# millionaires  5.4 pct surtax



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 14, 2009)

This doesnt effect me yet , It will in the near future

House bill to hit millionaires with 5.4 pct surtax

WASHINGTON, July 14 (Reuters) - A sweeping overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system to be announced on Tuesday in the U.S. House of Representatives will include a surtax on millionaires of 5.4 percent, congressional sources said.

The tax rate is higher than the 3 percent surtax lawmakers had been discussing earlier and would be imposed on those making more than $1 million a year, the sources said.

House bill to hit millionaires with 5.4 pct surtax | Markets | Markets News | Reuters
What is wrong with these kooks?


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 14, 2009)

hmmmm--We live in an economy where the idea is to earn money but if you do really well at it you have to give it back ??? Makes sense to me--not.


----------



## Chris (Jul 14, 2009)

Soak the rich.

They make money not by working hard, but by inheriting wealth from their parents.


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 15, 2009)

Chris said:


> Soak the rich.
> 
> They make money not by working hard, but by inheriting wealth from their parents.


There are actually very few old money families that do that.  America has the single largest number of working millionaires in the world.  And they work every day. 

They also provide a significant number of jobs.

But lets see how many jobs we can get from those who live below the 100k per year line.


----------



## Chris (Jul 15, 2009)

The BBC reported startling economic equality figures in a recent documentary: the top 200 wealthiest people in the world control more wealth than the bottom 4 billion. But what is more striking to many is a close look at the economic inequality in the homeland of the "American Dream." *The United States is the most economically stratified society in the western world. As THE WALL STREET JOURNAL reported, a recent study found that the top .01% or 14,000 American families hold 22.2% of wealth &#8212; the bottom 90%, or over 133 million families, just 4% of the nation's wealth. *

Bill Moyers Journal . Steve Fraser on Gilded Ages | PBS


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jul 15, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> hmmmm--We live in an economy where the idea is to earn money but if you do really well at it you have to give it back ??? Makes sense to me--not.



It's all a matter of perspective.  If you've done really well, one could argue you've benefited more from the structures of society, government, that set the conditions for your success and other government structures help you protect your wealth so shouldn't you pay more to keep those government structures in place?  

To me the relevant questions are how much do you have to pay so that everyone feels he/she has a stake maintaining the society and at what point are taxes taking so much money away from investment in the private sector that everyone begins to suffer?


----------



## Sweet Willy (Jul 15, 2009)

If you can earn $1 million + per year,  by the grace of the Untied States of America and all she does to ensure your right to do that,  shut up and pony up an extra 5% for the priviledge.  Freedom isn't free,  after all.


----------



## Chris (Jul 15, 2009)

Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2004 
  Total Net Worth 
 Top 1 percent    Next 19 percent   Bottom 80 percent 
1983  33.8%        47.5%                 18.7% 
1989  37.4%        46.2%                 16.5% 
1992  37.2%        46.6%                 16.2% 
1995  38.5%        45.4%                 16.1% 
1998  38.1%        45.3%                 16.6% 
2001  33.4%        51.0%                 15.6% 
2004  34.3%        50.3%                 15.3% 

  Financial Wealth  
 Top 1 percent   Next 19 percent   Bottom 80 percent 
1983  42.9%        48.4%                   8.7% 
1989  46.9%        46.5%                   6.6% 
1992  45.6%        46.7%                   7.7% 
1995  47.2%        45.9%                   7.0% 
1998  47.3%        43.6%                   9.1% 
2001  39.7%        51.5%                   8.7% 
2004  42.2%        50.3%                   7.5% 

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

As you can see from the above chart, the Reagan Revolution took wealth from the bottom 80% and gave it to the rich. Likewise with Bush Jr.


----------



## Sweet Willy (Jul 15, 2009)

Chris said:


> Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2004
> Total Net Worth
> Top 1 percent    Next 19 percent   Bottom 80 percent
> 1983  33.8%        47.5%                 18.7%
> ...





So,  the top 20% control 92.5% of the wealth.  


STFU and pay your taxes.


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 15, 2009)

Class envy is so ugly sometimes.


----------



## Chris (Jul 15, 2009)

At one time the 26 top hedge fund managers were averaging $826 million dollars a year in income. 

Income they stole with derivatives from ordinary people till their Ponzi scheme went dry. 

And then the taxpayers bailed them out, so they could start again.


----------



## Sweet Willy (Jul 15, 2009)

Chris said:


> At one time the 26 top hedge fund managers were averaging $826 million dollars a year in income.
> 
> Income they stole with derivatives from ordinary people till their Ponzi scheme went dry.
> 
> And then the taxpayers bailed them out, so they could start again.



And someone has the nerve to call class envy?

I must have missed the part where thieves passed me on the class ladder.


----------



## wimpy77 (Jul 15, 2009)

Sweet Willy said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > At one time the 26 top hedge fund managers were averaging $826 million dollars a year in income.
> ...



that's the main reason i switched party affiliation.


----------



## gold_tracker (Jul 15, 2009)

This is amazing to me. And what's more it really comes down to taxation without representation because you will be hard pressed to find any of our representatives who have actually read any of this bill let alone the cap and trade bill.

Add to that the news I saw last night that a company like Goldman Sachs earned over 2 billion in profit last year and didn't pay any tax and I'm left scratching my head.

My plan is to get out of debt asap and get some money into wealth securing assets and commodities because I have a feeling that the worse isn't over.


----------



## Nik (Jul 15, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> hmmmm--We live in an economy where the idea is to earn money but if you do really well at it you have to give it back ??? Makes sense to me--not.



Yeah, instead lets make the people who don't make any give it back


----------



## ba1614 (Jul 15, 2009)

Nik said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > hmmmm--We live in an economy where the idea is to earn money but if you do really well at it you have to give it back ??? Makes sense to me--not.
> ...



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


----------



## Nik (Jul 15, 2009)

ba1614 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



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


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 15, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> This doesnt effect me yet , It will in the near future
> 
> House bill to hit millionaires with 5.4 pct surtax
> 
> ...



