Thread: The Paul File

  1. #1041
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    6,710
    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    Okay why I can't I go and get that money at that rate? Why give 'em to banks first?
    I imagine you could if you incorporated as a bank.

  2. #1042
    Searching for Truth 786's Avatar
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    I imagine you could if you incorporated as a bank.
    Why though?

  3. #1043
    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    Okay why I can't I go and get that money at that rate? Why give 'em to banks first?
    Because the banks are members and they also pledge collateral for the loan.

    Anytime you put collateral up you get a much lower rate than something like a Credit Card, which is an unsecured loan.

    http://www.frbdiscountwindow.org/mechanics.cfm?hdrID=14

  4. #1044
    Searching for Truth 786's Avatar
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    Because the banks are members and they also pledge collateral for the loan.

    Anytime you put collateral up you get a much lower rate than something like a Credit Card, which is an unsecured loan.

    http://www.frbdiscountwindow.org/mechanics.cfm?hdrID=14
    I'm willing to put up collateral, so now can I get it?

    And on a second note:
    Former Richmond Federal Reserve Senior Economist Thomas Humphrey wrote in the summer of 2010 that the collateral the Fed had accepted through its special lending programs was “complex, risky, opaque, hard-to-value, and subject to default.”
    He pointed out that banks could even offer the rights to be paid back for loans they’d issued to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as quality collateral. That meant that if the bank failed to return the Fed’s loan, the Fed could get those interest and principal payments from the GSEs—but in early 2008 the GSEs were considered by the government as near insolvent.
    http://www.hawaiireporter.com/trilli...all-street/123
    Anyways, I think I'll be able to put up 'better' collateral than insolvent companies
    Last edited by 786; 01-15-12 at 02:22 AM.

  5. #1045
    Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Billy T's Avatar
    Posts
    19,694
    This ship, like the US ship of state under GWB's command, turned to the starboard when a turn to the port was needed. Perhaps RP can right her and get back on Clinton's course. (Balanced budgets, rich paying taxes at the old rates, etc.)

    If not, the same fate awaits the US dollar

    Not sure, but think that point of rocks near ship's stack is called "China's point" More about it here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...0&postcount=31

    In Carnival Corp's property list, this ship is #17 of the European Units, or simply EU17 and now is probably is sunk / damaged beyond repair, like another EU 17.

    Unlike the EU, perhaps it is not too late for the US to "turn to the port" but very unlikely with government "of the rich, by their lobbyist and for their corporations."
    Last edited by Billy T; 01-15-12 at 07:34 AM.

  6. #1046
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    Well then you are going to have to hire a LOT of policemen to do the airport security.
    The reason we have the TSA is because it is a specialized type of security that doesn't require the same training police go through.
    Same for Border Patrol agents, again specialized training which police are not suited for.



    So, I fly and I'm more concerned about some guy blowing the plane up.
    It's not just about what you are concerned about you know.
    Well then, lets let the airlines hire and train their own security. I'm sure they'd be more efficient and probably do a better job anyway - and cheaper too.

    That way YOU can pay a little extra and fly following an anal probe and I'll take the new no frills cheap live free and die young airlines that pop up. We'll see what "The" Market supports.

    Fair enough? Then we both win. You get your overpriced ultra secure air ticket and I get my cheap free of anal probe not worried in the least (did I mention free of anal probe?) ticket

  7. #1047
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    That's pretty hilarious Michael.

    Let's see what that REALLY means:



    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/brief...rs/revenue.cfm

    So what that means is that RP didn't mention the 36% that comes from Payroll taxes and you can't use that 36% for anything else but Social Security and Medicare, unless you want to end those social programs.

    Well do you Michael?

    Now as to excise taxes, they are very regressive and fall disproportionately on the poor.

    Hell Cigarettes, Telephone, Alcohol and Transportation taxes make up over 95% of the excise taxes collected by the government, but STILL only make up 3% of our tax revenue.

    So are you going to raise tobacco and alcohol excise taxes even more?
    Because if you do that substantially, say double them to get another 3%, you won't actually get more money because people will cut back on use.

    Are you going to raise the gasoline/diesel tax? I'm sure the poor won't mind paying another 25c per gallon of gas and seeing the cost added to all the things that are made, grown or shipped.

