REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

What Will It Take for Us to Get Back to Being a Decent Society?

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 11:51
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 12696
PAGE 2 of 5

Monday, December 23, 2013 3:48 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
The decline of the American economy started in the LATE 60's, specifically 1968-'69, after the inauguration of Nixon, when he floated the price of the dollar against gold.


Or it could have been this: "... and the minimum wage has been allowed to drop 30 percent below where it was in 1968, adjusted for inflation" - the decline of the minimum wage.

It could have been this "Taxes have been cut on the rich ..." when the top tax bracket went from the 90% range down to the 20s, starting in the 60s.

Or it could have been more global, literally, factors, as other countries recovered from WWII.

Further, you seem to equate 'the dollar' with 'the economy'. It would be interesting to me if you would make that explanation.

My measure of an economy is the level of production of essential goods. When a country no longer manufactures needed items, either for domestic use or for export, or both, it becomes dependent on imports. And if it's not exporting manufactured (value added) goods, it's exporting raw materials to other countries, if its exporting at all.

So, no, I don't accept your assumptions about either the date, or the cause.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 23, 2013 3:52 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Some things are out of the control of governments. Manufacturing and other industries are moving from wealthy countries where labour costs are at a premium to labour rich - economically poor countries, where large rural workforces move to find work in urban areas when farming becomes less intensive work.

The world has cycles, some of which are impossible to stem or change.


Yes, and previously, we thought to bring the citizens of the economically poor to the US to work. You might recall how that turned out.

Just because it's out of sight now doesn't mean it was ethically acceptable then, or even that it was a good economic move. Well done Big Business, for short sighted gains on the profit margin, they screwed up the most powerful capitalist nations in the world and hamstrung global economic growth and technological progress for decades.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 23, 2013 3:59 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Well, since you suggested that we should be like the old west
- Siggy

Nope. I never said nor implied any such thing.

Swing, miss. And quite frankly, if you can't get THAT right, then why should I even bother ?


Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 23, 2013 4:04 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Magons

"Do I buy into the ruthless mindset? I can make lots of money, have a good life. Or do I practise humanity and speak out when I see wrong? Chances are I'll be unemployable, washed up.
What should I do? What would you do?"

Fortunately, unlike the temps who come through, I have a well-paying job in an area that helps make the world a better place. And then I was a union steward and negotiator for 15 years. I recently gave it up, but am still working behind the scenes to provide history, crunch numbers, gather data ... Plus I'm a member of some whistle-blowing organizations. It's trench warfare, but it's what I can see to do in lieu of solving the more global problem of greedy owners v the struggling rest of us.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 23, 2013 4:10 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"Now we have the proud distinction of being a former manufacturing powerhouse that imports more than we export, and every bit of those imports is covered in blood. ... We decided to go down the path towards oblivion."

That sums it up for me. However, there's another factor: any hierarchical system where wealth concentrates in the hands of a few is a positive feedback system. The rich can rule to make themselves richer, which makes their rule stronger, which makes them richer ...

Obviously, as you've pointed out, this can't go on indefinitely. But the seed is in the structure itself.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 23, 2013 4:37 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Frem

Your history seems skewed, especially when it comes to the northern countries and fascism. Finland had an alliance with Nazi Germany. Sweden maintained official neutrality but had close business ties with Nazi Germany, that Germany depended on for its war effort. "Nevertheless, the Swedish neutrality during World War II has been much debated and challenged. Despite the British naval blockade of Nazi Germany and the official proposed intentions from the Swedish government to maintain political neutrality, Sweden exported iron ore to supply Nazi Germany's war industry via the Norwegian port of Narvik. --- Nazi Germany's war industry's dependence on Swedish iron ore shipments ..." Only Norway actively resisted Nazi Germany. Iceland was neutral, and was the only country in the area to not have a direct connection in either direction with Nazi Germany.

"Not that it'd break my heart even a little to see em strung up from the lampposts like demented little xmas ornaments, mind you."

Quite an image. I know someone who went through such a situation. They recall seeing people hung on lampposts, not to strangle, but the be cut by anyone with the urge. Rightly or wrongly, those men and women died the death of a thousand cuts. Under those circumstances, I can imagine that justice would be too slow for the movement. I'm sure many innocent people did and would die.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 23, 2013 4:40 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
The decline of the American economy started in the LATE 60's, specifically 1968-'69, after the inauguration of Nixon, when he floated the price of the dollar against gold.


Or it could have been this: "... and the minimum wage has been allowed to drop 30 percent below where it was in 1968, adjusted for inflation" - the decline of the minimum wage.

It could have been this "Taxes have been cut on the rich ..." when the top tax bracket went from the 90% range down to the 20s, starting in the 60s.

Or it could have been more global, literally, factors, as other countries recovered from WWII.

Further, you seem to equate 'the dollar' with 'the economy'. It would be interesting to me if you would make that explanation.

