A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Lawsuits like that get me when they start throwing around "wrongful taking of homes" and things like that. The people didn't pay their mortgages. How is it "wrongful"?
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Romney vs. Obama
- Thread starter OutofDate1980
- Start date
- Status
Did you read the entire article?
"Commenting further on the case, Mr. Wittenberg stated: "As if it is not bad enough that banks collect money and do not credit it to homeowners' accounts, and as if it is not bad enough that those banks then foreclose when they know they do not have a legally enforceable interest in the realty...."
Sounds "wrongful" to me if the allegations are true and that is what this suit is about.
Additionally there have been quite a few cases where banks, (Bank of America in particular) have foreclosed on the wrong homes. Homeowners that don't even have a mortgage with the bank performing the foreclosure (and are not behind on their mortgage) have come home to find their locks changed and all of their possessions gone. You'd think this type action would result in charges of breaking and entering and burglary, but as usual the banks are immune from prosecution for crimes that would put us regular citizens behind bars.
OutofDate1980
Android Expert
Be prepared to write a check the next time you want face time with your elected representative. In a begone era, this was called bribery.:banghead:
This American Life : NPR
"At a typical event, there's a member of Congress and a member of his or her staff who is in charge of collecting the checks. This person is known as the fundraiser.
"The fundraiser is standing in the room, and the fundraiser has 35,000 bucks in checks sitting in her pocket right now," says Jimmy Williams, a former lobbyist for the real estate industry. "And we're going to talk about public policy while we take the checks."
"How much influence do those checks have over public policy?
Most of the time, checks don't by votes, Williams says. But they buy access. They buy an opportunity to make your case.
The rules are clear: Lobbyists use money from their political action committees to get access to lawmakers.
One time, Williams says, he took a couple clients to meet a Congressman when his PAC had fallen behind in its donations.
"I've put in two calls to your PAC director, and I haven't received any return phone calls," the Congressman said, according to Williams. "Now why am I taking this meeting?"
The minute he left the office, Williams called his PAC director, and she cut those checks."
gamblor01
Well-Known Member
Yep...I listened to that episode too. Insane isn't it?
OutofDate1980
Android Expert
Folks,
This is a big forum, so there's plenty of room for new topics if you want to discuss fiscal policy. As per this thread's title, please stick to the topic of "Romney vs Obama"; that's what subscribers to the thread are interested in.
Thank you.
This is a big forum, so there's plenty of room for new topics if you want to discuss fiscal policy. As per this thread's title, please stick to the topic of "Romney vs Obama"; that's what subscribers to the thread are interested in.
Thank you.
OutofDate1980
Android Expert
Fiscal policy is not was being discussed, but sources, and reasoning behind the financing of elections, in this case Romney & Obama.
As one who started the thread, I didn't see any posts that were completely off topic, i.e. institutions that were involved in mortgage fraud did and do make campaign contributions.
As one who started the thread, I didn't see any posts that were completely off topic, i.e. institutions that were involved in mortgage fraud did and do make campaign contributions.
Give the posters a little lee way as it eventually leads back to both candidates means and methods of being elected.
T
TxGoat
Guest
Not to sound like I'm piling on here, but I agree with this. It's not exactly easy to focus on just Candidate A vs Candidate B. You have to discuss their party, their party's history, the people backing each candidate etc.
For instance, it seemed kind of funny to me that gas prices started creeping back up and thus provided GOP candidates with ammo to campaign against Obama. Obama then went on the air and stated that he's going to see about curbing how speculators can influence gas prices. Now a few months later, it seems as though prices are starting to level off again. Whether it's mere coincidence or a sinister plot to sway votes, it's still something to consider.
Thus, when someone tries to consider what money from what entity is backing what candidate, one can't help wonder about reforming campaign finance laws.
Limiting the focus of the conversation, while it sounds like a good idea, would also appear to be limiting the thought process, which I hope is not the intent of the mod staff. It seems as though it discredits the forum as an authoritative source for information if there's constant filtering of thought.
OutofDate1980
Android Expert
On that note, then the candidates and their supporters views on fiscal policy are relevant. What a tangled mess, or is it called politics as usual. :hmmmm2:
T
TxGoat
Guest
What I find interesting is that the Republicans are claiming that the Democrats are the party of spend spend spend. I don't think the tax cuts for the wealthiest, the 2 unpaid wars, the medicare laws, and other policies that helped whittle away at our middle class affords the republicans to refer to ANYONE as reckless spenders. Not that I'm defending the Democrats, but the Republicans are about as fiscally conservative as a shopaholic on Black Friday.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Both parties are the party of spend spend spend.