That house bill is going nowhere. It's DOA in the Senate. Consider it a whole lot of grandstanding (last stand?) by Pelosi.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 15, 2009)

Chris said:


> The BBC reported startling economic equality figures in a recent documentary: the top 200 wealthiest people in the world control more wealth than the bottom 4 billion. But what is more striking to many is a close look at the economic inequality in the homeland of the "American Dream." *The United States is the most economically stratified society in the western world. As THE WALL STREET JOURNAL reported, a recent study found that the top .01% or 14,000 American families hold 22.2% of wealth  the bottom 90%, or over 133 million families, just 4% of the nation's wealth. *
> 
> Bill Moyers Journal . Steve Fraser on Gilded Ages | PBS



Because of the outrageous greed of some, they have basically screwed themselves.

World&#8217;s Rich Have Lost $10 Trillion in Global Financial Crisis - The Wealth Report - WSJ
_
...the worlds rich have lost $10 trillion, or a quarter of their wealth, in the global financial crisis, according to Oliver Wyman, a consulting firm. That is about equal to the combined economic output of Japan, Germany and China_


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 15, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > hmmmm--We live in an economy where the idea is to earn money but if you do really well at it you have to give it back ??? Makes sense to me--not.
> ...



Exactly. The term "wealth redistribution" is bandied about as evil. I don't think the framers had in mind by "We The People" a divided society of haves and have-nots.


----------



## chanel (Jul 15, 2009)

A five percent tax increase on top of the income tax increases going into effect next year is unprecedented. But they will continue to gauge the rich until no one wants to produce anymore. I am starting to believe that Obama is deliberately destroying capitalism and is succeeding.The rich will always be an easy target because they are such a small minority. How much is fair? 50 percent 60 percent 99 percent.

When you rob  Peter to pay Paul, you will always get the support of Paul.


----------



## ba1614 (Jul 15, 2009)

Nik said:


> ba1614 said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



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


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 15, 2009)

gold_tracker said:


> This is amazing to me. And what's more it really comes down to taxation without representation because you will be hard pressed to find any of our representatives who have actually read any of this bill let alone the cap and trade bill.
> 
> Add to that the news I saw last night that a company like Goldman Sachs earned over 2 billion in profit last year and didn't pay any tax and I'm left scratching my head.
> 
> My plan is to get out of debt asap and get some money into wealth securing assets and commodities because I have a feeling that the worse isn't over.



Since Goldman-Sachs recorded losses last year, it wouldn't pay certain taxes. However, it recently posted a sizeable profit, and paid back the TARP loan with interest, so the US taxpayer actually came out ahead. That's how the TARP money is _supposed_ to work.


----------



## Nik (Jul 15, 2009)

chanel said:


> A five percent tax increase on top of the income tax increases going into effect next year is unprecedented. But they will continue to gauge the rich until no one wants to produce anymore. I am starting to believe that Obama is deliberately destroying capitalism and is succeeding.The rich will always be an easy target because they are such a small minority. How much is fair? 50 percent 60 percent 99 percent.
> 
> When you rob  Peter to pay Paul, you will always get the support of Paul.



Unprecedented?

Do your research.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 15, 2009)

chanel said:


> A five percent tax increase on top of the income tax increases going into effect next year is unprecedented. But they will continue to gauge the rich until no one wants to produce anymore. I am starting to believe that Obama is deliberately destroying capitalism and is succeeding.The rich will always be an easy target because they are such a small minority. How much is fair? 50 percent 60 percent 99 percent.
> 
> When you rob  Peter to pay Paul, you will always get the support of Paul.



That particular proposed tax increase will never happen.

If Obama were trying to destroy capitalism, he would have nationalized the banks, nationalized the auto industry, gone whole hog for a universal health *care* plan by nationalizing the medical industry. Instead, HIS proposal is to keep private insurers alive, just keep them honest with some competition. And THAT is the only health care initiative that stands a chance of passing--not any universal CARE as proposed by the House yesterday. 

I understand the heroic view of capitalism that many embrace. Unfortunately, the Rand ideology makes it difficult for free market purists to accept that markets can be irrational, misallocate resources, misread the pulse of the public in favor of the bottom line. And especially that financial systems without vigorous government oversight and the capacity for pragmatic intervention constitutes a recipe for disaster, which is precisely what we are presently experiencing.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 15, 2009)

ba1614 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > ba1614 said:
> ...



Good gawd, that argument is so old it's grown whiskers.


----------



## Nik (Jul 15, 2009)

ba1614 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > ba1614 said:
> ...



So you believe in personal accountability for the people getting loans, but not for the banks?

Why are you so willing to excuse dishonest lending practices?  Why don't you believe in personal responsibility?

Its not actually that easy to argue against a bank trying to lend you what they are essentially calling free money.  Its hard to pass that up.  And when house values are rising, you don't know that you can't afford it.  In fact, if home values kept rising, people WOULD be able to afford these huge loans.

But yes...of course the person on the street should have known better than all the bankers that home prices would crash


----------



## driveby (Jul 15, 2009)

Nik said:


> ba1614 said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Did the guy that traded Jack some "magic beans" for a cow own these banks ?.....


----------



## Nik (Jul 15, 2009)

driveby said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > ba1614 said:
> ...



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


----------



## driveby (Jul 15, 2009)

Nik said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



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


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 15, 2009)

Nik said:


> ba1614 said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Actually, Nik, the banks themselves did not have a clue what was going on out on the street by real estate agents who deputized any slob without a license to get people to sign on the dotted line for a new mortgage and new home. Those "agents" then bundled them together and offered entire packages of bad loans (site unseen) as "securities" to be traded by Wall Street. Some of the review of these "securities" that's been going on over the last several months has revealed some shocking stuff: Mortgage applications that include ZERO INCOME, but approved anyway, for example. It's pathetic that the righteous righties continue to be so eager to blame the person dumb enough to sign on, rather than the blatant criminal activities of those who sucked them in to begin with.


----------



## Nik (Jul 15, 2009)

driveby said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > driveby said:
> ...



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


----------



## driveby (Jul 15, 2009)

Nik said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



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


----------



## manu1959 (Jul 15, 2009)

wimpy77 said:


> Sweet Willy said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



so now you are a goldman sachs man....eh.....good for you....


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 15, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> This doesnt effect me yet , It will in the near future
> 
> House bill to hit millionaires with 5.4 pct surtax
> 
> ...



