millionaires 5.4 pct surtax

[HUGGY]

House bill to hit millionaires with 5.4 pct surtax


Should be more like 20%.

 

[jeffrockit]

The rich do not "create jobs."

Really! Who does, the middle class or the poor?

 

[KittenKoder]

Really! Who does, the middle class or the poor?

The poor, you just have to give us more of the rich people's money to spend is all.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Probably not. As I remember the story, the beans were actually magic. The loans? Severely lacking in magic.

The loans are what they are, if you can't afford it, don't sign your name on the dotted line. I "qualified" for much higher, but stayed within what i knew were my means. This "predatory lending" whining is the biggest cop out ever........

Pray tell how people were supposed to know that housing prices would crash?

Not sure .Could have been when they started to sell crack houses for 140,000 $ to crack whores on Sunset point road in Clearwater Fl, that was a clue.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I love how the right all parrot this talking point about how the rich create jobs.

Bullshit.

Most jobs are created by small businesses, not the rich.

The rich have been screwing the middle class since Reagan was elected, and you dummies are so brainwashed that you don't even know it.

The Adminstration has a plan to club the not as rich to death as well. Free health care.

 

[Nik]

OMGNOWAY i didn't know either, please bail me out Obama !

So lets see....your blaming people for not knowing something you didn't know?

Alrighty then

You really do talk out of both sides of your face, i'm gonna splain' this to you slowly. I'll concede that fact that most americans, including me, didn't know it was gonna crash like this. But that is no excuse, i didn't know, yet i'm still in my home, making all mortgage payments on time because i did not overreach even though the lender, real estate agent, etc... wanted me to.....

And?

2 years ago your decision not to overreach looked really fucking stupid.

So essentially your blaming people for not making the right prediction about the future.

 

[Nik]

The loans are what they are, if you can't afford it, don't sign your name on the dotted line. I "qualified" for much higher, but stayed within what i knew were my means. This "predatory lending" whining is the biggest cop out ever........

Pray tell how people were supposed to know that housing prices would crash?

Did you even read what he said?
Seriously, if I have a mortgage I can afford, it doesn't matter how much my house is worth, or if the value goes down. I CAN STILL AFFORD THE MORTGAGE PAYMENT REGARDLESS OF THE HOUSE VALUE.

And if you buy a house, and the price goes up and you can refinance and get the new equity in the house, you can afford that house as well.

Its like blaming people for buying a house 6 months before they lost their job. Damn people can't afford the house (in the future) so why did they buy it!

 

[Nik]

Another thread blaming those who earned their status for all the woes again? This is getting old.

Kids born wealthy earned their status?

How's that work?

 

[Nik]

What part don't you understand???

We pay TWICE AS MUCH per capita as every other Western democracy for healthcare and our outcomes are only as good or in some cases worst.

What part of that don't you understand???

I suppose that in your fantasy world, the price of health care in the US will magically drop as soon as the government gets even more involved.

I know, its not like Medicare is cheaper than private insurance or something

So if you hate government healthcare so much, where is the Republican movement to get rid of Medicare?

 

[HUGGY]

Another thread blaming those who earned their status for all the woes again? This is getting old.

Kids born wealthy earned their status?

How's that work?

Me thinks Kitten believes she is Bill Gates love child.

 

[Nik]

If the ones not making any weren't trying to live like they are making big money, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Actually a lot of the mortgages that went under were people who were making decent/good money. Besides that many of them weren't trying to live like they are making big money, the banks were pressuring them to get huge loans saying that they could easily make money on the houses.

And the banks were pressured by who? Ever hear of the Community Reinvestment Act? As usual, it comes back to our great government/politicians.

They weren't pressured by anyone. The CRA was to prevent redlining.

The CRA was enacted in 1977. You think it took 30 years to have any effect?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Actually a lot of the mortgages that went under were people who were making decent/good money. Besides that many of them weren't trying to live like they are making big money, the banks were pressuring them to get huge loans saying that they could easily make money on the houses.

And the banks were pressured by who? Ever hear of the Community Reinvestment Act? As usual, it comes back to our great government/politicians.

They weren't pressured by anyone. The CRA was to prevent redlining.

The CRA was enacted in 1977. You think it took 30 years to have any effect?

Its common knowledge

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The Real Culprits In This Meltdown

In 1977, Democrat President Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). This act forced banks to “provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to under-served populations”.
In 1993, Democrat Bill Clinton asked his Treasury Secretary to come up with reforms to increase the expand the CRA.
In 1997, Democrat Bill Clinton increased the market share of these CRA loans from almost zero to almost 15%. Fannie’s and Freddie’s combined portfolios went from about $200 billion to over $1 trillion during Clinton’s term in office – a five fold increase.
In 2005, Bush attempted to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) but he was rejected along party lines despite warnings by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.

Democrat’s $1 Trillion Mess « Look2theWest

 

[Nik]

And the banks were pressured by who? Ever hear of the Community Reinvestment Act? As usual, it comes back to our great government/politicians.

They weren't pressured by anyone. The CRA was to prevent redlining.

The CRA was enacted in 1977. You think it took 30 years to have any effect?

Its common knowledge

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The Real Culprits In This Meltdown

In 1977, Democrat President Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). This act forced banks to “provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to under-served populations”.
In 1993, Democrat Bill Clinton asked his Treasury Secretary to come up with reforms to increase the expand the CRA.
In 1997, Democrat Bill Clinton increased the market share of these CRA loans from almost zero to almost 15%. Fannie’s and Freddie’s combined portfolios went from about $200 billion to over $1 trillion during Clinton’s term in office – a five fold increase.
In 2005, Bush attempted to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) but he was rejected along party lines despite warnings by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.