My measure of an economy is the level of production of essential goods. When a country no longer manufactures needed items, either for domestic use or for export, or both, it becomes dependent on imports. And if it's not exporting manufactured (value added) goods, it's exporting raw materials to other countries, if its exporting at all.

So, no, I don't accept your assumptions about either the date, or the cause.


really complex answer, too complex for NOBC's rule: "No post should be longer than 1 screen."
I was in 11th grade in 1968. I SOLD gas for 22 cents a gallon. I sold cigarettes for 35 c a pack. MY first apartment, I paid $ 90 a month for a 1 bedroom (that was 1970.) My parents rented a rural 5 bedroom house in the woods for $ 90 a month. My wife and I lived on the minimum wage of $1.68 an hour, me working 2 half-time jobs as a student and her one. We live the same life style today, no better, no worse.

Inflation was happening, because of the Vietnam War, and it got worse in a very few years. The value of the dollar was (and still is) critical to everything in the American economy, inflation, cost of living. Inflation got worse, the price of gold went up to over $300 an ounce. (What was it last month, $1500 an ounce?) Dollar gets worth less, prices go up.

I maintain that those other things you cite are the results of that fundamental change, not the causes. They MATTER, yes, but they're the symptoms, not the disease.

One other cause you neglect: Lyndon Johnson ( Texan, friend of big oil guys ) eliminated the oil-depletion allowance- 1/3 of oil extracted was tax-free, to cover the cost of research and development and exploration. The oil companies raised prices in retaliation, profits went sky high. (Can you imagine? Oil companies weren't the most important item in the stock market. They didn't have the world's record highest quarterly profits every quarter back then.)

And maybe the 1974 Oil Embargo. After Israel won the Yom Kippur War in 1973, the OPEC countries turned off the oil tap to America for a while. There was the first Gas Shortage. There were lines in the streets everywhere, just to buy any gas that was available at any price. And prices went up, and never came back down. And THERE'S inflation, and increased cost of living, prices of everything went up because of increased transport cost and wages went up way more slowly, and never caught back up.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 23, 2013 6:20 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


NOBC - thanks for your reply. We seem to have an oddly parallel existence. At one point I too worked at at gas station. I don't remember the price, sadly. I DO remember that a semi could fill its tanks for $40.

If you define inflation as 'too many dollars chasing too few goods', then I think it's easier to trace the imbalance over time. Is it a shortage of stuff, or an abundance of currency, or both? Probably Signy could weigh in fruitfully, b/c what I have to offer is a composite of my memory, and a rough draft of history, thrown against an internet search for obvious inaccuracies. But as I recall, the overall economy, and how it was reflected in daily life, experienced a slow erosion over time.

I come from the rust belt, and my history with the area is that in my early childhood, the iron/ steel industry employed over 100,000 people in a total area population of about 500,000. Remarkable to consider, I think. By the time I got into college, it was 50,000 in a population of maybe 800,000. By the time I was in my junior year, it was down to about 20,000, and by the time I graduated, all the steel mills had closed. Not only did the steel mills close, but the Ford axle plant had closed, two Trico factories, a couple of chemical plants, and many many small machine shops and jobbers. So my early childhood was one of opportunity for all, and by the time I got out of college it had turned into a mean, hardscrabble job market where unemployment was high and people were desperate for work. To give you an idea of what MY generation came of age into - of all the cousins - all 8 of us born in a span of 10 years - 7 had to leave the state for work.

Now this isn't just a regional story, since I see it repeated over time and across the country in the auto industry, the coal industry, the paper and printing industries and very famously the textile industry (to name a few).

As my region sank, others boomed. But I would argue that except for the computer/ internet technology (which had a very short period of transcendence), many of these booms were speculative bubbles (like real estate). Meanwhile, the production of real goods continued to decline in the US as more industries were 'off-shored'.

And as the more recent crisis shows, business hasn't reversed this self-destructive path, and is MORE than willing to kill the goose that lays the golden egg - the goose being the worker/ (consumer), and the golden egg being goods/ (sales).

Gold and the dollar? Doesn't seem to fit into this process, except incidentally.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 23, 2013 6:36 PM

BYTEMITE


1946:



Quote:
Why... here, you're all businessmen here. Doesn't it make them better citizens? Doesn't it make them better customers? You... you said... what'd you say a minute ago? They had to wait and save their money before they even ought to think of a decent home. Wait? Wait for what? Until their children grow up and leave them? Until they're so old and broken down that they... Do you know how long it takes a working man to save $5,000? Just remember this, Mr. Potter, that this rabble you're talking about... they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community. Well, is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath? Anyway, my father didn't think so. People were human beings to him. But to you, a warped, frustrated old man, they're cattle. Well in my book, my father died a much richer man than you'll ever be!


