts
    
    2/16/2012 7:02 AM

    Stephen Okula, CGCS said: Dennis,
    
    Where do you get your numbers? It's not enough to state them, you need to back them up. Provide a link or a source.
    
    If you want to talk about government benefits, look no further than the Bush insituted TARP bailouts, providing a cozy cushion for wealthy American bankers who wreaked havoc on the economy through sheer, unalduterated avarice, coupled with a criminal stupidity. We have a system where profits are privatized and losses are socialized, and where the beneficiaries of billions of tax dollars have the unmitigated audacity to complain about the government providing health care to save an impoverished orphan's life.
    
    It shines and stinks like a dead fish under a full moon.

    
    
    Here is the report from 2007
    http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0416/p01s04-usec.html
    
    Here is the new report
    http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/flo ... he-economy
    
    No one is complaining about helping an orphan with health care. An orphan is someone who cannot help themselves and we have programs to help those types of situations already. I have to say thanks to all the rich people who pay for those programs. Did you know that the highest quintile of tax payers pays 90.5% of all federal income tax? Man those rich people are the cause of everything. That number is from faxt.com
    
    The effective tax rate on income -- federal taxes paid as a percent of cash income -- for households in the middle quintile is 2.3 percent, 5.7 percent for the fourth quintile, and 13.4 percent for the highest quintile. Given the subsidies to households in the lowest and second quintiles, the ETR for all U.S. households averages 7.9 percent. Also from faxt.
    
    Wow seems that rich people pay 5.82 times the tax(in %) than the middle quintile. Man we really need to tax the rich more, they arent paying their fair share. Man we are getting screwed.
    
    I'll say it again, the problem is not that we dont tax the rich enough, its that the govt spends too much darn money. We are giving away well over a trillion dollars a year in entitlements and it is the burden of the producers to pay that money. I think its time the producers stood up and said enough is enough

    
    
    
    
26. Jon Gansen

    

    1 posts
    
    2/16/2012 8:02 AM

    Stephen Okula, CGCS said: Dennis,
    
    Where do you get your numbers? It's not enough to state them, you need to back them up. Provide a link or a source.
    
    If you want to talk about government benefits, look no further than the Bush instituted TARP bailouts, providing a cozy cushion for wealthy American bankers who wreaked havoc on the economy through sheer, unalduterated avarice, coupled with a criminal stupidity. We have a system where profits are privatized and losses are socialized, and where the beneficiaries of billions of tax dollars have the unmitigated audacity to complain about the government providing health care to save an impoverished orphan's life.
    
    It shines and stinks like a dead fish under a full moon.

    
    
    Tarp was a tragic cause of Community Reinvestment Act in Carters term required fannie mae and other banks to give loan to low income people who could not afford them. It proves the government cannot fix, control or regulate anything. How can a system that allows someone to buy a house, no money down, poor credit and not enough income be successful? The American taxpayer thats who. Your Quote We have a system where profits are privatized and losses are socialized, and where the beneficiaries of billions of tax dollars have the unmitigated audacity to complain about the government providing health care to save an impoverished orphan's life. I say we take tax payers money (corp and individual profits) in the name of socialism.

    
    
    
    
27. Keith Lamb

    

    3 posts
    
    2/16/2012 9:02 AM

    Sorry Jon, not that simple. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was passed to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.
    
    Loose borrowing standards just made it easier for banks sell mortgages that they could turn around and bundle as mortgage-backed securities that got AAA ratings. They couldn't sell them fast enough. We all got left holding the bag with no chair to sit in when the music stopped.
    
    http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/subprime-overview.asp#axzz1mYdIet45
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_crisis_impact_timeline
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis
    
    If you don't like Wikipedia or think the information contained within is inaccurate, you are more than welcome to go in and correct it. That's how Wikipedia works.
    
    I don't claim to be a expert by any means, just willing to research facts to try and find the truth.

    
    
    
    
28. Wahlin Scott B

    
    2/16/2012 9:02 AM

    Keith Lamb said: I don't claim to be a expert by any means, just willing to research facts to try and find the truth.

    
    
    So in other words, you are a communist.

    
    
    
    
29. Dennis Cook

    

    1 posts
    
    2/16/2012 9:02 AM

    Keith Lamb said: Sorry Jon, not that simple. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was passed to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.
    
    Loose borrowing standards just made it easier for banks sell mortgages that they could turn around and bundle as mortgage-backed securities that got AAA ratings. They couldn't sell them fast enough. We all got left holding the bag with no chair to sit in when the music stopped.
    
    http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/subprime-overview.asp#axzz1mYdIet45
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_crisis_impact_timeline
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis
    
    If you don't like Wikipedia or think the information contained within is inaccurate, you are more than welcome to go in and correct it. That's how Wikipedia works.
    
    I don't claim to be a expert by any means, just willing to research facts to try and find the truth.

    
    Keith,
    reducing discrimination against low income neighborhoods means they now had to give loans to low income people, come on. There was nothing wrong with redlining, it just set parameters that people must meet in order to qualify for a loan. The govt took away those parameters and said youmust give loans to these low income neighborhoods or else you will be charged with discrimination.
    
    So if my buddy down the street has a low paying job and I know he has never paid back anyone he has ever borrowed money from wanted to borrow 15 bucks from me to get some beer, and i said no, according to the Community Reinvestment act I would be charged with discrimination. You really have to look at the absurdity of this law and realize this was the number cause of the housing market crash and this was a plan developed by the dems. When the repubs brought it up and said Fannie and Freddie were doctorin the system, Barney Frank said, there is nothing wrong with the housing market

    
    
    
    
30. Jon Gansen

    

    1 posts
    
    2/16/2012 10:02 AM

    Keith Lamb said: Sorry Jon, not that simple. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was passed to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.
    
    Loose borrowing standards just made it easier for banks sell mortgages that they could turn around and bundle as mortgage-backed securities that got AAA ratings. They couldn't sell them fast enough. We all got left holding the bag with no chair to sit in when the music stopped.
    
    http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/subprime-overview.asp#axzz1mYdIet45
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_crisis_impact_timeline
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis
    
    If you don't like Wikipedia or think the information contained within is inaccurate, you are more than welcome to go in and correct it. That's how Wikipedia works.
    
    
    I don't claim to be a expert by any means, just willing to research facts to try and find the truth.

    
    
    
    You kinda made my point in the way. Discrimination is one thing but come on low income means just that they have less ability to pay back what they owe. What business does the government have in creating there own mortgages companies and backing them with taxpayer money. It is socialist mentality.