Interesting, from the same people who have brought you the Stimulus, the Auto bail-out, the proposed cap and trade bill, the Bank bail out, all of which done in a time when this country was suffering an economic down turn and have massive debts.  Now they wish to over tax those that actually create the jobs in order to pay for healthcare.  I see, what comes to mind in all this is when you open credit cards to pay off the balances of those you already have open, eventually the bill is going to come due.  When it does  look to Ca. to see what our nation will become, we will get to the point where our Govt. will start to issue  IOU's to pay it's bills  but then again we will have  health insurance but no Doctors to accept it.  I often wonder if these  social engineer's have  ever taken the time to actually  read the contitution of this nation or are they so taken with "level playing fields" that they forget the concepts of hard work and self reliance.


----------



## Nik (Jul 15, 2009)

driveby said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > driveby said:
> ...



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

Alrighty then


----------



## Sweet Willy (Jul 15, 2009)

driveby said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > driveby said:
> ...




The borrowers do make the ultimate decision but eager agents also do their part to tell you what you should be able to afford.  They use one formula or another to figure if you can make the payment and you can bet that borrowers,  who never have boght a house before and aren't sure if they can afford it,  have been reassured by the agent that they should buy and buy now.....this house is a steal and will be worth twice as much in just two years!

The problem with this logic is the reality of risk.  While a borrower who has little is risking very little,  a lender who is handing out cash left and right,  has everything to lose.  It will always be relatively easy for someone with nothing to lose to risk that nothing.  When those with a lot to lose begin to risk it with the same disregard as those with nothing....well.....howdy neighbor!  Welcome to the poorhouse!


----------



## Chris (Jul 15, 2009)

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

Bullshit.

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

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


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 15, 2009)

Chris said:


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



Every detail isn't known, but late last week Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel disclosed that his draft bill would impose a "surtax" on individuals with adjusted gross income of more than $280,000 a year. *This would hit job creators especially hard because more than six of every 10 who earn that much are small business owners, operators or investors, according to a 2007 Treasury study.* That study also found that almost half of the income taxed at this highest rate is small business income from the more than 500,000 sole proprietorships and subchapter S corporations whose owners pay the individual rate.
Democrats want to impose "surtax" to finance health care - WSJ.com

Chris what part of this don't you understand? rich in this case=small business owner. You said so yourself, most new jobs are created by small business and almost 70% of them file taxes on their business on individual returns.  So you don't think this tax on these so called rich will have some effect on employment by these business owners?


----------



## Nik (Jul 15, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > I love how the right all parrot this talking point about how the rich create jobs.
> ...



Why debate an argument thats not actually in the bill?

The actual number in the bill is $350,000, not $280,000.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jul 15, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



The founding father would certainly have considered the idea of wealth redistribution, especially the redistribution of their wealth, evil.  There were few paupers at the Constitutional Convention.  Not only did they envision a society that contained haves and have nots, but they envisioned one and the Constitution they wrote provided for one,  that contained have nothings, slaves.  

They American dream they envisioned provided for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, a meritocracy in which talent and industry would be rewarded with power and wealth.  They considered poverty evidence of moral deficiency and not paying your debts a crime almost the equal of robbery.  While they would nave acknowledged a moral obligation to provide charity to the needy, they would have been appalled by the idea that anyone had a right to demand it.  

However, these were practical men of affairs and they understood that for them to prosper and to protect their wealth there must be police and courts and a general currency and treaties to protect trade and roads, etc., and to provide these necessities taxes must be levied in such a way that, to put it succinctly, will not cause another armed rebellion, and that meant, in most cases that those who had the most to protect paid the largest share of the cost of maintaining the government.  On the other hand, if the founding fathers had been presented with Obama's health insurance plan, there would have been a second American Revolution.


----------



## driveby (Jul 15, 2009)

Nik said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



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


----------



## editec (Jul 15, 2009)

Darkwind said:


> Class envy is so ugly sometimes.


 

It sure it.

But most of the filthy rich just can't help themselves.

It's just part of their selfish natures to hate the other classes whose labors make them so wealthy to begin with.

It's that famous* biting the hands that feed you* syndrome, I think.


----------



## Douger (Jul 15, 2009)

I do not mind paying...............as long as the trailer trash will vote to better themselves......... which HAS never been the case/ EVER.
Too much flag waving with zero thinking.


----------



## alan1 (Jul 15, 2009)

Nik said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



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


----------



## alan1 (Jul 15, 2009)

driveby said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > driveby said:
> ...


Nik likes to put false words into other people's posts.


----------



## Chris (Jul 15, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > I love how the right all parrot this talking point about how the rich create jobs.
> ...



What part don't you understand???

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

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


----------



## Gunny (Jul 15, 2009)

Chris said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Why you're a thief.


----------



## Chris (Jul 15, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



Really Gunny, that is beneath you.

Personal insults are so useless.


----------



## KittenKoder (Jul 15, 2009)

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


----------



## Chris (Jul 15, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


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



Earned their status?

Hardly. 

Stole their status is more like it.

Stole it from hard working people.


----------



## alan1 (Jul 15, 2009)

Chris said:


> Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2004
> Total Net Worth
> Top 1 percent    Next 19 percent   Bottom 80 percent
> 1983  33.8%        47.5%                 18.7%
> ...



The tax is on income, not wealth.  Those are two entirely different things.
Some how, I get the feeling you want to impose not only an income tax, but a wealth tax also.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 15, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



Of course we pay twice as much per capita  however solving that does not mean punishing those  that create jobs in this counry and those that work in small business . As for assertions on quality those figures comming from the WHO are meaningless especially when those figures also include, muders , death by accudents, etc. as part of overall health quality. So you assertions that the rich must pay for the mistakes of  mismanagement often times looking the other way when problems need to be solved are nothing but campagin slogans that will eventually lead this nation to a path where it will find itself among  those nations that produce nothing, consume everything, and expect everything at the same time. So if this is the nation you wish to have then please  be my guest and continue to advocate for these causes that will achieve your goal of making this the 3rd world nation that you wish it to be.


----------



## Chris (Jul 15, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



The rich do not "create jobs."

Having a good healthcare system creates jobs by keeping workers healthy and *alive.*

How can you work a job if you are dying of cancer?

You do realize that protecting the rich under the guise of job creation is THE REPUBLICAN TALKING POINT right now. It is also totally bogus.