Today:


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 23, 2013 6:43 PM

BYTEMITE


In truth, the reality is somewhere in the middle. Housing for people who couldn't afford it led to the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

But at the same time, Maslowe's hierarchy of needs says that if a person is not so concerned about their immediate survival and if they're not playing the credit-card debt net-zero game, they'll be able to actually spend money on other stuff. If they can support their children at the same time and their children get a good enough education to get good enough work that they can build a life for themselves, then the system can self-perpetuate.

And that's what drives the economy. That's what creates economic growth.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 23, 2013 6:51 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
In truth, the reality is somewhere in the middle. Housing for people who couldn't afford it led to the sub-prime mortgage crisis.



it was the lack of regulation that led to the collapse. Here's a point of interest, in Australia, which is much more regulated, your loan is yours, not attached the property. You can't just walk away. It means that people stay in their houses and pay their mortgages if they can, not walk when the house goes below the value of the mortgage. And it means less walk outs, and the market doesn't collapse. A north american friend of mine was critical of our system, that was before the GFC.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 23, 2013 7:16 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
it was the lack of regulation that led to the collapse.


There's several sides to this story.

The first side is that the lending practices for these sub-prime mortgages were actually a legislated standard at the time through affordable housing policies.

But, as you say, deregulation allowed banks and loan sharks to pull all kinda of bullshit with low quality loans, then sell off or gamble on/invest with toxic assets. And in truth the sub-prime loans that were the big problem were actually NOT the loans that were mandated by government policy.

Ultimately the collapse of the market probably wouldn't have happened if the mortgages had been issued in good faith to people who could afford the mortgages, instead of pulling predatory horseshit on poor people with no intention of ever letting them pay off the debt (and often encouraging them to go deeper into debt).

Bailey Building and Loan lost money on helping people get into homes, but in the end the community as a whole was made more affluent, which is arguably what kept the business afloat and probably also what got them regular customers. The Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis was about banks ripping people off.

But since it's a subtle nuance, I felt I had to point out the unfortunate implications and how easily the Bailey Building and Loan could have gone wrong.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 23, 2013 7:23 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"Housing for people who couldn't afford it led to the sub-prime mortgage crisis."

Not where I live. Most people just wanted to ride the elevator going up. They knew that hard work and frugality weren't a path to security, and they needed to play speculative investments like the big boys do.

"the lending practices for these sub-prime mortgages were actually a legislated standard"

No, many of these loans were downright fraudulent.

Most telling as to WHERE the mess came from - at the time dumbya looked across the land and, lo, found that the only source of growth in the US economy was the real-estate bubble. (B4 that it was IPOs on computer/ internet businesses. The lack of real mfg and the rise of speculation as a source of income led to the writing of a book called The Bubble Economy.) But there were so many outright fraudulent loans being written by banks and places like Countrywide, that ALL 50 STATES ATTORNEY GENERALS got together to prosecute these loans writers. Dumbya, not wanting the music to stop, then had the OCC pronounce in 2003 that all such investigations/ potential prosecutions were unconstitutional. And all investigation that had been in the works stopped.

Spitzer said it in 2008 far better than I:

By Eliot Spitzer
Washington Post
Thursday, February 14, 2008
.

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers’ ability to repay, making loans with deceptive “teaser” rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York’s, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government’s actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 23, 2013 7:29 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

No, many of these loans were downright fraudulent.


Yes they were. Doesn't mean that there WEREN'T standards for those loans. Just that the banks were shoveling a lot of bullshit at the time.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 23, 2013 7:43 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


hMMM ... I SEE WE AGREE BUT OUR COMMUNICATION WENT ASKEW ... I THINK. I think WE'RE SAYING THE SAME THINGS ? STANDARDS WERE LEGISLATED BUT BANKS/ LOAN COMPANIES VIOLATED THE LAWS? ARG. CAPS LOCK ON. TOO LAZY TO RETYPE.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 23, 2013 9:43 PM

BYTEMITE


Yep. There were regulations, though many had been removed, but the existing regulations weren't being well enforced.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 23, 2013 11:53 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
The world has cycles, some of which are impossible to stem or change.

Not sure I buy that, just call me Crazy Eddie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mote_in_God%27s_Eye#Meet_Crazy_Eddie

Kiki

Finlands situation was a little more complicated than all that, for damn sure they didn't like them German bastards but they hated the Russians more - mostly they wanted to stay out of it but the Russians went and invaded em, so they took whatever aid they could get, cause at one point they were recieving assistance from BOTH "sides", one interesting facet of which was the composition of their air force, a mishmash of older British and American aircraft side by side with anything the Germans could spare, from Fokkers to Bf109's.

They particularly favored the Brewster F2A Buffalo, a plane mostly rejected by the Navy as underpowered and outdated, but it was fairly tough and operated well in subzero temperatures, allowing them to rack up a 32-to-1 kill ratio.
In the end, once the Russians were dealt with, they went and kicked them Nazi pricks out as well, because the only "side" Finland was ever really on, was that of Finland!