Democrat’s $1 Trillion Mess « Look2theWest

Actually your confusing right wing talking points with "common knowledge".

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

More than often than not, Right wing talking points and facts are one in the same , this in one such occasion, sorry.

 

[Nik]

And the banks were pressured by who? Ever hear of the Community Reinvestment Act? As usual, it comes back to our great government/politicians.

They weren't pressured by anyone. The CRA was to prevent redlining.

The CRA was enacted in 1977. You think it took 30 years to have any effect?

Its common knowledge

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The Real Culprits In This Meltdown

In 1977, Democrat President Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). This act forced banks to “provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to under-served populations”.
In 1993, Democrat Bill Clinton asked his Treasury Secretary to come up with reforms to increase the expand the CRA.
In 1997, Democrat Bill Clinton increased the market share of these CRA loans from almost zero to almost 15%. Fannie’s and Freddie’s combined portfolios went from about $200 billion to over $1 trillion during Clinton’s term in office – a five fold increase.
In 2005, Bush attempted to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) but he was rejected along party lines despite warnings by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.

Democrat’s $1 Trillion Mess « Look2theWest

Except for the obvious lies, such as equating CRA loans with subprime loans.

 

[Nik]

More than often than not, Right wing talking points and facts are one in the same , this in one such occasion, sorry.

while upper income borrowers received nearly 40 percent of the loans.

Most Subprime Loans Went to Upper Income, Non-Minorities

So is it your contention that upper income borrowers came from underserved communities?

 

[Care4all]

If the ones not making any weren't trying to live like they are making big money, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Actually a lot of the mortgages that went under were people who were making decent/good money. Besides that many of them weren't trying to live like they are making big money, the banks were pressuring them to get huge loans saying that they could easily make money on the houses.

I don't give a fuck what the bank tells you that you can afford. Is there no personal accountability to look at the numbers and and make a responsible decision on what you can afford? We laugh at this all the time! I know people that if the bank tells them they can have say $500 000, they'll try for $600 000!
I mean should a person really own a house if they can't decide for themselves that they can afford it?

The Banks had an obligation, a fiduciary obligation of sorts, to its owners, and should NEVER have used their poor business practices to loan the stock holder's money to people who would not be able to pay it back.

The BANK is who should have made the WISE BUSINESS DECISION to not loan to the people who could not make their payments....and they did NOTHING of the sort.

The homeowner had nothing to lose with borrowing money they may not be able to pay back....

The bank had EVERYTHING to lose by loaning the stock holders money to them. PERIOD!

care

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Except for the obvious lies, such as equating CRA loans with subprime loans.

There are lots of variables, and languange ,equating(yours), causing(others) I use contribute to the problem

Economist Thomas DiLorenzo, for instance, wrote that the current housing crisis is "the direct result of thirty years of governmentpolicy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers." 2 Robert Litan of the BrookingsInstitution similarly suggested that the 1990s enhance-ment of the CRA may have contributed to the current crisis. "If the CRA had not been so aggressively pushed," Litan said, "it is conceivable things would not be quite as bad. People have to be honest about that.

CRA Lending During the Subprime Meltdown

The report states Despite these caveats, we believe that this research should help to quell if not fully lay to rest the arguments that the CRA caused the current subprime lending boom by requiring banks to lend irresponsibly in low- and moderate-income areas.



The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown by Thomas DiLorenzo

If you believe there was "no effect" from the CRA, that is your position.

 

[sealybobo]

More than often than not, Right wing talking points and facts are one in the same , this in one such occasion, sorry.

I said months ago this is the solution to all our problems.

How many people in the top 1.2% income earners are the same mother fuckers that profitting from:

The Iraq war
The Bank bailouts
NAFTA
Tax Loopholes
Subsodies
Bush's unfair tax breaks
All the laws the GOP passed that benefit the rich
The tax law that allowed companies to rob their pension funds and made it easier for them to file bankruptsy and harder for us to.
The Deregulations that allowed them to predatory lend to homeowners
Etc.

So wake up broke ass Americans. They will cry everytime we try to fix something that hurts us but benefits them that it will

1. Cost jobs/Lay people off
2. Make them less profitable
3. Force them to leave the country
4. Invest less

The government is not evil. If it is its because lobbyists are working for the rich and not all of us. Can anyone deny that?

The rich have spent 30 years trying to convince us that government is the problem.

And the last 8 proving it.

 

[Nik]

Except for the obvious lies, such as equating CRA loans with subprime loans.

There are lots of variables, and languange ,equating(yours), causing(others) I use contribute to the problem

Economist Thomas DiLorenzo, for instance, wrote that the current housing crisis is "the direct result of thirty years of governmentpolicy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers." 2 Robert Litan of the BrookingsInstitution similarly suggested that the 1990s enhance-ment of the CRA may have contributed to the current crisis. "If the CRA had not been so aggressively pushed," Litan said, "it is conceivable things would not be quite as bad. People have to be honest about that.

CRA Lending During the Subprime Meltdown

The report states Despite these caveats, we believe that this research should help to quell if not fully lay to rest the arguments that the CRA caused the current subprime lending boom by requiring banks to lend irresponsibly in low- and moderate-income areas.



The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown by Thomas DiLorenzo

If you believe there was "no effect" from the CRA, that is your position.

If it had such an obvious effect, why do you need to lie about it and equate CRA loans with all subprime loans?