people say how terrible a country China is, but then again, in China there's no mortgage. How dumb is it that you have to pay 1-2% a year for something you bought already
@lhtony LOL if banks don't charge interest then how will they make money? So you think they should loan you money out of the goodness of their heart? You silly liberals.
Read Bernard London's "Ending the Depression Through Planned Obsolescence" gents and you'll understand why dozing the home and business might not be as as bad as you imagine.
Some call him Crazy some call him Creative i call him a Genius. Hell we tear down buildings all the time just because they are out of Style. I think rebuilding his house would be good for the economy. The banks want to take something from you go ahead give them something that is completely worthless. Your house gets foreclosed trash the hell out of it flush cement down every toilet put huge holes in all the sheetrock rip out all the copper and sell it and hammer the crap out of the A/C unit.
Your dumb for buldozing it ou should have just sold it for 350k then paid the bank what you owe them. You would them have money left over to buy another small house. Instead you bulldozed your equity and lost your business too.
@tubofbologna When does a bank do that? Every instance I have ever seen has been the bank auctioning it off at a loss and then taking you to court for the difference. I left AZ because the house I lived in lost 2/3rds the value because the bank auctioned a similar house down the street for pocket change, and killed the value of the rest of the neighborhood. Everyone walked away from their mortgage after that, and I don't blame them. So I like what this guy did. Screw the banks.
I'm torn. I agree with the whole "He put his house up for collateral. Not his land." thing they talked about after, but there's also the whole "Fuck the greedy fuckers!" part of me that's currently cheering.
This man is a moron and should be held liable for the losses of the banks and other agencies that he owes money to. This is typical of the attitude of the Americans in debt. The aire of entitlement that so many people have is what has reduced this once country to the level of Mexico.
I didn't even need to hear the amount of how much he had to pay back. Just look at that big ass house. If that house is getting foreclosed then something fishy is obviously going on.
does this remind anyone else of that episode of little house on the prarie where that wealthy buisnessman buys the town property? and all the towns people destroy the houses? it does for me...anyways kudos to him for bulldozing his house ^.^
No way the best is when you're going to be foreclosed on your house right before you gotta leave dump wet cement down all the drains and in the tub drains and shit...it'll be a nightmare for them!!!! hahahaha
I can just imagine those bunch of 75 year old gasbags in their 5000$ suits talking about how to scam the next person for their money, even though at 75 they can't do a thing with it.
I'd rather loose and take the bank down with me then, loose and let them win... I think it's smart. He bought the land. and owed for it not the house.... So if he tears down the house who gives a shit.
The net result of this... He will has no house and still owes the money. If he goes bankrupt... everyone else will end up paying his taxes and the bank will end up charging everyone else more when they apply for their morgages.
Are you people crazy? The guy was a bad businessman, hence why he SHOULD have sold his home, payed his debt, and moved into a smaller house for a short period of time. After getting back on his feet he could've gotten a bigger home again.
This isn't being heroic. This is called being a coward and not facing up to your mistakes.
When you put up your home as collateral, there are always risks you must face.
@piontro The bank can now sue him for "vandalism" or "destruction of their property" and if he loses such a civil lawsuit he can't get out of having to pay the civil suit by filing for bankruptcy because BK won't erase tort judgements, IRS liens, student loans, alimony or child support.
He only hurt himself by destroying the house because now the bank will sue him and the bank will win. He can leave the country...otherwise he's screwed.
@EdwardRommel I'm not sure about this particular case, but some people have been destroying their houses while they were still the legal owners, gutting houses and ruining the lawn with what they tear out...and it's their business while it's still theirs, not something they can be sued for.
yeah, the guy is stupid. the bank let you have the loan and the agreement was securing your home as collateral, and you don't pay the money back, YES, the bank can take the house and try to sell it to recover their losses. this guy was bogus!!! not a legitimate news story.
I dunno. I have to say the system doesn't play fair, so you can't expect the people to play fair in it. The fractional reserve system is inherently inflationary. Inflation is a hidden tax on the people imposed by the government, causing our money to become steadily devalued each year. It's not enough anymore to work hard to keep your home away from a banker that did nothing to get it. Stories like this man should be expected! Why are we surprised?
I would not just have dozed the house i would have torn down the bussiness too, then riped up the ground and salted it, after which i would have filed for bankrupcy and since i had no assets left the greedy piece of shit bankers would not have been able squeeze one stinking cent out of me, that would show the assholes to not try to fuck people over with their bullshit. And the banker scum cant really press criminal charges since the house still belonged to you at the moment you tore it down.
Even though we don't know the whole story, what he did will perhaps make greedy bankers think twice. So many people have been jerked around - have wasted their time - with the "wonderful mortgage modification" programs payed for with OUR tax money. The banks act as if they're going to modify your loan - and why not - they'd still get their money? Then, they stick it to you. Banks need to be taught a lesson.
@LouieBeethoven Are you that dense? Yes... it will make the bankers think twice... they'll charge everyone an extra 2% on loans to cover insurance, they'll deny honest people loans just in case they turn out to be losers, and they will stop allowing homes to be put up for colateral against businesses, etc. and everyone will pay. If you think this is a good idea... you start a bank.
He just screwed himself bad. Now the property isn't worth as much, and he'll have to pay for the difference too. What a loon. Probably a Glenn Beck fan. lol
@bathetcnow Actually, the way to deal with the banks is to sit on your porch with a rifle and have a dozen armed people inside the property and shoot at anything that approaches.
@HostileNegotiator Until they bring in the Swat Team...lol Then if you really piss them off they will bring in the National Guard or Troops...lol I don't think you would win
@HostileNegotiator I would pretend to be arrested, then when they came to arrest me, BOOM, 20 guys storm out with AR's and shoot em all. THATS how you go down fighting.
I guess you were waiting for me to finish your word, "Perfect". What you said, is the same thing that went through my mind.
" If a man sees air, and decides to cover it with a sheet, and then the rain comes and ruin your creation, and the rain says "you owe for cleaning your sheet", you would say, "but there was no rain in this air, before I came with the sheet, so I don't owe you anything. " I know this sounds crazy, probably because I am rushing, before nature calls, but so is this story.
I was comparing the "air", to the silence of the once empty land, that has now been covered with a house. The man made that land something, and he is every right, to make it nothing again. Agree?
@Joxman2k - quote Though men as a whole own the earth and all inferior creatures, every individual· man has a property in his own person [= ‘owns himself’]; this is something that nobody else has any right to. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are strictly his. So when he takes something from the state that nature has provided and left it in, he mixes his labour with it, thus joining to it something that is his own; and in that way he makes it his property.
quote was from the two treatises of government. John Locke himself was the guy the founding fathers paraphrased when they wrote the Declaration of Independence - he was a very good philosopher.
Suck it up.. This guy ran a small tiny shit hole bath and beyond shack of a store... and also had a 350,000 dollar home in Ohio.... Maybe next time, buy a house you can actually fucking afford? This person is a scam artist asshole salesman.. Fuck him
He puts his house down as collateral for a business loan and then when his business fails (prior to the economic meltdown) he bulldozes his house? No more loans for him. Ever.
