Under Bush US's 400 richest doubled their wealth

[sealybobo]

Who is at fault for all the foreclosures?

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

Explain to me how under Bush the gap between the rich and poor got sooo much wider.

Did they all of the sudden get smarter and we got dumber? Or did Corporate America & the GOP send all our jobs overseas?

You can argue that I don't know why the GOP did it. I think they did it to lower wages. You may think it is a global economy and can't be stopped. But you can't argue that they set the plan in motion. Or can you dig some obscure thing up like your Freddy/Fanny bullshit?

PS. How come Bush's tax breaks aren't working?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pushing Barack Obama to fulfill a campaign promise to repeal tax breaks for high earners and to investigate possible wrongdoing in the Bush administration - positions that the president-elect recently has been reluctant to address.

Mrs. Pelosi also said she would be willing to consider cuts in entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare in order to instill greater fiscal responsibility in the federal government.

The California Democrat, who appeared on "Fox News Sunday," said she supports repealing President Bush's tax cuts on workers who make more than $250,000 well before they expire at the end of 2010. Mr. Obama had promised to repeal the tax cuts during his presidential campaign but since has since backed off that pledge, signaling he would be willing to simply let them expire.

"I don't want them to wait two years to expire," Mrs. Pelosi said. "We had campaigned in saying what the Republican Congressional Budget Office told us: Nothing contributed more to the budget deficit than the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America."

Mr. Obama last year said in his stump speeches that any tax increases would be targeted at Americans making more than $250,000 annually.But with the slumping economy showing few signs of bouncing back soon, the president-elect in recent weeks has shown reluctance to raise taxes for even upper-income people.

Washington Times - Pelosi pushes Obama on repeal of tax breaks

 

[Againsheila]

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

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



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

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

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

The workers create the wealth.

And the owners provide jobs for the workers.

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

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

But it never happens. Business owners are so concerned about the bottom line, they refuse to see that they have productive workers. I have friends that have been pushed out of jobs because their employers didn't want to pay higher wages as were required by that company after a certain amount of time. That's one of the biggest reasons why low paying jobs are so transitory. I also know a man that increased the number of customers at a restaurant by simply providing more fries on every plate. The customer based doubled. When the manager found out, all he could think about was the cost of those extra fries, he didn't factor in the increase in consumers, and of course, because it was a franchise, they reduced the fries and their business dropped.

We have such stupid people making decisions in business these days. Get a clue, when the workers don't make enough to live on, they can't purchase the products, if they can't purchase your products, your sales are going to decrease. Sooner or later, the sh*t had to hit the fan. Welcome to great depression II, brought to you by the same stupid business decisions as the first great depression.

 

[sealybobo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You fail to undertstand that this is Disaster Capitalism/Shock Doctrine type shit that was done on purpose to lower wages. They let the illegals move in and sent jobs out.

So if the Masters of the Universe decide that they have maxxed out their profits and the only way to squeeze a little more profit from the company is to cut all our wages, you are down with that?

You saw CEO pay go up and our wages go down. You do the math.

Unions busted your theory. Instead of the CEO getting a $40 million dollar wage, which you think he deserves, Unions say they deserve some of the spoils.

You don't value labor enough.

But the way things are going, people will work for $5 hr rather than starve. So you win.

 

[sealybobo]

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



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

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

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



And the owners provide jobs for the workers.

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

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

But it never happens. Business owners are so concerned about the bottom line, they refuse to see that they have productive workers. I have friends that have been pushed out of jobs because their employers didn't want to pay higher wages as were required by that company after a certain amount of time. That's one of the biggest reasons why low paying jobs are so transitory. I also know a man that increased the number of customers at a restaurant by simply providing more fries on every plate. The customer based doubled. When the manager found out, all he could think about was the cost of those extra fries, he didn't factor in the increase in consumers, and of course, because it was a franchise, they reduced the fries and their business dropped.

We have such stupid people making decisions in business these days. Get a clue, when the workers don't make enough to live on, they can't purchase the products, if they can't purchase your products, your sales are going to decrease. Sooner or later, the sh*t had to hit the fan. Welcome to great depression II, brought to you by the same stupid business decisions as the first great depression.

Smart lady.

Can you believe people who work actually defend Right to Work states? It should be called what it is. Right to fire. So a company can get rid of you for no reason and hire some punk kid out of college who will do it for less. Sorry, it was nice working with you.

