Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[Dad2three]

Weird, I though there was a FIVE YEAR LIFETIME CAP ON THOSE LAZY WELFARE LEECHES? Dumbass!

Weird how the US looked like a fukn Darwin/Randian wet dream when the US didn't have the PROGRESSIVE policies that CREATED the worlds largest middle class!

how many of those leeches return to welfare within a year?
how long have you been on it.

A MANDATORY FIVE YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE DUMMY? lol

Your inability to use reason and instead just attack IS noted and discarded Bubs. NEVER got any type of welfare, unless tax credits for my rentals is considered welfare?

perhaps you should actually look into the reality of welfare. there is not mandatory five year limit that is adhered to.
as far as you owning rentals? LOL, based on what you post here, you are really not bright enough to own a rental, let alone your own home.
but thanks for the laugh Corky.

Got it, YOU deny REALITY . I'm shocked Bubs, shocked, THERE IS A FIVE YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE. SNAP ISN'T WELFARE DUMMY

can the states continue paying you your welfare after the 5 years? does that not still come from the taxpayer?
and yes, TANF is welfare, it is free money that you don't earn, it comes from responsible people that actually work.
but again Corky, thanks for playing.

No Bibba, NO STATE pays TANF after five years. NONE. Thanks for playing dummy

 

[Papageorgio]

Correct, something is very wrong. But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare. Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability. People put themselves on welfare.

Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale. Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.

Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management. Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits. Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time. So does their warehouse people. Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.

Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them. It's an option. People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs. It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.

Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage! No, people should make themselves worth a living wage. Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.

Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.

Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.

Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.

No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable. It works that way with most companies that use manual labor. If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?

Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade. You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.

Big profits? So what? Companies don't base everything on profits. Companies are more focused on growth. That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.

After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it? Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth? Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses. You make your money by how much your investment grows.

I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.

But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.

Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.

Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.

The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.

Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs. Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians. The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.

If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.

What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government. Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage. That should be up to the individual. Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs. I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.

I'm not saying Social Programs aren't the responsibility of the politicians. I'm saying the politicians have been bought and do the bidding of the big companies.

This is about whether the rich should pay higher taxes. Yes. They don't because the money pays the politicians which then allow breaks all over the place. Making all sorts of chances for the rich to not pay their fair amount of tax.

What Walmart pays its workers should not be anything to do with the government. However the govt has made it easy for Walmart to get workers at such a low cost because the govt is willing to back them up. Stop this, it's not right. If you work you should not be getting welfare, the company should be paying a decent wage.

I don't know of other countries which pay workers welfare.

And why would anyone think that Hillary who is tied deeply to Wall St. would change a thing?

 

[Dad2three]

GAWD you are a low informed idiot. PERIOD

GOV'T POLICY MATTERED WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER, AND TODAY, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GOV'T POLICY MATTERS (hint conservative pushing "free trade", LOWERING the tax burden on those (Chinese) "job creators", it IS GOV'T policy that matters the most.

YOU THINK BENEFITS ARE TO GENEROUS? YOU FUKKN KLOWN

Yes, I do think government benefits are too generous. I have several articles to prove it as well, some claiming that people on welfare do better (dollar for dollar) than those working. Just ask, and I'll post them.

As for free trade, it was Bill Clinton that signed legislation for that. Yes, Republicans were behind it, but don't call it Republican efforts entirely. And who lowered the tax burden on the Chinese job creators?

YOU are too ignorant to actually have a conversation with Bubs


Right wing MYTH that those not working can make $70,000 a year right? lol

Ah yes, your public education is showing again. Where did I use the calculation of $70,000 per year? Try again, and read slower this time.

$70,000 wasn't that Heritage Foundation BOGUS number they were throwing around a few years ago DUMMY?

I don't know, I don't follow Heritage. Perhaps you do.

But my sources say that welfare pays near or over working people's wages. In fact, in NYC for example, people on welfare make out better than the starting wage of a public school teacher.

The US Census states that people on welfare live with most of the amenities that working people have such as microwave ovens, big screen televisions, air conditioning and automobiles among other things. Plus there is no need to be concerned about family size. While welfare does have limitations, welfare for children does not, and they pay quite handsomely for children.

Weird AS poverty rates for children has increased the last 16 years after welfare reform, you're saying kids are making out? GAWD YOU ARE DUMB


Give me your fukkn source so I can DESTROY the BULLSHIT TALKING POINT BUBS!


Yeah, a first world nation has poor with micro's, AC and big screen TV's? lol

 

[Dad2three]

If it wasn't for unions and government in the early 20th century I doubt a middle class of 1/10th the size would of ever formed. The super wealthy wouldn't of ever paid their workers well enough for it to happen and guess what! With tax rates at 60%+ on the rich we had the biggest industry, best education and biggest middle class in history in 1950. How did that happen?

Its sad how when the rich started taking all the profit since 1980 all these things started becoming smaller....

One last thing,,,If the robber barons had been allowed to keep doing what they were doing...Well, I honestly doubt there'd be more then 1 or 2 corps per item for the demander if that. Competition? Pure capitalism destroys it and ends up valuing one big corp. That is the nature of it.