He has not paid state and federal income taxes since 2004. He is also in chapter 7 bankruptcy, both his business and residence are considered property of the estate that is in receivership. Pissing off a federal judge is never a good idea.
An Icelandic man did this too, but he didnt do anything wrong. In Iceland your loan will rise with inflation,so when the bank thing whent down so did the value of the krona.His payments got to high and the bank was going to take his house and car.This guy gets a bulldozer,digs a hole and drives his car into it, then he destroyed the house and moved to Denmark.
Here is the messed up thing. The money spent on the bailout is enough cash to give 1 million dollars to every single family on some sort of government subside or entitlement program, effectively eliminating their need to be on such programs. We don't have a money problem, we have a money allocation problem. And until we address that, anything we try to fix will still be broken, even healthcare.
ok just to clarify a point nearly everyone in america uses a govt subside. so considering there are about 113 million families in america. that means every family would have only gotten a little over 10 thousand dollars.
"nearly everyone in america uses a govt subside," that is just not true. Mandated subsidiees are: Welfare, medicare, medical, social security. Originally, SS was suppose to take money from your pay check, put it in a bond and pay you when you reached retirement. Now it pays entitlees from moneys acquired from current payees. It should not be in the equation, but even with it, mandated entitlements are under 1.3 tril.
@Ambelghan what do you call the oil subside that makes gasoline cheaper at the pump? or the subside for farmers that make the food that is grown here cheaper for everyone. those are both given to us through tax dollars which means its a subside. which means everyone in america benefits from subsidies
Those are not mandated entitlements. Mandated entitlements are "benefits" the government is required to pay, which are the ones I mentioned. Before I address the oil and the farms, tell me what you think a subside is and how they come up with money for it.
sorry but now your changing what you said and i quote, The money spent on the bailout is enough cash to give 1 million dollars to every single family on some sort of government subside or entitlement program."
this comment pretty much covers every single family in america. now you can say you where meaning only mandated entitlements now but this is not what you said to begin with.
so lets stop this silliness and just tell me how many families you are actually referring to
@Ambelghan well subsides is using tax dollars or tax breaks for people in order for them to either make a product or service more affordable or be able to pay for said service or product. now this is a very general definition i am sure there are way better more specific ones i could give.
Subsides are paid out to manufacturers or producers, not to the general population. I do know of farms receiving subsides, for them to destroy their crops/produce to keep their prices high or "stable." I don't know about the gas manufacturers, but I do know that subsides do not apply to the general pop and they do not lower prices.
@Ambelghan ok if my tax dollars go to the gas company to help them with cost to make the gas i pay for at the pump cheaper that is a subside. as well my grandfather gets paid for not growing anything on land he owns. its a subside to keep his land from being developed to keep the soil healthy. as well he gets paid the difference to grow certain crops that will bring him less money than others that bring more.
It's tax money, on that we agree. It is not paid out to make goods more affordable to the population, but to make up the difference of a good to the manufacturer, if said good would not yield enough profit to allow the business to remain open. Likewise it is paid to producers to stop them from producing, to keep their business open, because if they did produce the supply of their good on the open market would drive the value of their good down, eliminating profits for all.
Subsidies keep businesses open, they do not lower the end price of any good. In fact, they might actually keep entities that should go out of business in business. However, the negative assumption is that if farms close down there could come a time where there are not enough farms and thus not enough food. So to prevent that possibility, they are paid to produce nothing or something that is not as profitable so it is available to the public.
ok so far you have said that subsidies dont lower prices and i have shown how they do. we give subsidies to the oil companies, exon and the like, in turn there expenses are not as high which means they dont charge as much at the pump.
you have also stated that subsidies dont go to private citizens but i have shown that they do. my grandfather gets them and has for decades for farming.
You haven't shown how they lower prices, you have stated that they lower prices, big difference. If the subsides actually lower cost, not we are talking about oil, give a real world example. I believe they received subsides all throughout the period where oil prices were through the roof, yet the American consumer is the one who paid for it. You have shown an example that subsides do keep businesses open that should other wise fail or are producing goods that are worth as much.
Further, your grandpa is recieving a subside on his farm, for all intents and purposes he is a manufacture a producer of produce and why is he getting is subside? So he doesn't make as much food or to make a less profitable crop available to the public. It has nothing to do with him as a citizen and it has nothing to do with lowering the end cost to the consumer. Though you are welcome to show examples where it has happened. Show, not just state.
"@Ambelghan ok if my tax dollars go to the gas company to help them with cost to make the gas i pay for at the pump cheaper that is a subside"
"@Ambelghan i didnt say they make them cheap i said they lower the prices"
So now you think it lowers the price, but somehow is will not make it cheaper, ok. I don't think subsides lower the end price of any good or make it cheap.
Explain this to me. Your grandfather receives a subside for his farming land, he is getting it cause he is a farmer, not because he is a private citizen, if he sold the farm moved somewhere else, he would no longer receive his subside, ergo subside tied to the farmland not the citizen.
Your grandfather is also not producing anything. So, he is receiving money to not produce a good, I believe that when there are less goods on the market the price of that good should go up, if demand remains steady or increases, regardless the supply is reduced. You would have us believe that this, chain of events, would have the price of the good lower than if there were more of the good on the market, the opposite of the law of supply and demand. How have you come to this conclusion?
i will put it this way if something cost 1million dollars and tax dollars go into the business to help the cost. that company can then sell product for 5 hundred thousand instead. this product is still not cheap but the price has been lowered. see the difference?
as well not once have i said my grandpa got money for being a private citizen. i said he is a private citizen and got subsidies. this was a counter to your statement that they do not go to private citizens.
That is as nice theory, but it isn't exacltly how it is working. Your grandpa is getting a subside and producing.. nothing, no cost savings are going to the consumer, as you claim. The subside allows him to keep his farm otherwise he would have to sell it. Subsides keep business that would otherwise go under, or make up the difference in debt for providing a good or service, again to keep companies from going under.
What you describe are a nice set of circumstances. However, you should have noticed something wrong with your approach. The government can only give money to entities through two ways: printing it and collecting it in taxes. The first decreases the purchasing power of the citizen, which is a net effect of no savings when they go to purchase the product, the next leaves them with less money in their pocket, again an effect of no savings to the product.
I don't know where your getting your information from, because I am saying your entire premise is wrong. You would somehow have to work a situation where a farm produced no goods, got a subside and then decrease of goods on the open market somehow caused the price of the goods to go down, instead of up. Please demonstrate that, cause you have just walked around the theory of supply and demand, eco101
"not once have i said my grandpa got money for being a private citizen. i said he is a private citizen and got subsidies."
Right, he got it not because he is a citizen but because he is a farmer who has demonstrated that without government aid his business will go under. I said they don't go to private citizens, which is true, you can't just walk up and say, "subside please," and get one. You need to show you have a necessary good [food] and without aid you will no longer be able to produce.