I understand corporations shouldn't be hamstrung into keeping bad employees, but I think a person should have at least some right to their job. ALA, Unions!!!

 

[Bern80]

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



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

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

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



And the owners provide jobs for the workers.

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

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

But it never happens. Business owners are so concerned about the bottom line, they refuse to see that they have productive workers. I have friends that have been pushed out of jobs because their employers didn't want to pay higher wages as were required by that company after a certain amount of time. That's one of the biggest reasons why low paying jobs are so transitory. I also know a man that increased the number of customers at a restaurant by simply providing more fries on every plate. The customer based doubled. When the manager found out, all he could think about was the cost of those extra fries, he didn't factor in the increase in consumers, and of course, because it was a franchise, they reduced the fries and their business dropped.

We have such stupid people making decisions in business these days. Get a clue, when the workers don't make enough to live on, they can't purchase the products, if they can't purchase your products, your sales are going to decrease. Sooner or later, the sh*t had to hit the fan. Welcome to great depression II, brought to you by the same stupid business decisions as the first great depression.

Same question as before basically:

Why is it the obligation of business to support you?

Why is it not YOUR obligation to support yourself?

 

[Againsheila]

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

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

But it never happens. Business owners are so concerned about the bottom line, they refuse to see that they have productive workers. I have friends that have been pushed out of jobs because their employers didn't want to pay higher wages as were required by that company after a certain amount of time. That's one of the biggest reasons why low paying jobs are so transitory. I also know a man that increased the number of customers at a restaurant by simply providing more fries on every plate. The customer based doubled. When the manager found out, all he could think about was the cost of those extra fries, he didn't factor in the increase in consumers, and of course, because it was a franchise, they reduced the fries and their business dropped.

We have such stupid people making decisions in business these days. Get a clue, when the workers don't make enough to live on, they can't purchase the products, if they can't purchase your products, your sales are going to decrease. Sooner or later, the sh*t had to hit the fan. Welcome to great depression II, brought to you by the same stupid business decisions as the first great depression.

Same question as before basically:

Why is it the obligation of business to support you?

Why is it not YOUR obligation to support yourself?

If I am supporting the business with my work, then the business must support me with their money. Simple as that.

Anything less than that is slavery, pure and simple.

Why do you think people who do minimum wage work today deserve less spending power than you had when you did minimum wage work?

 

[RodISHI]

Rodishi never said that bern. But now that you mentioned it I will can say the lender has the higher responsibility in any matter they deal in. I am sure they would like to limit their responsibility in the whole mortgage mess though.

It comes down to this. The banks are the experts not the borrowers. Both borrowers and investors depend on the lenders expertise. When you are considered an expert in any field you bought the farm when you use your expertise and another is footing the bill or paying the bill.

Responsibility should and does rest on a lender as they hold the purse of the investor that put their money into the system. Lenders fiduciary responsibilities are both to the borrower and the investor whose money they are lending. If they cannot fulfill their duties and responsibilities of lending money in a responsible method and manner they should have not loaned the money out to begin with.

They are held to a higher standard of liability as again they are supposed to be the experts. It is not a requirement of a borrower to go get a full college degree to learn how to protect themselves from irresponsible lenders. Never has been never will be. When the banks decided to take over the entire mortgage industry and start lending to people who they knew could possibly have a hard time making those payments they bought the liability that comes with that.


When sharks go into a feeding frenzy in the ocean waters they take the risk of biting into a hook as they are feeding on those little fish who cannot out run them.

 

[Bern80]

You fail to undertstand that this is Disaster Capitalism/Shock Doctrine type shit that was done on purpose to lower wages. They let the illegals move in and sent jobs out.

Remind me again which side of the aisle had the tougher stance on illegal immigration? Remind again what side defends illegals to no end?

So if the Masters of the Universe decide that they have maxxed out their profits and the only way to squeeze a little more profit from the company is to cut all our wages, you are down with that?

You saw CEO pay go up and our wages go down. You do the math.

If you can back it up with actual evidence I'll hear it. But right now the most your pea brain is able to muster is to make a cause effect link where seemingly does not exist.

Unions busted your theory.

What theory would that be?

Instead of the CEO getting a $40 million dollar wage, which you think he deserves, Unions say they deserve some of the spoils.

Where did I say CEO's deserved that?

You don't value labor enough.

I value labor, again, based on the skills sets of the individuals that comprise the labor force. somethings value relative to something else is based on it's scarcity. the ability to flip burgers is not scarce therefore little value is placed on it. The ability to find leaders that can effectively run a large corporation is a bit rarer skill therefore more value is placed on it.

 

[editec]

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

Care

So in other words, you believe that the only way that business can be conducted profitably is if workers support the owners by working for less that what it takes the workers to support themselves?

Seems to me that a business which cannot afford to hire the help they need and pay them a living wage must not have a very well designed business model.

 

[Bern80]

But it never happens. Business owners are so concerned about the bottom line, they refuse to see that they have productive workers. I have friends that have been pushed out of jobs because their employers didn't want to pay higher wages as were required by that company after a certain amount of time. That's one of the biggest reasons why low paying jobs are so transitory. I also know a man that increased the number of customers at a restaurant by simply providing more fries on every plate. The customer based doubled. When the manager found out, all he could think about was the cost of those extra fries, he didn't factor in the increase in consumers, and of course, because it was a franchise, they reduced the fries and their business dropped.

We have such stupid people making decisions in business these days. Get a clue, when the workers don't make enough to live on, they can't purchase the products, if they can't purchase your products, your sales are going to decrease. Sooner or later, the sh*t had to hit the fan. Welcome to great depression II, brought to you by the same stupid business decisions as the first great depression.

Same question as before basically:

Why is it the obligation of business to support you?

Why is it not YOUR obligation to support yourself?

If I am supporting the business with my work, then the business must support me with their money. Simple as that.

No, they must support you with whatever it is you agreed to when you were hired, it's THAT simple.

[Anything less than that is slavery, pure and simple.

Slavery constitutes a lack of options. Something people like yourself seem all to quick to claim, but in reality not very true.

[Why do you think people who do minimum wage work today deserve less spending power than you had when you did minimum wage work?

That is a different debate about wages rising with inflation, which, agree with it or not, if we are going to have a min. wage it should track inflation. Question is if that's your argument shouldn't you be for allowing to track DEflation?

 

[Bern80]

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

Care

So in other words, you believe that the only way that business can be conducted profitably is if workers support the owners by working for less that what it takes the workers to support themselves?

Seems to me that a business which cannot afford to hire the help they need and pay them a living wage must not have a very well designed business model.

Except that is rarely the case. If there was this huge issue about low wage, wages would be higher. the market (the labor force) would demand that. The fact that millions of people (whether fully concious or not) agree to work for mimimum wage. really play this out for a second.

The theory is wages are too low, so how would peopel respond to that. If you decide the company that is interviewing is not going to pay you what you are looking for you have option A; find a job that will. Or B; educate and/or train yourself to do something that will pay more. If enough people felt that flipping burgers at min wage wasn't enough for them there would become a scarcity for that position at which point the wage for the job would increase to entice people to the job. This last part is actually quite observeable when the skill sets for the people some companies want becomes scarce. My cousin, in this economy, started a job at what would be considered a medium income, but the kickers were she got a signing bonus and 6 weeks paid vacation, TO START. She went to school to be a dietician which she did for a few years, then worked a few in retail customer service which her new employer found to be an excellent combination which you can imagine probably not a lot fo people have.

The issues I have with this debate are simple.

The lefties in this thread have chosen option F; you do nothing and hope government forces employers to pay you more.

From the people posting telling me how evil or wrong I am, there is no expectations of anything at all put on the individual. It's always someone elses job to provide for them. Someone answer me this since you lefties have clearly established what eeveryone elses responsibility. What is YOUR responsibility in terms of providing for yourself?

 

[Bern80]

Rodishi never said that bern. But now that you mentioned it I will can say the lender has the higher responsibility in any matter they deal in. I am sure they would like to limit their responsibility in the whole mortgage mess though.

It comes down to this. The banks are the experts not the borrowers. Both borrowers and investors depend on the lenders expertise. When you are considered an expert in any field you bought the farm when you use your expertise and another is footing the bill or paying the bill.

Responsibility should and does rest on a lender as they hold the purse of the investor that put their money into the system. Lenders fiduciary responsibilities are both to the borrower and the investor whose money they are lending. If they cannot fulfill their duties and responsibilities of lending money in a responsible method and manner they should have not loaned the money out to begin with.

