Obama's Budget is Every Investor's Worst Nightmare

It doesn't matter what political party you pledge your allegiance to.

If you're a dividend investor "heck, if you're an investor of any sort " you need to adamantly oppose President Obama's proposed 2013 budget.

The law of unintended consequences ensures all Americans are going to suffer from the higher dividend tax rates.

As I said before, the higher dividend tax rates are going to force companies to cut back on their dividend increases. And that means all dividend investors are going to be putting less income into their pockets.

Remember, dividend income accounts for roughly 90% of total stock market returns over the long term. So the President's proposed budget actually threatens the long-term prosperity of all investors.

Right now the White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney, is saying that the proposed tax increases amount to "asking those who have done exceptionally well over the last 10 years, the wealthiest Americans, pay a little bit extra "pay their fair share."

Nonsense! Taxing the rich first is simply the path of least resistance. So take heed: If these tax increases go through it will be much easier to push them through on allAmericans in the not so distant future.

Bottom line: This isn't about class warfare or politics. The President's proposed budget threatens to cut into all investors-returns. So exercise your right in our wonderful democracy to speak up! Before it's too late.

As the article points out, the new rate applies only if you make $200,000+ a year ($250,000+ for couples).

How many retirees does that affect?

Dividend Assault: Why does Obama hate retired people?

So now only poor retirees are the only ones that collect dividends? Give me a fucking break.

"So assuming a maximum 35% corporate tax rate"

More intellectual dishonesty, lapped up by the terminally stupid.

"Taxing the rich first is simply the path of least resistance."

When Dubya was asked why the bulk of the tax cuts went to the wealthy, he said it was because they pay the taxes. Now that it's time to pay the taxes, shouldn't that be a two-way street?

When Dubya was asked why the bulk of the tax cuts went to the wealthy, he said it was because they pay the taxes.

#4 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2012-02-22 10:23 AM

What tax cuts?

"What tax cuts?"

Dividends, for one. The top tax rate on them got slashed by 60%.

Time to wake up, Mr. Van Winkle.

As the article points out, the new rate applies only if you make $200,000+ a year ($250,000+ for couples).
How many retirees does that affect?

#2 | POSTED BY DOC_SARVIS AT 2012-02-22 09:35 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Not to mention that a lot of seniors invest in income paying investments like CD's and bonds which are taxed at ordinary income rates.

Why do the Republiturds that passed the tax cut hate seniors that rely on interest income?

What tax cuts?

Gassy is either 9 or incredibly stupid.

If the new laws pass, companies won't be issuing dividends. Simple as that. The only ones who they would be good for are those holding them in retirement accounts, and that's a minority.

But no matter. Obama's budget is a joke anyway, like the retard who wrote it.

#2 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

The dividend part of Obama's budget is not income based.

Should Dividend Investors Fear Obama's Budget Plans?

So dividend companies can either do nothing, or increase the payouts to investors. Many are opting for the latter, but even that may come to an end due to the proposal, which would stop the upward trend of payouts.

Most important of all, if the proposal passes, the dividend tax rate will exceed the capital gains tax by roughly 20%, (43.4% vs. 23.8%).

"Under such circumstances, companies would be fools to pay out their profits via dividends. They'd be giving away their profits to the government. Instead, they'll reinvest the money in the business to try to increase share prices. That way, both the company (via higher profits) and shareholders would benefit (via lower taxes rates)."

Dividend income for the sake of reinvestment is also at stake, meaning lower long-term returns for investors.

Dividends, for one. The top tax rate on them got slashed by 60%.
#6 | Posted by Danforth

This ought to be interesting

Link?

Here Danforth I'll save you some econ 101 time or as we like to call it google time.

companies won't be issuing dividends.

Like they didn't pay dividends before 2001.

"Link?"

Top rate before the cut: 38.5%
Top rate after the cut: 15%

Can you do the math?

"This ought to be interesting "

So are you going to confirm, or slink away?

"Instead, they'll reinvest the money in the business to try to increase share prices."

IOW, the same stuff folks clamoring for fairer taxation have been saying.

So dividend companies can either do nothing, or increase the payouts to investors. Many are opting for the latter, but even that may come to an end due to the proposal, which would stop the upward trend of payouts.

Considering that the taxes paid on dividends are paid by the individuals and not the corporations that pay them I predict they will a) still pay the dividends and even increase them as planned to attract investors and b) not give a shit.

#14 | Posted by Danforth

Link. We are way past where you can spout some number and anyone on the DR will believe you. That ship sailed a long time ago.

"We are way past where you can spout some number and anyone on the DR will believe you."
~PanO'Stupidity

The irony is suffocating.

In the end, it's a double whammy. The government will get their money, so that money has to come from somewhere: us.

Corporations have 3 choices as I see it:

1. Fold the added cost into the price of their goods so they can maintain a certain level of dividend payout. That keeps their investors in the short term, but will negatively impact sales, which hurts the bottom line in the long run.

2. Reduce dividend payout. This could cost them investors in the short term as those investors move money elsewhere, but they can keep prices low, potentially stealing business from other producers. The risk is that purchasing remains flat or declines which, with the additional loss of investors, could kill the company.

3. Some mix of 1 and 2, with a little price hike and a little dividend reduction. Low risk makes CEO's happy.

Of course, there's actually a fourth option: Sell the company to a global conglomerate, outsource the production and use your golden parachute to land softly on the teebox at your favorite golf course. US loses ALL the taxes you would have paid, your workers go on unemployment and the US trade deficit increases.

Top rate before the cut: 38.5%
Top rate after the cut: 15%
#14 | Posted by Danforth

#20 | Posted by MUSTANG

I see a lot of option 4 coming and I'll bet the Chinese have a big ass check book available.

#21

Gee, you're right: the top rate was higher, so the cuts were even more drastic.

OVER 60%.

"How many retirees does that affect?"

A lot when you consider pension funds invest in such things to pay the retired.

Considering that the taxes paid on dividends are paid by the individuals and not the corporations that pay them I predict they will a) still pay the dividends and even increase them as planned to attract investors and b) not give a shit.

#16 | Posted by 726

There is absolutely no way you advise wealthy people and companies on money. You're too dumb.

#25 | Posted by rightisright

Can a lefty investment counselor be trusted to give you the best advice to grow your wealth if they personally believe in all this class warfare and redistribution crap? They either compromise their own principals or they promote capitalism?

-all this class warfare and redistribution crap

Of course, the facts are that the redistribution of wealth in this coountry has by far flowed upwards to the very wealthy for the last 40 years, not downwards.

And going back to Clinton Era tax rates is "calss warfare". lmao.