    What are you going to put an excise tax on that isn't being taxed now and raises a decent amount of money and doesn't screw the average person Michael?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise_...s#cite_note-15

    Same with Tariffs. What are you going to put a tariff on that doesn't have the same impact?

    Now, as to that 45% income tax, or ~$1,125 Billion in 2008.

    We can see that the top 10% of taxpayers, those with AGI (Gross income after exemptions and deductions) of $113,000 or above paid 70% of the Income tax.

    Or look at it this way, the bottom 50%, tops out at those making less than $33,000 after deductions and exemptions (or about $44,000 gross income for a single person taking the standard deduction and contributing to a 401k) paid but 2.7% of the taxes.

    http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

    And you think you can come up with a MORE progressive system by getting rid of the income tax and getting that money from Excise taxes and Tariffs?

    Really?
    Obviously you have to have a new relationship with your central government. What do you want government to do for you? Cradle to Grave sounds good in theory, but in practice it just doesn't work. You can see Japan grappling with the same problems - they had the best Social Progressive government in the world. Now they have a generation of zero growth, their doubling their sales tax and the young-ish generation pretty much expect there to be nothing for them when they get around to retiring.

    You know, another thing that's funny about social benefit programs, even in Japan, where people were once there to take care of their grandparents you can see this social shift to where these really old ones are of the mine: I built this gawd damn nation and I want mine. In the past I think there was always an idea that you tried to leave the next generation with more and try NOT to be a burden on your family (who was there to look after you).

    Just like us, the Japanese are sort of stuffing their parents into homes and those parents are doing what they can to get a peace of the social benefit pie and it's somewhat (seemingly) destroying Japan with it's oldies top heavy society.

    A Chinese came to visit once and said in China they laugh when they go to school in Japan because they're supposed to come to Japan to learn about Capitalism but instead Japan is more Communist than China! Apparently that's a common joke among visiting Chinese students.



    Again, I think everyone (well 90%) of people do want the same things for society. Good health, good education, lots of job opportunity, a chance to better your like, a chance at a higher education. It's HOW do we deliver this? IMO the current system is failing - and will eventually be replace one way or another. Either it'll be through default on the debt or monetary revolution. Something will have to give because education is not getting any better, people's health is poorer, there not much meaningful work (for your average Joe American) and it's ever becoming difficult to leave home and start a family. Lots of 30s and even 40s year olds are STILL at home.

    So, lets see what happens when we introduce more transparency to the Federal Reserve and in disgust at the complete out of touch incompetency and nepotism crony Capitalism we see there, we have real monetary change.



    Think of it like this, 200 years ago the European Aristocracy were convinced the common American idiot could not rule themselves - and yet we created the most prosperous nation in history. I have faith that with a small government, and a fair monetary system, the American people are more than capable of turn this thing around.
    Change you can Believe In


    NOTE: Jet lagged, could be rambling here....

  8. #1048
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    Well then, lets let the airlines hire and train their own security. I'm sure they'd be more efficient and probably do a better job anyway - and cheaper too.
    That's what we had prior to 9/11.

    And no, they weren't more efficient and certainly didn't do a better job.

    That way YOU can pay a little extra and fly following an anal probe and I'll take the new no frills cheap live free and die young airlines that pop up. We'll see what "The" Market supports.

    Fair enough?
    No it's not fair enough.
    What does it matter to me if you saved a dollar if the cheap live free and die young plane crashes into the building I work in?


    Then we both win. You get your overpriced ultra secure air ticket and I get my cheap free of anal probe not worried in the least (did I mention free of anal probe?) ticket
    Seems to be a theme with you.
    It seems to be all about what YOU want.
    Might want to consider the needs of society every once and a while.

    And I also find it funny, you have to refer to today's security as an "anal probe", when of course no such thing actually happens.
    Why do you feel the need to grossly exaggerate to make your point?
    The average security wait is less than 10 minutes and the VAST majority of people are never touched when they fly (and prior to TSA you also got patted down, in fact the ONLY time I've been patted down was prior to 9/11)
    Last edited by adoucette; 01-15-12 at 08:19 AM.

  9. #1049
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    NOTE: Jet lagged, could be rambling here....
    Well like usual you didn't answer a single question put to you.
    Last edited by adoucette; 01-15-12 at 08:49 AM.