T
TxGoat
Guest
That's what I'm saying, but the GOP acts as if they're fiscally conservative. As compared to what exactly?
gamblor01
Well-Known Member
Ah but the GOP *is* financially responsible. They want to stop spending money on poor people though. If you're already rich beyond what any individual actually needs then you probably need a tax break. I'm surprised they don't want to pile on more subsidies for oil companies that are making record profits. Maybe they will propose a subsidy soon for Bill Gates or Warren Buffet?
However if there is a program out there to benefit the poor or middle class then it is clearly financially irresponsible (wasteful) and should be cut. See, if you're poor then giving you money is a handout, and you should just get off your lazy butt and do something with your life. But if you're already filthy rich, then giving you money isn't a handout...it's an investment!
Also, any additional war we can get into is also a great idea because we can bring democracy to the region, add stability, and eventually we will have eradicated terrorism and have a new country of people to exploit for cheap labor. Or maybe they will be prosperous and we will have more people to sell the American dream to. In either case, the war should ensure low gas prices for a little while longer.
I hope you now understand that Republicans *are* fiscally responsible!
(enter shooting star above my head with the tag line that says "the more you know" )
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
The democrats on the other hand are better. They want to take money from those who earned our and give out to those who didn't. See I can do rhetoric too.
Sadly there is very little difference between the two parties.
Sadly there is very little difference between the two parties.
alostpacket
Over Macho Grande?
Democrats
Republicans
There are 2 more letters in Republicans -- which is about an 18% difference.
(sorry, bad joke, you may now returned to your regularly scheduled political thread)
gamblor01
Well-Known Member
Democrats
Republicans
There are 2 more letters in Republicans -- which is about an 18% difference.
(sorry, bad joke, you may now returned to your regularly scheduled political thread)
ROFL!!!!!!!
I had a good laugh at this. Even better than the article I read on NPR the other day (see below). Bravo!
http://n.pr/HUuJVi
I have said in the past I think they are all crooks and liars. I have plenty of complaints about the Democrats too, though I do tend to lean more left than right. I consider myself to be fiscally conservative, but I hope that I am socially liberal. I do however think there are times when people need help, and I don't think its too much to ask to raise taxes on the wealthy back to what they were under Clinton. I don't mind cutting some stuff either and revamping programs that are wasteful, such as my example earlier in the thread where Texas allows welfare recipients to claim cable tv bills as a utility expense (which means they get more money). Another abuse... my friend's wife was just working on a welfare case where the recipient gets more in welfare than my friend's wife makes in salary. That is insane to me and needs to be changed.
Really I think we need both cuts and tax increases...we just can't fund all of these programs and fight 2 wars on our current budget. The money has to come from somewhere, and placing that burden on future generations has been done for too many years. Tax rates under Clinton weren't unreasonably high and we were running surpluses. Wealthy people didn't leave the country in droves.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
Because your wage packet is a good representation of the amount of wrok you do /s
As for the unemployed, I can assure you that the majority of the currently unemployed do not want to be so, even if you doubled their meager government assistance.
Wealth redistribution is necessary for a modern society, get over it, its that or communism.
Heh, yeah. Hope his publicity stunt doesnt do too much harm. I guess the Afghans are fed up of the West themselves, which is completely idiotic but it is one of the least educated places in the world and full of misinformation.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
We weren't running surpluses in reality. We had a budgetary surplus, but the national debt continued to go up. One of these days the national debt is going to bankrupt this country. Probably later rather than sooner, but it'll happen unless something is done.
I would argue that your wage packet is a good representation of how valuable the work you do is. Not a representation of how much work you do, but how valuable it is. Why does a professional athlete make $10 mil a year and a shift manager at a fast food restaurant makes $10 an hour? Because it's much easier to replace that manager than it is to replace that athlete.
I can't agree with this. In my mind, there's no reason to tax the wealthy more than the poor. I don't see the logic behind it. We're taxing them basically because they are wealthy. How does that make sense? Those at the bottom of the food chain tend to benefit far more than those at the top, but those at the top pay the most and get the least in return. It makes no sense to me, but many things make no sense to me.
gamblor01
Well-Known Member
I think those at the top get plenty of benefits. A few extra percent in taxes to have insane wealth sounds like a good problem to have to me. Let's go ask that athlete making $10 million a year if they want to trade their job with the fast food manager simply because the government gives them more benefits since the fast food manager makes less money.