When taxes on the rich were much higher in the early 1960's, we had less unemployment than we do now. The gap between rich and poor was smaller then as well. Inequitable distrbution of wealth is very bad for America.


----------



## alan1 (Jul 15, 2009)

Chris said:


> What part don't you understand???
> 
> We pay TWICE AS MUCH per capita as every other Western democracy for healthcare and our outcomes are only as good or in some cases worst.
> 
> What part of that don't you understand???



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


----------



## Chris (Jul 15, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > What part don't you understand???
> ...



No, the price will drop when we adopt a single payer system, which this is not.

And there is no "magic" about it. A single payer system is more efficient and more fair. That is why every other Western democracy uses one. That is also why they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.


----------



## alan1 (Jul 15, 2009)

Chris said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Fair for whom?  Efficient for whom?

You gonna just ignore the post about wealth vs income?


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 15, 2009)

Chris said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



I suppose the difference between you and I Chris is that I don't consider someone that owns a small busniess, employs  people and struggles daily to pay bills  a rich person. However I can see in the  new liberal level playing field where someone who actually works hard and gets a little success would  be considered rich when compared next to those who expect their just due at the expense of those that were willing to go out and work for it.  I personally don't consider anyone that makes 300K rich by any stretch of the imagination. I'm sure you do , but when you walk into the local subway or starbucks  you may want to look at the  rich owner and call them that and see what kind of laugh it generates. I also might suggest Chris that if you wish healthcare for all that you start with yourself, the real issue here is that too many liberals are more concerned with socially engineering the welfare of others  rather than themselves. Thank you for your concern, but no thank you, I would rather leave a country to my children that has a real chance  at competing in the comming  years than one that is indebted to the rest of world all in the name of socially norming everyone.  If you would like an idea of how this will all play out let me give an example, go out open a credit card with a limit of 5000 dollars , max it out to pay for your healthcare, then open another credit card to pay for one you opened before and max it out. Then wait for the bill to come and hope you still can afford the healthcare after you paid both the credit card bills, that is of course unless you are advocating bankruptcy!!


----------



## jeffrockit (Jul 15, 2009)

Nik said:


> ba1614 said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



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


----------



## jeffrockit (Jul 15, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> > A five percent tax increase on top of the income tax increases going into effect next year is unprecedented. But they will continue to gauge the rich until no one wants to produce anymore. I am starting to believe that Obama is deliberately destroying capitalism and is succeeding.The rich will always be an easy target because they are such a small minority. How much is fair? 50 percent 60 percent 99 percent.
> ...



And you think the private insurers are going to be able to compete with the government. They won't, and all that will be left is Gov. run healthcare.


----------



## HUGGY (Jul 15, 2009)

*House bill to hit millionaires with 5.4 pct surtax
*

Should be more like 20%.


----------



## jeffrockit (Jul 15, 2009)

Chris said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...


----------



## KittenKoder (Jul 15, 2009)

jeffrockit said:


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



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


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...


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


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 16, 2009)

Chris said:


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


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


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

driveby said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > driveby said:
> ...



And?

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

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


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > driveby said:
> ...



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

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


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


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



Kids born wealthy earned their status?

How's that work?


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > What part don't you understand???
> ...



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

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


----------



## HUGGY (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


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



Me thinks Kitten believes she is Bill Gates love child.


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

jeffrockit said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > ba1614 said:
> ...



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

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


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...


Its common knowledge 

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

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

Democrat&#8217;s $1 Trillion Mess « Look2theWest


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



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


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 16, 2009)

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


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



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


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


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





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



Most Subprime Loans Went to Upper Income, Non-Minorities

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


----------



## Care4all (Jul 16, 2009)

ba1614 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > ba1614 said:
> ...



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

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

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

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

care


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


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


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

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

CRA Lending During the Subprime Meltdown

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



The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown by Thomas DiLorenzo

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


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 16, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the last 8 proving it.


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Except for the obvious lies, such as equating CRA loans with subprime loans.
> ...



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


----------



## editec (Jul 16, 2009)

The problem with bad government is that it's bad.

Here's a thought...let's try good government for a change.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


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


No Im saying their are variables , there are a strata of causes for the meltdown.
Increased CRA leading from non local sources is a serious one.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 16, 2009)

editec said:


> The problem with bad government is that it's bad.
> 
> Here's a thought...let's try good government for a change.


Thats not going to happen.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 16, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Except for the obvious lies, such as equating CRA loans with subprime loans.
> ...



And after reading the lengthy link, it shoots down the brooking's institutes speculation and says, without a doubt, that the CRA is NOT the cause of this crisis and that these loans made in Cra areas by regulated institutions were less likely to be in foreclosure....and a very SMALL PART of this crisis.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 16, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



it WAS NOT increased CRA lending by outside sources....it was outside sources going in to low and moderately low income areas to prey on these people with predatory loans that were 50% more costly than loans made by regulated institutions providing secure CRA loans is what I read?


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 16, 2009)

I get a chuckle from all of you here that buy into this let the "rich" pay for it  mantra.  If you think for one moment that 250K and above represents  "rich" then you all are in for a very big surpirse. I would suggest each of you walk into the local pizza franchise or coffee franchise and ask the owner of they consider themsleves "rich" because those are the people that you are talking about paying for your healthcare here.  Further,  if this nonsense passes., and you go and expect to get service and suffendly find that the same pizza place or coffee joint that you once visited all the time is no longer there or the service is bad because they have few employee's  just remember that your healthcare insurance is what you traded for that. I've said this many times and will continue to say it, wealthy people that have  enough liquid assets to avoid any of this nonsense will do so, so the "rich" you target are actually hard working people  that have done nothing more that achieve success. Think if of it this way, the Doctor you are all screaming that the Govt. give you free of charge is the very same person you are  asking to be taxed to pay for it.  Further, All of you who promote this idea, you have my sympathy for the country you will leave our children and grandchildren.  I do hope your all proud of yourselves to lead a nation that once was the beacon for an entire world to one that will be just another nation that will be begging the wealthy nations for a handout.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 16, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> I get a chuckle from all of you here that buy into this let the "rich" pay for it  mantra.  If you think for one moment that 250K and above represents  "rich" then you all are in for a very big surpirse. I would suggest each of you walk into the local pizza franchise or coffee franchise and ask the owner of they consider themsleves "rich" because those are the people that you are talking about paying for your healthcare here.  Further,  if this nonsense passes., and you go and expect to get service and suffendly find that the same pizza place or coffee joint that you once visited all the time is no longer there or the service is bad because they have few employee's  just remember that your healthcare insurance is what you traded for that. I've said this many times and will continue to say it, wealthy people that have  enough liquid assets to avoid any of this nonsense will do so, so the "rich" you target are actually hard working people  that have done nothing more that achieve success. Think if of it this way, the Doctor you are all screaming that the Govt. give you free of charge is the very same person you are  asking to be taxed to pay for it.  Further, All of you who promote this idea, you have my sympathy for the country you will leave our children and grandchildren.  I do hope your all proud of yourselves to lead a nation that once was the beacon for an entire world to one that will be just another nation that will be begging the wealthy nations for a handout.



They don't take home $250K a year.  If they do, then they are "rich".  And the top 1.2% make $350k a year, not 250.  And that's only $1500 from each of them so that every man woman and child is covered with health insurance.

And most of them own business' and they pay for our healthcare now anyways.  They'll end up saving.

Now, tell me how it won't work and how the for profits are doing such a great job now.

PS.  While you cry for the rich, do you remember what gas was this time last year?  $4 a gallon.  Today its under $2.50 a gallon.  So they didn't mind spreading our wealth to the oil companies.  And healthcare thinks they can get away with it even on the Dems watch?  

Maybe they can.  You better hope they paid Max Baucus enough to stop whats coming.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 16, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > I get a chuckle from all of you here that buy into this let the "rich" pay for it  mantra.  If you think for one moment that 250K and above represents  "rich" then you all are in for a very big surpirse. I would suggest each of you walk into the local pizza franchise or coffee franchise and ask the owner of they consider themsleves "rich" because those are the people that you are talking about paying for your healthcare here.  Further,  if this nonsense passes., and you go and expect to get service and suffendly find that the same pizza place or coffee joint that you once visited all the time is no longer there or the service is bad because they have few employee's  just remember that your healthcare insurance is what you traded for that. I've said this many times and will continue to say it, wealthy people that have  enough liquid assets to avoid any of this nonsense will do so, so the "rich" you target are actually hard working people  that have done nothing more that achieve success. Think if of it this way, the Doctor you are all screaming that the Govt. give you free of charge is the very same person you are  asking to be taxed to pay for it.  Further, All of you who promote this idea, you have my sympathy for the country you will leave our children and grandchildren.  I do hope your all proud of yourselves to lead a nation that once was the beacon for an entire world to one that will be just another nation that will be begging the wealthy nations for a handout.
> ...



first of all sealy I'm not under some foolish impression that "rich" people as you put will foot the bill for your healthcare. The people who will are small business and there is a price to pay for that, 7 out 10 small business owners  file their income tax returns as individuals. So those are the people that will be  paying for your healthcare, they are also the same people who create around  90% of the new jobs in this country.  So as a small business owner let me tell you what I am going to do, one is unless mandated I carry it for  those who work for me, I will immediatly  cancel the health insurance for those who work for me and send them to to Govt. plan and take their deductables and  put that back into their paychecks.  The  extra taxes I pay if it effects my business , then I will lay people off or cut back on hours. That is the effect of your free healthcare.  So what you have accomplished is more people on Govt. healthcare, raised my taxes, and put people out of work and put your Govt. in debt.  As for the  $ 4.00 a gallon gas , a good reason for your party not to pass that other stupid bill cap and trade.  Let me see last year, oh yes, the dems were in charge of congress then too. What kind of energy bill did we get last year? none! In fact during the middle of your 4.00 a gallon gas your  party leaders shut the lights off in congress to go home and campaign for your president  and leave you to your 4.00 a gallon gas . So much for the compassion. As for who will and who won't vote for it, doesn't matter those that do simply regulate this nation further to 3rd world status  sooner.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 16, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> I get a chuckle from all of you here that buy into this let the "rich" pay for it  mantra.  If you think for one moment that 250K and above represents  "rich" then you all are in for a very big surpirse. I would suggest each of you walk into the local pizza franchise or coffee franchise and ask the owner of they consider themsleves "rich" because those are the people that you are talking about paying for your healthcare here.  Further,  if this nonsense passes., and you go and expect to get service and suffendly find that the same pizza place or coffee joint that you once visited all the time is no longer there or the service is bad because they have few employee's  just remember that your healthcare insurance is what you traded for that. I've said this many times and will continue to say it, wealthy people that have  enough liquid assets to avoid any of this nonsense will do so, so the "rich" you target are actually hard working people  that have done nothing more that achieve success. Think if of it this way, the Doctor you are all screaming that the Govt. give you free of charge is the very same person you are  asking to be taxed to pay for it.  Further, All of you who promote this idea, you have my sympathy for the country you will leave our children and grandchildren.  I do hope your all proud of yourselves to lead a nation that once was the beacon for an entire world to one that will be just another nation that will be begging the wealthy nations for a handout.



not that i am for this or against this....i have no comment yet, till i find out more...

BUT what you just said is NOT correct about the pizza guy....small business owner....

the OVER AND ABOVE $250,000 that would be taxed 5% more, is PURE PROFIT, what he pockets for himself, AFTER ALL BILLS are PAID for his business....including his rent, cost of goods, payroll, payroll taxes, health care, energy costs etc....

it won't hurt the business in the scenario you mentioned about the pizza guy....

besides the fact, that there are so many ways for him to use that business's profit, that would reduce his tax obligation that i'm not certain the obama team has gotten right, the money they THINK they will pull in from this measure....


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 16, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



I don't want upper middle class people to pay for it.  I'm talking $350K a  year plus.  

Most RICH people don't even show making that much.  They are too smart for that.  So if you are showing that much income???  God knows what you really make.


But you saved money by not having to pay for employees healthcare.  Its a big expense.  The $1500 you pay on your $350k is NOTHING compared to what you will save.  I know, too good to be true.  But the status quo is unacceptable and the right didn't address it when it was their watch.  That means they don't want change.  

Energy bill?  With Bush/Cheney in charge?  You think the Dems would even try with those guys in charge?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 16, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > I get a chuckle from all of you here that buy into this let the "rich" pay for it  mantra.  If you think for one moment that 250K and above represents  "rich" then you all are in for a very big surpirse. I would suggest each of you walk into the local pizza franchise or coffee franchise and ask the owner of they consider themsleves "rich" because those are the people that you are talking about paying for your healthcare here.  Further,  if this nonsense passes., and you go and expect to get service and suffendly find that the same pizza place or coffee joint that you once visited all the time is no longer there or the service is bad because they have few employee's  just remember that your healthcare insurance is what you traded for that. I've said this many times and will continue to say it, wealthy people that have  enough liquid assets to avoid any of this nonsense will do so, so the "rich" you target are actually hard working people  that have done nothing more that achieve success. Think if of it this way, the Doctor you are all screaming that the Govt. give you free of charge is the very same person you are  asking to be taxed to pay for it.  Further, All of you who promote this idea, you have my sympathy for the country you will leave our children and grandchildren.  I do hope your all proud of yourselves to lead a nation that once was the beacon for an entire world to one that will be just another nation that will be begging the wealthy nations for a handout.
> ...



I think he knows that but every once in awhile it is just easier to use fear than it is logic.

I'll lay people off.  It'll raise the prices.  People won't be able to afford.  WAAA!!!!!  

Sorry Navy.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 16, 2009)

No need to apologize for  passion on an issue, however, I'm stating a fact of what we have planned here. Now granted  I only employ 4 people however, I would like to continue to employ them. That is my plan should this  healthcare bill become law and is also one that has been formulated among many other small firms  I speak with on a daily basis. We will simply let our employee's buy their own healthcare  with the money that is currently being deducted from them at the moment.  I can assure you though that anyone who has the means  to will not be hurt by this and those are the wealthy people you refer too , so in the end your only going to target those that actually create most of jobs in this country.  While is may sound to you like a scare tactic it is a reality of the situation. If faced with higher taxes and also having to pay for healthcare one is them is going to go it's that simple.  While the  effort to reduce costs in healthcare I'm 1000% in favor of, having the US Govt. provide your healthcare for you is not one of them. In fact if the Govt. would simply change a few rules and allow people to form co-ops i.e. small businesses, individuals,  or even provide grants to companies wanting to get into providing health insurance for those companies, you would see an explosion of  companies doing so and the cost drop dramatically. Want an example, what happend everytime Southwest Airlines drops its prices? Most every other Airline follows suit because they do not want to lose business. Such would be the case in health insurance if the Govt. was not so intent in wanting to a babysitter and  do it's real job and regulate commerce.


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



So then you admit that your source lies when it equates CRA loans with subprime loans?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...


No I missed that..Feel free to  repost it.


----------



## alan1 (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Hell, don't ask me, ask the republicans.


----------



## alan1 (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



You misunderstand.
Nice try though.


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



You didn't even read your own sources?

How pathetic.


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



They would get massacred at the polls.  Because, hey, government services actually do work and save tens of thousands of lives.

So feel free to attempt to abolish medicare.


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



Such a brilliant rebuttal.  How will you ever top that one, MM?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> So then you admit that your source lies when it equates CRA loans with subprime loans?


No I missed that..Feel free to repost it.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 16, 2009)

It should be real simple for you since you are so certain it is there as plain as day.


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > So then you admit that your source lies when it equates CRA loans with subprime loans?
> ...



You posted this:



> In 1997, Democrat Bill Clinton increased the market share of these CRA loans from almost zero to almost 15%. Fannies and Freddies combined portfolios went from about $200 billion to over $1 trillion during Clintons term in office  a five fold increase.



The site that you posted it from had that hyperlinked.  The hyperlink went to this graph.







Thats not a graph of CRA mortgages, as the link claims.  Its a link of subprime mortgages.

Republican spin is OH so fact based, eh?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 16, 2009)

Yeah ,I can see  how they are trying to hide the fact  that the graph is of sub prime loan by the words at the of of the graph.
Why those dirty rotten scondrels


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Yeah ,I can see  how they are trying to hide the fact  that the graph is of sub prime loan by the words at the of of the graph.
> Why those dirty rotten scondrels



If its so incredibly obvious, why didn't you notice it?  Why did you post a source that outright lied?

And the blog where the graph is from wasn't trying to claim they were CRA loans.  The blog that you specifically linked too was trying to claim they were CRA loans.  A lie you bought into hook, line, and sinker despite being incredibly easy to disprove.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 16, 2009)

Sorry forgot the[sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags
Here is the post agian
Yeah ,I can see how they are trying to hide the fact that the graph is of sub prime loan by the words at the of of the graph.
[sarcasm]Why those dirty rotten scondrels[/sarcasm]


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Sorry forgot the[sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags
> Here is the post agian
> Yeah ,I can see how they are trying to hide the fact that the graph is of sub prime loan by the words at the of of the graph.
> [sarcasm]Why those dirty rotten scondrels[/sarcasm]



I caught the sarcasm, thanks.

Care to answer my questions now, dipshit?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 16, 2009)

How I did not detect the lie that you are unable or unwilling to post?
Im not sure how to do that.


----------



## jeffrockit (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



How many years did it take for the car companies to collapse? It is cumulative through the years. That should not be that hard to understand.


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> How I did not detect the lie that you are unable or unwilling to post?
> Im not sure how to do that.



I already posted it, dumbass.

You posted this statement 



> In 1997, Democrat Bill Clinton increased the market share of these CRA loans from almost zero to almost 15%. Fannies and Freddies combined portfolios went from about $200 billion to over $1 trillion during Clintons term in office  a five fold increase.



Which is a lie.  Its shown to be a lie because the evidence shown to support that statement refers to subprime mortgages, not CRA mortgages.


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

jeffrockit said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



Evidence for this assertion?

By the way, the CRA just made banks loan to minorities and underserved communities.  Do you think minorities are more likely to default than whites?  If so, why?


----------



## jeffrockit (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



The evidence for this assertion is the number of home loans that are in foreclosure...that was easy. Don't ask for a link, just drive through neighborhoods throughout the country.