@Ambelghan ok if you are correct and i am wrong that means that the only reason exon mobile doesnt go under is because of the subsidies that it receives from the government. if you could realize that subsidies do far more than what you say they do. your stuck on this idea that subsidies only provide this one service for this one intended goal. that is just silly and if you took the time to actually look it up you would see they do so much more
I don't know the inner workings of exon mobile, the subsides it gets, if it gets them, maybe more directed towards the distribution aspect of their business. Subsides may have more aspects that what was mention, however, in the only real example we can step through [you grandpa's farm] they do not lower the cost of anything.
If you can somehow workout a situation where increasing the taxes of the citizens, or using up more funds from the general public fund, or printing money, to give to a private entity, somehow lowers the expenditure of the consumer for goods, then I would be more on board with this price lowering idea. However, you would have to come up with it, because all the examples I can either increase the cost over all, or, at best, do nothing to the cost.
so you are finally willing to admit that they do more than what you have said they only do. well its about bloody time. now instead of sitting here expecting me to educate you go look it up. instead of just blowing off my point because you dont know about it go look it up and show me how i am wrong with the subsidies exon mobil gets and the reason for them. you said you have no idea about them but say i am wrong.
there are many reasons for giving out subsidies and what they are used for.
I admit that they do what I said they do, if you want them to appear to do more then you need to work the example to prove YOUR point, which is they lower end cost. I said they don't, and PROVED [with the aid of your grandpa's farm] that they do not. You have to prove your own argument, not get others to prove it for you, unless they just walk into it with poorly thought out examples, aka your grandpa's farm. I don't need to prove your argument for you, you do, I already proved mine
@Ambelghan ok back pedal on what you said just an hour ago and i quote, "Subsides may have more aspects that what was mention." this is fine do what you want.
second i have never once said they lower the end cost. i said they lower what you pay for them. and used at the pump for an example. tax dollars made it that cheap so they would be counted in for the end cost.
again not once did i say the subsidies my grandpa gets for not growing lower the cost of anything. why do you use strawmen
Read what it says, may, aliens may land out of the sky any minute, you may go to the store or you may go to the movies, but may isn't what happened. End cost = what you pay, as the end cost of any good is absorbed by the consumer, or the company would not be able to remain in the black, period. Let's use this pump example you came up with even though you said the word cheap and you mean lower, as you stated in other post. Where does the government get the money to give to the subside?
@Ambelghan no i said cheaper why do you keep saying i said things i dont. no matter how many times you are corrected about what i say you keep saying i said things i didnt.
even thou i just wrote to you explaining where subsidies come from and how they dont lower the end cost here you are asking where do they get the money for subsidies
if you want to actually read what i say and respond to it then we can continue but your obviously not paying attention
i love how instead of admitting that i havent been saying the things you say i have been you just say, whatever. that really sums up your whole argument right there. no matter how you are shown to be wrong your response is either been to lie and say i said things i didnt or just say, whatever. nicely played, are you practicing to be the best troll you can be?
No you are trying desperately to split hairs over words like cheaper and lower, without actually having to provide any sort of analysis to back up your point. Especially when the word, lower, cheap, cheaper are all relative in themselves. What is expensive to you might not be to someone who makes 2 mil a year in profit. Likewise, what is cheap to you might be expensive to someone on a 20 dollar a week allowance.
@Ambelghan sorry your the one splitting hairs. your whole argument has been to use strawmen to attack, by this you are saying things i didnt say, instead of attacking what i said.
yes what is cheap to me might not be to someone else. that is exactly why i didnt use the word cheap. you did and i corrected you. if i make a product cheaper all that means it is now more affordable than before it doesn mean it is affordable.
Let's assume you still go with the concept of your tax dollars going to make a subside for the gas company so it can sell its gas at a discounted rate. Let's assume your taxes lower your profit by 10%, the oil company then lowers their cost by 10%, passing on a savings of 10% Is this what you are trying to work out? Relative to the amount of spending power each unit of currency has, you have had a net gain and loss of zero, in a 1v1 or ratio system of many v 1 as is the case with the gas comp
Also, its not a straw man attack. You don't actually provide any analysis as to how you come to your conclusion, you rely on me to set it up and then complain when the wording is how you want. Then you spend more post attempting to goad than actually provide any useful counters. For instance, your grandpa's farm is no longer being used in your argument that subsides lower the cost of an end good to the consumer, because I had stepped through the analysis to show it did not.
But I didn't need to knock down any analysis to get there, just an backless statement. And when I allow for the possibility that subsides might do what you want them to, as well, you provide no real analysis, just a statement followed by "look it up." Which would imply that you yourself don't know, but have been told that that is how they work.
@Ambelghan no the grandfathers farm was never used to say subsidies lower prices. you said they dont go to private citizens and i showed how they do. instead of acknowledging this you have used it to show how they dont lower food cost. which was never my point thus making it a strawman.
Yeah, now you are ignoring the tax/gas analysis and clinging to the notion that your grandpa got the subside for being a citizen, he got it for being a farmer. If he losses his farm he losses his subside, he is still a citizen though. His farmer status is what grants him access to subside, not his private citizen status, fallacy of association.
@Ambelghan almost every thing you say i do is a lie. not once did i say he got it for being a citizen i said he was a citizen that got it. which was a counter to your claim that they dont go to citizens. all of this i have explained numerous times.
ok i tell you what this is getting old. take the time to read what i have said and what you have said. think really hard and get back to me. when you decide to stop being a troll and actually have a discussion i will be glad to
That is not even close to a counter claim that they go to citizens. Based off that logic you could say they go to bipeds, but being a biped is not a criteria for getting a subside. The criteria are: being a producer of a good, whom if such good went on the open market would result in less market profit and possibly foreclosure of those business not able to stay afloat, or if you cannot meet the bottom line in the good you make, and the good is deemed necessary.
And Nibielari, this is indeed old, I don't know why I have to step through all iterations with you, as you seem to be unable to do them yourself.
For your other falsely based argument regarding gas. How does an increase taxes or a reproportioning of the general public fund, lower the cost of the end good to the consumer when they either have less purchasing power or less cash in pocket, due to printing of money or higher taxes?
It is amazing that you still step over your own examples and you believe that being a citizen is the criteria for getting a subside. I learn about people's thought processes, you'll probably say something along the lines of, "we weren't talking about criteria, you said they didn't go to citizens," however, we are talking about an item and what you need to use it. Otherwise we could fill this page with all sorts of eronious facts concerning people with subsides: 2 eyes, mouth, nose, 2 ears.. ect
Either way you flip it subsides allow a company to keep running, they do not effect end cost of the product to the consumer. Now someone might be telling you that it does, but it actually doesn't.
"...the tax on the paycheck would be appropriated into a "trust fund" that would finance the entire program without additional expense from the general budget; the employee's contribution was to be matched by an equal contribution from the employer. And most important, the control of these trust funds was to be in the hands of the federal government and the federal government only."