Minimum wage is a joke...there is no way anyone can support a family from that alone. If you don't want the rich supporting the poor then pay them a reasonable wage so they can support themselves. Also, what about people that are disabled and can't work or take care of themselves? We just leave them in the gutter because they don't contribute anything to society? I'll bet they contribute happiness to their family, disabled or not.
Rarely are issues ever as black and white as people make them out to be. I just cant agree that we should be on one end of the spectrum or the other. Absolute survival of the fittest and absolute equality can't work. So we meet in the middle and do the best we can. The goal is to make our country prosperous, not just a few individuals. If that means taxing the wealthy at a higher rate than the poor I don't see anything wrong with that.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
What benefits do the people at the top reap from the government that the people on the bottom don't?
T
TxGoat
Guest
Democrats
Republicans
There are 2 more letters in Republicans -- which is about an 18% difference.
(sorry, bad joke, you may now returned to your regularly scheduled political thread)
Yes, it is a bad joke, just for that, I'm thanking you and then un-thanking you!
T
TxGoat
Guest
See?
I highlighted the "Earned" part because you're making an assumption that people earned something because they're rich and that's not always the case. Associating wealth to hard work is like associating poverty to laziness. Some of the hardest working people I've seen are some of the people making the lowest wages.
Our society's fascination with excessive wealth is somewhat curious to me. It's one thing to be well off, but it's another thing to be obscenely wealthy. Some people understand that they're wealthy many times over and they have no problem helping their fellow man. Bill Gates is a perfect example. I believe he has come to the conclusion that the growth of his money is not proportionate to the level of his happiness. Instead, he's using his money to make a difference in some of the most impoverished areas of our world. The satisfaction that comes from helping out those that can't help themselves can't be measured by material wealth.
I highlighted the "Earned" part because you're making an assumption that people earned something because they're rich and that's not always the case. Associating wealth to hard work is like associating poverty to laziness. Some of the hardest working people I've seen are some of the people making the lowest wages.
Our society's fascination with excessive wealth is somewhat curious to me. It's one thing to be well off, but it's another thing to be obscenely wealthy. Some people understand that they're wealthy many times over and they have no problem helping their fellow man. Bill Gates is a perfect example. I believe he has come to the conclusion that the growth of his money is not proportionate to the level of his happiness. Instead, he's using his money to make a difference in some of the most impoverished areas of our world. The satisfaction that comes from helping out those that can't help themselves can't be measured by material wealth.
Attachments
T
TxGoat
Guest
Lawmakers that make policies to accommodate their interests perhaps? Enron was a good example. They were shoveling millions of dollars towards candidates' campaigns in hopes of influencing policy that would help them bring in money. Their investment backfired and thousands of lives were destroyed (If you don't recall when there was initial worry about this company's finances, the CEO claimed all was fine and urged everyone to keep their money invested while secretly he was bailing out). Some of the major players were even arrested and convicted. Instead of serving hard time, they get sentenced to a minimum security country club that has amenities nicer than most of the hotels that the average person will vacation in. You're right, the rich don't benefit anymore than the average person in our society..... Italics = Sarcasm
gamblor01
Well-Known Member
Well I was really just suggesting that rich people enjoy more benefits in a general sense, rather than suggesting that they benefit from the government directly. If that were not the case then wealthy individuals have a very simple option -- opt out of their wealth. I'm sure a company would be willing to reduce your salary if you demanded it. Also, you could just quit your job and go work at a fast food restaurant. Clearly however, their wealth is an advantage and they know it, so very few sane people would ever do such a thing.
On the surface your argument seems valid...if you pay more then you're being disproportionately burdened. However, as I said before, rarely are things ever this black and white. Note that by taxing everyone the same percentage you disproportionately burden the lowest income earners, so how is that fair either? Someone making minimum wage (at least in Texas) makes $7.25/hour. For 40 hours/week and 52 weeks/year that is $15,080. If you took 15% of their income it would certainly hurt them much more than 15% of $1 million.
But wealthy people didn't make their money in a vacuum. They made it in an economy and country that was built on taxpayer dollars that helped support everything they needed. Off the top of my head I was going to say that bailed out banks, offer tax incentives for corporations, and give subsidies to oil companies that don't need it. I can make several arguments for why the wealthy benefit much more than some welfare benefits or whatever that low income earners get. However, other individuals have already taken the time to describe this so I'll just link to it. I especially liked this paragraph from the first link, as it sums things up quite nicely:
- Status