Quote:
Quite an image. I know someone who went through such a situation. They recall seeing people hung on lampposts, not to strangle, but the be cut by anyone with the urge. Rightly or wrongly, those men and women died the death of a thousand cuts. Under those circumstances, I can imagine that justice would be too slow for the movement. I'm sure many innocent people did and would die.

A horrific image, in all truth inhumane and vile - but generally the end result of a people pushed so far that justice falls by the wayside in pursuit of revenge, and while most of us in our heart of hearts might believe we'd have little sympathy for the big banksters and corporate robber barons in such a situation, generally this is untrue, humans are a lot more humane than they're often given credit for, and often as not that is the very thing which allows them fuckers to prosper, forgiveness only enables a sociopath, it never redeems them.
But as you say, in that kind of madness many innocents are harmed as well, but as every peaceful means of resolving the situation is brutally crushed by an ever more paranoid and authoritarian establishment, it becomes less a possibility and more of an inevitability, not an "if", but a "when".
Having seen, all my life at point-blank range the lives ruined and destroyed by the powers that be, I am simply fundamentally *incapable* of being sympathetic to them...
Because I know what that costs.


Also, Re: Spitzer - one might note that the "scandal" which more or less removed him from power was a direct result of him investigating the very things which crashed our economy, and had folks paid less attention to who he was fucking and more attention to the fact that the financial sector was fucking us all, things mighta gone a little differently.
With certain recent revelations about the degree of domestic surveillence, one might start putting a few facts together there and start to wonder, yanno ?

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 24, 2013 12:01 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Thanks for your reply. It was informative.

I do sometimes wonder, what will it take for people to say 'enough!' Or will we be like the Easter Islanders - clinging to our ways even as we fall off the edge of survival.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 24, 2013 9:32 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
Some things are out of the control of governments. Manufacturing and other industries are moving from wealthy countries where labour costs are at a premium to labour rich - economically poor countries, where large rural workforces move to find work in urban areas when farming becomes less intensive work.
Bollocks. That is EXACTLY the province of governments. "Free trade" only comes into play when governments decide to create and sign "free trade" agreements; otherwise tariffs, import duties, and tax policies come into play. Please don't believe that ministers and presidents are helplessly wringing their hands about processes that are out of the control of governments... they are actively fostering these processes at your expense, because that's where their money is.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 24, 2013 9:43 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
You didn't build that! - Implies that all the effort you put forth wasn't of YOUR doing, but in reality, was a product of " The Collective ". With that sort of outlook on life, the West would have never been explored or tamed. The frontier may have never exceeded past the Mississippi valley. America would not be America were it not for far sighted, free thinking INDIVIDUALS. - rappy

...Well, since you suggested that we should be like the old west-signy

Nope. I never said nor implied any such thing.- rappy
And once gain, our very own wealth-begotten asshole demonstrates that you don't have to be smart to be rich.

RAPPY- Would you like a definition for the word "implied"? In other words, son, you don't have an answer to the question What parts of government should continue and what parts should be eliminated?

And, BTW- I was hoping that rappy would do the "big reveal" himself, but the reason why he's grumbling about taxes is because he's not reasonably well-off, or even comfortably well-off, but what we would think of as phenomenally well-off: HIS taxes went up when the Bush tax cuts expired because he's raking in $400,000+ per year. No wonder he feels so entitled!

And, folks, you're right: He's just a troll. Sorry it took me so long to see it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 24, 2013 9:49 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
In truth, the reality is somewhere in the middle
In truth, the reality is NOWHERE in the middle. BYTE, fraudulent loans were NOT a legislated standard. I know that you and KIKI have discussed that at length, but that is a right-wing trope with no basis in fact. And every time you repeat it, you put yourself in rappy-land.
Quote:
But there were so many outright fraudulent loans being written by banks and places like Countrywide, that ALL 50 STATES ATTORNEY GENERALS got together to prosecute these loans writers. Dumbya, not wanting the music to stop, then had the OCC pronounce in 2003 that all such investigations/ potential prosecutions were unconstitutional. And all investigation that had been in the works stopped.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 24, 2013 10:24 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
BYTE, fraudulent loans were NOT a legislated standard.


Which wasn't what I meant, which the conversation with 1kiki elaborated on.

Oh gee, illegal fraudulent versions of a legal type of loan that does have legislative standards might not MEET those legislative standards, what a shocker.

You're quick on the attack today. Christmas cheer? Sugar rush?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 24, 2013 11:50 AM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
You're quick on the attack today. Christmas cheer? Sugar rush?


And you are indeed being somewhat Rappy-like with this. Why don't you go all-out Rapster and tell her she needs to get laid?

(Hoping you know me well enough to take this with a big lot of tongue-in-cheek...)

I didn't know that about Spitzer and how the Bush administration actively protected the banks before the crash. They did all they could to bring in Too Big to Fail. I'm not surprised, really. Just a little bit more horrified about so many things that are already completely horrifying.

*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 24, 2013 11:58 AM

BYTEMITE


...