Hey, maybe all these rwingnuts are right and we should gfo back to teh 1950's.

You know, before ending segregation and passing civil rights, contreception and the women's movement.

The 1950's.... the Good Old Days when top tax rates were 90 percent..... oops!

Did I say something wrong?

Did I say something wrong?
#27 | Posted by Corky

No your just being a lib idiot and showing your lack of caring for the poor. Why do you hate blacks and hispanics?

Soaring Poverty Casts Spotlight on "Lost Decade"

Economists pointed to a telling statistic: It was the first time since the Great Depression that median household income, adjusted for inflation, had not risen over such a long period, said Lawrence Katz, an economics professor at Harvard.

These throwback rwingers are hilarious, pretending that they give a flying fuck about anyone but themselves and their thong sales.

They create the Great Bush Recession, then blame the next admin for the years of suffering that come after.

Try addressing my point that you are wrong about wealth redistribution in this country instead of deflecting to things you could really give a shit about.

They create the Great Bush Recession, then blame the next admin for the years of suffering that come after.

There was the Carter recsssion that recovered during the Reagan years.
Then the Bush I recession that recovered under Clinton.
Then the Bush II recession and no recovery under Obama.

If Obama gets re-elected and there is still no recovery (for sure there won't be a recovery), are LIbs going to blame Obama for the Obama recession? Nah.

-the Obama recession

Makes shit up.

If a significant portion of your income comes from dividends, you're doing fine.

#29 | Posted by Corky

How do you improve the life of poor people?

He hates old people just like his ass-lickers here do.
It's a damn shame too

Vote Democrat.

Or vote for the Party of the 1 Percent, your choice.... you can continue to vote as a proxy for the wealthy, of which you will never be one, or vote for policies that don't involve redistributing wealth upwards so it might maybe trickle down on you just a little.

Oh looky corky has pulled the cork outa his ass and is bloviating far more than usual.

Oh looky, there's Unkle Phester fantasizing about my ass again.

I was looking for information on the effect of dividend taxes on pensions and retirement funds like teachers retirements and I found this gem. Like most things in the Obama program it been tried in Europe before.

New evidence of the impact of dividend taxation and on the identity of the marginal investor

This paper examines the impact of a major change in dividend taxation introduced in the UK in July 1997. The reform was structured in such a way that the immediate impact fell almost entirely on the largest investor class in the UK, namely pension funds.

However, in July 1997 the incoming Labour government in the UK radically reformed the taxation of dividend income in such a way that the immediate impact fell almost entirely upon one important class of investors, namely pension funds. As is well known, pension funds are the single biggest class of investors in UK equities. In 1997 it was estimated that over one third of UK equities were held by pension funds, and the impact of the tax change was to increase the taxation of dividend income by £5bn per annum. We use this major tax change to examine two questions: is there evidence that pension funds are the "œmarginal" investors in the UK, and, if so, how do taxes affect the valuation of dividend income?

These results suggest that pension funds were, for some companies, the effective marginal investor class, and that taxation significantly affects the valuation of dividend income.

"How do you improve the life of poor people?"

Vote Democrat.
#35 | Posted by Corky

I'm serious. How do you improve the life of poor people? I say that the best thing to help the poor is low inflation and a job with a low unemployment rate that puts upward pressure on wages. Can we agree on that?

We can vote for people who support progressive policies that don't redistribute the wealth upwards, rather than for practitioners of VooDoo Economics.

#40 | Posted by Corky

So you think that money from the government progrqams is more important to poor people that money from a job provided by the private sector?

progrqams = programs

I guess CORKY is not interested in supporting his government program over good paying job post.

#43 | Posted by paneocon at 2012-02-22 01:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Here is your answer:

I guess the problem is that the unemployment check has to come from someone.

February 5, 1976. Prime Minister Thatcher said, "...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."

So you think that money from the government progrqams is more important to poor people that money from a job provided by the private sector?

#41 | Posted by paneocon

You are such a One Trick Moron, PBrain.

Policies that are fair to working people rather than policies that are skewed to wealthy people who might just maybe spend a little of that money where working people can smell it, is the best approach.

Your mindless 1950's John Birch Society bigotry aside.

Let me give you an example. In FL, if one wants to participate in any welfare programs, drug testing is mandatory.

And what percentage of said recipients tested positive for drugs:

50%? 30%? Any Rwinger worth his salt would never guess below 20%, right?

It was 2%.

All those hoards of drug using welfare Queens stealing all your hard earned cash.... 2%?

And you wonder why people don't listen to you.

25 graphics showing upward redistribution of income and wealth in USA since 1979

#46 | Posted by Corky

After your waste of bandwidth please answer the question:

How do you improve the life of poor people? I say that the best thing to help the poor is low inflation and a job with a low unemployment rate that puts upward pressure on wages. Can we agree on that?

It's a simple question and I promise it's not a set up.

Answering your stupid self-serving questions is not my job.

Pointing how how you are wrong on just about every ignorant Rwing myth you post is a lot more fun.

So, just admit you are wrong about wealth ditribution in this county, and I'll consider answering your stupid selfserving question.

Later.

so, just admit you are wrong about wealth ditribution in this county, and I'll consider answering your stupid selfserving question.
Posted by Corky

My customers have more money that I do, I like rich people, they support my business. I can't and will not bitch about the wealthy. I do concern myself with how much money the poor don't have and hence my question so here we go again.

How do you improve the life of poor people? I say that the best thing to help the poor is low inflation and a job with a low unemployment rate that puts upward pressure on wages. Can we agree on that?

"My customers have more money that I do..."

The falafel street vending business is funny that way.

so, just admit you are wrong about wealth ditribution in this county, and I'll consider answering your stupid selfserving question.
Posted by Corky

My customers have more money that I do, I like rich people, they support my business. I can't and will not bitch about the wealthy. I do concern myself with how much money the poor don't have and hence my question so here we go again.
How do you improve the life of poor people? I say that the best thing to help the poor is low inflation and a job with a low unemployment rate that puts upward pressure on wages. Can we agree on that?
#51 | Posted by paneocon at 2012-02-22 02:12 PM

You mean minimum wages. Upward pressure?! How many raises per year do we require to anticipate oil speculation leaching that dry?

Republicans worship wealth, inequity and bitch unceasing when having to pay a fair fucking share.

Anyone making more than 200k per year should be pitching in a LOT more. In fact - purely socialistically - to do otherwise is inventing a falsely protected 3% while persecuting the 97%. Greed distorts humane priorities.

Greed distorts humane priorities.

Greed IS a human priority. We are "hunter/gatherers."