Ambelghan said, "...the tax on the paycheck would be appropriated into..."
That does not conflict with what I said. You made the statment, "take money from your pay check, put it in a bond and pay you when you reached retirement." Social Security has never been based on an investment bond. It is a misconception that some people have with SSI, that it operates like a savings account where you get back what you and your employer pay into the account, plus the accrued interest.
@dangerouslytalented what world do you reside in? far to many intangibles here unless you knwo something WE do not. even so....fuck the banks and the IRs too.....you believe these systems play fair? keep on being controlled and believing your masters bcukwheat. I'll lay my money on the bulldozing dude
What an idiot. I hope they throw him in jail for destroying the IRS's property. Pay your taxes deadbeat!
Dinah4life 1 day ago
Hell yes! Kudos to this man
SmithersThe 2 days ago
good job man bulldoze the bank next
Plusquevie 3 days ago
people say how terrible a country China is, but then again, in China there's no mortgage. How dumb is it that you have to pay 1-2% a year for something you bought already
lhtony 4 days ago
@lhtony LOL if banks don't charge interest then how will they make money? So you think they should loan you money out of the goodness of their heart? You silly liberals.
Dinah4life 1 day ago
@Dinah4life ooo correction, I meant property tax
lhtony 1 day ago
@lhtony LOL yeah property tax is BS. I shoulda figured it out though 1-2% would be a really low interest rate.
Dinah4life 1 day ago
Comment removed
xCrispix 4 days ago
luuuuv it!! why didnt we think of this when they foreclosed on us...dangit
COULDNTthinkNAMEOFa 4 days ago
Crooked banks around the world will gladly give a loan today, so if you ever miss a payment they can take your home away.
DaEdsta 4 days ago
im the 20,000th viewer AWWWWWWW YEAHHHHH!
EthanWuzHur 6 days ago
Read Bernard London's "Ending the Depression Through Planned Obsolescence" gents and you'll understand why dozing the home and business might not be as as bad as you imagine.
tuluminous 1 week ago
they ended up taking the bulldozer
CCSinventions 1 week ago
dont buy A HOUSE U CANT AFFORD
MinoritiesRlazy 1 week ago
THIS GUY HAS BALLS
FlashX212 1 month ago
This guy is scum. They had every right to take it and greed doesn't mean the law doesn't apply to you.
Dorako753 1 month ago
Congrats you risked destroying the economy.
J1T1Z 1 month ago
Damn right.
krowanders 1 month ago
Only in Moscow. ..... Hooah FIRST CAV!!!!
keeperoftherealm 1 month ago
Bulldoze your house! IF the government tries to take it! I think this is a great solution to corruption.
DaRocknessMonster2 1 month ago
*Applauds!* Good job, I think it's a brilliant solution!
DaRocknessMonster2 1 month ago 2
Some call him Crazy some call him Creative i call him a Genius. Hell we tear down buildings all the time just because they are out of Style. I think rebuilding his house would be good for the economy. The banks want to take something from you go ahead give them something that is completely worthless. Your house gets foreclosed trash the hell out of it flush cement down every toilet put huge holes in all the sheetrock rip out all the copper and sell it and hammer the crap out of the A/C unit.
casinohijack 1 month ago
Becoming homeless...LIKE A BAWS
Oblivionpierce 1 month ago
what an example of "i cant have it no one can!"
demonsparkx 1 month ago
Your dumb for buldozing it ou should have just sold it for 350k then paid the bank what you owe them. You would them have money left over to buy another small house. Instead you bulldozed your equity and lost your business too.
georgecello12 1 month ago
didnt he realize that if the bank sold his property for more than he owed...they are legally obligated to pay him the difference!!!
tubofbologna 1 month ago
@tubofbologna When does a bank do that? Every instance I have ever seen has been the bank auctioning it off at a loss and then taking you to court for the difference. I left AZ because the house I lived in lost 2/3rds the value because the bank auctioned a similar house down the street for pocket change, and killed the value of the rest of the neighborhood. Everyone walked away from their mortgage after that, and I don't blame them. So I like what this guy did. Screw the banks.
InteGrayting2 1 month ago 3
why bulldoze? sell everything for scrap
tubofbologna 1 month ago
he'll be under stipulation for the rest of his life
tubofbologna 1 month ago
I'm torn. I agree with the whole "He put his house up for collateral. Not his land." thing they talked about after, but there's also the whole "Fuck the greedy fuckers!" part of me that's currently cheering.
WirlWind494 1 month ago
This man is a moron and should be held liable for the losses of the banks and other agencies that he owes money to. This is typical of the attitude of the Americans in debt. The aire of entitlement that so many people have is what has reduced this once country to the level of Mexico.
lamanchadale 1 month ago
If he is in debt, then where the HELL did he get a bulldozer from
acakajv 2 months ago
so smart...
petechef27nj 2 months ago
Someone ban the IRS from the US. This is ridiculous.
OBAMA, APPROVE A BILL TO BAN WHAT THE IRS IS DOING.
This guy has all right to do what he did.
SML879 2 months ago
If you put THE and IRS together you get THEIRS XD
HyperGreenNova 2 months ago
@HyperGreenNova HAAAAAA
MinoritiesRlazy 1 week ago
thats my son!! im so proud ;D
AirsoftReviewerz 2 months ago
why not just pay your taxes.
alexneil1967 2 months ago
I didn't even need to hear the amount of how much he had to pay back. Just look at that big ass house. If that house is getting foreclosed then something fishy is obviously going on.
larsattack 2 months ago
he must of watched the last episode of little house on the prairie
godscuttingyoudown 3 months ago
Comment removed
NitsuaNaed 3 months ago
this guy is the fuckiingman
GERIDIUS 7 months ago 7
does this remind anyone else of that episode of little house on the prarie where that wealthy buisnessman buys the town property? and all the towns people destroy the houses? it does for me...anyways kudos to him for bulldozing his house ^.^
DJscorpioMakings 7 months ago
3:59 Subtitles "Before he erected it" ROFLMAO!!! xD
bloodhoun138 7 months ago
Holy f*** 350,000 dollar house bulldozed!!
sexfromlex 7 months ago
TYT aint shit. eat a sack of baby dicks.
RadBunny111 8 months ago
No way the best is when you're going to be foreclosed on your house right before you gotta leave dump wet cement down all the drains and in the tub drains and shit...it'll be a nightmare for them!!!! hahahaha
MrDistortedReality 8 months ago
the closed captions are funny!
WrestleManiac69 8 months ago
"the bank had no comment"
I can just imagine those bunch of 75 year old gasbags in their 5000$ suits talking about how to scam the next person for their money, even though at 75 they can't do a thing with it.
ExpertOfSound 8 months ago 3
IRS= WE'VE GOT WHAT IS TAKES TO TAKE WHAT YOU'VE GOT
shariar1995 1 year ago 40
@shariar1995 yeah, I also remember when they sent IOU to California residents for tax returns.
ERAUPRCWA 1 year ago
I'd rather loose and take the bank down with me then, loose and let them win... I think it's smart. He bought the land. and owed for it not the house.... So if he tears down the house who gives a shit.
TheCanadianAirsoft 1 year ago
even if he goes to jail, he'll have a place to live eat and sleep. more than he would have if he just let the bank kick him out on the streets!
Matt06yfz 1 year ago
He should have armor-plated it and went to town.
GalaticTG 1 year ago
The net result of this... He will has no house and still owes the money. If he goes bankrupt... everyone else will end up paying his taxes and the bank will end up charging everyone else more when they apply for their morgages.
BW022 1 year ago
Yes, this guy is awesome!
fight2legalize 1 year ago
Are you people crazy? The guy was a bad businessman, hence why he SHOULD have sold his home, payed his debt, and moved into a smaller house for a short period of time. After getting back on his feet he could've gotten a bigger home again.
This isn't being heroic. This is called being a coward and not facing up to your mistakes.
When you put up your home as collateral, there are always risks you must face.
Losuol 1 year ago 2
fck the banks.....the guy did the right thing.....
dankbot420 1 year ago 3
IRS is illegal and unconstitutional and was formed by the Federal Reserves illegal modern day thugs.
Anjaayla 1 year ago 4
Well Done, the I.R.S. and the banks are greedy bastards
piontro 1 year ago 76
@piontro The bank can now sue him for "vandalism" or "destruction of their property" and if he loses such a civil lawsuit he can't get out of having to pay the civil suit by filing for bankruptcy because BK won't erase tort judgements, IRS liens, student loans, alimony or child support.
He only hurt himself by destroying the house because now the bank will sue him and the bank will win. He can leave the country...otherwise he's screwed.
EdwardRommel 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel I'm not sure about this particular case, but some people have been destroying their houses while they were still the legal owners, gutting houses and ruining the lawn with what they tear out...and it's their business while it's still theirs, not something they can be sued for.
newguy33X 9 months ago
@piontro A $350,000 home? Some guy lives beyond his means and everyone else has to pay?
cdoftx 8 months ago
@piontro thank u captain obvious lol
lilguy49 7 months ago
I like that guy in the sweater; have him on more.
And they are right, 350 won't get you a decent condo in West Hollywood. 350 may get you a place in Inglewood, I mean Inglewood though,,,,really?
1333fuller 1 year ago
yeah, the guy is stupid. the bank let you have the loan and the agreement was securing your home as collateral, and you don't pay the money back, YES, the bank can take the house and try to sell it to recover their losses. this guy was bogus!!! not a legitimate news story.
Mplay1983 1 year ago
I dunno. I have to say the system doesn't play fair, so you can't expect the people to play fair in it. The fractional reserve system is inherently inflationary. Inflation is a hidden tax on the people imposed by the government, causing our money to become steadily devalued each year. It's not enough anymore to work hard to keep your home away from a banker that did nothing to get it. Stories like this man should be expected! Why are we surprised?
Tanoro 1 year ago
I would not just have dozed the house i would have torn down the bussiness too, then riped up the ground and salted it, after which i would have filed for bankrupcy and since i had no assets left the greedy piece of shit bankers would not have been able squeeze one stinking cent out of me, that would show the assholes to not try to fuck people over with their bullshit. And the banker scum cant really press criminal charges since the house still belonged to you at the moment you tore it down.
Solidus1086 1 year ago
Even though we don't know the whole story, what he did will perhaps make greedy bankers think twice. So many people have been jerked around - have wasted their time - with the "wonderful mortgage modification" programs payed for with OUR tax money. The banks act as if they're going to modify your loan - and why not - they'd still get their money? Then, they stick it to you. Banks need to be taught a lesson.
LouieBeethoven 1 year ago
@LouieBeethoven Are you that dense? Yes... it will make the bankers think twice... they'll charge everyone an extra 2% on loans to cover insurance, they'll deny honest people loans just in case they turn out to be losers, and they will stop allowing homes to be put up for colateral against businesses, etc. and everyone will pay. If you think this is a good idea... you start a bank.
BW022 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
what a complete idiot.
puma721 1 year ago
I chuckled the first time the bulldozer was mentioned, but it was really a stupid thing to do.
Tasera783 1 year ago
This could be an great way to protest....
theabomation 2 years ago
DUDE!
This is MY local news, I remember seeing this story!
ZanderJSketch 2 years ago
irs is evil
AndrewMacedonia 2 years ago
analogy FAIL!
jenspice27 2 years ago
He just screwed himself bad. Now the property isn't worth as much, and he'll have to pay for the difference too. What a loon. Probably a Glenn Beck fan. lol
HostileNegotiator 2 years ago
@HostileNegotiator wow...another rule player.....pull that ring out of your nose so the systems can't kee pulling you along man.....wake up.
bathetcnow 1 year ago
@bathetcnow Actually, the way to deal with the banks is to sit on your porch with a rifle and have a dozen armed people inside the property and shoot at anything that approaches.
HostileNegotiator 1 year ago
@HostileNegotiator Until they bring in the Swat Team...lol Then if you really piss them off they will bring in the National Guard or Troops...lol I don't think you would win
1333fuller 1 year ago
@1333fuller True. But I'd rather go down fighting!
HostileNegotiator 1 year ago
@HostileNegotiator I would pretend to be arrested, then when they came to arrest me, BOOM, 20 guys storm out with AR's and shoot em all. THATS how you go down fighting.
max10293847566 1 year ago
is it me or did wes develop a italian accent.
G0D9 2 years ago
I agree with TYT, but something the guy said kind of stuck with me. He said that he brought it out of the ground, so he was going to put it back.
(Don't get me wrong... what he said doesn't apply to his situation)
I think that is something important that bankers don't understand. What is the REAL value of something?
If a person builds or creates something that didn't exist until they pulled it together THAT has value far beyond a bank statement.
I'm just saying.
:P
Joxman2k 2 years ago 37
I guess you were waiting for me to finish your word, "Perfect". What you said, is the same thing that went through my mind.
" If a man sees air, and decides to cover it with a sheet, and then the rain comes and ruin your creation, and the rain says "you owe for cleaning your sheet", you would say, "but there was no rain in this air, before I came with the sheet, so I don't owe you anything. " I know this sounds crazy, probably because I am rushing, before nature calls, but so is this story.
lettersfromaboy 2 years ago
@lettersfromaboy
Please explain further your quote "If a man sees air...."
It's a bit abstract for my puny brain.
