patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,251,726 comments by 14,930 users - Al_Sharpton_for_President online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 126 - 132 of 132 Search these comments
126
WookieMan
2024 Oct 26, 9:19am
WookieMan
2024 Oct 26, 9:19am
RWSGFY says
Allowing poor to write off CC interest really isn't meddling in their affairs. People make mistakes. If allowing the poor to write off the interest on debt, the CC company still gets its money (profit/corporate taxes), but maybe it gets the poor out of food stamp land (savings) which is massively more expensive to everyone else that pays in.
People are stupid and make their own bed and sleep in it. But I don't want that to be at MY expense as someone that will pay $50-60k in federal taxes in 2025. If poorer people can write the interest off, it could lift maybe 500k people out of link cards and other government subsidies, section 8. And yes, some would spend more. But that's more corporate taxes.
It would be a policy that benefits everyone. It used to be that way 30-40 years ago. It sure as shit has potential to make at least a small dent in the deficit. I want less government, but there's ways we can reduce costs. Paying people to buy food is stupid. That's what link/food stamps is. If their net income hits a certain level, we don't have to pay for it as tax payers.
The stupid will keep spending and stay on link and the others will stop making me buy their groceries if they can write off some CC debt (interest). We'd gain more with link and section 8 in my scenario getting off the government budget. And it would be a political winner for whoever proposes it because the poor would think it's a win.
So now "conservatives" want the government meddling in people's finances, food they eat ... what's next? "Conservatives" clamoring for gubmint to make them vaccinate? I mean, if government know better at what rate I must borrow, it sure as shit knows what vaccine I should take, amirite?
Allowing poor to write off CC interest really isn't meddling in their affairs. People make mistakes. If allowing the poor to write off the interest on debt, the CC company still gets its money (profit/corporate taxes), but maybe it gets the poor out of food stamp land (savings) which is massively more expensive to everyone else that pays in.
People are stupid and make their own bed and sleep in it. But I don't want that to be at MY expense as someone that will pay $50-60k in federal taxes in 2025. If poorer people can write the interest off, it could lift maybe 500k people out of link cards and other government subsidies, section 8. And yes, some would spend more. But that's more corporate taxes.
It would be a policy that benefits everyone. It used to be that way 30-40 years ago. It sure as shit has potential to make at least a small dent in the deficit. I want less government, but there's ways we can reduce costs. Paying people to buy food is stupid. That's what link/food stamps is. If their net income hits a certain level, we don't have to pay for it as tax payers.
The stupid will keep spending and stay on link and the others will stop making me buy their groceries if they can write off some CC debt (interest). We'd gain more with link and section 8 in my scenario getting off the government budget. And it would be a political winner for whoever proposes it because the poor would think it's a win.
127
mell
2024 Oct 26, 9:22am
RWSGFY says
That was not science, they criminally withheld all the bad data and flat out lied. Zero to do with science. The fact that nobody has been prosecuted shows the bad state the US is in. Giving the information and letting people decide is fine, but that information has to come from science and math as well, otherwise people cannot make informed decisions.
So it boils down to what "the science" says? I vaguely remember "the science" say we must vaccinate with some safe and effective vaccine not long ago...
Don't ban/mandate things, just give people information and let them decide? But this is exactly how CC works: you know the interest rate, you know how much you'll pay overall. It's all there. And yet, "conservative" Cucker Tarlson is angry and demands change. 🤡
That was not science, they criminally withheld all the bad data and flat out lied. Zero to do with science. The fact that nobody has been prosecuted shows the bad state the US is in. Giving the information and letting people decide is fine, but that information has to come from science and math as well, otherwise people cannot make informed decisions.
128
RWSGFY
2024 Oct 26, 9:29am
RWSGFY
2024 Oct 26, 9:29am
Writing off debt is already allowed. Cucker apparently wants government to cap the interest. These things don't work together without someone stepping in and compensating the loss from the artificially lowered rates with risks staying the same. And by someone we mean government, because who else. So basically he demands governmemt subsidies for "poor people". Which basically means further expansion of the wellfare state. Which is the epitomy of conservatism (sarcasm alert). 🤡
129
mell
2024 Oct 26, 9:49am
RWSGFY says
This is not a monetary subsidy such as money printing and bank bailouts. It's impact could be to deny people credit who are too high risk which may not be a bad thing. The banks only loan out money at 20%+ currently because they get max revenues when the party is good and get bailed out when it's bad. I'm fine with free market credit rates IF we abolish the FED today and banks have to get money from other banks and savers at free market rates. AND let states enforce their own usury laws if they have em, so banks can and will decide where to do business. That's more Libertarian a la Stossel and not conservative (Tucker), although there is a small govt by any means conservative wing. Stossel is also more aligned with big ag food and letting consimers decide if they want to consume it.
Writing off debt is already allowed. Cucker apparently wants government to cap the interest. These things don't work together without someone stepping in and compensating the loss from the artificially lowered rates with risks staying the same. And by someone we mean government, because who else. So basically he demands governmemt subsidies for "poor people". Which basically means further expansion of the wellfare state. Which is the epitomy of conservatism (sarcasm alert). 🤡
This is not a monetary subsidy such as money printing and bank bailouts. It's impact could be to deny people credit who are too high risk which may not be a bad thing. The banks only loan out money at 20%+ currently because they get max revenues when the party is good and get bailed out when it's bad. I'm fine with free market credit rates IF we abolish the FED today and banks have to get money from other banks and savers at free market rates. AND let states enforce their own usury laws if they have em, so banks can and will decide where to do business. That's more Libertarian a la Stossel and not conservative (Tucker), although there is a small govt by any means conservative wing. Stossel is also more aligned with big ag food and letting consimers decide if they want to consume it.
131
HeadSet
2024 Nov 5, 3:36pm
HeadSet
2024 Nov 5, 3:36pm
DemocratsAreTotallyFucked says
Yes, and those few women with paid off loans likely had payment help from hubby or daddy.
Yes, and those few women with paid off loans likely had payment help from hubby or daddy.
132
DOGEWontAmountToShit
2024 Nov 20, 3:10pm
DOGEWontAmountToShit
2024 Nov 20, 3:10pm
Never saw this movie. After watching this scene about debt, I will now:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Dpp4vhAxzLU
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Dpp4vhAxzLU
« First « Previous Comments 126 - 132 of 132 Search these comments
As interest rates rise, the math says that it's better if invest any spare cash rather than pay down debt, which is at a low fixed rate (house, student loan, small car loan). However, particularly with the mortgage, there is something to be said for the peace of mind of having it behind me and owning my home outright. I'm fully funding my 401(k), and have a six month emergency fund, but until now, any "free cash" beyond that, I've been diverting to the mortgage. As I sit right now, the goal is have it paid off in the next 5 to 7 years. With high yield savings paying about 4% right now, that's a 1% spread relative to my 3% mortgage.
As much as I could try to invest in the market 1) I'm not that good, and 2) the market has more or less peaked, and I don't see another major bull market given that we are seeing the end of the "everything bubble". Once I own the house free and clear, then I'll have plenty of "play money" to invest or whatever and hopefully catch the next upswing.