There is absolutely no way you advise wealthy people and companies on money

For once you got it right. Just once.

You're too dumb.

#25 | POSTED BY RIGHTISRIGHT AT 2012-02-22 11:19 AM | REPLY | FLAG

I guess so. But not as dumb as someone that insists corporations will stop paying dividends if taxes go back to the tax rates of the 1990's.

I seem to recall getting dividend checks then, as well as in the 1980's when the tax rate was higher.

Why Diebold has been paying dividends for 58 years when tax rates where much much much higher.

But go ahead with your idiotic notion that companies will stop paying dividends solely because the people that receive them will have to pay more taxes on them.

We can vote for people who support progressive policies that don't redistribute the wealth upwards, rather than for practitioners of VooDoo Economics.

#40 | Posted by Corky

Or we can vote for guys that take fork-fulls from the working class under the pretense of taxing the wealthy.

I took a modest amount of money from my last deployment and put them in a reputable dividend paying stock. I make about $150 a quarter from it, which over the course of a year amounts to more than what a CD or other no-brainer would make. I would buy and sell stocks to make money, but I dont have the amount to make a serious profit or the understanding of the market. I AM the middle class, and raising the tax on dividends would cut my investment return almost in half. Obama doesnt give a shit about working class Americans. The Left doesnt give a shit about working class Americans. This is about supplicating the institution (the government) at the expense of the producers. He hasnt cut spending. He hasnt done a damn thing to alleviate the budget problems.

You guys think you're redistributing wealth downwards, but all you are doing is preventing people of modest means from getting richer. The people with the money can afford to spare 15% of their paycheck, or 45% of their dividends. Guys like me cannot.

But go ahead with your idiotic notion that companies will stop paying dividends solely because the people that receive them will have to pay more taxes on them.

#56 | Posted by 726

From the article 726

""The truth is that the plan gives new meaning to the term collateral damage, because shareholders of all incomes will share the pain. Here's why. Historical experience indicates that corporate dividend payouts are highly sensitive to the dividend tax. Dividends fell out of favor in the 1990s when the dividend tax rate was roughly twice the rate of capital gains.

When the rate fell to 15% on January 1, 2003, dividends reported on tax returns nearly doubled to $196 billion from $103 billion the year before the tax cut. By 2006 dividend income had grown to nearly $337 billion, more than three times the pre-tax cut level. The nearby chart shows the trend.""

But, go ahead and pretend that this is about righting some great social wrong as opposed to a President who simply wont cut spending as opposed to fucking over investors and people trying to make something of their hard-earned money.

You mean minimum wages. Upward pressure? How many raises per year do we require to anticipate oil speculation leaching that dry?
#53 | Posted by redlightrobot

These are two different issues. An oversupply of labor means that wages stagnate. If it hard to find people in a low unemployment market business have to pay more. In North Dakota McDonalds is paying signing bonuses. High energy costs are generally due to supply issues and speculation. The poor pay a big price for this. Speculation is just as likely to come from Hedge funds as anyone corporation.

Republicans worship wealth, inequity and bitch unceasing when having to pay a fair fucking share. #53 | Posted by redlightrobot
Conservatives don't concern ourselves with the wealthy. We want everyone to be wealthy if they are willing to put in the honest work.
Wealth comes from earning not from government redistribution. Pride and self worth comes from providing for your family.

Anyone making more than 200k per year should be pitching in a LOT more. In fact - purely socialistically - to do otherwise is inventing a falsely protected 3% while persecuting the 97%. Greed distorts humane priorities.#53 | Posted by redlightrobot

That's crap. The wealthy pay most of the taxes and provide most of the investment capital to create jobs for others. If income redistribution was such a good idea it would have worked in Russia and China among many socialist fails.

Every dollar borrowed, every dollar printed makes every dollar of every retired and poor individual worth less.

No level of taxation changes the fundamentals of economics.

#56 | Posted by 726

Money will always go to the place where it will work the most and be taxed the least. The study I posted from England proves that if dividends are taxed they will go away and the overall value of the investment will be lower. So you say what the hell those people have too much money anyway. Too bad most of the benefits of dividends are pension programs. The world of unintended consequences comes back to bit Barry again.

#57 | Posted by americanPLY
#58 | Posted by americanPLY

Nicely stated and backed up. We can only hope a few people open their minds and see the big picture. Class warfare is an easy way to make people myopic. Also thanks for your service.

-Conservatives don't concern ourselves with the wealthy.

The Koch Bros are your Masters.

And the Rwing Wealthy have told you not to pay attention the man behind the curtain..... who is paying bribes to get laws written that benefit him and his crony corporate friends.

They've brainwashed you into thinking that somewhere, someone might somehow be making a nickle off of you, so you should be sure and vote for tax cuts for the wealthy, because someday you too might be wealthy.

You, in particular, and most GOP proxy voters in general, won't ever be wealthy no matter how long you wait for some of the promised Golden Shower to Trickle Down on you.

Must of hurt squeezing out that meme.

*Fallacoraptoresque

"Greed distorts humane priorities."
Greed IS a human priority. We are "hunter/gatherers."
#54 | Posted by kanrei at 2012-02-22 02:53 PM

Contemporary man knows how to murder, that doesn't make it any less abhorrent, even to a primitive human. That said, it's total bullshit to conflate "gathering" with "greed". A gatherer collects not out of greed, but necessity. Sharing is done out of kindness - humans are social creatures and our nature, like many other animals is to protect social groups.

So, greed is equated with a lack of kindness toward other social groups and is not an aspect of gathering.

Anyone making more than 200k per year should be pitching in a LOT more. In fact - purely socialistically - to do otherwise is inventing a falsely protected 3% while persecuting the 97%. Greed distorts humane priorities.
#53 | Posted by redlightrobot
That's crap. The wealthy pay most of the taxes and provide most of the investment capital to create jobs for others. If income redistribution was such a good idea it would have worked in Russia and China among many socialist fails.
#60 | Posted by paneocon at 2012-02-22 03:27 PM

It has yet to be proven how "creative destruction" is benefiting those towns where the main employer was victimized by a LBO capitalist leaching. Your China and Russia examples are ludicrous. Where was the equality in the first place? Socialism wasn't given a fair chance whatsoever - because Capitalist interests want to monopolize resources - just like China and Russia today.

That said, it's total bullshit to conflate "gathering" with "greed". A gatherer collects not out of greed, but necessity.

Stores out of greed. All animals are hedonistic and selfish. Sharing must be taught. It is not natural.

You mean minimum wages. Upward pressure? How many raises per year do we require to anticipate oil speculation leaching that dry?
#53 | Posted by redlightrobot
These are two different issues. An oversupply of labor means that wages stagnate. If it hard to find people in a low unemployment market business have to pay more. In North Dakota McDonalds is paying signing bonuses. High energy costs are generally due to supply issues and speculation. The poor pay a big price for this. Speculation is just as likely to come from Hedge funds as anyone corporation.

Then no matter how much we make, and in spite of it, we will always be exploited by energy costs?! Isn't that what the model indicates? So, regardless how much you bitch about getting taxed for re-investment you are always making exponentially more and more. Greed is fundamentally describing unequal distribution.

"That said, it's total bullshit to conflate "gathering" with "greed". A gatherer collects not out of greed, but necessity."
Stores out of greed. All animals are hedonistic and selfish. Sharing must be taught. It is not natural.
#68 | Posted by kanrei at 2012-02-22 04:02 PM

Uh.. I'm on the wrong planet.

That statement is so intrinsically ignorant to the nature of existence that I can't fathom from where you got it other than fundamentalist religion.

"Hate" is a strong word. Do you have proof that Obama "hates" retired people?

Stores out of greed. All animals are hedonistic and selfish. Sharing must be taught. It is not natural.

#68 | Posted by kanrei at 2012-02-22 04:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Among social animals (non-human) it is referred to as resource-guarding, the protecting of property, territory, food, mates, etc. It occurs to some extent in all social animals. Extreme versions are seen in most solitary animals.

"Hate" is a strong word. Do you have proof that Obama "hates" retired people?
#71 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2012-02-22 04:12 PM

He means that because dividends will be calculated at a different taxation those retirees who live off that are more affected. I wonder what percentage of profit on average that accounts for? He might have a better understanding of which investment terms are more certain to be reflecting older people. There's undoubtedly statistical evidence to back his claim.

That statement is so intrinsically ignorant to the nature of existence that I can't fathom from where you got it other than fundamentalist religion.

#70 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2012-02-22 04:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

You sound like a religious fundy.

You cannot undo millions of years of evolution with 'hope and change' and 'fairness' and 'equality'.

Do you freely share your paycheck with everyone that has less than you? (This precludes taxes as they are not voluntary).

Do you freely share your food with everyone that has less than you?

Do you freely share your mate with Kanrei when he's not getting any?

QED

Stores out of greed. All animals are hedonistic and selfish. Sharing must be taught. It is not natural.
#68 | Posted by kanrei at 2012-02-22 04:02 PM | Reply | Flag:
Among social animals (non-human) it is referred to as resource-guarding, the protecting of property, territory, food, mates, etc. It occurs to some extent in all social animals. Extreme versions are seen in most solitary animals.
#72 | Posted by SHEEPLESHEPERD at 2012-02-22 04:16 PM

Excellent response, dude! The solitary describes affliction with greed more than others, demonstrating that behavior as dangerous and dysfunctional, relegated to anti-social behavior. They also take on aggressive aspects, have trust issues, paranoia, etc. Most people wouldn't describe them as "warm".

"All animals are hedonistic and selfish. Sharing must be taught. It is not natural."

That's an assertion that's increasingly challenged.

That statement is so intrinsically ignorant to the nature of existence that I can't fathom from where you got it other than fundamentalist religion.
#70 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2012-02-22 04:08 PM
You sound like a religious fundy.
You cannot undo millions of years of evolution with 'hope and change' and 'fairness' and 'equality'.
Do you freely share your paycheck with everyone that has less than you? (This precludes taxes as they are not voluntary).
Do you freely share your food with everyone that has less than you?
Do you freely share your mate with Kanrei when he's not getting any?
QED
#74 | Posted by SHEEPLESHEPERD at 2012-02-22 04:20 PM

That was the intention. To appeal to any sense of the grandiose which is where his over-arching view comes from.

Evolution includes more than just humans having emotion, rationale and self-awareness.

I heard some crazy on C2CAM describing animals as having "one soul, that is the reason they act in concert, flock and herd as one". I mean, it's that kind of logic that Kanrei and you are using to describe animal intelligence and capacitance.

If you want to focus on "greed" then yes, I can believe it's description as evolutionary, but in all honesty humans are not as likely to compete for resources than a pack of wolves - who even still operate together for the benefit of their society. So, humans can describe their social evolution as including aspects that we identify in other animals, but they are not always reflecting the same behavioral rationale, and are in fact often quite different.

"We want everyone to be wealthy if they are willing to put in the honest work."

Then why do you want to tax workers more than folks who open dividend checks for a living?

Gee, Paneocon sure moved on to a different subject when he discovered I was right.

You, in particular, and most GOP proxy voters in general, won't ever be wealthy #64 | Posted by Corky

I consider myself wealthy. I could retire at 55 but I may choose to work if the environment makes it worthwhile. I have done nothing special except work hard and invest well. I have never sucked off the government teat even when I qualified.

Wealth is available to anyone willing to take chances and work hard.

#67 | Posted by redlightrobot

I'm not sure we will find any common ground. If I herald the view that socialism was the proper form of government I would move somewhere where you can find happiness because full socialism isn't going to happen here.

#79 | Posted by Danforth Gee, Paneocon sure moved on to a different subject when he discovered I was right.

No I have to work for my living. What the hell do you think you are right about?

Wealth is available to anyone willing to take chances and work hard.

#80 | Posted by paneocon

Truck hits him, insurance refuses to pay, his pension is ripped off by a vulture capitalist, his spouse equivilant runs off with the Organ Grinder's monkey and the thong profits....

suddenly he thinks to himself that maybe all along he not only worked hard and invested well like millions of other people had done, but also that he had been fortunate in his circumstances while some people had not....

naw, he'd still never get it.

#83 | Posted by Corky

have started four business so you’re trying that one on the wrong guy.

Look how many Cubans and Vietnam boat people have come here with nothing and are quite wealthy now, it's called puritan work ethic.

-it's called puritan work ethic.

We know what it's called, Bonzo.

And it works, just not all the time for everyone. When there are setbacks and problems that the individual can't overcome alone and when there is no other alternative, we have what Americans have always had, a spirit of national community that allows us to pool our resources to provide a safety net that makes sure that children don't go hungry and families are not ruined when it usually takes so little to get them back on their feet.

That's called a national sense of community, which to you sounds too much like that word "Commie", which you were trained up to fear.

You want people without boots to pull themselves up by their boot straps so you won't lose a nickle somewhere from your own precious hoard.

Millions of people have worked as hard as you but have faced different circumstances than you and occasionally need help.

