US Politics Mega-thread - Page 422

On September 11 2013 09:15 xDaunt wrote:
Okay, saying that "there is no private property" in our current system is incredibly provocative. I simply must hear an explanation.

On September 11 2013 11:06 IgnE wrote:


When the vast majority of society is in credit card debt with a mortgage on their home, and living paycheck to paycheck, how can it be said they truly own anything besides some personal effects? The plutocracy owns all the capital, and hence the property in this country. It's a joke to say that you "own" your house when it's on it's second mortgage. Everything you have can be repossessed.

On September 11 2013 11:12 IgnE wrote:
The more sophisticated you make it, the more sophistry is apt to sneak in.

On September 11 2013 11:06 IgnE wrote:


When the vast majority of society is in credit card debt with a mortgage on their home, and living paycheck to paycheck, how can it be said they truly own anything besides some personal effects? The plutocracy owns all the capital, and hence the property in this country. It's a joke to say that you "own" your house when it's on it's second mortgage. Everything you have can be repossessed.

On September 11 2013 11:21 xDaunt wrote:

Or you could say that the more sophisticated that property rights are, the more opportunities for ownership (and prosperity) there are.

On September 11 2013 15:26 Sub40APM wrote:

not necessarily. for example, the securitization of mortgages and the subsequent loss of title led to many people who shouldnt have been evicted from their property to being evicted from their property.

On September 11 2013 15:26 Sub40APM wrote:

not necessarily. for example, the securitization of mortgages and the subsequent loss of title led to many people who shouldnt have been evicted from their property to being evicted from their property.

On September 11 2013 15:34 Wegandi wrote:
xDaunt I would definitely say that there is no private property in this country. It seems nothing is off limits to Government and the principle property of property is title, ownership, sovereignship. Let's talk homes for a moment. You do not own your home because of property taxes re: liens. Government owns your home and if you fail to pay them their extortion then they will revoke their allowance of your so-called private property. It can be as little as 44$, but that's not the point, the point is, you don't and cannot by definition own your home because you're a serf to the Government (re: indentured via property taxation). Let's not even talk about the simple fact that the Government claims ownership of our own bodies and regulates thereof. The Drug War and Laws for instance are the Governments writs against our self-ownership, and so forth for any Nanny-Statism. Ditto for Income Tax which Government claims to own our labor.

You're mistaking possession for private property. Perhaps you may want to read some Charles Dunoyer, Rothbard, Chodorov, Molinari, or Benjamin Tucker?

Tax battle: Banks on offensive against credit unions

Congressional lawmakers currently working on tax reform are caught in a war of words between banks and credit unions.

At issue is the longtime federal tax exemption for credit unions: The credit unions want to keep it, while the banking industry wants it to end.

"Credit unions offer the same products as banks, and yet they get a tax exemption that costs taxpayers $2 billion a year," said James Ballentine, chief lobbyist for the American Bankers Association, an industry trade group. ...

House Republicans are eying a vote as early as Thursday on a gambit designed to re-declare their support for defunding Obamacare while avoiding a government shutdown.

The vote will be a major test of the extent to which the GOP is captive to ultraconservatives. It pits party leaders, who wants to avoid a shutdown, against furious conservative activist groups who see the plan as a surrender and betrayal. The big question is whether conservative backbenchers in the House see leadership’s move as providing sufficient political cover for them, or whether the angry reaction from the organized activist community scares them off.

If the proposal passes the House, the Senate will be instructed to vote on the defunding measure; if it defeats it, then the “clean” resolution to keep the government funded at agreed-to levels goes straight to the President’s desk. No shutdown.

Conservative groups like FreedomWorks, Club For Growth and Heritage Action vehemently oppose the plan and have vowed to punish lawmakers who vote to bring it up. They want Republicans to force a confrontation over defunding Obamacare at risk of a government shutdown. These well-financed groups wield tremendous influence over the GOP and have repeatedly bested — and embarrassed — the party leadership.

While pitching the Obamacare strategy Tuesday during a private meeting, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) dismissed the right’s Obamacare-or-shutdown strategy as an unrealistic ploy to raise money, according to the conservative Washington Examiner. “I reject the false choice that if you are against shutting down the government you are for Obamacare,” he told his members. “We need to give the Senate the opportunity to join us in the fight against Obamacare. This strategy forces the Senate to take a vote and give our Republican colleagues there the chance to fight.”

On September 12 2013 00:57 crayhasissues wrote:
"All we want is a level playing field." I don't think banks would still be able to compete with banks on rates. If they take away the exemption for credit unions, won't they basically just be banks (aside from the shareholder/member structure)?

On September 12 2013 01:07 aksfjh wrote:
Anybody want to describe what prevents credit unions from being banks?

Edit: It looks like credit unions are required to be non-profit, hence their tax-free status.

On September 11 2013 23:13 xDaunt wrote:

So what's your point? Fundamentally, there's no difference between a government's tax lien or any other kind of lien/security interest that can be attained by a private person other than that the government lien is given a statutory priority in the event of foreclosure (ie, the government gets paid first in the sale). If someone doesn't pay their debts, then creditors, including the government, can attach and foreclose upon assets of the debtor to satisfy the debts. I don't think any sane person would argue that it is good policy to give debtors leave to never pay their debts in timely fashion.

As for debts to the government specifically (like taxes), what your beef should be (and probably is) is that less taxes should be paid, which is a whole another topic. Ditto for the drug laws and property seizure provisions thereunder; that's a whole different issue than debtor/creditor relations.

On September 12 2013 01:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

To the best of my knowledge...

Depositors at a credit union are both lenders and owners ('members').
Depositors at banks are just lenders.

Credit unions are more exclusive than banks.
Credit unions often have some at least nominally stated social goal.

Edit: They're required to be not for profit, but they still turn a profit and give it to their 'members'.