Right wing Klowns don't understand the concept of the game of monopoly, the basis of "free market capitalism", EVERYONE goes BK except 1 big winner!

Haha so every monopoly was created without the help of government?

Don't understand capitalism huh? I'm not surprised Bubs. Try reading about the Robber Barron's, perhaps grow a brain and realize most people get off Ayn Rands BS by 25 or so?

Nice deflection. So robber Barron's had no help from the rulers and princes of the times?
So JFK tax policy was bad for the economy?
Would you prefer the Venezuelan/Bernie sanders system of free trade as bad?

Yes rich people influence politicians, you seem to be mad at only the rich in general and one set of politicians. But hey we just need the right person in charge to do the right thing right?

I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.

But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.

Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.

Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.

The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.

Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs. Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians. The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.

If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.

What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government. Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage. That should be up to the individual. Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs. I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.

I'm not saying Social Programs aren't the responsibility of the politicians. I'm saying the politicians have been bought and do the bidding of the big companies.

This is about whether the rich should pay higher taxes. Yes. They don't because the money pays the politicians which then allow breaks all over the place. Making all sorts of chances for the rich to not pay their fair amount of tax.

What Walmart pays its workers should not be anything to do with the government. However the govt has made it easy for Walmart to get workers at such a low cost because the govt is willing to back them up. Stop this, it's not right. If you work you should not be getting welfare, the company should be paying a decent wage.

I don't know of other countries which pay workers welfare.

Probably because with other countries, if you don't make enough to eat, you starve. There is no welfare.

Let me ask: if you wanted to hire a lawn care company, would you hire one that will come out for $45.00 per cut, or one that will do the same job for $25.00 per cut? If your car needs some work done, do you choose the mechanic that charges $565.00 to fix your car, or one that will do the same exact job for $320.00?

You and I don't want to waste money paying labor more than they're worth no more than Wal-Mart. But if you need your lawn cut, or your car repaired, is it your responsibility to make sure they make a living wage and can stay off of welfare programs? Of course not. That's ridiculous.

Companies don't create jobs as a social obligation because they have no social obligation. They create jobs because they need help running their business. That's all. Whether politicians give minimum wage workers the world, or they don't give them anything at all, Wal-Mart could care less. All they care about is getting the labor they need for the price they want. What government offers their employees is none of their concern.

U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries

MORON


U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries | Economic Policy Institute



Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States


When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

• Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
• Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
• Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
• Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
• Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
• Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.



Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States


TURN OFF YOUR DAMN RADIO/TV AND GRAB SOME HISTORY BOOKS!!!

nice sources, and individualism is bad how? So the people in power getting it wrong only need more power and then they'll start doing it right?

Weird ad homs and a bunch of deflection and BS?


DO YOU HAVE ANY POSIT TO MAKE OR NOT BUBS, STOP PLAYING IN THE FUKKN GRASS AND GROW UP. Make a posit or go fuk yourself!

 

[MikeK]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

Regardless of whether or not they are selfish and don't care about others the upper income brackets should be more heavily taxed in the interest of maintaining a healthy redistribution of what otherwise would be hoarded wealth. And you are correct in that it won't hurt the super-rich to be taxed more.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

People like you who are consumed with the wealthy fail to realize the competition in business today.

Today we have to consider companies that move overseas, bring in cheap foreign labor, invest in technology like automation, and even internet sales.

Competition is what brings (or keeps) prices down. Don't act like your not guilty of participation either. We all do it.

Wal-Mart is number one because they brought their consumers what they wanted: cheap products. That's it in a nut shell. Americans never cried that we need better paying jobs and are willing to pay for it. Oh, they may want better paying jobs, but they want other people to pay for it.

Well it doesn't work that way in Realville. In Realville, you either have cheap products or you have better paying jobs, but you can't have both. The very idea that you think government should regulate it against the will of the majority is a definition of fascism. Government shouldn't be running our businesses.

MORON IN REALVILLE, GOOD GOV'T POLICY CAN HELP.

Why is it conservatives "believe" tax cuts boom the economy, but helping those at the bottom (by increasing min wage, better conditions, etc) will destroy it? Do you Klowns EVER THINK?

Because it doesn't help and I have given several personal experiences to prove it.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intent whereas conservatives measure success by results."
Rush Limbaugh

Wanna hear about good government policy? Let's take the housing bubble for instance.

Back in the day, Democrats pushed for higher home ownership for minorities and poor people. These people were too irresponsible to secure a home loan, and petitioned Democrat politicians for a solution.

Democrats and various agencies pushed banks to make these loans. It took it's worst turn when 0% down and little credit check came into play.

What that did is draw all the lowlifes into my suburb from the inner-city. These people didn't have a pot to pizz in or a window to throw it out of. They came in droves, and with them, the crime.

Our police became so busy we often had to summon help from police departments from surrounding suburbs. We went from one murder every ten years or so to three to four every year. Businesses closed down, good people moved out in fear, housing values plummeted, the rental market was nearly destroyed, the remaining businesses that stayed open had to close much earlier in the evening, people couldn't take evening walks in safety any longer, gang fights not only common, but several incidents per night.

This is a prime example of what happens when you help "those on the bottom." If it's one thing our government hasn't (or refuses) learned, it's that if you take 3/4 cup of fresh wholesome milk, and mix that with 1/4 cup of stale curdled milk, you only have one thing, and that is one cup of rotton milk.

Government policy destroyed my suburb. It wasn't until government got out of the way and allowed banks to foreclose on the lowlifes sending them back to the inner-city when things started to turn back around. Industry had it right all along: only people that are credit worthy enough to live in the suburbs belong in the suburbs.

GOV'T AND DEMS FORCED THEM? lol

YOU FUKKN MORON


Like the US in the 1880's,1920's ,Ronnie's S&L crisis, DUBYA ALLOWED THE FREE MARKETS TO GO HOG WILD DUMMY

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.

(NAME THE LAW THAT REQUIRED THIS BUBS?)



Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.



Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (2004)
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule (2004)
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (2003)
Forcing GSEs (F/F) to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets 2004)
Giving away 40,000 free down payments PER YEAR 2004-2007
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (2003)


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.



WHAT DID THE DEMS DO 2004-2007 BUBS?

FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


MORON

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending


How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis
Subprime Loans Labeled 'Affordable'

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 10, 2008

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis


What Fannie and Freddie Knew
The SEC shows how the toxic twins turbocharged the housing bubble.

December 23, 2011

What Fannie and Freddie Knew



Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far
Posted by: Peter Coy on February 27, 2008

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

lol, SERIOUSLY? BUBBA, WHY'S CLINTON'S LAWS TAKE SO LONG TO TAKE EFFECT?

IF THE FEDERAL GOV'T REQUIRED BANKSTERS TO LOAN, WHY'D SO MANY GET SUED AND SETTLE ?

HINT GET OFF RIGHT WING MEMES AND BS



NOW REREAD THIS AND ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION:



"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.


(YOU KNOW WHAT NO/LOW DOC LOANS ARE RIGHT BUBS? HINT, NOT QUALIFY FOR ANY GOV'T BACKING, FROM HUD, F/F, ETC)


GIVE ME THE LAW THAT REQUIRED THIS TO HAPPEN BUBS?





Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them



WHAT TOOK SO LONG IF IT WAS CLINTON?

SEE THAT?

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf






It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.


More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.


Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis


YES, DUBYA HOSED F/F AND GOT THEM INTO TROUBLE AFTER CLINTON HAD GOOD QUALITY LOANS WITH F/F HOWEVER!


June 17, 2004

(CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004







Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis


Talk radio and the blogosphere are pushing the idea that the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit was triggered by finance giants Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's lending money to poor and minority Americans. But federal housing data reveal that that charge isn't true. Instead, it was the private sector that was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.


Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

You are such tool. What guidelines do banks have to follow in order to give these types of loans? That's right, HUD which oversees F and F. If they don't follow those guidelines, they can't sell their losing mortgages to the secondary market.

Banks basically give two types of loans: prime and subprime. Prime is where the bank uses their own money, and subprime which was created at the end of the Carter administration are loans that can be sold off to the market.

Banks will not give prime mortgages to unworthy borrowers. They're not going to risk their own money on high potential losses. So they give out subprime because they are gong to sell those mortgages off anyway. They cut their risk.

Banks made their money off of processing fees. It was designed that way for banks to get involved in this government scam. While some banks refused to participate, others didn't want to miss out on the action.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

how many of those leeches return to welfare within a year?
how long have you been on it.

A MANDATORY FIVE YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE DUMMY? lol

Your inability to use reason and instead just attack IS noted and discarded Bubs. NEVER got any type of welfare, unless tax credits for my rentals is considered welfare?

perhaps you should actually look into the reality of welfare. there is not mandatory five year limit that is adhered to.
as far as you owning rentals? LOL, based on what you post here, you are really not bright enough to own a rental, let alone your own home.
but thanks for the laugh Corky.

Got it, YOU deny REALITY . I'm shocked Bubs, shocked, THERE IS A FIVE YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE. SNAP ISN'T WELFARE DUMMY

can the states continue paying you your welfare after the 5 years? does that not still come from the taxpayer?
and yes, TANF is welfare, it is free money that you don't earn, it comes from responsible people that actually work.
but again Corky, thanks for playing.

No Bibba, NO STATE pays TANF after five years. NONE. Thanks for playing dummy

again you are talking out of your welfare sucking ass.
and yes snap is also welfare, again, who pays. ( not you I know)
Christ you are one huge retard Corky.

 

[Dad2three]

MORON IN REALVILLE, GOOD GOV'T POLICY CAN HELP.

Why is it conservatives "believe" tax cuts boom the economy, but helping those at the bottom (by increasing min wage, better conditions, etc) will destroy it? Do you Klowns EVER THINK?

Because it doesn't help and I have given several personal experiences to prove it.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intent whereas conservatives measure success by results."
Rush Limbaugh

Wanna hear about good government policy? Let's take the housing bubble for instance.

Back in the day, Democrats pushed for higher home ownership for minorities and poor people. These people were too irresponsible to secure a home loan, and petitioned Democrat politicians for a solution.

Democrats and various agencies pushed banks to make these loans. It took it's worst turn when 0% down and little credit check came into play.

What that did is draw all the lowlifes into my suburb from the inner-city. These people didn't have a pot to pizz in or a window to throw it out of. They came in droves, and with them, the crime.

Our police became so busy we often had to summon help from police departments from surrounding suburbs. We went from one murder every ten years or so to three to four every year. Businesses closed down, good people moved out in fear, housing values plummeted, the rental market was nearly destroyed, the remaining businesses that stayed open had to close much earlier in the evening, people couldn't take evening walks in safety any longer, gang fights not only common, but several incidents per night.

This is a prime example of what happens when you help "those on the bottom." If it's one thing our government hasn't (or refuses) learned, it's that if you take 3/4 cup of fresh wholesome milk, and mix that with 1/4 cup of stale curdled milk, you only have one thing, and that is one cup of rotton milk.

Government policy destroyed my suburb. It wasn't until government got out of the way and allowed banks to foreclose on the lowlifes sending them back to the inner-city when things started to turn back around. Industry had it right all along: only people that are credit worthy enough to live in the suburbs belong in the suburbs.

GOV'T AND DEMS FORCED THEM? lol

YOU FUKKN MORON


Like the US in the 1880's,1920's ,Ronnie's S&L crisis, DUBYA ALLOWED THE FREE MARKETS TO GO HOG WILD DUMMY

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.

(NAME THE LAW THAT REQUIRED THIS BUBS?)



Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.



Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (2004)
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule (2004)
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (2003)
Forcing GSEs (F/F) to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets 2004)
Giving away 40,000 free down payments PER YEAR 2004-2007
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (2003)


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.



WHAT DID THE DEMS DO 2004-2007 BUBS?

FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


MORON

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending


How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis
Subprime Loans Labeled 'Affordable'

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 10, 2008

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis


What Fannie and Freddie Knew
The SEC shows how the toxic twins turbocharged the housing bubble.

December 23, 2011

What Fannie and Freddie Knew



Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far
Posted by: Peter Coy on February 27, 2008

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

lol, SERIOUSLY? BUBBA, WHY'S CLINTON'S LAWS TAKE SO LONG TO TAKE EFFECT?

IF THE FEDERAL GOV'T REQUIRED BANKSTERS TO LOAN, WHY'D SO MANY GET SUED AND SETTLE ?

HINT GET OFF RIGHT WING MEMES AND BS



NOW REREAD THIS AND ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION:



"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.


(YOU KNOW WHAT NO/LOW DOC LOANS ARE RIGHT BUBS? HINT, NOT QUALIFY FOR ANY GOV'T BACKING, FROM HUD, F/F, ETC)


GIVE ME THE LAW THAT REQUIRED THIS TO HAPPEN BUBS?





Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them



WHAT TOOK SO LONG IF IT WAS CLINTON?

SEE THAT?

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf






It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.


More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.


Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis


YES, DUBYA HOSED F/F AND GOT THEM INTO TROUBLE AFTER CLINTON HAD GOOD QUALITY LOANS WITH F/F HOWEVER!


June 17, 2004

(CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004







Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis


Talk radio and the blogosphere are pushing the idea that the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit was triggered by finance giants Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's lending money to poor and minority Americans. But federal housing data reveal that that charge isn't true. Instead, it was the private sector that was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.


Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

You are such tool. What guidelines do banks have to follow in order to give these types of loans? That's right, HUD which oversees F and F. If they don't follow those guidelines, they can't sell their losing mortgages to the secondary market.

Banks basically give two types of loans: prime and subprime. Prime is where the bank uses their own money, and subprime which was created at the end of the Carter administration are loans that can be sold off to the market.

Banks will not give prime mortgages to unworthy borrowers. They're not going to risk their own money on high potential losses. So they give out subprime because they are gong to sell those mortgages off anyway. They cut their risk.

Banks made their money off of processing fees. It was designed that way for banks to get involved in this government scam. While some banks refused to participate, others didn't want to miss out on the action.

GAWD GROW A FUKKN BRAIN


Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

....
But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership.

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market


. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.




THERE WAS A WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE DUMMY, DOZENS OF NATIONS, CAUSED BY THE DEMS? lol


Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis



The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks. The developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors.



Nobody forced the big five investment banks (DOWN TO ZERO TODAY!!!!) to do what they did; they were not subject to CRA or other regulations common to depository banks. In fact, they mainly bought and sold loans rather than originate them. They did it because they thought they would make money.

 

[Dad2three]

A MANDATORY FIVE YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE DUMMY? lol

Your inability to use reason and instead just attack IS noted and discarded Bubs. NEVER got any type of welfare, unless tax credits for my rentals is considered welfare?

perhaps you should actually look into the reality of welfare. there is not mandatory five year limit that is adhered to.
as far as you owning rentals? LOL, based on what you post here, you are really not bright enough to own a rental, let alone your own home.
but thanks for the laugh Corky.

Got it, YOU deny REALITY . I'm shocked Bubs, shocked, THERE IS A FIVE YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE. SNAP ISN'T WELFARE DUMMY

can the states continue paying you your welfare after the 5 years? does that not still come from the taxpayer?
and yes, TANF is welfare, it is free money that you don't earn, it comes from responsible people that actually work.
but again Corky, thanks for playing.

No Bibba, NO STATE pays TANF after five years. NONE. Thanks for playing dummy

again you are talking out of your welfare sucking ass.
and yes snap is also welfare, again, who pays. ( not you I know)
Christ you are one huge retard Corky.

Why is it sooo many righties are tools and NEVER have ANYTHING but right wing memes to present as proof Bubs,, like you? Just ANOTHER CONServative who hates US. Shocking

 

[frigidweirdo]

Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.

Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.

Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.

No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable. It works that way with most companies that use manual labor. If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?

Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade. You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.

Big profits? So what? Companies don't base everything on profits. Companies are more focused on growth. That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.

After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it? Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth? Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses. You make your money by how much your investment grows.

I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.

But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.

Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.

Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.

The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.

Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs. Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians. The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.

If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.

What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government. Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage. That should be up to the individual. Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs. I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.

I'm not saying Social Programs aren't the responsibility of the politicians. I'm saying the politicians have been bought and do the bidding of the big companies.

This is about whether the rich should pay higher taxes. Yes. They don't because the money pays the politicians which then allow breaks all over the place. Making all sorts of chances for the rich to not pay their fair amount of tax.

What Walmart pays its workers should not be anything to do with the government. However the govt has made it easy for Walmart to get workers at such a low cost because the govt is willing to back them up. Stop this, it's not right. If you work you should not be getting welfare, the company should be paying a decent wage.

I don't know of other countries which pay workers welfare.

And why would anyone think that Hillary who is tied deeply to Wall St. would change a thing?

Why would anyone think that any presidential candidate will change a thing??

It's beyond me. Then again I'm not Democrat or Republican. So.... I don't like either of them.

 

[sakinago]

If it wasn't for unions and government in the early 20th century I doubt a middle class of 1/10th the size would of ever formed. The super wealthy wouldn't of ever paid their workers well enough for it to happen and guess what! With tax rates at 60%+ on the rich we had the biggest industry, best education and biggest middle class in history in 1950. How did that happen?

Its sad how when the rich started taking all the profit since 1980 all these things started becoming smaller....

One last thing,,,If the robber barons had been allowed to keep doing what they were doing...Well, I honestly doubt there'd be more then 1 or 2 corps per item for the demander if that. Competition? Pure capitalism destroys it and ends up valuing one big corp. That is the nature of it.

Right wing Klowns don't understand the concept of the game of monopoly, the basis of "free market capitalism", EVERYONE goes BK except 1 big winner!

Haha so every monopoly was created without the help of government?

Don't understand capitalism huh? I'm not surprised Bubs. Try reading about the Robber Barron's, perhaps grow a brain and realize most people get off Ayn Rands BS by 25 or so?

Nice deflection. So robber Barron's had no help from the rulers and princes of the times?
So JFK tax policy was bad for the economy?
Would you prefer the Venezuelan/Bernie sanders system of free trade as bad?

Yes rich people influence politicians, you seem to be mad at only the rich in general and one set of politicians. But hey we just need the right person in charge to do the right thing right?

Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs. Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians. The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.

If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.

What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government. Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage. That should be up to the individual. Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs. I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.

I'm not saying Social Programs aren't the responsibility of the politicians. I'm saying the politicians have been bought and do the bidding of the big companies.

This is about whether the rich should pay higher taxes. Yes. They don't because the money pays the politicians which then allow breaks all over the place. Making all sorts of chances for the rich to not pay their fair amount of tax.

What Walmart pays its workers should not be anything to do with the government. However the govt has made it easy for Walmart to get workers at such a low cost because the govt is willing to back them up. Stop this, it's not right. If you work you should not be getting welfare, the company should be paying a decent wage.

I don't know of other countries which pay workers welfare.

Probably because with other countries, if you don't make enough to eat, you starve. There is no welfare.

Let me ask: if you wanted to hire a lawn care company, would you hire one that will come out for $45.00 per cut, or one that will do the same job for $25.00 per cut? If your car needs some work done, do you choose the mechanic that charges $565.00 to fix your car, or one that will do the same exact job for $320.00?

You and I don't want to waste money paying labor more than they're worth no more than Wal-Mart. But if you need your lawn cut, or your car repaired, is it your responsibility to make sure they make a living wage and can stay off of welfare programs? Of course not. That's ridiculous.

Companies don't create jobs as a social obligation because they have no social obligation. They create jobs because they need help running their business. That's all. Whether politicians give minimum wage workers the world, or they don't give them anything at all, Wal-Mart could care less. All they care about is getting the labor they need for the price they want. What government offers their employees is none of their concern.

U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries

MORON


U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries | Economic Policy Institute



Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States


When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

• Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
• Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
• Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
• Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
• Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
• Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.



Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States


TURN OFF YOUR DAMN RADIO/TV AND GRAB SOME HISTORY BOOKS!!!

nice sources, and individualism is bad how? So the people in power getting it wrong only need more power and then they'll start doing it right?

Weird ad homs and a bunch of deflection and BS?


DO YOU HAVE ANY POSIT TO MAKE OR NOT BUBS, STOP PLAYING IN THE FUKKN GRASS AND GROW UP. Make a posit or go fuk yourself!

No ad Homs, and no deflections, just asking you to clarify your views. Robber Barron's we're quite influential to those in power were they not?

 

[Dad2three]

MORON IN REALVILLE, GOOD GOV'T POLICY CAN HELP.

Why is it conservatives "believe" tax cuts boom the economy, but helping those at the bottom (by increasing min wage, better conditions, etc) will destroy it? Do you Klowns EVER THINK?

Because it doesn't help and I have given several personal experiences to prove it.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intent whereas conservatives measure success by results."
Rush Limbaugh

Wanna hear about good government policy? Let's take the housing bubble for instance.

Back in the day, Democrats pushed for higher home ownership for minorities and poor people. These people were too irresponsible to secure a home loan, and petitioned Democrat politicians for a solution.

Democrats and various agencies pushed banks to make these loans. It took it's worst turn when 0% down and little credit check came into play.

What that did is draw all the lowlifes into my suburb from the inner-city. These people didn't have a pot to pizz in or a window to throw it out of. They came in droves, and with them, the crime.

Our police became so busy we often had to summon help from police departments from surrounding suburbs. We went from one murder every ten years or so to three to four every year. Businesses closed down, good people moved out in fear, housing values plummeted, the rental market was nearly destroyed, the remaining businesses that stayed open had to close much earlier in the evening, people couldn't take evening walks in safety any longer, gang fights not only common, but several incidents per night.

This is a prime example of what happens when you help "those on the bottom." If it's one thing our government hasn't (or refuses) learned, it's that if you take 3/4 cup of fresh wholesome milk, and mix that with 1/4 cup of stale curdled milk, you only have one thing, and that is one cup of rotton milk.

Government policy destroyed my suburb. It wasn't until government got out of the way and allowed banks to foreclose on the lowlifes sending them back to the inner-city when things started to turn back around. Industry had it right all along: only people that are credit worthy enough to live in the suburbs belong in the suburbs.

GOV'T AND DEMS FORCED THEM? lol

YOU FUKKN MORON


Like the US in the 1880's,1920's ,Ronnie's S&L crisis, DUBYA ALLOWED THE FREE MARKETS TO GO HOG WILD DUMMY

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.

(NAME THE LAW THAT REQUIRED THIS BUBS?)



Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.



Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (2004)
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule (2004)
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (2003)
Forcing GSEs (F/F) to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets 2004)
Giving away 40,000 free down payments PER YEAR 2004-2007
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (2003)


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.



WHAT DID THE DEMS DO 2004-2007 BUBS?

FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


MORON

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending


How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis
Subprime Loans Labeled 'Affordable'

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 10, 2008

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis


What Fannie and Freddie Knew
The SEC shows how the toxic twins turbocharged the housing bubble.

December 23, 2011

What Fannie and Freddie Knew



Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far
Posted by: Peter Coy on February 27, 2008

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

lol, SERIOUSLY? BUBBA, WHY'S CLINTON'S LAWS TAKE SO LONG TO TAKE EFFECT?

IF THE FEDERAL GOV'T REQUIRED BANKSTERS TO LOAN, WHY'D SO MANY GET SUED AND SETTLE ?

HINT GET OFF RIGHT WING MEMES AND BS



NOW REREAD THIS AND ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION:



"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.


(YOU KNOW WHAT NO/LOW DOC LOANS ARE RIGHT BUBS? HINT, NOT QUALIFY FOR ANY GOV'T BACKING, FROM HUD, F/F, ETC)


GIVE ME THE LAW THAT REQUIRED THIS TO HAPPEN BUBS?





Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them



WHAT TOOK SO LONG IF IT WAS CLINTON?

SEE THAT?

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf






It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.


More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.


Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis


YES, DUBYA HOSED F/F AND GOT THEM INTO TROUBLE AFTER CLINTON HAD GOOD QUALITY LOANS WITH F/F HOWEVER!


June 17, 2004

(CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004







Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis


Talk radio and the blogosphere are pushing the idea that the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit was triggered by finance giants Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's lending money to poor and minority Americans. But federal housing data reveal that that charge isn't true. Instead, it was the private sector that was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.


Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

You are such tool. What guidelines do banks have to follow in order to give these types of loans? That's right, HUD which oversees F and F. If they don't follow those guidelines, they can't sell their losing mortgages to the secondary market.

Banks basically give two types of loans: prime and subprime. Prime is where the bank uses their own money, and subprime which was created at the end of the Carter administration are loans that can be sold off to the market.

Banks will not give prime mortgages to unworthy borrowers. They're not going to risk their own money on high potential losses. So they give out subprime because they are gong to sell those mortgages off anyway. They cut their risk.

Banks made their money off of processing fees. It was designed that way for banks to get involved in this government scam. While some banks refused to participate, others didn't want to miss out on the action.

GUIDELINES? I GAVE YOU THAT OVER HALF OF LOANS IN 2006 WERE NO/LOW DOC LOANS (NOT MEETING CREDIT STANDARDS FOR A PRIME LOAN!!!!). WHAT FUKKN GUIDELINES?


Jun 16th 2005

The worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history. Prepare for the economic pain when it pop


NEVER before have real house prices risen so fast, for so long, in so many countries. Property markets have been frothing from America, Britain and Australia to France, Spain and China. Rising property prices helped to prop up the world economy after the stockmarket bubble burst in 2000. What if the housing boom now turns to bust?

According to estimates by The Economist, the total value of residential property in developed economies rose by more than $30 trillion over the past five years, to over $70 trillion, an increase equivalent to 100% of those countries' combined GDPs. Not only does this dwarf any previous house-price boom, it is larger than the global stockmarket bubble in the late 1990s (an increase over five years of 80% of GDP) or America's stockmarket bubble in the late 1920s (55% of GDP). In other words, it looks like the biggest bubble in history.


http://www.economist.com/node/4079027


THAT CLINTON? DEMS? FANNIE? FREDDIE? LOL


US:

 

[Dad2three]

Right wing Klowns don't understand the concept of the game of monopoly, the basis of "free market capitalism", EVERYONE goes BK except 1 big winner!

Haha so every monopoly was created without the help of government?

Don't understand capitalism huh? I'm not surprised Bubs. Try reading about the Robber Barron's, perhaps grow a brain and realize most people get off Ayn Rands BS by 25 or so?

Nice deflection. So robber Barron's had no help from the rulers and princes of the times?
So JFK tax policy was bad for the economy?
Would you prefer the Venezuelan/Bernie sanders system of free trade as bad?

Yes rich people influence politicians, you seem to be mad at only the rich in general and one set of politicians. But hey we just need the right person in charge to do the right thing right?

I'm not saying Social Programs aren't the responsibility of the politicians. I'm saying the politicians have been bought and do the bidding of the big companies.

This is about whether the rich should pay higher taxes. Yes. They don't because the money pays the politicians which then allow breaks all over the place. Making all sorts of chances for the rich to not pay their fair amount of tax.

What Walmart pays its workers should not be anything to do with the government. However the govt has made it easy for Walmart to get workers at such a low cost because the govt is willing to back them up. Stop this, it's not right. If you work you should not be getting welfare, the company should be paying a decent wage.

I don't know of other countries which pay workers welfare.

Probably because with other countries, if you don't make enough to eat, you starve. There is no welfare.

Let me ask: if you wanted to hire a lawn care company, would you hire one that will come out for $45.00 per cut, or one that will do the same job for $25.00 per cut? If your car needs some work done, do you choose the mechanic that charges $565.00 to fix your car, or one that will do the same exact job for $320.00?

You and I don't want to waste money paying labor more than they're worth no more than Wal-Mart. But if you need your lawn cut, or your car repaired, is it your responsibility to make sure they make a living wage and can stay off of welfare programs? Of course not. That's ridiculous.

Companies don't create jobs as a social obligation because they have no social obligation. They create jobs because they need help running their business. That's all. Whether politicians give minimum wage workers the world, or they don't give them anything at all, Wal-Mart could care less. All they care about is getting the labor they need for the price they want. What government offers their employees is none of their concern.

U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries

MORON


U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries | Economic Policy Institute



Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States


When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

• Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
• Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
• Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
• Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
• Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
• Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.



Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States


TURN OFF YOUR DAMN RADIO/TV AND GRAB SOME HISTORY BOOKS!!!

nice sources, and individualism is bad how? So the people in power getting it wrong only need more power and then they'll start doing it right?

Weird ad homs and a bunch of deflection and BS?


DO YOU HAVE ANY POSIT TO MAKE OR NOT BUBS, STOP PLAYING IN THE FUKKN GRASS AND GROW UP. Make a posit or go fuk yourself!

No ad Homs, and no deflections, just asking you to clarify your views. Robber Barron's we're quite influential to those in power were they not?

Sure, like today's Robber Barrons, Koch/Walton's make up 6 of the top 10 wealthiest in the US, all inherited wealth too!


LBJ tax cuts were DEMAND side tax cuts, the ones JFK advocated for!


Let me guess a libertarian moron right? ONE NATION/STATE to EVER successfully use that BS?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

At the hearing, the District's TANF program was contrasted with Maryland's. Although the state has a population of more than 6 million, only about 25,000 Maryland families receive benefits, all but 10 percent of whom are removed from the rolls in five years or less.
Bill puts 5-year limit on welfare

 

[Dad2three]

At the hearing, the District's TANF program was contrasted with Maryland's. Although the state has a population of more than 6 million, only about 25,000 Maryland families receive benefits, all but 10 percent of whom are removed from the rolls in five years or less.
Bill puts 5-year limit on welfare

EVERY state has a 5 year limit, a few even less (red states of course). AND?