I don't take anything tongue in cheek and you knew that when you said it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 24, 2013 5:24 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
RAPPY- is ... what we would think of as phenomenally well-off: HIS taxes went up when the Bush tax cuts expired because he's raking in $400,000+ per year. No wonder he feels so entitled!

So little rappy has never had to work - or face poverty, maybe even hunger and homelessness. And given his concretized perspective, he has about as much chance of understanding us normal people as an ant does of understanding Einstein. That makes sense.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:20 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
...

I don't take anything tongue in cheek and you knew that when you said it.


F U and the reindeer you rode in on. I know very well you have a sense of humor, whether you choose to use it or not.

Merry Xmas to you too.

*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:30 PM

BYTEMITE


It's possible sometimes a person might be offended if you say something even if you tell them not to be offended.

Suggesting I tell Sig THAT was just that kind of offensive.

Happy New Year.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:36 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
It's possible sometimes a person might be offended if you say something even if you tell them not to be offended.

Suggesting I tell Sig to get laid was over the line.

Happy New Year.

Yep, you lost your funny bone. You do so love to take offense, don't you?

Weren't you around when Rap told Magons to get laid and he got reamed for it? If so, you'll know that I was making fun of Rap, not you. If not, well, have fun taking things too seriously as you so often do. Maybe next time you should try a different tactic, as I always encourage you to do.

Happy Boxing Day.

*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:40 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
Weren't you around when Rap told Magons to get laid and he got reamed for it?


AND I GOT SUPER PISSED OFF TOO.

That isn't good JOKE material!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 24, 2013 10:55 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Hey BYTE, look on the bright side of things... rappy is too afraid to dip his little toe in this thread, either because we can all figure out that rappy is a $400,000+ individual, or because he simply refuses to answer this question
Quote:
Well, since you suggested that we should be like the old west (as you saw it), where people lived and died by their own efforts and luck... not much money, no insured banks, little law, no roads. and no industry ... I thought you were making a broad-brush "get rid of government" proposal. If not, in what areas do you think a government SHOULD interfere? And why? (Gets in car to run errands and some popcorn, will be back later.)


RAPPY... we've all figured out your AGI by now. There's no point in hiding. So come on out, and answer the question.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 25, 2013 3:01 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


BYTE, OOC-- do you know which legislated standards are in place governing mortgage lending? Because I don't think there are many.

I know that in order to be insured by the FDIC, a bank has to have a certain amount of actual cash-on-hand... 5%, or something like that... in order to cover contingencies. Other than than, they're free to create as much $$ as they need in order to lend what they want. There has to be a certain amount of "truth-in-lending". There USED to be a barrier between savings and loans banks and investment banks, but that was done away with. Fannie and Freddie used to require a certain amount of down payment before buying a mortgage, and certain physical requirements on the buildings.

But despite the reichwing constantly repeating that the banks were "forced" to loan to non-qualified applicants, there's no law or regulation they can point to which shows this to be true. And as far as I know, there were no limits on the amount of interest a bank could charge, or how much down-payment was required, or whether an applicant had enough income to support that loan. So quite honestly, I have not a clue as to what you're talking about when you refer to legislated standards.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 25, 2013 3:07 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Back to the OP.

NIKI, we have to get beyond the plaintive Why can't we all just get along? approach. The reason why society is as fucked up as it is, is because the wealthy and powerful have made it that way for their benefit. And as KIKI has pointed out, wealth begets assholeness... which begets wealth... which begets... And even the wealthy who are honest enough to recognize that they're parasites on society don't stop. Like Soros, they say- Hey, I just play by the rules, I didn't make them

"Asking" the rich and powerful to be nice is like expecting a lion to stop eating zebras. It's pointless. There are only two ways to make this a decent society: either get rid of the rich and powerful (a guillotine would be a nice touch), or build an alternate society and refuse to let the rich and powerful in. In order to build an alternate society, you need an alternate medium of exchange, because money and the current financial system pretty much has us all by the short-hairs. Yanno what I mean?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 25, 2013 10:40 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
But despite the reichwing constantly repeating that the banks were "forced" to loan to non-qualified applicants, there's no law or regulation they can point to which shows this to be true.


Which is, again, not what I meant.

To break it down all I said was:

1)
Quote:
Housing for people who couldn't afford it led to the sub-prime mortgage crisis.


In retrospect and probably the cause of this disagreement, this does sound like I was blaming the borrowers. I meant this in more of a general sense. If all of the borrowers had been able to afford their mortgage loans, the crisis wouldn't have happened. But enough people who couldn't afford the loans (many of which weren't fair to begin with) defaulted, which led to the collapse of the housing bubble.

2)
Quote:
The first side is that the lending practices for these sub-prime mortgages were actually a legislated standard at the time through affordable housing policies.


This is admittedly badly said. Affordable housing policies do establish certain rates and limits for certain loans, and there are standards for sub-prime mortgages, but I should not have combined those two ideas in the same sentence.

