Anonymous
Post 09/07/2012 19:49     Subject: Elizabeth Warren
I've met Elizabeth Warren in a one-on-one meeting with her. She's very nice and she was totally respectful of little peon me. I think she goes a tad bit overboard when she claims that absolutely everybody is a victim of greedy mortgage brokers. But I *totally* agree with her that the vast majority of foreclosures are victims of greedy brokers who didn't care about the quality of the loan because they weren't going to have to live with it, instead the brokers were going to sell the loan on to securitizers.

It's important to hear Warren's message. Unfortunately it's often hard to hear her above the Faux News screeching about greedy homeowners.
Anonymous
Post 09/07/2012 19:43     Subject: Elizabeth Warren
Anonymous wrote:
You will not gain credibility by throwing out an opinion govt is more efficient then the private sector by giving social security, medicare and medcaid as examples. Just google those terms and the word Inefficiency result from your query. Please send me some lines NOT from the whitehouse.gov or obama.com that tout government efficiency with social security, medicare and medicaid.


Social Security's administrative costs are less than 1% per year. To translate, Social Security charges less than 1% of the total assets it manages (the trust funds) to manage these trust funds. Compare that to your average mutual fund - if it's actively managed, the fees and other charges on your IRA can run you 2-3% of assets under management (namely, your account balance) per year.

Why is Social Security cheaper to run than your average IRA or 401(k)? First, economies of scale: Social Security pools your money with everyone else's money, which is a lot cheaper than asking everyone to open their own IRA or 401(k) account. Second, Social Security invests in government bonds only (well, Congress makes it do this), which is a lot cheaper than actively managed funds where you are paying some Chicago MBA to pick stocks for you and churn the account (to build up his/her commission).

This is why privatizing social security is a non-starter. And don't listen to Fox's stuff and nonsense about Social Security being "broke" either -- haven't heard any seniors say they haven't received their checks this month, have you?
Anonymous
Post 09/07/2012 19:11     Subject: Re:Elizabeth Warren
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Well, the top 1% are paying 40% of the federal income tax. The top 5% are paying 60% of the federal income tax, and the top 10% are paying 70%.

This is why I will not vote republican.The statement shows the utter contempt the republicans have for the American people. Yes someone who make 100 million a year will pay more in taxes the someone who make 100k. 100,000,000 x .15 = 15,000,000; 100,000 x .35 = 35,000. So what dollar amount do you want everyone to pay?

PP here. I don't see why this shows utter contempt (or any contempt). It was in response to E. Warren's sort of suggestion that the top earners are not "paying foward". They are. Maybe there is a better way to appeal to the upper incomes than by suggesting they aren't paying their "fair share" or are not "paying forward". It's a nice strategy to divide the country, though. Let me say this another way. I think to suggest that someone paying a lot of taxes is not paying a "fair share" shows utter contempt for those people. That is why I will not vote democratic (today).

Oh I see now. Taxing someone making millions of dollars a year at 15% and taxing another person who make 100k a year at 36% is everyone paying their "fair share". Why do you think the top 1%’s share of federal income taxes has increased to 40% despite many tax cuts? Top 1% takes home 18% of all earned income. It is contemptible to say the top 1% are paying their "fair share". (This is just federal income tax which, so the 40%, 60%, 70% are really bullshit numbers)

If you don't like the fact that someone making millions is taxed at 15% because all the income is taxed as capital gains, then why not open up a dialog on what the capital gains tax ought to be? That seems better than charging someone with not paying a fair share. But please be aware that little old me will hope to take advantage of lower taxes on capital gains when I retire. Me and a whole bunch of other people also. But since you brought up that example, you seem like someone that ought to go for a flat tax. The top 1% pays about 40%. I don't think that. It is fact. I agree about this being federal income tax...that's why I said....federal income tax. The numbers are what they are. If they don't fit your dumbass narrative, I guess you can call them BS.
Anonymous
Post 09/07/2012 18:03     Subject: Re:Elizabeth Warren

Come on. We all know that the Federal Government is a paradigm of efficiency and that Federal Government workers are are the most humble, modest and hardworking people that you'll ever meet.


GSA official reprimanded for planning party to celebrate herself

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80844.html#ixzz25p8Rr3ND
The General Services Administration’s Julia Hudson was ready to party last month, inviting roughly 1,200 federal employees to celebrate the second anniversary of her appointment as the scandal-scarred agency’s National Capital Region administrator.

Refreshments would be served in Hudson’s seventh-floor downtown D.C. office suite, including a cake bearing her image, GSA sources familiar with the event’s planning tell POLITICO.
Anonymous
Post 09/07/2012 16:18     Subject: Elizabeth Warren
Anonymous wrote:
You will not gain credibility by throwing out an opinion govt is more efficient then the private sector by giving social security, medicare and medcaid as examples. Just google those terms and the word Inefficiency result from your query. Please send me some lines NOT from the whitehouse.gov or obama.com that tout government efficiency with social security, medicare and medicaid.