What they don't need to be told is that they should vote for policies that enhance the wealth of the few so that some of that might maybe trickle down on them.

and btb. those Vietnamese worked hard for sure, but it had nothing to do the supposed ethics of supposed Puritans.

I have never sucked off the government teat even when I qualified.

Wealth is available to anyone willing to take chances and work hard.

#80 | Posted by paneocon

I agree. That public highway system you used to move those goods that made you rich certainly doesn't appear to be a breast.

"No I have to work for my living."

You posted a half-dozen times at least.

"What the hell do you think you are right about?"

That top earners had their taxes on dividends slashed by over 60%. You know...the post on which you commented.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

#63 | Posted by paneocon

Proud to do it, thank you for your support.

That top earners had their taxes on dividends slashed by over 60%. You know...the post on which you commented.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

#88 | Posted by Danforth at

It certainly isnt yours. The tax levied on dividends isnt bracketed. This tax increase is going to ff rich and working class alike. That was the point of the article.

You must screw up alot of tax returns.

""You want people without boots to pull themselves up by their boot straps so you won't lose a nickle somewhere from your own precious hoard.""

Cry me a river. The "poor" in this country isnt the issue here. The issue is that the Democrat's insidious nature is revealed by his plans to tax dividends at more than double their current rate. The point is that it is going to negatively impact retirees, workers, and small time investors. In the guise of taxing the wealthiest hes shafting us all, all the while spending is still way up. Nancy Pelosi gets her Hawaiian vacations and guys like me are going to see their dividend returns cut down by a third. Then to add insult to injury the people that are going to sell their non-producing dividend stocks are going to cause the stock price to fall. So in the end i'm stuck with a stock price that has half the value and none of the returns. But, then again, since I have two nickels to rub together, I am simply too privileged and should have to give one up so that NPR can provide a shitty product and the National Endowment for the Arts can support shitty art.

#91 | POSTED BY AMERICANPLY AT 2012-02-22 07:43 PM

BRAVO

#92 | Posted by glasshouse

I'll save the bow for the release of the 2012 election results. I can't wait to see the reactions once the Democrats are once again out on their asses. Every couple of years the American people need a wake up call, but they respond appropriately.

"The tax levied on dividends isnt bracketed."

You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about, do you?

"The issue is that the Democrat's insidious nature is revealed by his plans to tax dividends at more than double their current rate."

Well, then the fact that dividends are bracketed would matter, wouldn't it?

Yeah, I do. Here ya go, from the article:

""Mr. Obama is proposing to raise the dividend tax rate to the higher personal income tax rate of 39.6% that will kick in next year. Add in the planned phase-out of deductions and exemptions, and the rate hits 41%. Then add the 3.8% investment tax surcharge in ObamaCare, and the new dividend tax rate in 2013 would be 44.8%â€"nearly three times today's 15% rate. ""

So, regardless of the fact that I made about 27k last year, including the dividends I took in, I would still be paying upwards of 44%. So, here I am, the lower end of middle class, and getting taxed at the rate of the wealthiest Americans. The dividends tax rate doesnt change with volume. So, in essence, he's lumping everyone in together. So basically, if you have any sort of investment in the stock market at all, you're screwed. How can I, the 99%! possibly enrich myself in preparation for retirement when this President proposes to take every advantage out of my investment?

Wealth redistribution? Bullshit. I cant catch up if im being prevented from making money. Then again, I can see how a growing class of independent online investors might be a threat to the hegemony of the big trading houses. Berkshire Hathaway for instance.

If you can't see the criminal, ham-handed nature of the Democratic Party you're blind. It isnt about righting social wrongs or providing services. If it was, I wouldnt be paying a dime on my modest investments.

We just pulled our military out of Iraq and the budget is STILL going up. It's graft, pure and simple.

Straight Republican ticket in 2012. Send the Dem's packing, America needs a break.

Here's your wealth redistribution Danforth:

an open letter to President (retired) Obama

Su Excelencia,

Please give me a break. I can't afford the health insurance I now have to buy. I can't afford to travel home because of the $3.75 gas, I can't tolerate having a hand in my crotch at the airport. I know there are alot of hateful, small-minded people who are addicted to freebies, but I really just want to make something of my life. Please step aside and allow me to enjoy the blessing of Liberty that this country was founded on. Kindly take your hand out of my wallet, your eyes off of my computer, and your ideas from my healthcare. I'll tend my own Goddamn affairs thank you.

Signed,

A fucking American.

"So, regardless of the fact that I made about 27k last year, including the dividends I took in, I would still be paying upwards of 44%. "

No, you fucking idiot, that 39.6% rate is for folks making over $350K, and the additional 3.8% is for folks making over $200,000. Your rate would still be 15%.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you?

"How can I, the 99%! possibly enrich myself in preparation for retirement when this President proposes to take every advantage out of my investment?"

Maybe you could start by educating yourself, and stop barfing dumbass statements.

OK, Danforth. I misread the story, so it looks like you're right about the tax rate.

You're still a buttfucking socialist.

"You're still a buttfucking socialist."

No surprise: you're as right as usual.

Now, anything to say about the fact Obama has actually lowered your taxes?

"OK, Danforth. I misread the story, so it looks like you're right"

That seems to happen a lot, doesn't it.

My federal withholding jumped $20 in November. Im saving about $50 a month is FICA. Thats offset by the nearly $2 a gallon extra i've paid on gas since he took office and the fact he's trying to strip my retirement plan.

Of course, if he wants to own SS insolvency, i'll credit him with a tax break.

That seems to happen a lot, doesn't it.

#101 | Posted by Danforth

No, I tripped. Once. Enjoy it, it's the only one you get. Once bitten.

"No, I tripped. Once."

You only wish.

"Once bitten."

You mean you'll shut up on subjects where you don't have a clue?

"My federal withholding jumped $20 in November."

The tables didn't change. What did you do pro-actively?

"the fact he's trying to strip my retirement plan."

What are you talking about?

I'll read the story a little closer. You got me on one detail. Of course I could pull a Danforth and just post "equality for all taxpayers" about 60 or 70 times.

I mean, why should we deny the rich the lower tax rates that I take for granted?

"the nearly $2 a gallon extra i've paid on gas since he took office"

It's lower than Dubya's peak.

"You got me on one detail."

Bullshit. I got you on multiple details, from the top rate to the surcharge. You overstated your tax rate by nearly 200%...that's hardly "one detail"; you missed the entire concept.

"I mean, why should we deny the rich the lower tax rates that I take for granted?"

Probably because Romney paid 15 cents in federal taxes on the last dollar he earned of "carried interest", and you paid almost twice that.

What are you talking about?

#105 | Posted by Danforth

There was a commission proposal to delay retirement payments until the age of 65 and introduce a 401K style matching contribution for the Thrift Savings Plan. It would also cut the retirement pay down by a number I dont recall. He mentions revisions to retirement pay in the budget in the link above. It was widely discussed by many members (at least around me) when it was brought up last year.

Not only that, but he was also proposing reducing tuition assistance to active duty. Currently, we get $4500. Federal grants for any slob on the street are $5k plus. He's taking money from the military at the same time he's increasing the Education budget.

Bullshit. I got you on multiple details, from the top rate to the surcharge. You overstated your tax rate by nearly 200%...that's hardly "one detail"; you missed the entire concept.

I made the mistake of assuming that when they said increase the dividend tax rate, that it was for all income levels. I havent seen anything to indicate that the dividend tax is subjective. It was a poorly written article that ambiguously disclosed the income disparity by citing what "the white house wants us to know". The author didnt explicitly say that the tax increase affects on the wealthier. Go back and read the article, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Despite that, the Democrats are a cozen bunch. I dont trust anyone that marginalizes a group for personal gain.

Which leads me to my next point, where is the equality for taxpayers of all persuasions?

"It was widely discussed by many members (at least around me) when it was brought up last year."

I'd need to see the specifics. As you've proven, there can be incredibly wild claims made by folks who don't know what they're talking about.

"He's taking money from the military at the same time he's increasing the Education budget."

Gee, what a concept. Build instead of bomb.

"I havent seen anything to indicate that the dividend tax is subjective."

That's because you haven't looked for it.

"It was a poorly written article that ambiguously disclosed the income disparity by citing what "the white house wants us to know". The author didnt explicitly say that the tax increase affects on the wealthier. Go back and read the article, and you'll see what I'm talking about."

I know exactly what you're talking about. The author tosses out flaming talking points, hoping the uninformed will parrot it to other people who don't know any better. They found their target audience in you.

"Despite that, the Democrats are a cozen bunch. I dont trust anyone that marginalizes a group for personal gain."

The irony is priceless: you're voting for a bunch who wants to keep the Romneys of the world paying federal taxes at half the rate you pay.

"Which leads me to my next point, where is the equality for taxpayers of all persuasions?"

You must have missed that part about Mitt paying 15 cents per dollar of "carried interest" to the feds while you pay over 28 cents because you get paid in "wages".

And if you're talking about the progressive tax system, income taxes (which only make up a third of government revenue) are one of only two progressive taxes (estate is the other). Most other taxes are regressive, and SS is super-regressive. And why have different rates? Well, one reason is the wealthy use services like the SEC a lot more than your minimum wage worker.

#99 | Posted by americanPLY

DO NOT EVER apologize to danforth. He is almost never right.

Obama Dividend Tax Increase Aims at the Rich but Will Hit the Elderly

According to the Wall Street Journal, a proposal tucked into President Barack Obama's fiscal year 2013 budget proposal would triple the tax rate on corporate dividends. Obama claims this is a tax increase on the rich. But it will hammer elderly retirees.

Dividends are paid out after a corporation pays the 35 percent corporate income tax. So the total tax on corporate income passed through as dividends would be 64.1 percent.

Obama would no doubt claim only those filthy, greedy rich people making more than $200,000 a year ($250,000 for every filthy, greedy rich couple) would be affected by the tax hike. But whether a corporation pays out dividends is highly influenced by the tax on dividends. Raise the tax on dividends, and a company has less incentive to pay a dividend. A study conducted by the Heritage foundation notes historical data that backs up this supposition.

The study also notes retired seniors are more likely to own dividend paying stocks as part of their retirement investment portfolio than any other demographic. More than 15 million, according to 2005 statistics provided by the IRS. Dividend income provides a much needed immediate cash flow for retired people.

But if the tax on dividends is increased, that income will be cut off, depriving retired seniors of all income levels. So as is often the case, government tax policies tax aim at the rich but hit more vulnerable groups.

One also expects the Obama administration has not factored in the inevitable decrease in dividend payments its tax increase will cause. Thus, the tax boost will not only hammer senior citizens, but will likely garner less tax income than intended.

#56 | Posted by 726
en.wikipedia.org

#58 | POSTED BY AMERICANPLY AT 2012-02-22 03:23 PM | REPLY | FLAG

Go look and see if Citibank can elect to be a pass through entity or S Corporation dumbass.

Here's a hint... it can't.

Do you know why?

A) Too many shareholders.
B) Non qualified shareholders.

Thanks for playing.

The study I posted from England proves that if dividends are taxed they will go away and the overall value of the investment will be lower. So you say what the hell those people have too much money anyway. Too bad most of the benefits of dividends are pension programs. The world of unintended consequences comes back to bit Barry again.

#62 | POSTED BY PANEOCON AT 2012-02-22 03:32 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

And I am saying that while your talking point sounds good, history proves it is false. Companies paid dividends to US shareholders when tax rates were higher than they are going to be next year. And they will continue to do so next year when the Bush tax cuts expire. Why? Because the shareholders demand it.

"The study I posted from England proves that if dividends are taxed they will go away"

You're in serious need of a dictionary. Today's word seems to be "proves".

"DO NOT EVER apologize to danforth. He is almost never right."

This, from the guy found wrong on a daily basis.

#58 | Posted by americanPLY
Nicely stated and backed up. We can only hope a few people open their minds and see the big picture. Class warfare is an easy way to make people myopic. Also thanks for your service.

#63 | POSTED BY PANEOCON AT 2012-02-22 03:36 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Go see if any publicly traded company can elect to be taxes as an S Corporation before you start lavishing kudos for #58.

"The study also notes retired seniors are more likely to own dividend paying stocks as part of their retirement investment portfolio than any other demographic."

What the study conveniently avoids is the fact the wealthy own the vast majority of the dividend-paying stocks. All this statement says is retirees have investments, as if that's some huge revelation. The "study" is also chock full of bullshit, like this gem:

"Dividends are paid out after a corporation pays the 35 percent corporate income tax. So the total tax on corporate income passed through as dividends would be 64.1 percent."

As if corporations are paying the full 35%. Also, this author is just adding raw numbers together, a fairly transparent mistake to all but the Paneocons of the world. As I pointed out upthread, authors like this look for gullible idiots to parrot their talking points, and they've found their target audience.

Dividends are paid out after a corporation pays the 35 percent corporate income tax. So the total tax on corporate income passed through as dividends would be 64.1 percent.

And what would the total tax be for a retired couple who get $100 in dividends and have no federal income tax liability due to their social security being non-taxable?