However, everyone seems to have focused on that, when shortly afterward I clarified

Quote:
But, as you say, deregulation allowed banks and loan sharks to pull all kinda of bullshit with low quality loans, then sell off or gamble on/invest with toxic assets. And in truth the sub-prime loans that were the big problem were actually NOT the loans that were mandated by government policy.


Ultimately, there was never any point where I said that banks were forced to give out the problematic loans because of affordable housing policies.

As for your request that I describe the legal basis of my comments, the basic explanation is that in order for some of these kinds of loans to be considered illegal and fraudulent, there must be laws about what constitutes a legal, non-fraudulent version of this kind of loan. Otherwise the cases all those state attorney generals compiled against fraudulent lenders could not exist.

More specifically, although these defining laws clearly must exist (I am unable to give you the exact bill identification numbers), the standards we're talking about are arguably created by legislated government sponsored entities. Before the lead-up to the sub-prime mortgage crisis, loans of this kind were regulated by the likes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These institutions had strict rules and limitations on loans (conforming loans). Conforming loans could be bought by these institutions to make money for the lender, keep the rates down for the borrower, and also to discourage "non-conforming" loans from flooding the market.

Unfortunately loans from private enterprises packaged into mortgage backed securities, which tended to be low-quality non-conforming loans which did not tend to met the established standards began to far outnumber loans backed by the government sponsored entities.

This is the limits of my understanding and ability to verbalize these concepts. Now, look, I'm sorry if I was unclear or my language was flawed or even if my knowledge in regards to economics or financial institutions is lacking. I have long informed everyone that this kind of stuff is NOT my forte. Economics discussions make my eyes go crossed. But being called "reichwing" and the suggestion that I say something ABHORRENT to my sensibilities gets my BACK up a bit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 26, 2013 1:48 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Damnit but the internet ate my answer, so this will be short!

There are several places where regulations might be applied in the loan process

1) The financial soundness of the institution. Applies to savings and loans, but not to Countrywide or Goldman Sachs.

2) How the mortgage is explained to the applicant. If there are hidden hoops, it's fraudulent.

3) How the mortgage is explained to a secondary purchaser. If it's been misrepresented, it can (and did) result in lawsuits.

4) Loan approval requirements- income, down payment, assessed value. Given all the shenanigans that were going on, it's hard to believe there were ANY regulations in force.

5) Loan features- interest rate and length of time, balloon payments, prepayment penalties, fees, etc. Again, given all the shenaigans that were going on, I find it hard to believe that there were ANY regulations in force.

But #4 and #5 need to be looked up.

Quote:
Before the lead-up to the sub-prime mortgage crisis, loans of this kind were regulated by the likes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These institutions had strict rules and limitations on loans (conforming loans). Conforming loans could be bought by these institutions to make money for the lender, keep the rates down for the borrower, and also to discourage "non-conforming" loans from flooding the market.
Fannie and Freddie weren't regulatory agencies, they were privately-owned secondary purchasers. They had standards for the loans THEY purchased, but didn't have any say over all of the loans "out there". Which is why they wound up owning only about 15% of all of the problematic loans.

I think my point is that I'm not sure there WAS any kind of government-mandated loan. The government regulated some aspects of mortgage lending, especially the parts having to do with enforcing contract transparency. I'm not sure the government had ANY kind of interest in whatever kind of contract was signed, as long as it was accurately represented on paper. But someone could look up that point and find out for sure.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 26, 2013 9:25 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
Back to the OP.

NIKI, we have to get beyond the plaintive Why can't we all just get along? approach. The reason why society is as fucked up as it is, is because the wealthy and powerful have made it that way for their benefit. And as KIKI has pointed out, wealth begets assholeness... which begets wealth... which begets... And even the wealthy who are honest enough to recognize that they're parasites on society don't stop. Like Soros, they say- Hey, I just play by the rules, I didn't make them

"Asking" the rich and powerful to be nice is like expecting a lion to stop eating zebras. It's pointless. There are only two ways to make this a decent society: either get rid of the rich and powerful (a guillotine would be a nice touch), or build an alternate society and refuse to let the rich and powerful in. In order to build an alternate society, you need an alternate medium of exchange, because money and the current financial system pretty much has us all by the short-hairs. Yanno what I mean?


Hoping for input from NIKI.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 26, 2013 1:58 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
Fannie and Freddie weren't regulatory agencies, they were privately-owned secondary purchasers.


They were created as regulatory agencies. They became privately owned secondary purchasers later, but remain a significant force in the industry in terms of standards, and you can't tell me that they don't do so in cooperation with the government.

You know what else is actually technically an independent entity that was created by legislation that is run basically by a private board of bank directors? The Federal Reserve.

Ultimately they are a regulatory influence on the market, and do so in conjunction with and with the consent of the government. They do not operate in a vacuum of government oversight. Arguably, both the government and private entities had a lion's share of the blame in the lead up to the crisis. In order for it all to happen, there had to be a lot of corruption and fraud and a lot of people who looked the other way.