I think those who are not qualified for the loan amount in a contract, default on loans. Has nothing to do with race but thanks for trying.The government trying "to help", created more of a mess. The CRA created the environment where community activists tied up bank lobbies, threatened lawsuits and denied branch expansion, until the banks gave in. 

When I first heard of interest only loans about 6 or 8 years ago, for the purchase of a house , I knew problems would occur. When you have people (of all races) getting into 2, 3, 4 hundred thousand dollar houses, paying only the interest, it doesn't take an economist to predict a collapse. It serves no one well, to do this. I know the CRA was not the only problem or fault in this but it definitely had a big role.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 16, 2009)

the CRA had nearly no roll in this crisis.


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

jeffrockit said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



Incorrect.  You are trying to prove a casual link between the CRA and foreclosures.  That foreclosures exist doesn't mean they were caused by the CRA.

Care to try again?



> I think those who are not qualified for the loan amount in a contract, default on loans. Has nothing to do with race but thanks for trying.The government trying "to help", created more of a mess. The CRA created the environment where community activists tied up bank lobbies, threatened lawsuits and denied branch expansion, until the banks gave in.



Yes, actually, the CRA had a lot to do with race.  Read up a little bit on it, educate yourself.



> When I first heard of interest only loans about 6 or 8 years ago, for the purchase of a house , I knew problems would occur. When you have people (of all races) getting into 2, 3, 4 hundred thousand dollar houses, paying only the interest, it doesn't take an economist to predict a collapse. It serves no one well, to do this. I know the CRA was not the only problem or fault in this but it definitely had a big role.



Of course.  Because you say so, right?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > How I did not detect the lie that you are unable or unwilling to post?
> ...


No, I cannot detect the lie.
I see you do not like the graph,  or the statement or both.
To prove  your assertion there is a lie I would have to know

The value of the entire 1996/1997mortgage market.
 The value of the /1996/1997 CRA loans.
The link does not state  the graph is a CRA graph it.
Although you insist it does.
Im trying to help.


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



.................

The statement links to the graph as evidence.  Hence, it is a lie.

You are rather slow, aren't you?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 17, 2009)

In the realm of inventing facts,  yes real slow.


----------



## Nik (Jul 17, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> In the realm of inventing facts,  yes real slow.



God you are stupid.

Ok, then.  Back up your claim.  You claimed that CRA grew to 15% of mortgages.  Back it up.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 17, 2009)

Nik said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > In the realm of inventing facts,  yes real slow.
> ...


That is not what the statment says.
I have not been able to determine  the values of  all 1996.1997 mortgages
or  the value of the 1996/1997 CRA loans


----------



## Nik (Jul 17, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



Quoting you.



> In 1997, Democrat Bill Clinton increased the market share of these CRA loans from almost zero to almost 15%



Hey....funny, thats exactly what it says.  

Next lie?


----------



## Nik (Jul 17, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



And yet you posted claims about them.  Why?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 17, 2009)

Nik said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...


Sorry Yes it does say that I stand corrected, I cannot prove or disprove this information If you have contrary  facts please post them,


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 17, 2009)

Nik said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...


In respones to this , The CRA  had been invigorated  by Clinton'd efforts



Nik said:


> They weren't pressured by anyone.  The CRA was to prevent redlining.
> 
> The CRA was enacted in 1977.  You think it took 30 years to have any effect?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 17, 2009)

You seemed  to be under the impression the CRA had been lying fallow  for 30 years, when in fact it bad practices had been expanded and  become wild  spend inn the industry.


----------



## Nik (Jul 17, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



Thank you.  Jesus, it only took what...3 pages?


----------



## Nik (Jul 17, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



And you know that how, exactly?

As I pointed out, the 15% link was a lie.


----------



## Nik (Jul 17, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> You seemed  to be under the impression the CRA had been lying fallow  for 30 years, when in fact it bad practices had been expanded and  become wild  spend inn the industry.



The CRA just said you couldn't not lend to minorities and underserved populations.  It never advocated subprime loans or saying that banks had to make risky loans.  Just that they couldn't refuse to loan to an entire community because of their skin color.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 17, 2009)

Nik said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...


No ,that exchange was 3 post 117, 118, 119.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 17, 2009)

Nik said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...


The post was for the limited purpose  to inform you of the  newly invigorated clinton policy , Which I assumed was common knowledge.
you have not proven the 15 % is a lie. You have had ample opportunity to prove  it was and you have not.
What you have proven is you read things that are not there,  jump to conclusions , get hysterical and use foul language.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 17, 2009)

Nik said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > You seemed  to be under the impression the CRA had been lying fallow  for 30 years, when in fact it bad practices had been expanded and  become wild  spend inn the industry.
> ...


Enter Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Acorn. applying political pressure to give CRA teeth,
http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/media/pdfs/20090707HousingCrisisReport.pdf


----------



## Nik (Jul 17, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



See, the blog that made the claim had some evidence for it.  Except the evidence they used was for subprime mortgages.  Makes it a lie.  But then I wouldn't expect you to see that.


----------



## editec (Jul 17, 2009)

CRA didn't cause the mortgage meltdown.

Changing the qualifying formulas to lend money to paupers certainly did.

Two entirely different policies, really.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 17, 2009)

All the small business owners I know are complaining about sales not these other more political issues. 

"This has led to an economy hugely warped in favour of a small slice of very rich Americans. The wealthiest one percent of households now control a third of the national wealth. The wealthiest 10 percent control two-thirds of it. This is a society that is splitting down the middle and it has taken place against a backdrop of economic growth.

Between 1980 and 2004 America's GDP went up by almost two-thirds. But instead of making everyone better off, it has made only a part of the country wealthier, as another part slips ever more into the black hole of the working poor. There are now 37 million Americans living in poverty, and at 12.7 percent of the population, it is the highest percentage in the developed world.

Yet the tax burden on America's rich is falling, not growing. The top 0.01 percent of households has seen their tax bite fall by a full 25 percentage points since 1980. That was when 'trickle down' economics began, arguing that the rich spending more would benefit everyone as a whole. But America's poor have simply been getting poorer: clearly that theory has not worked in reality."

Wake up: the American Dream is over | World news | The Observer


----------



## editec (Jul 17, 2009)

> "This has led to an economy hugely warped in favour of a small slice of very rich Americans. The wealthiest one percent of households now control a third of the national wealth. The wealthiest 10 percent control two-thirds of it. This is a society that is splitting down the middle and it has taken place against a backdrop of economic growth.


