Under Bush US's 400 richest doubled their wealth

[Chris]

The minimum wage should be raised.

It doesn't have to be a living wage, but it shouldn't be slave labor either.

It isn't slave labor. If it was slave labor you wouldn't have the option of doing anything else. Of course people like yourself, will always jump at the chance to claim victim status first

People like myself? How silly. You don't even know me.

It just makes sense to make sure workers are fairly paid.

The workers create the wealth.

 

[Bern80]

People like myself? How silly. You don't even know me.

I don't need to know anything about you in regards to that statement. It speaks for itself. If you believe wages need to be more fair, you are then contending that people are being treated unfairly. Does that not make them victims in your eyes?

It just makes sense to make sure workers are fairly paid.

Fair can be defined many ways. You made the distinction that the min. wage doesn't need to get to what would be required for living just higher or 'more fair'. Which begs the question what is unfair about it now? Because you don't favor a living wage I can only guess that you believe the pay for low level skills has some variable in place driving down what would be paid if said variable weren't there. I'm sure there are some potential variables there, just curious what you think they are.

Some here have posited that 'fair' is whatever it takes to for you to live on. I believe that is ridiculous because the value of one's skills(or relative lack of) is now irrelevant. It is also ridiculous because living wage could be vastly different depending on your circumstances (family, geography, etc.). It is ridiculous because some simply don't require a living wage (teenageers, dual income, etc.). And last but not least it is ridiculous that you essentially get to dictate to your employer what they will pay you. If you have a valuable skill set you have some leverage to do that sometimes, but if the extent of your skills is flipping burgers, you have little right to makes demands of your employer as to what they will pay you.

Perfect example from my own personal experience. In my last job I was an evening supervisor in a call center. I was informed under no ill job performance on my part that the job would be scaled back to hourly instead of salaried and take about a 25% pay cut. it was one of my first jobs out of school so I wasn't making much to begin with. After the paycut one would probably argue that the pay was not enough to live on. Again remembering that some have said people are ENTITLED to a living wage, I should basically been able to tell my employer that they CAN'T reduce my pay. Pretty ridiculous. I was told I could stay in the position, but since the pay was not meeting my goals anymore, I quit.

The workers create the wealth.

And the owners provide jobs for the workers.

 

[Care4all]

People like myself? How silly. You don't even know me.

I don't need to know anything about you in regards to that statement. It speaks for itself. If you believe wages need to be more fair, you are then contending that people are being treated unfairly. Does that not make them victims in your eyes?

It just makes sense to make sure workers are fairly paid.

Fair can be defined many ways. You made the distinction that the min. wage doesn't need to go what would be required for living just higher or 'more fair'. Which begs the question what is unfair about it now? Because you don't favor a living wage I can only guess that you believe the pay for low level skills has some variable in place driving down what would be paid if said variable weren't there. I'm sure there are some potential variables there, just curious what you think they are.

Some here have posited that 'fair' is whatever it takes to for you to live on. I believe that is ridiculous because the value (or relative lack of) is now irrelevant. it is also ridiculous because living wage could be vastly different depending on your circumstances (family, geography, etc.). It is ridiculous because some simply don't require a living wage (teenageers, dual income, etc.). And last but not least it is ridiculous you essentially get to dictate to your employer what they will pay you. If you have a valuable skill set you have some leverage to do that sometimes, but if the extent of your skills is flipping burgers, you have little right to makes demands of your employer as to what they will pay you.

Perfect example from my own personal experience. In my last job I was an evening supervisor in a call center. I was informed under no ill job performance on my part that the job would be scaled back to hourly instead of salaried and take about a 25% pay cut. it was one of my first jobs out of school so I wasn't making much to begin with. After the paycut one would probably argue that the pay was not enough to live on. Again remembering that some have said people are ENTITLED to a living wage, I should basically been able to tell my employer that they CAN'T reduce my pay. Pretty ridiculous. I was told I could stay in the position, but since the pay was not meeting my goals anymore, I quit.

The workers create the wealth.

And the owners provide jobs for the workers.

until this last minimum wage hike, 1 year ago.....those making minimum wage could buy 30% more with the minimum wage back in 1978....

and even with this minimum wage hike that the democrats FINALLY got passed, minimum wage still has less buying power than when i earned it in 1978 at a wt grants discount store.

that's what was and is not fair....at a minimum, it needs to keep up with the cost of living, as it rises ....automatically, as how congress ties their income to it, automatically....

This is where it should start in fairness imho.

Employers should be doing this on their own, they shouldn't need the gvt to tell them to do this.... but not all employers do....so i suppose this is one reason why we have the minimum wage law?

Also there are about 10-15 states that do not have minimum wage laws....because of these states, there is a federal law mandating it...the other 35-40 states have their own min wage laws and most all of them, are at a higher minimum wage than the federal min wage.

 

[editec]

We systematically undercut the working classes ability to make a living and then we are confused about why our CONSUMER DRIVEN ECONOMY is crapping out?!

Seems fairly obvious to me.

 

[Care4all]

i bet ya the states without their own minimum wage are the ones with the highest rural poverty levels....not to say maine doesn't have its share of poverty, even with a higher minimum than the federal...because above minimum wage salaries, also brings poverty, depending on the cost of living in the region.

Care

 

[Care4all]

People like myself? How silly. You don't even know me.

I don't need to know anything about you in regards to that statement. It speaks for itself. If you believe wages need to be more fair, you are then contending that people are being treated unfairly. Does that not make them victims in your eyes?

It just makes sense to make sure workers are fairly paid.

Fair can be defined many ways. You made the distinction that the min. wage doesn't need to get to what would be required for living just higher or 'more fair'. Which begs the question what is unfair about it now? Because you don't favor a living wage I can only guess that you believe the pay for low level skills has some variable in place driving down what would be paid if said variable weren't there. I'm sure there are some potential variables there, just curious what you think they are.

Some here have posited that 'fair' is whatever it takes to for you to live on. I believe that is ridiculous because the value of one's skills(or relative lack of) is now irrelevant. It is also ridiculous because living wage could be vastly different depending on your circumstances (family, geography, etc.). It is ridiculous because some simply don't require a living wage (teenageers, dual income, etc.). And last but not least it is ridiculous that you essentially get to dictate to your employer what they will pay you. If you have a valuable skill set you have some leverage to do that sometimes, but if the extent of your skills is flipping burgers, you have little right to makes demands of your employer as to what they will pay you.

Perfect example from my own personal experience. In my last job I was an evening supervisor in a call center. I was informed under no ill job performance on my part that the job would be scaled back to hourly instead of salaried and take about a 25% pay cut. it was one of my first jobs out of school so I wasn't making much to begin with. After the paycut one would probably argue that the pay was not enough to live on. Again remembering that some have said people are ENTITLED to a living wage, I should basically been able to tell my employer that they CAN'T reduce my pay. Pretty ridiculous. I was told I could stay in the position, but since the pay was not meeting my goals anymore, I quit.

The workers create the wealth.

And the owners provide jobs for the workers.

if you can make twice as many burgers as the average burger flipper, then you deserve to be paid more....

even in menial jobs, justification of higher pay can be found with the increased productivity of the individual.

 

[Bern80]

People like myself? How silly. You don't even know me.

I don't need to know anything about you in regards to that statement. It speaks for itself. If you believe wages need to be more fair, you are then contending that people are being treated unfairly. Does that not make them victims in your eyes?



Fair can be defined many ways. You made the distinction that the min. wage doesn't need to get to what would be required for living just higher or 'more fair'. Which begs the question what is unfair about it now? Because you don't favor a living wage I can only guess that you believe the pay for low level skills has some variable in place driving down what would be paid if said variable weren't there. I'm sure there are some potential variables there, just curious what you think they are.

Some here have posited that 'fair' is whatever it takes to for you to live on. I believe that is ridiculous because the value of one's skills(or relative lack of) is now irrelevant. It is also ridiculous because living wage could be vastly different depending on your circumstances (family, geography, etc.). It is ridiculous because some simply don't require a living wage (teenageers, dual income, etc.). And last but not least it is ridiculous that you essentially get to dictate to your employer what they will pay you. If you have a valuable skill set you have some leverage to do that sometimes, but if the extent of your skills is flipping burgers, you have little right to makes demands of your employer as to what they will pay you.

Perfect example from my own personal experience. In my last job I was an evening supervisor in a call center. I was informed under no ill job performance on my part that the job would be scaled back to hourly instead of salaried and take about a 25% pay cut. it was one of my first jobs out of school so I wasn't making much to begin with. After the paycut one would probably argue that the pay was not enough to live on. Again remembering that some have said people are ENTITLED to a living wage, I should basically been able to tell my employer that they CAN'T reduce my pay. Pretty ridiculous. I was told I could stay in the position, but since the pay was not meeting my goals anymore, I quit.

The workers create the wealth.

And the owners provide jobs for the workers.

if you can make twice as many burgers as the average burger flipper, then you deserve to be paid more....

even in menial jobs, justification of higher pay can be found with the increased productivity of the individual.

Sure there are. But that isn't the only variable in play. If demand for big macs doesn't warrant needing a faster burger flipper, then you're out of luck again. The basic point is having a very limited skill set severely limits your earning potential and most cases there is little excuse for having such a limited skill set.

 

[Bern80]

We systematically undercut the working classes ability to make a living and then we are confused about why our CONSUMER DRIVEN ECONOMY is crapping out?!

Seems fairly obvious to me.

It is foolish to believe that is a main reason why our economy is crapping out. This country has a lot of bad debt, which is the broad reason why we are having this problem. That has little to do with one's socioeconomic position.

 

[editec]

We systematically undercut the working classes ability to make a living and then we are confused about why our CONSUMER DRIVEN ECONOMY is crapping out?!

Seems fairly obvious to me.

It is foolish to believe that is a main reason why our economy is crapping out. This country has a lot of bad debt, which is the broad reason why we are having this problem. That has little to do with one's socioeconomic position.

Okay, WHY does this nation have so much bad debt?

 

[Bern80]

We systematically undercut the working classes ability to make a living and then we are confused about why our CONSUMER DRIVEN ECONOMY is crapping out?!

Seems fairly obvious to me.

It is foolish to believe that is a main reason why our economy is crapping out. This country has a lot of bad debt, which is the broad reason why we are having this problem. That has little to do with one's socioeconomic position.

Okay, WHY does this nation have so much bad debt?

Okay, this is only my theory which I have stated to some extent before and has been echoed by, well, no one (but not refuted either). But it's the one that 'seems fairly obvious to me'.

I think the situation we're in has a lot to do with where our society as come behaviorally and some aspects of human nature and some parts bad policy by the government.

First people's behavior with money has changed. With the advent of the credit card it has become easier than ever to spend money you don't have. Now that is not the fault of the credit card companies and it isn't even neccessarily bad to buy things on credit provided it is relatively certain you have the means to pay for it in the future. But here is where human nature bites people. As a general rule people tend to think things will be better tomorrow than they are today. What that means for our bad economy is that that when a couple signs up for an ARM mortgage with a low interest rate, they think the rate isn't likely to go up (despite evidence that it will), or they don't think the economy is going to get bad (despite evidence that it eventually will), or they just aren't educated about purchasing a home, OR a combination of all those things. Our government didn't help this by making it ridiculousing easy for people, regardless of credit history, to get some type of mortgage. They further didn't incentivise lenders to avoid risky loans because they garunteed any loans they made.

I said before I think part of the problem is we are getting dumber as a nation. I don't think that is any more true than with money. Parents don't teach their kids much about it (thank god mine did). And little is taught about it in school. That is what I think needs to change. They say school/college is suppossed to prepare you for life after college, but it does nothing of the sort. I didn't learn how to buy a home in school. I didn't learn whether a Roth 401k or regular 401k was a better option for me. And the wonders of compounding interest and how it can work for you was barely touched on. I don't know if this got passed to all of our congressmen in spades or what but they are the worst offenders. It seems they have no fiscal constraint, no ability to be efficient, and no problem with continuing to ask for (well take i guess) more and more money.

To sum up along the same line you did, ed., we are a really financially illiterate and irresponsible society and yet we are confused about why we are in a financial crisis. Again 'seems obvious to me'.

 

[sealybobo]

It is foolish to believe that is a main reason why our economy is crapping out. This country has a lot of bad debt, which is the broad reason why we are having this problem. That has little to do with one's socioeconomic position.

Okay, WHY does this nation have so much bad debt?

Okay, this is only my theory which I have stated to some extent before and has been echoed by, well, no one (but not refuted either). But it's the one that 'seems fairly obvious to me'.

I think the situation we're in has a lot to do with where our society as come behaviorally and some aspects of human nature and some parts bad policy by the government.

First people's behavior with money has changed. With the advent of the credit card it has become easier than ever to spend money you don't have. Now that is not the fault of the credit card companies and it isn't even neccessarily bad to buy things on credit provided it is relatively certain you have the means to pay for it in the future. But here is where human nature bites people. As a general rule people tend to think things will be better tomorrow than they are today. What that means for our bad economy is that that when a couple signs up for an ARM mortgage with a low interest rate, they think the rate isn't likely to go up (despite evidence that it will), or they don't think the economy is going to get bad (despite evidence that it eventually will), or they just aren't educated about purchasing a home, OR a combination of all those things. Our government didn't help this by making it ridiculousing easy for people, regardless of credit history, to get some type of mortgage. They further didn't incentivise lenders to avoid risky loans because they garunteed any loans they made.

It isn't the credit card companies fault? That means it isn't the bankers fault?


XXXXXXX


WRONG!!!! Try again.

 

[Bern80]

Okay, WHY does this nation have so much bad debt?

Okay, this is only my theory which I have stated to some extent before and has been echoed by, well, no one (but not refuted either). But it's the one that 'seems fairly obvious to me'.

I think the situation we're in has a lot to do with where our society as come behaviorally and some aspects of human nature and some parts bad policy by the government.

First people's behavior with money has changed. With the advent of the credit card it has become easier than ever to spend money you don't have. Now that is not the fault of the credit card companies and it isn't even neccessarily bad to buy things on credit provided it is relatively certain you have the means to pay for it in the future. But here is where human nature bites people. As a general rule people tend to think things will be better tomorrow than they are today. What that means for our bad economy is that that when a couple signs up for an ARM mortgage with a low interest rate, they think the rate isn't likely to go up (despite evidence that it will), or they don't think the economy is going to get bad (despite evidence that it eventually will), or they just aren't educated about purchasing a home, OR a combination of all those things. Our government didn't help this by making it ridiculousing easy for people, regardless of credit history, to get some type of mortgage. They further didn't incentivise lenders to avoid risky loans because they garunteed any loans they made.

It isn't the credit card companies fault? That means it isn't the bankers fault?


XXXXXXX


WRONG!!!! Try again.

Unless you are somehow powerless to resist the sales pitch of 0% APR introductory, low ARM interest rates, or simply don't understand the concept of interest, NO. It is not the credit companies fault. Why should credit card companies and lenders shoulder the blame for someone elses lack of financial knowledge and/or poor financial decision making?

 

[Bern80]

YES, absolutly when a man or a woman works they should at the very least be able to cover their basic living costs and needs.

Since I quoted this in another thread and actually read it some more I have to ask for some clarification. I think I know what you mean, but it wouldn't be what this sentence actually says. Everyone should be able to cover there basic living costs and needs. 'Able' being the word that needs clarifying. Another way to say what you said here is that every person should possess the 'abillity' to provide for there basic needs. Individuals possess abilities. Individuals attain abilities. In the gramatical sense what your sentence basically says is that the minimum ability a person can attain should be enough to provide for their basic needs. I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean because you have made it quite clear that one's abilities or skills are irrelevant when comes to a living wage threshold. I personally agree with the gramatical aspect of the sentence. Everyone (unless handicapped in some way) should at the very least be able to acquire a skill set that (at the very least) will provide for their basic needs. that's really what the above says.

But since at the living wage level you have rendered individuals largely NOT responsible for providing for themeselve your sentence shoudl really read:

YES, absolutly when a man or a woman works they should at the very least be able to have an employer obligated to cover their basic living costs and needs.

I'm pretty sure that's what you meant to say, isn't it?

 

[Care4all]

Okay, this is only my theory which I have stated to some extent before and has been echoed by, well, no one (but not refuted either). But it's the one that 'seems fairly obvious to me'.

I think the situation we're in has a lot to do with where our society as come behaviorally and some aspects of human nature and some parts bad policy by the government.

First people's behavior with money has changed. With the advent of the credit card it has become easier than ever to spend money you don't have. Now that is not the fault of the credit card companies and it isn't even neccessarily bad to buy things on credit provided it is relatively certain you have the means to pay for it in the future. But here is where human nature bites people. As a general rule people tend to think things will be better tomorrow than they are today. What that means for our bad economy is that that when a couple signs up for an ARM mortgage with a low interest rate, they think the rate isn't likely to go up (despite evidence that it will), or they don't think the economy is going to get bad (despite evidence that it eventually will), or they just aren't educated about purchasing a home, OR a combination of all those things. Our government didn't help this by making it ridiculousing easy for people, regardless of credit history, to get some type of mortgage. They further didn't incentivise lenders to avoid risky loans because they garunteed any loans they made.

It isn't the credit card companies fault? That means it isn't the bankers fault?


XXXXXXX


WRONG!!!! Try again.

Unless you are somehow powerless to resist the sales pitch of 0% APR introductory, low ARM interest rates, or simply don't understand the concept of interest, NO. It is not the credit companies fault. Why should credit card companies and lenders shoulder the blame for someone elses lack of financial knowledge and/or poor financial decision making?

Why would bankers loan their stock holder's money to people that DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT Bern? They were MORE THAN NEGLIGENT imho.

 

[sealybobo]

Okay, this is only my theory which I have stated to some extent before and has been echoed by, well, no one (but not refuted either). But it's the one that 'seems fairly obvious to me'.

I think the situation we're in has a lot to do with where our society as come behaviorally and some aspects of human nature and some parts bad policy by the government.

First people's behavior with money has changed. With the advent of the credit card it has become easier than ever to spend money you don't have. Now that is not the fault of the credit card companies and it isn't even neccessarily bad to buy things on credit provided it is relatively certain you have the means to pay for it in the future. But here is where human nature bites people. As a general rule people tend to think things will be better tomorrow than they are today. What that means for our bad economy is that that when a couple signs up for an ARM mortgage with a low interest rate, they think the rate isn't likely to go up (despite evidence that it will), or they don't think the economy is going to get bad (despite evidence that it eventually will), or they just aren't educated about purchasing a home, OR a combination of all those things. Our government didn't help this by making it ridiculousing easy for people, regardless of credit history, to get some type of mortgage. They further didn't incentivise lenders to avoid risky loans because they garunteed any loans they made.

It isn't the credit card companies fault? That means it isn't the bankers fault?


XXXXXXX


WRONG!!!! Try again.

Unless you are somehow powerless to resist the sales pitch of 0% APR introductory, low ARM interest rates, or simply don't understand the concept of interest, NO. It is not the credit companies fault. Why should credit card companies and lenders shoulder the blame for someone elses lack of financial knowledge and/or poor financial decision making?

Bottom line is this. Who is at fault for all the foreclosures? Who is at fault for the current economy? Who sent all the manufacturing jobs overseas? Who was the president the last 8 years? Who ran Congress 6 of the last 8 years? Who gave corporations tax breaks to go overseas? Who deregulated the housing industry to allow predatory lending. Who hires illegals? Who sends jobs to India, China and Mexico?

The GOP, Corporations and Republican voters have argued in favor of NAFTA and the new global economy. They didn't protect any American jobs. We said, "every other country protects industries that are vital to their economies" and the GOP didn't listen.

So the problem we have right now stems from there not being enough good paying jobs.

If you break/ruin the middle class, this is what you get. Now, why don't you Redumblicans tell us how we can build back a strong middle class.

All those blue collar people you think should only make $10 hr? If that trend continues, expect this Great Depression to continue. And don't expect that you are above this affecting you.

Household balance sheets shed almost $3 trillion in the third quarter last year, thanks in large part to a decline in stock prices. That loss, the largest 3-month drop on record, brings the total loss by U.S. households in 2008 to $10 trillion, or about 10 years worth of equity earnings.

 

[Bern80]

It isn't the credit card companies fault? That means it isn't the bankers fault?


XXXXXXX


WRONG!!!! Try again.

Unless you are somehow powerless to resist the sales pitch of 0% APR introductory, low ARM interest rates, or simply don't understand the concept of interest, NO. It is not the credit companies fault. Why should credit card companies and lenders shoulder the blame for someone elses lack of financial knowledge and/or poor financial decision making?

Why would bankers loan their stock holder's money to people that DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT Bern? They were MORE THAN NEGLIGENT imho.

I'm not sure what you mean by bankers lending stock holders money (like as oppossed to other people they loan money to?). Maybe you can clarify that.

I was responding to your assertion that this is in part the fault of credit card companies. I fail to see how. That's why I asked if some people are powerless to refuse the sales pitch of 0% APR for a year or 0% on interest transfers. The problem isn't that they sold products like these. It's the people that were sold on it that are the problem. I'm not that long in years (28) but even I understand if you're offered a super low ARM rate mortgage, that rate is probably only going to go up and thus the payments are only going to go up. At some point individuals have to be held accountable for this mess as well for not doing something they were completely capable of doing, and that is educating themselves.

 

[Bern80]

It isn't the credit card companies fault? That means it isn't the bankers fault?


XXXXXXX


WRONG!!!! Try again.

Unless you are somehow powerless to resist the sales pitch of 0% APR introductory, low ARM interest rates, or simply don't understand the concept of interest, NO. It is not the credit companies fault. Why should credit card companies and lenders shoulder the blame for someone elses lack of financial knowledge and/or poor financial decision making?

Bottom line is this. Who is at fault for all the foreclosures? Who is at fault for the current economy? Who sent all the manufacturing jobs overseas? Who was the president the last 8 years? Who ran Congress 6 of the last 8 years? Who gave corporations tax breaks to go overseas? Who deregulated the housing industry to allow predatory lending. Who hires illegals? Who sends jobs to India, China and Mexico?

The GOP, Corporations and Republican voters have argued in favor of NAFTA and the new global economy. They didn't protect any American jobs. We said, "every other country protects industries that are vital to their economies" and the GOP didn't listen.

So the problem we have right now stems from there not being enough good paying jobs.

If you break/ruin the middle class, this is what you get. Now, why don't you Redumblicans tell us how we can build back a strong middle class.

...skipping past the stuff we know you're too biased about to look at objectively and know how ridiculuous it is.........

All those blue collar people you think should only make $10 hr? If that trend continues, expect this Great Depression to continue. And don't expect that you are above this affecting you.

I beleive what people 'deserve' should be based on their skills sets and the market for those skills, not what you believe you are entitled to, to live on.

 

[Care4all]

Unless you are somehow powerless to resist the sales pitch of 0% APR introductory, low ARM interest rates, or simply don't understand the concept of interest, NO. It is not the credit companies fault. Why should credit card companies and lenders shoulder the blame for someone elses lack of financial knowledge and/or poor financial decision making?

Why would bankers loan their stock holder's money to people that DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT Bern? They were MORE THAN NEGLIGENT imho.

I'm not sure what you mean by bankers lending stock holders money (like as oppossed to other people they loan money to?). Maybe you can clarify that.

I was responding to your assertion that this is in part the fault of credit card companies. I fail to see how. That's why I asked if some people are powerless to refuse the sales pitch of 0% APR for a year or 0% on interest transfers. The problem isn't that they sold products like these. It's the people that were sold on it that are the problem. I'm not that long in years (28) but even I understand if you're offered a super low ARM rate mortgage, that rate is probably only going to go up and thus the payments are only going to go up. At some point individuals have to be held accountable for this mess as well for not doing something they were completely capable of doing, and that is educating themselves.

Banks loaning money (the Stock holder's money), to people that did not qualify or that did not understand the terms of the agreement or that had a risk of not being able to pay the loan under the terms and and length of the loan agreement...were negligent to issue such a loan....they were not good stewards of the company's money, (the stock holder's money)....because they did not show good, sound, business practice.

 

[Jon]

Who is at fault for all the foreclosures?

The people who didn't pay their fucking mortgages. Typical Democrat, blaming someone else when the fault lies with the individual. That's my problem with most liberals - they never can take responsibility for their actions.

 

[Bern80]

Why would bankers loan their stock holder's money to people that DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT Bern? They were MORE THAN NEGLIGENT imho.

I'm not sure what you mean by bankers lending stock holders money (like as oppossed to other people they loan money to?). Maybe you can clarify that.

I was responding to your assertion that this is in part the fault of credit card companies. I fail to see how. That's why I asked if some people are powerless to refuse the sales pitch of 0% APR for a year or 0% on interest transfers. The problem isn't that they sold products like these. It's the people that were sold on it that are the problem. I'm not that long in years (28) but even I understand if you're offered a super low ARM rate mortgage, that rate is probably only going to go up and thus the payments are only going to go up. At some point individuals have to be held accountable for this mess as well for not doing something they were completely capable of doing, and that is educating themselves.

Banks loaning money (the Stock holder's money), to people that did not qualify or that did not understand the terms of the agreement or that had a risk of not being able to pay the loan under the terms and and length of the loan agreement...were negligent to issue such a loan....they were not good stewards of the company's money, (the stock holder's money)....because they did not show good, sound, business practice.

It's a two way street care. Some responsibility has to fall to the individual as well. As good old Dr. Phil likes to say, you can not change what you don't acknowledge. And right now many of the left on this board are eager to claim victim status and refuse to claim any responsibility on the part of individuals. Some on here lilke RodISHI seem to think it would be a helluva idea to remove even more personal responsibility from people's lives. That is what will lead us to ruin because if some aren't forced to be responsible they won't put forth the effort to do so. That is part of the reasons banks did what they did. In many cases those loans were gauranteed by the fed so there was little disincentive to make risky loans.