Quote:
I think my point is that I'm not sure there WAS any kind of government-mandated loan.


Which was not what I was saying or meant to say. There was a point where I mentioned the term mandatory loans, but I was thinking of subsidies and subsidized loans that specifically don't discriminate against low income groups or bad credit scores. I was not meaning to imply that the government forced the poor sad banks to issue loans - the government and the banks are in cahoots and make lots of money together.

Quote:
The government regulated some aspects of mortgage lending, especially the parts having to do with enforcing contract transparency. I'm not sure the government had ANY kind of interest in whatever kind of contract was signed, as long as it was accurately represented on paper. But someone could look up that point and find out for sure.


Which was what I was saying.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 27, 2013 10:50 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
They were created as regulatory agencies. They became privately owned secondary purchasers later, but remain a significant force in the industry in terms of standards, and you can't tell me that they don't do so in cooperation with the government.


RE FANNIE AND FREDDIE

Quote:
The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), commonly known as Fannie Mae, was founded in 1938 during the Great Depression as part of the New Deal. It is a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), though it has been a publicly traded company since 1968.[2] The corporation's purpose is to expand the secondary mortgage market by securitizing mortgages in the form of mortgage-backed securities (MBS),[3] allowing lenders to reinvest their assets into more lending and in effect increasing the number of lenders in the mortgage market by reducing the reliance on locally-based savings and loan associations (aka "thrifts").... In 1992, President George H.W. Bush signed the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 [which] amended the charter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reflect the Democratic Congress' view that the GSEs "... have an affirmative obligation to facilitate the financing of affordable housing for low- and moderate-income families in a manner consistent with their overall public purposes, while maintaining a strong financial condition and a reasonable economic return;" For the first time, the GSEs were required to meet "affordable housing goals" set annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and approved by Congress. The initial annual goal for low-income and moderate-income mortgage purchases for each GSE was 30% of the total number of dwelling units financed by mortgage purchases and increased to 55% by 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

Freddie Mac is very much the same
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mac

Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stepped into the subprime market, which is why they owned any troubled loans at all (instead of the minority of loans in their portfolio). I have to add that in addition to being a Democratic fair housing goal, in 2007 this was mainly at the behest of the stock owners, who were looking at the rate of return of other mortgage-bundlers, and who were unhappy with stodgy-old Fannie and Freddie getting their ass handed to them by the "free market" investment banks.

Fannie and Freddie were never regulators. The effect that they had on the market was simply as large mortgage purchasers. Since they had no regulatory authority; didn't originate troubled loans like Countrywide and WAMU; didn't buy nearly as many troubled mortgages as Bear Sterns, Lehman Bros, Goldman etc; didn't insure them thru AIG and other insurers; and didn't play in the credit default swap market they weren't "market makers" but more like "market followers".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 27, 2013 10:58 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


OH BTW- NIKI, I am specifically waiting for an answer from you. What I posted goes directly against your Buddhist grain (I think) and yet it is a real-world observation. I'd appreciate seeing how you resolve the problem.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 27, 2013 12:02 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
Fannie and Freddie were never regulators.


I read the exact same paragraph you quoted, and that indicates to me that yes, they were.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 27, 2013 12:48 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
Fannie and Freddie were never regulators. -signy
I read the exact same paragraph you quoted, and that indicates to me that yes, they were.-byte

Being a "regulator" means that you have rules that you can enforce on others through civil or criminal charges, and the authority to levy fines or put people in jail.

Fannie and Freddie, AFAIK were regulated on the quality of mortgages they could purchase, but if a bank or other lender wrote mortgages that didn't meet their specs, they had no authority to bring that bank or lender before their agency, levy a fine, or bring charges against bank officers. (ETA Unless fraud was involved, but I think it might have been the States Attorney General or the SEC who would enforce that.) All they could do, as far as I can tell, is refuse to buy those mortgages. But that's not being a regulator, that's being regulated. If there is information that says otherwise, please let me know.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 27, 2013 1:43 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
Being a "regulator" means


It means you regulate.

An economic regulator means that you manage some aspect of the economy and keep it from going out of some predetermined control state.

They were corporations, but they were CREATED by congress to do this.

And they weren't the only regulators that existed, because there were in fact both civil and criminal charges filed against the worst offenders in the crisis.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 27, 2013 1:55 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


BYTE, your exact statement was
Quote:
They were created as regulatory agencies.
Being a regulatory agency means that you have the authority to enforce regulations on others. It doesn't mean that you "regulate" something through another mechanism like market forces.

If you disagree, let's agree to disagree.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 27, 2013 8:46 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
Being a regulatory agency means that you have the authority to enforce regulations on others. It doesn't mean that you "regulate" something through another mechanism like market forces.



In this case the end result either way is kind of the same, and I would call both options a type of regulation. Non-conforming loans that ended up being fraudulent could be prosecuted, and they also regulated the market in the way I described.