:P
Joxman2k 2 years ago
I was comparing the "air", to the silence of the once empty land, that has now been covered with a house. The man made that land something, and he is every right, to make it nothing again. Agree?
lettersfromaboy 2 years ago
I was also making a joke about being a hurry to write that, so that I could use the restroom. Did you catch the joke?
lettersfromaboy 2 years ago
@Joxman2k
You just unwittingly paraphrased one of John Lockes most famous excerpts as to why people have a right to property. Congratulations!
ganixaba 1 year ago
@ganixaba
Really? explain please :)
:P
Joxman2k 1 year ago
@Joxman2k - quote Though men as a whole own the earth and all inferior creatures, every individual· man has a property in his own person [= ‘owns himself’]; this is something that nobody else has any right to. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are strictly his. So when he takes something from the state that nature has provided and left it in, he mixes his labour with it, thus joining to it something that is his own; and in that way he makes it his property.
ganixaba 1 year ago
@ganixaba
Ah. Thank You. Now I have a reason to learn more about John Locke :)
:P
Joxman2k 1 year ago
@Joxman2k
quote was from the two treatises of government. John Locke himself was the guy the founding fathers paraphrased when they wrote the Declaration of Independence - he was a very good philosopher.
ganixaba 1 year ago
@ganixaba
Oh ya ...well did you know he was a cat person!
:)
:P
Joxman2k 1 year ago
@Joxman2k
Yeah you cant pay/buy everithing :D
Nonterastor 1 year ago
Suck it up.. This guy ran a small tiny shit hole bath and beyond shack of a store... and also had a 350,000 dollar home in Ohio.... Maybe next time, buy a house you can actually fucking afford? This person is a scam artist asshole salesman.. Fuck him
blahface420 2 years ago
He puts his house down as collateral for a business loan and then when his business fails (prior to the economic meltdown) he bulldozes his house? No more loans for him. Ever.
axleruzi 2 years ago
I'm confused as to why he bulldozed the house...
ncfwhitetigress 2 years ago
I would never bulldoze my home it looks too much like a willful act....
...a kitchen fire is the way to go....when they come for my only home, it will fit into a wheelbarrel.
HeathenRage 2 years ago
this guy is my hero :)
NGC224orM31 2 years ago
He has not paid state and federal income taxes since 2004. He is also in chapter 7 bankruptcy, both his business and residence are considered property of the estate that is in receivership. Pissing off a federal judge is never a good idea.
caxiaba 2 years ago
Interesting story. That sucks he lost his house but he shouldn't have wrecked it.
Chris12163 2 years ago
An Icelandic man did this too, but he didnt do anything wrong. In Iceland your loan will rise with inflation,so when the bank thing whent down so did the value of the krona.His payments got to high and the bank was going to take his house and car.This guy gets a bulldozer,digs a hole and drives his car into it, then he destroyed the house and moved to Denmark.
dubdub911 2 years ago
Here is the messed up thing. The money spent on the bailout is enough cash to give 1 million dollars to every single family on some sort of government subside or entitlement program, effectively eliminating their need to be on such programs. We don't have a money problem, we have a money allocation problem. And until we address that, anything we try to fix will still be broken, even healthcare.
Ambelghan 2 years ago
@Ambelghan how much money do you think was given away in the bailout?
Nibielari 2 years ago
@Nibielari
1.3 Trillion
Ambelghan 2 years ago
@Ambelghan
ok just to clarify a point nearly everyone in america uses a govt subside. so considering there are about 113 million families in america. that means every family would have only gotten a little over 10 thousand dollars.
Nibielari 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nibielari
"nearly everyone in america uses a govt subside," that is just not true. Mandated subsidiees are: Welfare, medicare, medical, social security. Originally, SS was suppose to take money from your pay check, put it in a bond and pay you when you reached retirement. Now it pays entitlees from moneys acquired from current payees. It should not be in the equation, but even with it, mandated entitlements are under 1.3 tril.
Ambelghan 2 years ago
@Ambelghan what do you call the oil subside that makes gasoline cheaper at the pump? or the subside for farmers that make the food that is grown here cheaper for everyone. those are both given to us through tax dollars which means its a subside. which means everyone in america benefits from subsidies
Nibielari 2 years ago
Comment removed
Ambelghan 2 years ago
@Nibielari
Those are not mandated entitlements. Mandated entitlements are "benefits" the government is required to pay, which are the ones I mentioned. Before I address the oil and the farms, tell me what you think a subside is and how they come up with money for it.
Ambelghan 2 years ago
@Ambelghan
sorry but now your changing what you said and i quote, The money spent on the bailout is enough cash to give 1 million dollars to every single family on some sort of government subside or entitlement program."
this comment pretty much covers every single family in america. now you can say you where meaning only mandated entitlements now but this is not what you said to begin with.
so lets stop this silliness and just tell me how many families you are actually referring to
Nibielari 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nibielari
You still didn't answer my question, I have answered plenty of yours, what you think a subside is and how they come up with money for it.
And yeah, that is a wrong, it is enough to cover mandated entitlement programs.
Ambelghan 2 years ago
@Ambelghan well subsides is using tax dollars or tax breaks for people in order for them to either make a product or service more affordable or be able to pay for said service or product. now this is a very general definition i am sure there are way better more specific ones i could give.
Nibielari 2 years ago
@Nibielari
Subsides are paid out to manufacturers or producers, not to the general population. I do know of farms receiving subsides, for them to destroy their crops/produce to keep their prices high or "stable." I don't know about the gas manufacturers, but I do know that subsides do not apply to the general pop and they do not lower prices.
Ambelghan 2 years ago
@Ambelghan ok if my tax dollars go to the gas company to help them with cost to make the gas i pay for at the pump cheaper that is a subside. as well my grandfather gets paid for not growing anything on land he owns. its a subside to keep his land from being developed to keep the soil healthy. as well he gets paid the difference to grow certain crops that will bring him less money than others that bring more.
what exactly do you think subsidies do?
Nibielari 2 years ago
@Nibielari
It's tax money, on that we agree. It is not paid out to make goods more affordable to the population, but to make up the difference of a good to the manufacturer, if said good would not yield enough profit to allow the business to remain open. Likewise it is paid to producers to stop them from producing, to keep their business open, because if they did produce the supply of their good on the open market would drive the value of their good down, eliminating profits for all.
Ambelghan 2 years ago
Subsidies keep businesses open, they do not lower the end price of any good. In fact, they might actually keep entities that should go out of business in business. However, the negative assumption is that if farms close down there could come a time where there are not enough farms and thus not enough food. So to prevent that possibility, they are paid to produce nothing or something that is not as profitable so it is available to the public.
Ambelghan 2 years ago
@Ambelghan
ok so far you have said that subsidies dont lower prices and i have shown how they do. we give subsidies to the oil companies, exon and the like, in turn there expenses are not as high which means they dont charge as much at the pump.
you have also stated that subsidies dont go to private citizens but i have shown that they do. my grandfather gets them and has for decades for farming.
care to try again?
Nibielari 2 years ago
@Nibielari
You haven't shown how they lower prices, you have stated that they lower prices, big difference. If the subsides actually lower cost, not we are talking about oil, give a real world example. I believe they received subsides all throughout the period where oil prices were through the roof, yet the American consumer is the one who paid for it. You have shown an example that subsides do keep businesses open that should other wise fail or are producing goods that are worth as much.