They are held to a higher standard of liability as again they are supposed to be the experts. It is not a requirement of a borrower to go get a full college degree to learn how to protect themselves from irresponsible lenders. Never has been never will be. When the banks decided to take over the entire mortgage industry and start lending to people who they knew could possibly have a hard time making those payments they bought the liability that comes with that.


When sharks go into a feeding frenzy in the ocean waters they take the risk of biting into a hook as they are feeding on those little fish who cannot out run them.

Here is what I learned in a few interviews with Wells Fargo Financial. It isn't about being experts (this isn't a judgement btw on whether or not I think they should be experts). One of the interview questions I was asked at the 3-4 branches I interviewed at was, how do you feel about sales? that's what loans are to them, a product. When they sign you up for one they now have an asset on the books. And it is of course in their best interest to only lend money to people that will pay it back. That's how the generate revenue after all is by a steady stream of monthly loan payments. here is where the government messed up and provided an incentive to make riskier loans, but broadly there are A LOT of recourses lenders have getting their money bank. They WILL get it one way or another. They are salesmen, period and the consumer would best served to consider them as such.

All of this does not change the fact that there is a level of responsibility on the part of the consumer. At the end of the day, you are borrowing money you don't have or don't want to spend all at once right now and you will have to pay it back. that does not take a college degree to understand. It doesn't take a college degree to undertand concepts like interest. You can learn all you want about various loans if you put in a little effort on the computer (which is WWWWAAAAAAAYYYY too much to ask for your world.)

 

[Againsheila]

Same question as before basically:

Why is it the obligation of business to support you?

Why is it not YOUR obligation to support yourself?

No, they must support you with whatever it is you agreed to when you were hired, it's THAT simple.



Slavery constitutes a lack of options. Something people like yourself seem all to quick to claim, but in reality not very true.

[Why do you think people who do minimum wage work today deserve less spending power than you had when you did minimum wage work?

That is a different debate about wages rising with inflation, which, agree with it or not, if we are going to have a min. wage it should track inflation. Question is if that's your argument shouldn't you be for allowing to track DEflation?

I have no problem with that. Make minimum wage have the same spending power it did in 1968, at whatever level that is, and I would be all for it.

 

[Bern80]

No, they must support you with whatever it is you agreed to when you were hired, it's THAT simple.



Slavery constitutes a lack of options. Something people like yourself seem all to quick to claim, but in reality not very true.




That is a different debate about wages rising with inflation, which, agree with it or not, if we are going to have a min. wage it should track inflation. Question is if that's your argument shouldn't you be for allowing to track DEflation?

I have no problem with that. Make minimum wage have the same spending power it did in 1968, at whatever level that is, and I would be all for it.

What I'm basically saying is that if your argument is that minimum wage should track inflation (as oppossed to the value of your skill set), or really the value of the dollar you should be for allowing your employer to REDUCE your pay, NOT based on your performance, but on something that has nothing to do with it at all, the value of the dollar. I would think that would be a logisitcal nightmare, constantly adjusting pay to the value of a currency. But you would be okay with that?

 

[editec]

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

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

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

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

I'm with you so far.

First people's behavior with money has changed. With the advent of the credit card it has become easier than ever to spend money you don't have.

Yes, that is true.

Now that is not the fault of the credit card companies

Oh come on now. How many credit offers did you get daily by SPAM, mail or phone when credit was a gogo.

Of course SOME of this mess is the responsibility of a massive MARKETING EFFORT to get people to accept credit and USE it...after all you'll get flyer miles to take a VACATION if you use the XYZ credit card!!!

But to the extent that people fell for that crap, I agree that the people are responsible for the own actions.

and it isn't even neccessarily bad to buy things on credit provided it is relatively certain you have the means to pay for it in the future.

Yes, agreed again.

Of course, in many cases people who were doing just fine with credit had lifechanging events (job loss, illness, mostly) which made many of them insolvent.

But here is where human nature bites people. As a general rule people tend to think things will be better tomorrow than they are today.

Yup. and in this CAN-DO world where anyone who isn't insanely optimistic is called a CYNIC or too negative, most people are fooled into thinking the good times will never end, aren't they?

What that means for our bad economy is that that when a couple signs up for an ARM mortgage with a low interest rate, they think the rate isn't likely to go up (despite evidence that it will), or they don't think the economy is going to get bad (despite evidence that it eventually will), or they just aren't educated about purchasing a home, OR a combination of all those things.