Hint. It ain't 64.1%.

As if corporations are paying the full 35%

GE paid 0% last year. So the study is as good as Charmin.

Thought about this all night and I still remain where I was yesterday: humans are selfish, hedonistic, greedy, and quite corrupt. I look at the world filled with murder, war, rape, theft, robbery, embezzlement, fraud, and I can't come to any other conclusion.

Hell, my co-workers whom I have worked with for 10 years are a prime example of the evils of man.

Where did PANEOCLOWN go? Probably celebrating her victory ...LOL

"Keep in mind that dividends are paid to shareholders only after the corporation pays taxes on its profits. So assuming a maximum 35% corporate tax rate and a 44.8% dividend tax, the total tax on corporate earnings passed through as dividends would be 64.1%."

From cry from dancing dan's useless rant about the author skewing things. Does that poor bastard actually think anyone here pays attention to the friend of three time Grammy nominee? Especially when he wastes space in some useless semantics argument?

"Dividends are paid out after a corporation pays the 35 percent corporate income tax. So the total tax on corporate income passed through as dividends would be 64.1 percent."
#117 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-23 10:14 AM | Reply

"From cry from dancing dan's useless rant about the author skewing things."

Great. Another math moron checks in.

"some useless semantics argument?"

The fact very few corporations pay 35%, or the fact the subsequent taxes are only paid on dividends distributed AFTER that supposed 35% hit are semantics???

You might as well hang a sign around yourself proclaiming you don't have a fucking clue.

And you might want to check your use of quotes. Your positioning makes it look like I'm the one making the bullshit claim, instead of you being the gullible idiot who fell for it.

#113 | Posted by 726

Any example of a specific stock or bond is not valid as there are zillions of stocks and bonds that do pay dividends. Right now low risk investors are searching for high dividend investments. The internet is full of articles on this strategy.

"Dividends are paid out after a corporation pays the 35 percent corporate income tax."

And morons fall for that shit.

GE paid out dividends in 2010. Remind me...what was their corporate tax rate that year?

Where did PANEOCLOWN go? Probably celebrating her victory ...LOL
#121 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY

No I'm trying to get some capitalist pig work done today.

"I'm trying to get some capitalist pig work done today."

Those political thongs don't sell themselves, you know!

"From cry from dancing dan's useless rant about the author skewing things."

Great. Another math moron checks in.

Only one anal retentive friend of a three time Grammy nominee has tried to make some useless argument by making up his own version of what was written. The meaningless part of which described when corporations pay out dividends. Instead of giving it it's minimul worth as part of the article, instead you as usual make it the focal part and somehow criticze others for not seeing the error as you see it?

What fucking moron would actually give a rat's ass about this simple line? What part of "assuming" reads as him trying to make up BS, as you whined about upthread?

"So assuming a maximum 35% corporate tax rate and a 44.8% dividend tax, the total tax on corporate earnings passed through as dividends would be 64.1%."

You might as well hang a sign around yourself proclaiming you don't have a fucking clue.

And you might want to check your use of quotes. Your positioning makes it look like I'm the one making the bullshit claim, instead of you being the gullible idiot who fell for it.
#123 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-23 11:07 AM

Fell for what moron? Only you seem to want to look for and make up some fucking talking point conspiracy, nobody else seems to give a rat's ass. I simply enjoy pointing out some fucking geek named danforth who entertains us daily with his act...

"What part of "assuming""

The part where the nominal numbers are added together, instead of the tax rate being a percentage of the remaining (assumed) 65%.

Not that I expect you to grasp this concept.

"nobody else seems to give a rat's ass."

Posts the guy who's clearly given a rat's ass more than once.

"Fell for what moron?"

The moron who "assumes" corporations pay the full 35% rate, and then "assumes" you don't know the difference between adding nominal numbers vs. applying the (top) tax rate to only the remainder.

Oh wait...you forgot the comma, didn't you?

"The moron who "assumes" corporations pay the full 35% rate, and then "assumes" you don't know the difference between adding nominal numbers vs. applying the (top) tax rate to only the remainder."

I didn't assume anything you fucking dork. The author used the word "ASSUMING" for the context of his description when dividends are paid. It was meaningless and not intended to be an actual figure.

What fucking tool doesn't know the definition of the word "assuming" as was written in the article? The tool who claims to work with a three time Grammy nominee?

"I didn't assume anything you fucking dork."

I was talking about the author, but if the dunce cap fits....

"The tool who claims to work with a three time Grammy nominee?"

I love the smell of jealousy in the morning.

And if you think it's just a "claim", Princess, would you be interested in putting your money where your yap is? You know...a little Mittsey bet?

"It was meaningless and not intended to be an actual figure."

Yeah, meaningless until the next RW parrot barfs it back up.

"I love the smell of jealousy in the morning."

You love the smell of your own feces as well, and for some reason want it spread here. WTF would anyone be jealous of you? LMAO?

"I was talking about the author, but if the dunce cap fits...."

Are you really that fucking stupid and don't understand "assuming" in the author's context? Keep reading it, and go back to what you pasted which was obviously some desperate attempt to further your lame "talking point" conspiracy by the author.... LMAO

"So assuming a maximum 35% corporate tax rate and a 44.8% dividend tax, the total tax on corporate earnings passed through as dividends would be 64.1%."

"You love the smell of your own feces"

Ah, the master debater.

"Are you really that fucking stupid and don't understand "assuming" in the author's context?"

Sure I do. What readers like you don't realize is that's about as accurate as "assuming" the Earth will stop rotating tomorrow.

Yeah, meaningless until the next RW parrot barfs it back up.
#134 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-23 12:04 PM |

Not to worry. I am sure your anal retentive radar will be here when it happens. How many times have you responded to any retort which claims 50% don't pay taxes? How many times have you not been able to help yourself and repsond to any retort which states tax cuts increase revenue? 50? 100?

Of course all one has to know is dancing dans claim Obama stabilized the Housing market back in Jan 2011, and of course 125 ltv and NINJA's loans created the mortgage mess and collapsed the economy... LMAO!!!

Sure I do. What readers like you don't realize is that's about as accurate as "assuming" the Earth will stop rotating tomorrow.

#136 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-23 12:16 PM

Wow.... HTF did I not see that? I can see why dancing dan calls this BS...

"Assuming a maximum 35% corporate tax rate..."

The 2013 Budget is a fantasy for anybody who believes any of this shit.

There is no way Obama is gonna push this very far. This is just something liberals masterbate to hoping something like this gets passed.

Obama caved on a 3% pt increase in the highest tax bracket not that long ago.