And once they start telling you to consult Professor Google for better information, you know they haven't got anything better. FFS, google those terms + inefficiency???
Anonymous
Post 09/07/2012 15:52     Subject: Elizabeth Warren
What is the "moral compass" of collectivist government?
Anonymous
Post 09/07/2012 15:43     Subject: Re:Elizabeth Warren
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:...
I would rather have a mandatory charitable donation percentage of my choosing be implemented then having to pay taxes which I have no idea how or where it is being spent.

I would rather have a government that supported my right to vote.
I would rather win a lottery.
I would rather be a few decades younger.
I would rather you shut up about how you'd like the country to be run by your druthers!


I would rather have a president who focused on the economy instead of healthcare fake-reform.

I would rather have an economy where 400k didn't drop out of the workforce and gave up looking for work.
Anonymous
Post 09/07/2012 14:56     Subject: Elizabeth Warren
I love Warren because I think she tells it like it is - companies have no moral compass now. Few major companies are run by families who feel a loyalty to their workers and communities. It IS warfare out there - the companies are focused 100% on stock price and how much their CEO & top management get. Customer service is a joke for most of them.

We need people like Warren who recognize this and want to help put a thumb on the scales to help out consumers/real people.
Anonymous
Post 09/07/2012 14:54     Subject: Re:Elizabeth Warren
Anonymous wrote:...
I would rather have a mandatory charitable donation percentage of my choosing be implemented then having to pay taxes which I have no idea how or where it is being spent.

I would rather have a government that supported my right to vote.
I would rather win a lottery.
I would rather be a few decades younger.
I would rather you shut up about how you'd like the country to be run by your druthers!
Anonymous
Post 09/07/2012 14:46     Subject: Re:Elizabeth Warren
Anonymous wrote:
Well, the top 1% are paying 40% of the federal income tax. The top 5% are paying 60% of the federal income tax, and the top 10% are paying 70%.

This is why I will not vote republican.The statement shows the utter contempt the republicans have for the American people. Yes someone who make 100 million a year will pay more in taxes the someone who make 100k. 100,000,000 x .15 = 15,000,000; 100,000 x .35 = 35,000. So what dollar amount do you want everyone to pay?

PP here. I don't see why this shows utter contempt (or any contempt). It was in response to E. Warren's sort of suggestion that the top earners are not "paying foward". They are. Maybe there is a better way to appeal to the upper incomes than by suggesting they aren't paying their "fair share" or are not "paying forward". It's a nice strategy to divide the country, though. Let me say this another way. I think to suggest that someone paying a lot of taxes is not paying a "fair share" shows utter contempt for those people. That is why I will not vote democratic (today).

Oh I see now. Taxing someone making millions of dollars a year at 15% and taxing another person who make 100k a year at 36% is everyone paying their "fair share". Why do you think the top 1%’s share of federal income taxes has increased to 40% despite many tax cuts? Top 1% takes home 18% of all earned income. It is contemptible to say the top 1% are paying their "fair share". (This is just federal income tax which, so the 40%, 60%, 70% are really bullshit numbers)
Anonymous
Post 09/07/2012 14:10     Subject: Re:Elizabeth Warren
Income inequality in America
The 99 percent
Oct 26th 2011, 15:34 by The Economist online

"Occupy Wall Street" gets a boost from a new report on income distribution

OF ALL the many banners being waved around the world by disgruntled protesters from Chile to Australia the one that reads, "We Are the 99%" is the catchiest. It is purposefully vague, but it is also underpinned by some solid economics. A report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) points out that income inequality in America has not risen dramatically over the past 20 years—when the top 1% of earners are excluded. With them, the picture is quite different. The causes of the good fortune of those at the top are disputed, but the CBO provides some useful detail on that too. The biggest component of the increase in after-tax income for the top one percent is "business income" as opposed to income from labour or investments (though admittedly these things are hard to untangle). Whatever the cause, the data are powerful because they tend to support two prejudices. First, that a system that works well for the very richest has delivered returns on labour that are disappointing for everyone else. Second, that the people at the top have made out like bandits over the past few decades, and that now everyone else must pick up the bill. Of course it is a little more complicated than that. But this downturn ought to test the normally warm feelings in America of the 99% towards the 1%.

Anonymous
Post 09/07/2012 12:59     Subject: Re:Elizabeth Warren
Anonymous wrote:
Well, the top 1% are paying 40% of the federal income tax. The top 5% are paying 60% of the federal income tax, and the top 10% are paying 70%.

This is why I will not vote republican.The statement shows the utter contempt the republicans have for the American people. Yes someone who make 100 million a year will pay more in taxes the someone who make 100k. 100,000,000 x .15 = 15,000,000; 100,000 x .35 = 35,000. So what dollar amount do you want everyone to pay?

PP here. I don't see why this shows utter contempt (or any contempt). It was in response to E. Warren's sort of suggestion that the top earners are not "paying foward". They are. Maybe there is a better way to appeal to the upper incomes than by suggesting they aren't paying their "fair share" or are not "paying forward". It's a nice strategy to divide the country, though. Let me say this another way. I think to suggest that someone paying a lot of taxes is not paying a "fair share" shows utter contempt for those people. That is why I will not vote democratic (today).
Anonymous
Post 09/07/2012 11:57     Subject: Re:Elizabeth Warren
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:She speaks about the lucky few paying foward to the "next kid". Well, the top 1% are paying 40% of the federal income tax. The top 5% are paying 60% of the federal income tax, and the top 10% are paying 70%. Admittedly, some may not be paying the same tax rates. If that is a concern, let's have a flat tax. But I really don't see how people like Warren can intimate that successful people are not paying forward. Obama always trots out the "fair share" language.


I'm easily in the 1%. And the bottom line is this: I am sacrificing precious little when I pay taxes. We just write a check and that's that. I could not even tell you when it hits the bank account.

Meanwhile, there are other people who have to make real family choices based on their taxes. The dollar amount of my bill, which is comfortably in the six digits, does not in any way represent the personal sacrifice of someone who has to pick and choose what clothes to buy for their kids or whether they can afford an apartment with an extra bedroom. It just doesn't and we should stop pretending that the absolute dollar amount measures sacrifice.


Thank you for this. Very well put.


I donate a lot of money. I would rather pay an organization that I trust to distribute my donations to the poor and needy then the inefficient method of government tax collection and assistance. If a charity does a bad job or I don't agree with what they do then I can pull the plug on them and move to a different one.

I would rather have a mandatory charitable donation percentage of my choosing be implemented then having to pay taxes which I have no idea how or where it is being spent.


It's spent paying the air traffic controllers to keep your plane from running into another airplane. It is spent on your military so that you can feel safer from militias and terrorists. It is spent on repairing roads roads to take you to your six figure job. It's spent on the bridges so that your car does not fall into the Potomac. It's spent on the local police so that you can have semblance of rule of law, unlike Mogadishu. It is spent on educating the next generation of children so that the future does not resemble Mogadishu. It is spent on the paramedics and firefighters to put out the fires and render medical assistance if your car was to hit that rough icy patch and collide into another vehicle. It is spent on the invention of new technology which allowed you to post your asinine comment in the first place. It is spent on medical research that produced vaccines you and your DC undoubtably utilized and thus did not die from polio, chicken pox, malaria, measles, smallpox like millions across the world are doing every month. It is used to provide intel for the FBI so that you don't live in constant fear of the DC Sniper. It is spent roviding low-income or no-income mothers of small children milk, cheese, bread, etc so that their children are not starving in the streets. It is spent on drug testing and food testing to protect you from unsafe drugs and contaminated deadly foods. It is spent on securing levies in Louisiana, breaking dams in overflooded Missouri, fighting fires in Coloroda, salting the streets to free up ice on the roads in Bethesda. And so on and so on. It is money well spent so that you can have the luxury to take it all for granted.


We're talking about public assistance and entitlements NOT the above.

Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—along with other entitlements such as food stamps, unemployment, and housing assistance— make up 62 percent of all federal spending. In contrast, spending on foreign aid represents about 1 percent.

Anonymous
Post 09/07/2012 11:52     Subject: Re:Elizabeth Warren
Anonymous wrote:It's spent paying the air traffic controllers to keep your plane from running into another airplane. It is spent on your military so that you can feel safer from militias and terrorists. It is spent on repairing roads roads to take you to your six figure job. It's spent on the bridges so that your car does not fall into the Potomac. It's spent on the local police so that you can have semblance of rule of law, unlike Mogadishu. It is spent on educating the next generation of children so that the future does not resemble Mogadishu. It is spent on the paramedics and firefighters to put out the fires and render medical assistance if your car was to hit that rough icy patch and collide into another vehicle. It is spent on the invention of new technology which allowed you to post your asinine comment in the first place. It is spent on medical research that produced vaccines you and your DC undoubtably utilized and thus did not die from polio, chicken pox, malaria, measles, smallpox like millions across the world are doing every month. It is used to provide intel for the FBI so that you don't live in constant fear of the DC Sniper. It is spent roviding low-income or no-income mothers of small children milk, cheese, bread, etc so that their children are not starving in the streets. It is spent on drug testing and food testing to protect you from unsafe drugs and contaminated deadly foods. It is spent on securing levies in Louisiana, breaking dams in overflooded Missouri, fighting fires in Coloroda, salting the streets to free up ice on the roads in Bethesda. And so on and so on. It is money well spent so that you can have the luxury to take it all for granted.


Are you a speechwriter? That is brilliant.