4 ms·

IMHO: "Patriotism" != handing money to your government. "Patriotism" == doing what is best for your country (i.e. the people). Believe it or not, the governmen

IMHO: "Patriotism" != handing money to your government. "Patriotism" == doing what is best for your country (i.e. the people). Believe it or not, the government does not alway's have the country's best interests in mind. The example I always use is the Wall Street bailouts. Tax-payer dollars were used (mostly against tax-payer will) to bail out reckless banks and provide golden parachutes for undeserving CEOs. Sometimes the government will even hurt the country when it is trying to do the right thing - it was one of the major catalysts in the current recession, because it backed entities like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and their "toxic" mortgages. If you want to do something good with your excess money, the government probably is not the best charity to donate to. A simple rule of thumb: the more hands that money passes through, the less money comes out the other end. If you want to be patriotic, give your excess money DIRECTLY to those who need it most.

rockarage 15y ago
And I would argue the best way to give your excess money directly to those it the most without waste is to pay your workers well. All of them, think of workers who can't command a high salary. If the industry allow you to pay a worker $7.70(about minimum wage) can you afford to pay them $15.00 hr ? Many companies don't want to pay their employees a living wages so they can keep more of the revenue, but instead of giving the excess to government in the form of taxes, or donating to an vetted charity, why not give it to the people you know, your workers. It will be an investment in your company. Workers who are content, are typically more productive and you'll have higher retention.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- gavanwoolery 15y ago
  I agree with you completely :)
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
muzz 15y ago
Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#ixzz1YSrOwG00 http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-l... http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-l...
- jessedhillon 15y ago
  Thank you! It's ironic that on a site like HN, so much of the commentary about home lending is based on rhetoric and dogma instead of fact. I wonder if GP even knows what Fannie or Freddie do.
  - gavanwoolery 15y ago
    Read my comment above. Then check your facts, and the "facts" others post before preemptively determining what you think is based on rhetoric and dogma.
- lootabooga 15y ago
  That's like saying: "it's not the shooter that killed you, it's the hole produced by the bullet". Fannie and Freddie facilitated the risky "private sector loans" big time. In fact, they profited and built their whole scheme on ever riskier private sector loans... So, there...
- gavanwoolery 15y ago
  Ha, that's a joke - are you aware that during and prior to the crisis, Fannie and Freddie were both PRIVATE companies? They traded on the stock market, as private companies do. The government eventually nationalized them (in 2009 I think) and completely destroyed their value on the stock market (I should know, I owned stock in the two during the crisis - they traded under FRE and FNM before they turned into junk stock). The only respect in which Fannie and Freddie were public (prior to being nationalized) is that they were federally-backed. What happens when you have lenders backed by government dollars? They take in riskier loans and leverage the hell out of their credit line. In reality, it is much more complex than that though - there are many layers on which debt is traded. But the end message is that private companies should never be federally backed! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mac http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mac Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were not the sole catalysts, but they were silos for toxic debt.

rockarage 15y ago

And I would argue the best way to give your excess money directly to those it the most without waste is to pay your workers well. All of them, think of workers who can't command a high salary. If the industry allow you to pay a worker $7.70(about minimum wage) can you afford to pay them $15.00 hr ? Many companies don't want to pay their employees a living wages so they can keep more of the revenue, but instead of giving the excess to government in the form of taxes, or donating to an vetted charity, why not give it to the people you know, your workers. It will be an investment in your company. Workers who are content, are typically more productive and you'll have higher retention.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
gavanwoolery 15y ago
I agree with you completely :)

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

muzz 15y ago

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#ixzz1YSrOwG00 http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-l... http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-l...

jessedhillon 15y ago
Thank you! It's ironic that on a site like HN, so much of the commentary about home lending is based on rhetoric and dogma instead of fact. I wonder if GP even knows what Fannie or Freddie do.
- gavanwoolery 15y ago
  Read my comment above. Then check your facts, and the "facts" others post before preemptively determining what you think is based on rhetoric and dogma.
lootabooga 15y ago
That's like saying: "it's not the shooter that killed you, it's the hole produced by the bullet". Fannie and Freddie facilitated the risky "private sector loans" big time. In fact, they profited and built their whole scheme on ever riskier private sector loans... So, there...
gavanwoolery 15y ago
Ha, that's a joke - are you aware that during and prior to the crisis, Fannie and Freddie were both PRIVATE companies? They traded on the stock market, as private companies do. The government eventually nationalized them (in 2009 I think) and completely destroyed their value on the stock market (I should know, I owned stock in the two during the crisis - they traded under FRE and FNM before they turned into junk stock). The only respect in which Fannie and Freddie were public (prior to being nationalized) is that they were federally-backed. What happens when you have lenders backed by government dollars? They take in riskier loans and leverage the hell out of their credit line. In reality, it is much more complex than that though - there are many layers on which debt is traded. But the end message is that private companies should never be federally backed! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mac http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mac Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were not the sole catalysts, but they were silos for toxic debt.