You do realize DC ISN'T a state right Bubs?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

At the hearing, the District's TANF program was contrasted with Maryland's. Although the state has a population of more than 6 million, only about 25,000 Maryland families receive benefits, all but 10 percent of whom are removed from the rolls in five years or less.
Bill puts 5-year limit on welfare

EVERY state has a 5 year limit, a few even less (red states of course). AND?


You do realize DC ISN'T a state right Bubs?

you do realize that Maryland is a state dont you Corky?
and, if you get someone to help you read you will see that the part of the article that I printed for you did reference Maryland, a state.
Try to keep up with the rest of the class Corky, this main lining stuff really is not working well in your case is it.

 

[Dad2three]

At the hearing, the District's TANF program was contrasted with Maryland's. Although the state has a population of more than 6 million, only about 25,000 Maryland families receive benefits, all but 10 percent of whom are removed from the rolls in five years or less.
Bill puts 5-year limit on welfare

EVERY state has a 5 year limit, a few even less (red states of course). AND?


You do realize DC ISN'T a state right Bubs?

you do realize that Maryland is a state dont you Corky?
and, if you get someone to help you read you will see that the part of the article that I printed for you did reference Maryland, a state.
Try to keep up with the rest of the class Corky, this main lining stuff really is not working well in your case is it.

What You Need To Know About Maryland's
TANF (Welfare) Program

What is TANF?


TANF is the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program. TANF is the cash benefit program that replaced the AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) Program on January 1, 1997. In Maryland the program is called Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA).

• You can only get TANF for 60 months or 5 years in your life time. After that you cannot get welfare for yourself but your children will continue to receive benefits
• Any months you spend on TCA after January 1, 1997 counts toward the 60 months or the 5 year limit. Time spent on welfare before January 1, 1997 does not count.
• The 5 year limit applies to all adults and heads of household. Heads of household are people who sign an application for TCA for themselves and a child.

What You Should Know About Maryland's TANF (Walfare) Program.


DUMBASS...

 

[Maryland Patriot]

At the hearing, the District's TANF program was contrasted with Maryland's. Although the state has a population of more than 6 million, only about 25,000 Maryland families receive benefits, all but 10 percent of whom are removed from the rolls in five years or less.
Bill puts 5-year limit on welfare

EVERY state has a 5 year limit, a few even less (red states of course). AND?


You do realize DC ISN'T a state right Bubs?

you do realize that Maryland is a state dont you Corky?
and, if you get someone to help you read you will see that the part of the article that I printed for you did reference Maryland, a state.
Try to keep up with the rest of the class Corky, this main lining stuff really is not working well in your case is it.

What You Need To Know About Maryland's
TANF (Welfare) Program

What is TANF?


TANF is the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program. TANF is the cash benefit program that replaced the AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) Program on January 1, 1997. In Maryland the program is called Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA).

• You can only get TANF for 60 months or 5 years in your life time. After that you cannot get welfare for yourself but your children will continue to receive benefits
• Any months you spend on TCA after January 1, 1997 counts toward the 60 months or the 5 year limit. Time spent on welfare before January 1, 1997 does not count.
• The 5 year limit applies to all adults and heads of household. Heads of household are people who sign an application for TCA for themselves and a child.

What You Should Know About Maryland's TANF (Walfare) Program.


DUMBASS...

look corky, does it not say that there are at least 10% that are on the program for more than the 5 years? Well does it?
yes it does, so you have been proven wrong once again Corky.
Now go sit at the mailbox and wait for your check.

 

[danielpalos]

At the hearing, the District's TANF program was contrasted with Maryland's. Although the state has a population of more than 6 million, only about 25,000 Maryland families receive benefits, all but 10 percent of whom are removed from the rolls in five years or less.
Bill puts 5-year limit on welfare

What happens if they still have the same conditions preventing full employment after five years?

 

[danielpalos]

At the hearing, the District's TANF program was contrasted with Maryland's. Although the state has a population of more than 6 million, only about 25,000 Maryland families receive benefits, all but 10 percent of whom are removed from the rolls in five years or less.
Bill puts 5-year limit on welfare

EVERY state has a 5 year limit, a few even less (red states of course). AND?


You do realize DC ISN'T a state right Bubs?

you do realize that Maryland is a state dont you Corky?
and, if you get someone to help you read you will see that the part of the article that I printed for you did reference Maryland, a state.
Try to keep up with the rest of the class Corky, this main lining stuff really is not working well in your case is it.

What You Need To Know About Maryland's
TANF (Welfare) Program

What is TANF?


TANF is the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program. TANF is the cash benefit program that replaced the AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) Program on January 1, 1997. In Maryland the program is called Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA).

• You can only get TANF for 60 months or 5 years in your life time. After that you cannot get welfare for yourself but your children will continue to receive benefits
• Any months you spend on TCA after January 1, 1997 counts toward the 60 months or the 5 year limit. Time spent on welfare before January 1, 1997 does not count.
• The 5 year limit applies to all adults and heads of household. Heads of household are people who sign an application for TCA for themselves and a child.

What You Should Know About Maryland's TANF (Walfare) Program.


DUMBASS...

only bad capitalists and lousy socialists come up with plans like these. why not end a, natural rate of unemployment instead.