Ambelghan 2 years ago
Further, your grandpa is recieving a subside on his farm, for all intents and purposes he is a manufacture a producer of produce and why is he getting is subside? So he doesn't make as much food or to make a less profitable crop available to the public. It has nothing to do with him as a citizen and it has nothing to do with lowering the end cost to the consumer. Though you are welcome to show examples where it has happened. Show, not just state.
Ambelghan 2 years ago
@Ambelghan i didnt say they make them cheap i said they lower the prices. are you really this bad at reading comprehension
i didnt say my grandfather getting subsidies made food cheaper. i said he received them because you said subsidies dont go to private citizens.
you keep making claims and i counter them by backing them up with cases where you are wrong.
unless of course you are going to claim that exxon would go out of business without subsidies?
Nibielari 2 years ago
@Nibierlari
"@Ambelghan ok if my tax dollars go to the gas company to help them with cost to make the gas i pay for at the pump cheaper that is a subside"
"@Ambelghan i didnt say they make them cheap i said they lower the prices"
So now you think it lowers the price, but somehow is will not make it cheaper, ok. I don't think subsides lower the end price of any good or make it cheap.
Ambelghan 2 years ago
Explain this to me. Your grandfather receives a subside for his farming land, he is getting it cause he is a farmer, not because he is a private citizen, if he sold the farm moved somewhere else, he would no longer receive his subside, ergo subside tied to the farmland not the citizen.
Ambelghan 2 years ago
Your grandfather is also not producing anything. So, he is receiving money to not produce a good, I believe that when there are less goods on the market the price of that good should go up, if demand remains steady or increases, regardless the supply is reduced. You would have us believe that this, chain of events, would have the price of the good lower than if there were more of the good on the market, the opposite of the law of supply and demand. How have you come to this conclusion?
Ambelghan 2 years ago
@Ambelghan
i will put it this way if something cost 1million dollars and tax dollars go into the business to help the cost. that company can then sell product for 5 hundred thousand instead. this product is still not cheap but the price has been lowered. see the difference?
as well not once have i said my grandpa got money for being a private citizen. i said he is a private citizen and got subsidies. this was a counter to your statement that they do not go to private citizens.
Nibielari 2 years ago
@Nibielari
That is as nice theory, but it isn't exacltly how it is working. Your grandpa is getting a subside and producing.. nothing, no cost savings are going to the consumer, as you claim. The subside allows him to keep his farm otherwise he would have to sell it. Subsides keep business that would otherwise go under, or make up the difference in debt for providing a good or service, again to keep companies from going under.
Ambelghan 2 years ago
What you describe are a nice set of circumstances. However, you should have noticed something wrong with your approach. The government can only give money to entities through two ways: printing it and collecting it in taxes. The first decreases the purchasing power of the citizen, which is a net effect of no savings when they go to purchase the product, the next leaves them with less money in their pocket, again an effect of no savings to the product.
Ambelghan 2 years ago
I don't know where your getting your information from, because I am saying your entire premise is wrong. You would somehow have to work a situation where a farm produced no goods, got a subside and then decrease of goods on the open market somehow caused the price of the goods to go down, instead of up. Please demonstrate that, cause you have just walked around the theory of supply and demand, eco101
Ambelghan 2 years ago
"not once have i said my grandpa got money for being a private citizen. i said he is a private citizen and got subsidies."
Right, he got it not because he is a citizen but because he is a farmer who has demonstrated that without government aid his business will go under. I said they don't go to private citizens, which is true, you can't just walk up and say, "subside please," and get one. You need to show you have a necessary good [food] and without aid you will no longer be able to produce.
Ambelghan 2 years ago
@Ambelghan ok if you are correct and i am wrong that means that the only reason exon mobile doesnt go under is because of the subsidies that it receives from the government. if you could realize that subsidies do far more than what you say they do. your stuck on this idea that subsidies only provide this one service for this one intended goal. that is just silly and if you took the time to actually look it up you would see they do so much more
Nibielari 2 years ago
@Nibielari
I don't know the inner workings of exon mobile, the subsides it gets, if it gets them, maybe more directed towards the distribution aspect of their business. Subsides may have more aspects that what was mention, however, in the only real example we can step through [you grandpa's farm] they do not lower the cost of anything.
Ambelghan 2 years ago
If you can somehow workout a situation where increasing the taxes of the citizens, or using up more funds from the general public fund, or printing money, to give to a private entity, somehow lowers the expenditure of the consumer for goods, then I would be more on board with this price lowering idea. However, you would have to come up with it, because all the examples I can either increase the cost over all, or, at best, do nothing to the cost.
Ambelghan 2 years ago
so you are finally willing to admit that they do more than what you have said they only do. well its about bloody time. now instead of sitting here expecting me to educate you go look it up. instead of just blowing off my point because you dont know about it go look it up and show me how i am wrong with the subsidies exon mobil gets and the reason for them. you said you have no idea about them but say i am wrong.
there are many reasons for giving out subsidies and what they are used for.
Nibielari 2 years ago
@Nibielari
I admit that they do what I said they do, if you want them to appear to do more then you need to work the example to prove YOUR point, which is they lower end cost. I said they don't, and PROVED [with the aid of your grandpa's farm] that they do not. You have to prove your own argument, not get others to prove it for you, unless they just walk into it with poorly thought out examples, aka your grandpa's farm. I don't need to prove your argument for you, you do, I already proved mine
Ambelghan 2 years ago
@Ambelghan ok back pedal on what you said just an hour ago and i quote, "Subsides may have more aspects that what was mention." this is fine do what you want.
second i have never once said they lower the end cost. i said they lower what you pay for them. and used at the pump for an example. tax dollars made it that cheap so they would be counted in for the end cost.
again not once did i say the subsidies my grandpa gets for not growing lower the cost of anything. why do you use strawmen
Nibielari 2 years ago
@Nibielari
Read what it says, may, aliens may land out of the sky any minute, you may go to the store or you may go to the movies, but may isn't what happened. End cost = what you pay, as the end cost of any good is absorbed by the consumer, or the company would not be able to remain in the black, period. Let's use this pump example you came up with even though you said the word cheap and you mean lower, as you stated in other post. Where does the government get the money to give to the subside?
Ambelghan 2 years ago
@Ambelghan no i said cheaper why do you keep saying i said things i dont. no matter how many times you are corrected about what i say you keep saying i said things i didnt.
even thou i just wrote to you explaining where subsidies come from and how they dont lower the end cost here you are asking where do they get the money for subsidies
if you want to actually read what i say and respond to it then we can continue but your obviously not paying attention
Nibielari 2 years ago
@Nibielari
You seem to have alot of issue with it: "this product is still not cheap but the price has been lowered. see the difference? "
"@Ambelghan ok if my tax dollars go to the gas company to help them with cost to make the gas i pay for at the pump cheaper that is a subside"
"@Ambelghan i didnt say they make them cheap i said they lower the prices"
cheaper, lower, whatever.