 
Sorta like this, ya mean?




 


juxtaposed to this?





​


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 17, 2009)

Nik said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...


 Sorry , the problem is  you read into things that are not there , jump to conclusions ,  get hysterical and use foul language .
You are  just not very  good at the internets.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 17, 2009)

Nik said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



And it matches the records of Federal Reserve Board data show that:

More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law thats being lambasted by conservative critics, which would be the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 17, 2009)

jeffrockit said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



So you think foreclosures are only happening in low-income neighborhoods? Think again. And the DATE of this article is March 2007:

Mortgage crisis hits million-dollar homes | U.S. | Reuters


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 17, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> You seemed  to be under the impression the CRA had been lying fallow  for 30 years, when in fact it bad practices had been expanded and  become wild  spend inn the industry.



If CRA is guilty of anything, it is fueling the housing boom, but the Bush administration's 2004 minority homeownership policy encouraged even less strict terms for first-time home buyers. The PROBLEM is not with the intent of either of those endeavors. The PROBLEM was a total under-leveraging by the major financial institutions whose daily operations became exclusively in credit default swaps.

There's an excellent explanation here:

Credit default swaps: all you need to know - MoneyWeek
_
*Credit default swaps: where did problems start?*
With the US housing boom. As the Fed slashed interest rates and record numbers of Americans piled into property, house prices soared and mortgage-backed securities (MBS) became the 'must-have' investment. Subprime mortgages were pooled, sliced and diced into bonds that were bought by just about every financial firm in town, and by banks around the world, too. Credit default swaps were taken out to protect many of these MBS against default. "These structures were such a great deal, everyone and their dog decided to jump in, which led to massive growth in the market," says Rohan Douglas, ex-head of Salomon Brothers and Citigroup's global credit swaps research unit in the 1990s. Firms such as the giant US insurer AIG started issuing CDS by the bucket load  $440bn, to be exact. When US house prices nose-dived and MBS values crashed, AIG had to find $14bn to cover its exposure. As the stockmarket sussed out that the insurer couldn't to do this, its shares collapsed, dragging down the Dow and fuelling a panic that the CDS market was about to fail. So AIG had to be rescued by the US taxpayer._


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 17, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



Enter the best and only FoxNews talking point.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 17, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > You seemed  to be under the impression the CRA had been lying fallow  for 30 years, when in fact it bad practices had been expanded and  become wild  spend inn the industry.
> ...


1995
A Freddie Mac spokeswoman later acknowledged that the Clinton HUD&#8217;s decision on
subprime loans &#8220;forced us to go into that market to serve the targeted populations that
HUD wanted us to serve.&#8221; Clinton&#8217;s HUD Assistant Secretary William C. Apgar, Jr. has
since called the decision a &#8220;mistake,&#8221; while his former advisor Allen Fishbein called the
loans that the GSEs started buying to meet their affordable housing goals &#8220;contrary to
good lending practices,&#8221; and examples of &#8220;dangerous lending.&#8221;21 President Clinton
himself acknowledged his role in efforts to loosen mortgage lending standards when he
admitted that &#8220;there was possible danger in his administration&#8217;s policy of pressuring
Fannie Mae&#8230;to lower its credit standards for lower- and middle-income families seeking
homes.&#8221;22 These accumulated government affordable housing policies, including the
Clinton Strategy, trapped millions of Americans in mortgages they could not afford.

http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/media/pdfs/20090707HousingCrisisReport.pdf

*After that, Kattie bar the door . the stampede begins*

lower Lending Standards SPREAD AND cause the Housing
Bubble
Risky mortgage lending, particularly loans with very low down payments, contributed
directly to the rise of a housing bubble. Had this risky lending been contained within the
low-income segment of the market targeted by politicians advocating more &#8220;innovation&#8221;
in &#8220;affordable lending,&#8221; the damage to the wider economy might have been minimal.
However, these &#8220;innovations&#8221; in &#8220;flexible&#8221; loans products spread beyond just affordable
lending into the entire U.S. mortgage market. The lure of reduced underwriting standards

11
held true not just for borrowers of modest income but for those at all income levels.
Although the erosion of mortgage underwriting standards began in Washington with
initiatives like the CRA as a way to reduce &#8220;barriers to homeownership,&#8221; this trend
inevitably spread to the wider mortgage market.

 One observer noted:
Bank regulators, who were in charge of enforcing CRA standards, could hardly
disapprove of similar loans made to better qualified borrowers. This is exactly
what occurred.23

Borrowers &#8211; regardless of income level &#8211; took advantage of the erosion of underwriting
standards that started with government affordable housing policy. As one study
observed,&#8220;[o]ver the past decade, most, if not all, the products offered to subprime
borrowers have also been offered to prime borrowers.&#8221;24 For example, Alt-A and
adjustable-rate mortgages became incredibly popular with borrowers &#8211; who were
generally not low-income &#8211; engaging in housing speculation. As home prices continued
their dizzying rise, many people decided to cash in by buying a house with an adjustablerate
mortgage featuring a low introductory teaser rate set to increase after a few years.
These borrowers, confident in the oft-cited assertion that U.S. home values had never
before fallen in the aggregate, planned to sell or refinance their investment before the
mortgage rate adjusted upward, pocketing the difference between the initial purchase
price and the subsequent appreciation in value. However, buyers failed to grasp the
effect of a government policy that had quietly eroded the prudential limits on mortgage
leverage, creating a dangerous speculative bubble.
As the size of down payments for mortgages fell, so too did borrowers&#8217; equity stake in
the homes they purchased. This had two important effects. First, it eliminated the
borrower&#8217;s &#8220;skin in the game,&#8221; increasing the likelihood that he or she would walk away
from the mortgage if times got tough. It also increased the borrower&#8217;s leverage (debt) as
measured by the Loan-to-Value ratio.25 This leverage allows borrowers to purchase more
expensive houses than they would otherwise be able to afford at a given level of income.


----------



## jillian (Jul 17, 2009)

ba1614 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... cause deregulation and the banks' ponzi schemes had nothing to do with the crash...


----------



## jeffrockit (Jul 19, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Where in my response did I state that?


----------