Well that certainly explains why the PEOPLE signed on the dotted line, but it does NOT explain why the BANKERS put the paper in their hands to begin with does it?

Or were the BANKING professionals ALSO completely unaware that the interest rates (on the mortgages that THYE DESIGNED) not going to go up?

I mean given that the rates on those NINA loans were designed to GO UP, even if the national interest rates did NOT, I find it rather hard to believe the BANKERS didn't know what they were doing, don't you?

Our government didn't help this by making it ridiculousing easy for people, regardless of credit history, to get some type of mortgage. They further didn't incentivise lenders to avoid risky loans because they garunteed any loans they made.

Yeah that's right. The bankers made crap loans and the government created a system where they could dump them into Fannie and Freddie so it didn't MATTER if the loans were nuts, I quite agree.

I said before I think part of the problem is we are getting dumber as a nation. I don't think that is any more true than with money. Parents don't teach their kids much about it (thank god mine did). And little is taught about it in school.

I don't think so. I think we're (intellectually) the same people as always.

That is what I think needs to change. They say school/college is suppossed to prepare you for life after college, but it does nothing of the sort. I didn't learn how to buy a home in school. I didn't learn whether a Roth 401k or regular 401k was a better option for me. And the wonders of compounding interest and how it can work for you was barely touched on. I don't know if this got passed to all of our congressmen in spades or what but they are the worst offenders. It seems they have no fiscal constraint, no ability to be efficient, and no problem with continuing to ask for (well take i guess) more and more money.

While I do disagree that people are clueless about money, that is not why most people don't have it.

Most people don't have money because they don't make enough to worry about 401 Ks or investments and so forth.

I don't think you realize how few people have a positive net worth in this nation, amigo. I don't think you realize how few people are actually making a living wage anymore either.

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

I think we're not in total disagreement, but I think you miss the fact that the median wage in this nation is $21,000 a year and the median family income is about $55,000.

That is simply not enough money for most people to make it in this economy.

And this trend toward working more and making less (in purchasing power) has been going on since 1969.


I'm fairly good with money, Bern.

But if I don't make enough to maintain even a miserable standard of living (and that's where about 40% of the population is now) , none of that fiscal wisdom matters all that much.

I can make a silk purse out of a sows ear, but damnit one needs the sows ear to do it.

And the American people have systematically been losing purchasing power my entire working career.

Supply side economics taken to the EXTREMES it has been taken, are the root cuase of this problem.

That doesn't mean I hate the wealthy, but it does mean that there needs to be some BALANCE between what the classes are making or the system STOPS WORKING.

And the people do NOT control the sytem...the SUPER-weathy DO

 

[Bern80]

Well that certainly explains why the PEOPLE signed on the dotted line, but it does NOT explain why the BANKERS put the paper in their hands to begin with does it?

Or were the BANKING professionals ALSO completely unaware that the interest rates (on the mortgages that THYE DESIGNED) not going to go up?

I mean given that the rates on those NINA loans were designed to GO UP, even if the national interest rates did NOT, I find it rather hard to believe the BANKERS didn't know what they were doing, don't you?

First of all lenders should be viewed like salesmen. That's what they are and the mortgage or loan you take out is a product. Purchasing such a product requires as mich diligence on consumers part as purchasing any other product.

Banks, made these loans as we've alluded to before because regardless of the risk of the lendee, the government will make sure they get their money back one way or another, but also because that loan can now be written as an assett and assetts and when people see that, they are lead to believe the bank is doing well and have confidence in them and thus do business with them. Little do they know the risk behind some of those assetts.

I don't think so. I think we're (intellectually) the same people as always.

I do think so and ask you to consider the following. Necessity is the mother of invention as they say and since invention general requires an advancement of knowledge one could say neccessity is ALSO the mother of knowledge. Over time, our activities here have shifted from those necessary to survive to those activities centered around things we want to do. So I think it is a fair statement to make that the at the very least the general knowledge of the populace is not advancing at the rate it once did.

While I do disagree that people are clueless about money, that is not why most people don't have it.

Most people don't have money because they don't make enough to worry about 401 Ks or investments and so forth.

I don't think you realize how few people have a positive net worth in this nation, amigo. I don't think you realize how few people are actually making a living wage anymore either.

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

I think we're not in total disagreement, but I think you miss the fact that the median wage in this nation is $21,000 a year and the median family income is about $55,000.

That is simply not enough money for most people to make it in this economy.

And this trend toward working more and making less (in purchasing power) has been going on since 1969.


I'm fairly good with money, Bern.

But if I don't make enough to maintain even a miserable standard of living (and that's where about 40% of the population is now) , none of that fiscal wisdom matters all that much.

I can make a silk purse out of a sows ear, but damnit one needs the sows ear to do it.

And the American people have systematically been losing purchasing power my entire working career.

Supply side economics taken to the EXTREMES it has been taken, are the root cuase of this problem.

That doesn't mean I hate the wealthy, but it does mean that there needs to be some BALANCE between what the classes are making or the system STOPS WORKING.

And the people do NOT control the sytem...the SUPER-weathy DO

I 'realize' all of that 'amigo'. I know the numbers and don't dipsute them. the question is why? And later who's job is it to do something about it? The why makes all the difference in the world. If the answer is because some 'thing' is keeping people down despite their very best efforts, you have a case that the system is messed up and someone other than the victims need to fix it. If, on the other hand, we have shifted to being more, apathetic, less proactive, generally fulfilling less potential, the problem needs to be fixed by those very people that are more apathetic, less proactive and generally underachieving because if that variable is not acknowledged, no amount of government intervention is going to improve society.

I tend to beleive the later because it is highly observeable everyday. Look at any number of people you work with. Look at those people you say are victims of the system. Heck, look at yourself. Take all of those people and tell me if they are where they are because they have given all they got and that was simply the best they can do. Or if there is enormous pool of untapped potential there that they simply haven't been motivated enough to tap. I know the answer for me. Do you know what it is for you?

 

[editec]

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

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

But it never happens. Business owners are so concerned about the bottom line, they refuse to see that they have productive workers. I have friends that have been pushed out of jobs because their employers didn't want to pay higher wages as were required by that company after a certain amount of time. That's one of the biggest reasons why low paying jobs are so transitory. I also know a man that increased the number of customers at a restaurant by simply providing more fries on every plate. The customer based doubled. When the manager found out, all he could think about was the cost of those extra fries, he didn't factor in the increase in consumers, and of course, because it was a franchise, they reduced the fries and their business dropped.

We have such stupid people making decisions in business these days. Get a clue, when the workers don't make enough to live on, they can't purchase the products, if they can't purchase your products, your sales are going to decrease. Sooner or later, the sh*t had to hit the fan. Welcome to great depression II, brought to you by the same stupid business decisions as the first great depression.

Same question as before basically:

Why is it the obligation of business to support you?

Why is it not YOUR obligation to support yourself?

Why is the obligation of the American people to defend business interest overseas?

 

[Bern80]

But it never happens. Business owners are so concerned about the bottom line, they refuse to see that they have productive workers. I have friends that have been pushed out of jobs because their employers didn't want to pay higher wages as were required by that company after a certain amount of time. That's one of the biggest reasons why low paying jobs are so transitory. I also know a man that increased the number of customers at a restaurant by simply providing more fries on every plate. The customer based doubled. When the manager found out, all he could think about was the cost of those extra fries, he didn't factor in the increase in consumers, and of course, because it was a franchise, they reduced the fries and their business dropped.

We have such stupid people making decisions in business these days. Get a clue, when the workers don't make enough to live on, they can't purchase the products, if they can't purchase your products, your sales are going to decrease. Sooner or later, the sh*t had to hit the fan. Welcome to great depression II, brought to you by the same stupid business decisions as the first great depression.

Same question as before basically:

Why is it the obligation of business to support you?

Why is it not YOUR obligation to support yourself?

Why is the obligation of the American people to defend business interest overseas?

Doesn't answer my questions. But......

One could argue Americans CHOOSE to defend business interests overseas via what they choose to consume.

 

[Care4all]

It is the job of OUR Government to protect the American people, from Fraud, from usery, from monopolies, from gouging, from loan sharks....from malfeasance of any kind...perpetrated against the American people by business or another individual.

 

[dilloduck]

It is the job of OUR Government to protect the American people, from Fraud, from usery, from monopolies, from gouging, from loan sharks....from malfeasance of any kind...perpetrated against the American people by business or another individual.

Do you realize how stupid that makes people ?