Ambelghan 2 years ago
@Ambelghan
i love how instead of admitting that i havent been saying the things you say i have been you just say, whatever. that really sums up your whole argument right there. no matter how you are shown to be wrong your response is either been to lie and say i said things i didnt or just say, whatever. nicely played, are you practicing to be the best troll you can be?
Nibielari 2 years ago
@Nibielari
No you are trying desperately to split hairs over words like cheaper and lower, without actually having to provide any sort of analysis to back up your point. Especially when the word, lower, cheap, cheaper are all relative in themselves. What is expensive to you might not be to someone who makes 2 mil a year in profit. Likewise, what is cheap to you might be expensive to someone on a 20 dollar a week allowance.
Ambelghan 2 years ago
@Ambelghan sorry your the one splitting hairs. your whole argument has been to use strawmen to attack, by this you are saying things i didnt say, instead of attacking what i said.
yes what is cheap to me might not be to someone else. that is exactly why i didnt use the word cheap. you did and i corrected you. if i make a product cheaper all that means it is now more affordable than before it doesn mean it is affordable.
your really clinging to these strawmen.
Nibielari 2 years ago
Let's assume you still go with the concept of your tax dollars going to make a subside for the gas company so it can sell its gas at a discounted rate. Let's assume your taxes lower your profit by 10%, the oil company then lowers their cost by 10%, passing on a savings of 10% Is this what you are trying to work out? Relative to the amount of spending power each unit of currency has, you have had a net gain and loss of zero, in a 1v1 or ratio system of many v 1 as is the case with the gas comp
Ambelghan 2 years ago
Also, its not a straw man attack. You don't actually provide any analysis as to how you come to your conclusion, you rely on me to set it up and then complain when the wording is how you want. Then you spend more post attempting to goad than actually provide any useful counters. For instance, your grandpa's farm is no longer being used in your argument that subsides lower the cost of an end good to the consumer, because I had stepped through the analysis to show it did not.
Ambelghan 2 years ago
But I didn't need to knock down any analysis to get there, just an backless statement. And when I allow for the possibility that subsides might do what you want them to, as well, you provide no real analysis, just a statement followed by "look it up." Which would imply that you yourself don't know, but have been told that that is how they work.
Ambelghan 2 years ago
@Ambelghan no the grandfathers farm was never used to say subsidies lower prices. you said they dont go to private citizens and i showed how they do. instead of acknowledging this you have used it to show how they dont lower food cost. which was never my point thus making it a strawman.
Nibielari 2 years ago
@Nibielari
Yeah, now you are ignoring the tax/gas analysis and clinging to the notion that your grandpa got the subside for being a citizen, he got it for being a farmer. If he losses his farm he losses his subside, he is still a citizen though. His farmer status is what grants him access to subside, not his private citizen status, fallacy of association.
Ambelghan 2 years ago
@Ambelghan almost every thing you say i do is a lie. not once did i say he got it for being a citizen i said he was a citizen that got it. which was a counter to your claim that they dont go to citizens. all of this i have explained numerous times.
ok i tell you what this is getting old. take the time to read what i have said and what you have said. think really hard and get back to me. when you decide to stop being a troll and actually have a discussion i will be glad to
Nibielari 2 years ago
@Nibielari
That is not even close to a counter claim that they go to citizens. Based off that logic you could say they go to bipeds, but being a biped is not a criteria for getting a subside. The criteria are: being a producer of a good, whom if such good went on the open market would result in less market profit and possibly foreclosure of those business not able to stay afloat, or if you cannot meet the bottom line in the good you make, and the good is deemed necessary.
Ambelghan 2 years ago
And Nibielari, this is indeed old, I don't know why I have to step through all iterations with you, as you seem to be unable to do them yourself.
For your other falsely based argument regarding gas. How does an increase taxes or a reproportioning of the general public fund, lower the cost of the end good to the consumer when they either have less purchasing power or less cash in pocket, due to printing of money or higher taxes?
Ambelghan 2 years ago
It is amazing that you still step over your own examples and you believe that being a citizen is the criteria for getting a subside. I learn about people's thought processes, you'll probably say something along the lines of, "we weren't talking about criteria, you said they didn't go to citizens," however, we are talking about an item and what you need to use it. Otherwise we could fill this page with all sorts of eronious facts concerning people with subsides: 2 eyes, mouth, nose, 2 ears.. ect
Ambelghan 2 years ago
We're talking about what matters here, you seem to be presenting fluff.
Ambelghan 2 years ago
Comment removed
Ambelghan 2 years ago
Either way you flip it subsides allow a company to keep running, they do not effect end cost of the product to the consumer. Now someone might be telling you that it does, but it actually doesn't.
Ambelghan 2 years ago
Ambelghan said, "Originally, SS was suppose to take money from your pay check, put it in a bond and pay you when you reached retirement. "
Incorrect. Social Security has always functioned as an insurance fund, from the time FDR signed it into law.
caxiaba 2 years ago
@caxiaba
Funded from what?
Ambelghan 2 years ago
"...the tax on the paycheck would be appropriated into a "trust fund" that would finance the entire program without additional expense from the general budget; the employee's contribution was to be matched by an equal contribution from the employer. And most important, the control of these trust funds was to be in the hands of the federal government and the federal government only."
Yahoo, "fdr social security," 6th link down.
Ambelghan 2 years ago
Ambelghan said, "...the tax on the paycheck would be appropriated into..."
That does not conflict with what I said. You made the statment, "take money from your pay check, put it in a bond and pay you when you reached retirement." Social Security has never been based on an investment bond. It is a misconception that some people have with SSI, that it operates like a savings account where you get back what you and your employer pay into the account, plus the accrued interest.
caxiaba 2 years ago
It appear you have an issue with the words trust fund and bond, what is the difference between these two for you?
Ambelghan 2 years ago
the land is more important than the house. the house can be rebuilt
MrGnarus 2 years ago
why do all news reporters sound EXACTLY the same....its creepy....the cadence and tone of their voices is so cookie cutter....they're like robots
jshooper 2 years ago 2
There are other ways, without having to torch a home.
A foreclosed home is worthless to a bank in a depressed property market.
It is possible to negotiate for better loan terms.
dangerouslytalented 2 years ago
This guy's a hero. That dude who crashed a plane against an IRS building was a dumbass.
jezmundberserker 2 years ago
This guy is not a hero. He made stupid business decisions and decided to renege on his obligations.
dangerouslytalented 2 years ago 11
@dangerouslytalented what world do you reside in? far to many intangibles here unless you knwo something WE do not. even so....fuck the banks and the IRs too.....you believe these systems play fair? keep on being controlled and believing your masters bcukwheat. I'll lay my money on the bulldozing dude
bathetcnow 1 year ago
Love Wes' 1st Cav shirt.
F33bs 2 years ago
That dude is truly awesome.
claytonemoorejr 2 years ago