Who on earth thinks any of this is a reality?

"How many times have you responded to any retort which claims 50% don't pay taxes?"

Every time it's a lie.

How many time do you respond to threads about the housing market?

"and of course 125 ltv and NINJA's loans created the mortgage mess and collapsed the economy"

It takes a real pussy to lose an argument, and then pretend he was talking about something else the entire time. I never claimed those things "created" the mortgage mess, yet you've pretended I did ever since I linked to proof you were wrong.

The 2013 Budget is a fantasy for anybody who believes any of this shit.
#139 | Posted by eberly

Yes you are correct; in its entirety it will never see the light of day. One of my reasons in posting it is to show how out or touch the WH is with the real world. As a side benefit it also shows how some clueless idiots got the wool pulled over their eyes even though the proclaim to be financial experts.

It takes a real pussy to lose an argument, and then pretend he was talking about something else the entire time. I never claimed those things "created" the mortgage mess, yet you've pretended I did ever since I linked to proof you were wrong.

#140 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-23 12:20 PM |

You can cry all you want. Doesn't change your incredidble ignorance and stupidity regarding the 125's and NINJA's which you were dumb enough to post led to the mortgage crisis.

Thas said, you had no fucking clue what they were much less their f/f relationship. The link you think you provided helped your cause, but all it did was prove you are fucking clueless. Why would any lender offer 125 ltv 1st's when the housing prices were well above the values? Equity was at a premium you stupid fuck. Use your fucking head...

I never claimed those things "created" the mortgage mess, yet you've pretended I did ever since I linked to proof you were wrong.
#140 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-23 12:20 PM

Of course not dancing dan. WTF would I ever come up with that?

What a steaming pile of crap. Neither Frank nor Dodd forced lenders to issue liar's loans, mortgage resets, negative amortization loans, ninja loans, or 125% LTVs.
Posted by Danforth at 2010-09-17 11:17 AM

Any example of a specific stock or bond is not valid as there are zillions of stocks and bonds that do pay dividends.

Meaning, your example debunked my theory and I am going to throw it out.

Tell me, how many of the Zillions of stocks pay at the 35%?

#144 | Posted by 726

Buy a clue will you.

"WTF would I ever come up with that?"

You're a pussy. Look at what I was responding to, and you'll see I never claimed those things "created" the mortgage mess.

But keep lying, bub. It's a not-so-tacit admission of defeat.

"Buy a clue will you."

Translation: I got nuttin'.

Yes you are correct; in its entirety it will never see the light of day. One of my reasons in posting it is to show how out or touch the WH is with the real world.

Bullshit. You are screaming like a little bitch that this is going to hurt investors.

Buy a clue will you.

#145 | POSTED BY PANEOCON AT 2012-02-23 01:18 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Good to see you give up.

"Doesn't change your incredidble ignorance and stupidity regarding the 125's"

What a riot.

Princess: 125s don't exist anymore.
Me: Why, lookie here, 125s!
Princess: I was talking about a DIFFERENT kind of 125s!
Me: Then you should have said that up front.
Princess: But, but, but...I meant a DIFFERENT kind, even though I didn't specify initially, so that means I'm right and you're wrong.
Me: Again, the time for any distinction is before you're proven wrong.
Princess: Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

You two are such little girls.

"You're a pussy. Look at what I was responding to, and you'll see I never claimed those things "created" the mortgage mess."

ROTFLMAO.... Oh, you were saying Dodd/Frank didn't create those.

Kind of like this post? But you aren't saying any of those led to the financial meltdown or mortgage mess. LMAO!!!

And banks didn't have to fly in the face of good business practices, as witnessed by the fact not all banks got involved with the sub-prime mess. On top of that, no one forced banks to offer 125% LTVs, teaser rates, interest-only loans, negative amortization loans, or liar's loans, and no one forced the Lehmans of the world to leverage bad paper against bad paper to the tune of 100-1.
Posted by Danforth at 2009-03-02 10:03 PM |

Princess: 125s don't exist anymore.
Me: Why, lookie here, 125s!
Princess: I was talking about a DIFFERENT kind of 125s!
Me: Then you should have said that up front.
Princess: But, but, but...I meant a DIFFERENT kind, even though I didn't specify initially, so that means I'm right and you're wrong.
Me: Again, the time for any distinction is before you're proven wrong.
Princess: Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

#150 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-23 01:24 PM

125's didn't exist when you were stupid enough to claim they helped cause the financial mess. The company I worked for back in 2000 bought all the 2nd td's available on the secondary market.

If someone is stupid enough to open their yap, they should at least knw wtf they are talking about. 125's were 2nd TD's and had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MORTGAGE CRISIS in 2008. The fact you had no clue they were 2nds has been proven time and time again.

As for the incredible stupidity thinking you found 125's available,or pretend they existe dback in 2008, by all means offer them up to your clients. LMAO!!!

"You two are such little girls."

Errr have you noticed your own useless back and forth with the anal retentive dancing dan, where he claims the author wrote this as some sort of talking point conspiracy?

"125's were 2nd TD's and had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MORTGAGE CRISIS in 2008."

Laughable on its face. Just because 125s might not have existed the day of the meltdown doesn't mean they had nothing to do with the mortgage crisis.

"Kind of like this post?"

You mean where I pointed to a number of problems, and ended with the big one, the Lehmans of the world leveraging all the crap at unprecedented ratios?

Nice job. You just proved your earlier claim wrong, putz.

Laughable on its face. Just because 125s might not have existed the day of the meltdown doesn't mean they had nothing to do with the mortgage crisis.
#155 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-23 03:05 PM

I agree it is laughable. Yet you continue to open your yap about them. Knowing you have no clue how they were approved, secured or sold. Why is that? Somehow you think at the peak of the 125's which was about $200 milion tops, that it had any bearing on a multi trillion dollar industry? I guess the topper is your stupidity how 1sts and 2nds are handled if one or the other defaults. Another aspect which you obviously have no knowledge of how they are treated...

What would make you continue this back and forth when you have ZERO experience in the mortgage industry? Is it to somehow further the lie you are some sort of financial planner to the stars? Something posseses you to try and come out looking better, even though you have proven your incredible ignorance on a daily basis here.

"Somehow you think at the peak of the 125's which was about $200 milion tops, that it had any bearing on a multi trillion dollar industry?"

I think everything, from that laundry list, to greedy bankers, to foolish borrowers, to mooks in the chain passing unqualified folks through for one more fee had bearing on it. Nothing, however, compares to what I've always stated was the MAIN reason: the Lehmans of the world leveraging bad paper against bad paper at unprecedented ratios,