Quote:
If you disagree, let's agree to disagree.


But, okay. It sounds like I was using broader definitions than you were, which also led to the misunderstanding.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 28, 2013 1:34 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I guess we were using different definitions then. Always a problem!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 28, 2013 1:36 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Back to the OP.

Quote:
NIKI, we have to get beyond the plaintive Why can't we all just get along? approach. The reason why society is as fucked up as it is, is because the wealthy and powerful have made it that way for their benefit. And as KIKI has pointed out, wealth begets assholeness... which begets wealth... which begets... And even the wealthy who are honest enough to recognize that they're parasites on society don't stop. Like Soros, they say- Hey, I just play by the rules, I didn't make them

"Asking" the rich and powerful to be nice is like expecting a lion to stop eating zebras. It's pointless. There are only two ways to make this a decent society: either get rid of the rich and powerful (a guillotine would be a nice touch), or build an alternate society and refuse to let the rich and powerful in. In order to build an alternate society, you need an alternate medium of exchange, because money and the current financial system pretty much has us all by the short-hairs. Yanno what I mean?
Still hoping for some kind of response from you NIKI. WHAT IF "getting back to a decent society" involves breaking some legs... or some necks? How do you resolve this conundrum?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 28, 2013 9:11 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


ALSO RAPPY
Quote:
Well, since you suggested that we should be like the old west (as you saw it), where people lived and died by their own efforts and luck... not much money, no insured banks, little law, no roads. and no industry ... I thought you were making a broad-brush "get rid of government" proposal. If not, in what areas do you think a government SHOULD interfere? And why?
You have the chance to explain what YOU think is a "decent society". The floor is yours! But yanno, if you refuse this opportunity to discuss your viewpoint, you will be cementing your reputation as a lightweight coward. So, grab the bull! Carpe diem!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:08 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Interesting.

NIKI is a Buddhist; quite evidently she believes in being nice and would like other people to be nice as well. So I asked NIKI five times (or so) what she would do if getting "back to being a decent society" mean breaking some necks. It's a question she studiously avoided.

Similarly, I've asked RAPPY five (or so) times in what areas he thinks government should take an active role, and in what areas government shouldn't take an active role. Like NIKI, he's rather studiously avoided answering the question because his mantra is that government should have no role at all.

I think what this means is liberal or right wing, generous or greedy, ALL of us have assumptions that we refuse to question. If you poke your finger in deep enough, you'll find some authoritarianism in all of us. (It's just that some of us have more than others.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 29, 2013 11:11 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
RAPPY- is ... what we would think of as phenomenally well-off: HIS taxes went up when the Bush tax cuts expired because he's raking in $400,000+ per year. No wonder he feels so entitled!

So little rappy has never had to work - or face poverty, maybe even hunger and homelessness. And given his concretized perspective, he has about as much chance of understanding us normal people as an ant does of understanding Einstein. That makes sense.


Graduate from HS, stay out of jail , and don't have any kids you can't afford. Wow. Takes a freakin' genius to do all that, huh?


If more folks did those things, we'd have a hell of a lot less poverty.

" never had to work " ? Too gorram funny. Wrong as you've ever been

Also, per the myth that the public sector needs to pay more so it can "compete" with the private sector , hogwash.

It already pays far too much as it is.




Those figures should be flipped, or at least more in unison with each other.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 29, 2013 11:55 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Hmmm... and yet, you're still evading my question. I'll make deal with you: If you engage in honest and on-point discussion of my question, I'll engage in honest and on-point discussion about your chart. Of course, I get to decide whether you're being honest and on-point enough.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 29, 2013 12:08 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Graduate from HS, stay out of jail , and don't have any kids you can't afford. Wow. Takes a freakin' genius to do all that, huh?


If more folks did those things, we'd have a hell of a lot less poverty.


Worked for me so far, more or less. I ended up with a $90 debt on the ledger this year on a Gross salary of $11.3k.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sat, November 23, 2024 07:41 - 943 posts
Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Sat, November 23, 2024 07:23 - 421 posts
Elections; 2024
Sat, November 23, 2024 06:28 - 4794 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Sat, November 23, 2024 06:14 - 7491 posts
Idiot Democrat Wine Mom
Sat, November 23, 2024 05:26 - 1 posts
Where is the 25th ammendment when you need it?
Sat, November 23, 2024 01:40 - 11 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Sat, November 23, 2024 01:33 - 41 posts
Biden admin quietly loosening immigration policies before Trump takes office — including letting migrants skip ICE check-ins in NYC
Sat, November 23, 2024 01:15 - 3 posts
RCP Average Continues to Be the Most Accurate in the Industry Because We Don't Weight Polls
Sat, November 23, 2024 00:46 - 1 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, November 22, 2024 23:52 - 4752 posts
why does NASA hate the moon?
Fri, November 22, 2024 20:54 - 9 posts
Looks like Russians don't hold back
Fri, November 22, 2024 20:18 - 33 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL