Omg I went to lunch with my GOP co-worker. He said Democrats don't really care about Russia they just want to use it against republicans. He heard it on rush. I said, "you mean like Monica?" And it dawned on him Republicans do it too. Same with Benghazi or fast and furious or Hillary using a private email.
Restaurants are adding labor surcharges to help offset minimum wage increases
- Thread starter Cellblock2429
- Start date
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
Never stated Obama wronged me, I said I made more money in the Bush years. I didn't pay any attention to Romney in 08, it wasn't until the 12 election. So my memory is fine, I would suggest all the drugs you have done and continue to do have screwed up your memory.
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
Rarely watched it.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
Except on POLICY and the issues, dupe. You can gossip about PEOPLE forever.
For much of Bush's tenure, government statistics show, incomes for most families remained relatively stagnant while housing prices skyrocketed. That put home ownership increasingly out of reach for first-time buyers like West.
So Bush had to, in his words, "use the mighty muscle of the federal government" to meet his goal. He proposed affordable housing tax incentives. He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.
Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.
And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down. Republican congressional leaders and some housing advocates balked, arguing that homeowners with no stake in their investments would be more prone to walk away, as West did. Many economic experts, including some in the White House, now share that view.
The president also leaned on mortgage brokers and lenders to devise their own innovations. "Corporate America," he said, "has a responsibility to work to make America a compassionate place."
And corporate America, eyeing a lucrative market, delivered in ways Bush might not have expected, with a proliferation of too-good-to-be-true teaser rates and interest-only loans that were sold to investors in a loosely regulated environment. But Bush populated the financial system's alphabet soup of oversight agencies with people who, like him, wanted fewer rules, not more.
The president's first chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission promised a "kinder, gentler" agency. The second was pushed out amid industry complaints that he was too aggressive. Under its current leader, the agency failed to police the catastrophic decisions that toppled the investment bank Bear Stearns and contributed to the current crisis, according to a recent inspector general's report.
As for Bush's banking regulators, they once brandished a chain saw over a 9,000-page pile of regulations as they promised to ease burdens on the industry. When states tried to use consumer protection laws to crack down on predatory lending, the comptroller of the currency blocked the effort, asserting that states had no authority over national banks.
The administration won that fight at the Supreme Court. But Roy Cooper, North Carolina's attorney general, said, "They took 50 sheriffs off the beat at a time when lending was becoming the Wild West."
The president did push rules aimed at requiring lenders to explain loan terms more clearly. But the White House shelved them in 2004, after industry-friendly members of Congress threatened to block confirmation of his new housing secretary.
In the 2004 election cycle, mortgage bankers and brokers poured nearly $847,000 into Bush's re-election campaign, more than triple their contributions in 2000, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The administration did not complete the new rules until last month.
Today, administration officials say it is fair to ask whether Bush's ownership push backfired. Paulson said the administration, like others before it, "over-incented housing."
Hennessey put it this way: "I would not say too much emphasis on expanding home ownership. I would say not enough early focus on easy lending practices."
Kitty Bennett contributed reporting.
Rich Addicks/The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
The wiki article is pretty accurate and no very partisan and blames several reason. It wasn't one issue or action it was several by several people over the decades. Thanks for proving my point.
I have used the Time article several times, it will also show Clinton was one of 25 key players in the debacle.
Markle
Diamond Member
Your ignorance is duly noted as well as expected.
Personally, it seems to me that your far left Socialist cause would be better served by facing and posting the truth as opposed to lying.
You know, or SHOULD know that your statement about the "ultra rich" usually inherit their money is totally bogus. No surprise. How have any one of them, inherited or not, "screwed" poor folks? How have they taken anything out of the pockets of the poor?
For your extremely reluctant edification.
OCT 3, 2014 @ 11:09 AM
There Are More Self-Made Billionaires In The Forbes 400 Than Ever Before
Agustino Fontevecchia, contributor
[...]
The trend began to break down in 1994, when we saw an equal number of inherited and self-made billionaires, but at the extreme, it was still totally skewed. Our percentage of 1s stood at 17.75%, compared to 3% for 10s (absolutely self-made).
Already in the 2000s, our data finally showed a greater proportion of self-made billionaires. In 2004, we had 59% of the Forbes 400 having made their own fortune, as opposed to 41% who inherited it. But, again, at the extremes we still saw a full one-tenth of the list, or 40 of them, having fully inherited their fortunes and not working to grow it, and only 4.75% of them, or 19, as totally self-made, having battled adversity to reach the top.
Thus, the most encouraging results come from this year’s Forbes 400. For the first time in our data set, we see the number of self-made billionaires who rose from nothing, and overcame various tough obstacles, outpacing those that just sat on their fortunes. A total of 34 billionaires, or 8.5%, scored as 10s, or more than three times as many as in 1984. The number of 100% inherited fortunes as a percentage of the total fell to 7%, with 28 billionaires in the 1 category, compared to 99 back in 1984.
[...]
There Are More Self-Made Billionaires In The Forbes 400 Than Ever Before
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
And the Democrat and the Republicans are the same, thanks for clarification.
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
Whatever dude, only in your little world, not in the world we live in.
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
Not a mid-level but whatever floats your boat. I owned a company and now I am the second in command at the current company. Teachers are not bright, they never have been. Just the way it is.
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
Yep, the Democrats and the Republicans are the same in that respect. I have been saying that and you denied it and now you agree. LOL!
Markle
Diamond Member
Markle
Diamond Member
Where and how? Everyone pays the same rate for Capital Gains, even you.
Markle
Diamond Member
Not with people who are capable of work and do not.
Better yet, requiring people who are on unemployment to work, once again. It worked in 1996, it will work again.
Markle
Diamond Member
Yes, brainwashed shyttehead. Can you even get past the GOP propaganda about Fed Income tax lol? Then there's every other federal, state and local tax and fee which hit the nonrich much harder, so that basically EVERYONE pays between 20-30% of income to the government, and the rich end up with all the new wealth, and the nonrich and the country gth. Great job, dupe. see sig PP1. Only bs/hate propaganda keeps you ignoramuses in line...
You really should have quit while you were behind.
You are right, your chart does not show the percentage of all income taxes paid by income group. It really shows nothing.
Here are the percentage of all income taxes paid by income group. Read and weep!
If that's impossible for you to comprehend, here it is in chart form.
National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?
The subject was and is Federal Income Tax. You need to take up the local taxes with the states, counties, and municipalities.
You're also lying, even by your own "chart" by saying that "EVERYONE" pays between 20-30% of their income to government. You have no worth, you simply love to stir the pot.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
The Times speaks the truth. Almost all the ridiculous mortgages came with BOOOSH.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
Meanwhile, the GOP steals from the nonrich and gives to the greedy rich DUH. And baffles dupes like you with BS propaganda. The worst propaganda machine BY FAR in our history. You idiot dupes believe the poor just got lazy the last 35 years now. Racist fools...
francoHFW
Diamond Member
For much of Bush's tenure, government statistics show, incomes for most families remained relatively stagnant while housing prices skyrocketed. That put home ownership increasingly out of reach for first-time buyers like West.
So Bush had to, in his words, "use the mighty muscle of the federal government" to meet his goal. He proposed affordable housing tax incentives. He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.
Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.
And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down. Republican congressional leaders and some housing advocates balked, arguing that homeowners with no stake in their investments would be more prone to walk away, as West did. Many economic experts, including some in the White House, now share that view.
The president also leaned on mortgage brokers and lenders to devise their own innovations. "Corporate America," he said, "has a responsibility to work to make America a compassionate place."
And corporate America, eyeing a lucrative market, delivered in ways Bush might not have expected, with a proliferation of too-good-to-be-true teaser rates and interest-only loans that were sold to investors in a loosely regulated environment. But Bush populated the financial system's alphabet soup of oversight agencies with people who, like him, wanted fewer rules, not more.
The president's first chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission promised a "kinder, gentler" agency. The second was pushed out amid industry complaints that he was too aggressive. Under its current leader, the agency failed to police the catastrophic decisions that toppled the investment bank Bear Stearns and contributed to the current crisis, according to a recent inspector general's report.
As for Bush's banking regulators, they once brandished a chain saw over a 9,000-page pile of regulations as they promised to ease burdens on the industry. When states tried to use consumer protection laws to crack down on predatory lending, the comptroller of the currency blocked the effort, asserting that states had no authority over national banks.
The administration won that fight at the Supreme Court. But Roy Cooper, North Carolina's attorney general, said, "They took 50 sheriffs off the beat at a time when lending was becoming the Wild West."
The president did push rules aimed at requiring lenders to explain loan terms more clearly. But the White House shelved them in 2004, after industry-friendly members of Congress threatened to block confirmation of his new housing secretary.
In the 2004 election cycle, mortgage bankers and brokers poured nearly $847,000 into Bush's re-election campaign, more than triple their contributions in 2000, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The administration did not complete the new rules until last month.
Today, administration officials say it is fair to ask whether Bush's ownership push backfired. Paulson said the administration, like others before it, "over-incented housing."
Hennessey put it this way: "I would not say too much emphasis on expanding home ownership. I would say not enough early focus on easy lending practices."
Kitty Bennett contributed reporting.
Rich Addicks/The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
francoHFW
Diamond Member
You ought to listen to your elders, superdupe.
Meanwhile, with all those new billionaires- (sounds like online ones), the middle class and the country go to hell. Great job, Reaganistas.
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.
Filed under Economicsno comments
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.Over the past 60 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.
Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):
1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%
A 13% drop since 1980
2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.
Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%
An increase of 16% since Reagan.
3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.
The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
A 12.3% drop after Reagan.
4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.
Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%
A 45% increase after 1980.
5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.
Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:
1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%
A 5.6 times increase.
6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.
The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:
1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%
A 10% Decrease.
Links:
1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release - Financial Accounts of the United States - Current Release
5/6 = http://www.businessinsider.com/15-c...lity-in-america-2010-4?slop=1#slideshow-start
Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
I never said Bush was innocent. Did you read the issue with Clinton and his contribution? There were others besides Clinton and Bush.
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
Where have I said the poor got lazy? Your stereotyping is pretty funny and very errant.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
How MAGA Got Brainwashed; The Science Behind The Right Wings 50 Year Propaganda Campaign- Started by skews13
- Replies: 5
-
Feds say they thwarted ISIS terror attack at Michigan military base- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 10
-