  10. #1050
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    6,710
    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    Why though?
    To get the loan of course!

  11. #1051
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    That's what we had prior to 9/11.

    And no, they weren't more efficient and certainly didn't do a better job
    You keep going back to 9/11. So, let suppose a subway is blown up? Then you want body scanned to enter the subway? Suppose a bridge is blown up?` Then you want a body scan or maybe you have to show papers to drive across town.

    See, THAT is how I see the TSA.

    Now, I want to fly without TSA groping bullshit. AND OK, it once in a great while it happens, I still don't like it. I don't even like looking at TSA with their smugness - as if me, the freaken Citizen, should bow and scap for them - I pay their god damn pay pack. They work for me. Yet, it not like that. They treat you like cattle. Or that's how I perceive it.

    Regardless, I'm happy to take my chances with a private security firm. That SHOULD be MY choice Arthur. If I want to purchase a ticket and a private company wants to provide me the service then in a free society this exchange should take place.


    Another way to think of it is drinking and driving. Maybe bars should be illegal? Maybe beer should be outlawed? Maybe you should have to go to a special place where the government can check you're drinking safely? I mean, WAY MORE people die from alcohol.


    And yet another way to think about it this: Maybe cars should be built like tanks? That'll make them safer. See, TSA is like tank cars. Whereas a locked cabin and pistol with the pilot is like the airbags I CHOOSE (No I didn't have to purchase them) to buy with my car. We do not need to be anal probed to fly OK? We don't need (or want) TSA.
    Last edited by Michael; 01-15-12 at 10:26 AM.

  12. #1052
    Oh please, because you're worried a plane MIGHT (1 in 1 billion chances) hit a building your working in, therefor we should suffer TSA? Like I said, how about we outlaw clubs or bars? You're WAY more likely to be bashed by a drunk or hit by a drunk then you'd ever be hit in the building you work in.

    It's just ridiculous. If you want a TSA flight then you can have one. I don't. I should have the chance to make that choice for myself.

    Again, this is about ME making a choice for myself. I pay the ticket. I pay the flight insurance. I pay for the security level I'm happy with. THAT is the way it should be in a free society.
    Last edited by Michael; 01-15-12 at 10:28 AM.

  13. #1053
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    And I also find it funny, you have to refer to today's security as an "anal probe", when of course no such thing actually happens.
    Why do you feel the need to grossly exaggerate to make your point?
    The average security wait is less than 10 minutes and the VAST majority of people are never touched when they fly (and prior to TSA you also got patted down, in fact the ONLY time I've been patted down was prior to 9/11)
    I'm not a domesticated cattle

    I wasn't raised in the city so maybe I chaff at having an smug TSA agent in my face telling me to take off my shoes or walk through a scanner. Yeah, the exaggeration is my feelings about the whole experience. I don't like it.

    I don't even like that they tell you to turn off your phone. I've seen the stewardess go ape-shit on someone before. Now, this is that airlines policy so, I as a customer agree to it, and I'm not about to make a fuss. But, personally find it insulting. The main reason you're told to turn off your phone is so that you're paying attention to the inflight demonstration on what to do in an emergency. Aircraft electronics aren't affected by the pathetically weak signal from a mobile and as a matter of fact, some aircraft I've flown don't tell you to turn it off. It really just depends on the company. What gets my gull is the arrogance and the way people are treated like cattle.

  14. #1054
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    Well like usual you didn't answer a single question put to you.
    I explained that we'd have a different relationship with the obviously smaller central government.

    Maybe the States would be less efficient or, more than likely, MAYBE NOT. Why do you think a bloated centralized bureaucratic nightmare is so efficient then a small nimble localized agency dealing with an environment they know personally. I think the State run agency would probably do a better job of it.

    We do breath CHINESE air you know? We can't police the planet.

    Anyway, do I have a budget? No. Either does Obama for next year - other than he'd like another 1.2 Trillion to spend on more government they're doing such a wonderful job, why not give them 2.4T?

    I've voting for Paul's mandate. As he gets closer, more details would be forth coming obviously. Right now it's about determining IF people will support such a mandate - I mean, that's what we do in a Republic. Politicians are supposed to offer a mandate, we vote, they deliver.

    Take Bush Jr's mandate (I voted Gore by the way). Small government less nation building. We all know how that worked out.

  15. #1055
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    6,710
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    I don't even like that they tell you to turn off your phone. I've seen the stewardess go ape-shit on someone before. Now, this is that airlines policy so, I as a customer agree to it, and I'm not about to make a fuss. But, personally find it insulting. The main reason you're told to turn off your phone is so that you're paying attention to the inflight demonstration on what to do in an emergency. Aircraft electronics aren't affected by the pathetically weak signal from a mobile
    Not true. Older aviation equipment (specifically GS receivers and ADF's) are indeed affected by some cellphones (AMPS and GSM.) And in some aircraft ancillary equipment (smoke detectors, tape player for recorded safety announcements) is affected as well. Note that GSM phone signals can reach 2 watts.

    Also, a secondary reason they want all that stuff away is that when taxiing there is a non-zero chance you'll get hit by another airplane. Indeed, taxiing is the time that this is most likely. And they want all projectiles stowed.

    What gets my gull is the arrogance and the way people are treated like cattle.
    So don't fly. Problem solved.

  16. #1056
    Searching for Truth 786's Avatar
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    To get the loan of course!
    Ya but why do banks get access not regular people? I'm willing to put up collateral. They get cheap loans, I want them to. So the gov created an agency to help banks make money while they keep printing and destroying my savings and I don't get access?

  17. #1057
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    You keep going back to 9/11. So, let suppose a subway is blown up? Then you want body scanned to enter the subway? Suppose a bridge is blown up?` Then you want a body scan or maybe you have to show papers to drive across town.

    See, THAT is how I see the TSA.
    So?
    The FAA mandated essentially the same security measures that the TSA enforces now, the difference is the previous systems varied greatly in effectiveness and dilligence.
    The TSA simply replaces that with a more effective agency.

    Now, I want to fly without TSA groping bullshit. AND OK, it once in a great while it happens, I still don't like it. I don't even like looking at TSA with their smugness - as if me, the freaken Citizen, should bow and scap for them - I pay their god damn pay pack. They work for me. Yet, it not like that. They treat you like cattle. Or that's how I perceive it.

    Regardless, I'm happy to take my chances with a private security firm. That SHOULD be MY choice Arthur. If I want to purchase a ticket and a private company wants to provide me the service then in a free society this exchange should take place.
    No, because it isn't just your chances. Other peoples safety is also involved.
    You aren't the only one on the plane after all.

    Regardless, this is such a bogus issue because the fact is, with or without the TSA there would still be govenment mandated screening, and having been a frequent traveler for decades my opinion is that the TSA is not only better at screening but also much more efficient. So while you are complaining about the TSA, they are essentially no different that what was supposed to be done pre 9/11.

    Indeed you have not suggested an alternative to the TSA that is acceptable.
    Indeed, every other free country, England, Sweeden, Germany, Japan, Australia, France, Spain, Canada etc etc all have essentially the same screeening we do.

    We do not need to be anal probed to fly OK?
    And no one has been anal probed in order to be able to fly. OK?

  18. #1058
    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    Ya but why do banks get access not regular people? I'm willing to put up collateral. They get cheap loans, I want them to. So the gov created an agency to help banks make money while they keep printing and destroying my savings and I don't get access?
    Again, you can be a member, just meet the requirements, or stop bitching.

  19. #1059
    Searching for Truth 786's Avatar
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    Again, you can be a member, just meet the requirements, or stop bitching.
    Why should I be a bank? They are printing our dollars everyone should have access to those loans if they are worthy. Why banks?

  20. #1060
    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    Why should I be a bank? They are printing our dollars everyone should have access to those loans if they are worthy. Why banks?
    You are sadly mistaken.
    The Fed doesn't print any money.

Similar Threads

  1. By wynn in forum Computer Science & Culture
    Last Post: 08-05-10, 01:55 PM
    Replies: 28
  2. By Tiassa in forum Politics
    Last Post: 01-13-08, 10:34 PM
    Replies: 120
  3. By ashura in forum Politics
    Last Post: 12-17-07, 11:45 AM
    Replies: 0
  4. By Fraggle Rocker in forum Politics
    Last Post: 12-01-07, 05:41 AM
    Replies: 64

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •