Bernie Sanders: We Will Raise Taxes On Anyone Making Over $29,000 To Fund Government Health Care

[pknopp]

It would have stopped the involvement of customers money.

It wasn't customer money.

Banks basically have two kinds of loans: prime loans and subprime loans. Prime loans are where the bank lends it's own money to the customer. Subprime loans (as the name suggests) are loans that are not as secure as prime loans, therefore the bank only makes money on processing the loan, and then sells it as securities to other entities.

And then there was the investment side.

And that's what caused the crash, not prime loans.

At one time, the only loans you could just about get were prime loans. The problem was (particularly for Democrats) that your credit and history had to be so good that a bank would be willing to risk making you a loan. It left a lot of people out of the loop, mostly minorities. Subprime was exit legislation from the Jimmy Carter years.

To compensate for the additional risk, government allowed for banks to charge higher interest rates, and use Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMS) in order to make loans to less than perfect creditworthy customers (Credit score of 620 or under). It was key to the housing collapse because even people that were paying on their home, got screwed when the interest rate increased. They didn't have the smarts to understand that if you get a loan at 2% on an ARM, it's only likely to go up from there. They were owning homes paycheck to paycheck, and even one percent more was enough for them go into default.

Bankers totally mislead people on ARM's. A few were at least fined. Should be know what they are getting into? They should but they should also be able to trust the banker or investment broker to not be corrupt.

Borrows knew they would be in trouble when the balloon payments came. Lenders told them they could just remortgage at that time but when that time rolled around, home values had decreased.

No, these were people who never expected to be able to afford a home. The banker showed them how fast housing was rising and by the time any balloon payments came due they would have a ton of equity.

Again, should people be prepared going in? They should but these were people on the lower end of the scale who never expected to get a loan and we're not as educated as they should have been.

The commissions were higher though on the ARM's so they were misled.

 

[pknopp]

It wasn't customer money.

Banks basically have two kinds of loans: prime loans and subprime loans. Prime loans are where the bank lends it's own money to the customer. Subprime loans (as the name suggests) are loans that are not as secure as prime loans, therefore the bank only makes money on processing the loan, and then sells it as securities to other entities.

And then there was the investment side.

And that's what caused the crash, not prime loans.

At one time, the only loans you could just about get were prime loans. The problem was (particularly for Democrats) that your credit and history had to be so good that a bank would be willing to risk making you a loan. It left a lot of people out of the loop, mostly minorities. Subprime was exit legislation from the Jimmy Carter years.

To compensate for the additional risk, government allowed for banks to charge higher interest rates, and use Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMS) in order to make loans to less than perfect creditworthy customers (Credit score of 620 or under). It was key to the housing collapse because even people that were paying on their home, got screwed when the interest rate increased. They didn't have the smarts to understand that if you get a loan at 2% on an ARM, it's only likely to go up from there. They were owning homes paycheck to paycheck, and even one percent more was enough for them go into default.

Bankers totally mislead people on ARM's. A few were at least fined. Should be know what they are getting into? They should but they should also be able to trust the banker or investment broker to not be corrupt.

Borrows knew they would be in trouble when the balloon payments came. Lenders told them they could just remortgage at that time but when that time rolled around, home values had decreased.

Well we don’t agree on much Dave...but yes...the idiots that took out the loans are to blame and Clinton administration took out the safeguards on the insurance on the loans.

Those who took out the loans bear some blame as do the bankers. They are suppose to be the experts you go to for advice. The bankers did what was best for them, not their client.

 

[Bush92]

And then there was the investment side.

And that's what caused the crash, not prime loans.

At one time, the only loans you could just about get were prime loans. The problem was (particularly for Democrats) that your credit and history had to be so good that a bank would be willing to risk making you a loan. It left a lot of people out of the loop, mostly minorities. Subprime was exit legislation from the Jimmy Carter years.

To compensate for the additional risk, government allowed for banks to charge higher interest rates, and use Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMS) in order to make loans to less than perfect creditworthy customers (Credit score of 620 or under). It was key to the housing collapse because even people that were paying on their home, got screwed when the interest rate increased. They didn't have the smarts to understand that if you get a loan at 2% on an ARM, it's only likely to go up from there. They were owning homes paycheck to paycheck, and even one percent more was enough for them go into default.

Bankers totally mislead people on ARM's. A few were at least fined. Should be know what they are getting into? They should but they should also be able to trust the banker or investment broker to not be corrupt.

Borrows knew they would be in trouble when the balloon payments came. Lenders told them they could just remortgage at that time but when that time rolled around, home values had decreased.

Well we don’t agree on much Dave...but yes...the idiots that took out the loans are to blame and Clinton administration took out the safeguards on the insurance on the loans.

Those who took out the loans bear some blame as do the bankers. They are suppose to be the experts you go to for advice. The bankers did what was best for them, not their client.

Banking industry is NOT there to advise you. They are there to fuck you dry.

 

[mudwhistle]

All you rich folks making $14 an hour need to bear the burden.

Sanders: Families Making $29,000 Will ‘Pay More In Taxes’ For Medicare For All - The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future

The more these commies feel they can get away with...the more honest they become.
In reality....the rich will pay less because they will move out of the country....meanwhile all of the suckers that voted for Democrats will be paying for healthcare for illegals.....and so will all of the rational people who told them that this would happen all along.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And then there was the investment side.

And that's what caused the crash, not prime loans.

At one time, the only loans you could just about get were prime loans. The problem was (particularly for Democrats) that your credit and history had to be so good that a bank would be willing to risk making you a loan. It left a lot of people out of the loop, mostly minorities. Subprime was exit legislation from the Jimmy Carter years.

To compensate for the additional risk, government allowed for banks to charge higher interest rates, and use Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMS) in order to make loans to less than perfect creditworthy customers (Credit score of 620 or under). It was key to the housing collapse because even people that were paying on their home, got screwed when the interest rate increased. They didn't have the smarts to understand that if you get a loan at 2% on an ARM, it's only likely to go up from there. They were owning homes paycheck to paycheck, and even one percent more was enough for them go into default.

Bankers totally mislead people on ARM's. A few were at least fined. Should be know what they are getting into? They should but they should also be able to trust the banker or investment broker to not be corrupt.

Borrows knew they would be in trouble when the balloon payments came. Lenders told them they could just remortgage at that time but when that time rolled around, home values had decreased.

Well we don’t agree on much Dave...but yes...the idiots that took out the loans are to blame and Clinton administration took out the safeguards on the insurance on the loans.

Those who took out the loans bear some blame as do the bankers. They are suppose to be the experts you go to for advice. The bankers did what was best for them, not their client.

The people who took out the loans signed the papers, and didn't know WTF they were signing. If you are going to make the biggest investment most Americans will make in their lives, and don't understand what you're doing, an extra couple hundred bucks for a lawyer or financial assistant isn't going to kill you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You agree, none of the restrictions would have stopped bad mortgages.

It would have stopped the involvement of customers money.

It wasn't customer money.

Banks basically have two kinds of loans: prime loans and subprime loans. Prime loans are where the bank lends it's own money to the customer. Subprime loans (as the name suggests) are loans that are not as secure as prime loans, therefore the bank only makes money on processing the loan, and then sells it as securities to other entities.

And then there was the investment side.

And that's what caused the crash, not prime loans.

At one time, the only loans you could just about get were prime loans. The problem was (particularly for Democrats) that your credit and history had to be so good that a bank would be willing to risk making you a loan. It left a lot of people out of the loop, mostly minorities. Subprime was exit legislation from the Jimmy Carter years.

To compensate for the additional risk, government allowed for banks to charge higher interest rates, and use Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMS) in order to make loans to less than perfect creditworthy customers (Credit score of 620 or under). It was key to the housing collapse because even people that were paying on their home, got screwed when the interest rate increased. They didn't have the smarts to understand that if you get a loan at 2% on an ARM, it's only likely to go up from there. They were owning homes paycheck to paycheck, and even one percent more was enough for them go into default.

Bankers totally mislead people on ARM's. A few were at least fined. Should be know what they are getting into? They should but they should also be able to trust the banker or investment broker to not be corrupt.

There is nothing corrupt about selling a product. If you want to sell me your used car, and I just trust that it's never been in an accident or had major problems, is that your fault or mine? It's mine. What I should do is figure out how to get a car fax, and take it to a mechanic to look it over and tell me what's up with it.

 

[Bush92]

All you rich folks making $14 an hour need to bear the burden.

Sanders: Families Making $29,000 Will ‘Pay More In Taxes’ For Medicare For All - The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future

The more these commies feel they can get away with...the more honest they become.
In reality....the rich will pay less because they will move out of the country....meanwhile all of the suckers that voted for Democrats will be paying for healthcare for illegals.....and so will all of the rational people who told them that this would happen all along.

Wonder if liberals ever get tired of arguing with the adults on this board?

 

[pknopp]

And that's what caused the crash, not prime loans.

At one time, the only loans you could just about get were prime loans. The problem was (particularly for Democrats) that your credit and history had to be so good that a bank would be willing to risk making you a loan. It left a lot of people out of the loop, mostly minorities. Subprime was exit legislation from the Jimmy Carter years.

To compensate for the additional risk, government allowed for banks to charge higher interest rates, and use Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMS) in order to make loans to less than perfect creditworthy customers (Credit score of 620 or under). It was key to the housing collapse because even people that were paying on their home, got screwed when the interest rate increased. They didn't have the smarts to understand that if you get a loan at 2% on an ARM, it's only likely to go up from there. They were owning homes paycheck to paycheck, and even one percent more was enough for them go into default.

Bankers totally mislead people on ARM's. A few were at least fined. Should be know what they are getting into? They should but they should also be able to trust the banker or investment broker to not be corrupt.

Borrows knew they would be in trouble when the balloon payments came. Lenders told them they could just remortgage at that time but when that time rolled around, home values had decreased.

Well we don’t agree on much Dave...but yes...the idiots that took out the loans are to blame and Clinton administration took out the safeguards on the insurance on the loans.

Those who took out the loans bear some blame as do the bankers. They are suppose to be the experts you go to for advice. The bankers did what was best for them, not their client.

Banking industry is NOT there to advise you. They are there to fuck you dry.

That isn't the way it should be.

 

[pknopp]

And that's what caused the crash, not prime loans.

At one time, the only loans you could just about get were prime loans. The problem was (particularly for Democrats) that your credit and history had to be so good that a bank would be willing to risk making you a loan. It left a lot of people out of the loop, mostly minorities. Subprime was exit legislation from the Jimmy Carter years.

To compensate for the additional risk, government allowed for banks to charge higher interest rates, and use Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMS) in order to make loans to less than perfect creditworthy customers (Credit score of 620 or under). It was key to the housing collapse because even people that were paying on their home, got screwed when the interest rate increased. They didn't have the smarts to understand that if you get a loan at 2% on an ARM, it's only likely to go up from there. They were owning homes paycheck to paycheck, and even one percent more was enough for them go into default.

Bankers totally mislead people on ARM's. A few were at least fined. Should be know what they are getting into? They should but they should also be able to trust the banker or investment broker to not be corrupt.

Borrows knew they would be in trouble when the balloon payments came. Lenders told them they could just remortgage at that time but when that time rolled around, home values had decreased.

Well we don’t agree on much Dave...but yes...the idiots that took out the loans are to blame and Clinton administration took out the safeguards on the insurance on the loans.

Those who took out the loans bear some blame as do the bankers. They are suppose to be the experts you go to for advice. The bankers did what was best for them, not their client.

The people who took out the loans signed the papers, and didn't know WTF they were signing. If you are going to make the biggest investment most Americans will make in their lives, and don't understand what you're doing, an extra couple hundred bucks for a lawyer or financial assistant isn't going to kill you.

Many did not have an extra couple hundred of bucks. Isn't it kinda sad though the idea of having to hire a lawyer to protect yourself from the bankers?

 

[sparky]

~S~

 

[pknopp]

It would have stopped the involvement of customers money.

It wasn't customer money.

Banks basically have two kinds of loans: prime loans and subprime loans. Prime loans are where the bank lends it's own money to the customer. Subprime loans (as the name suggests) are loans that are not as secure as prime loans, therefore the bank only makes money on processing the loan, and then sells it as securities to other entities.

And then there was the investment side.

And that's what caused the crash, not prime loans.

At one time, the only loans you could just about get were prime loans. The problem was (particularly for Democrats) that your credit and history had to be so good that a bank would be willing to risk making you a loan. It left a lot of people out of the loop, mostly minorities. Subprime was exit legislation from the Jimmy Carter years.

To compensate for the additional risk, government allowed for banks to charge higher interest rates, and use Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMS) in order to make loans to less than perfect creditworthy customers (Credit score of 620 or under). It was key to the housing collapse because even people that were paying on their home, got screwed when the interest rate increased. They didn't have the smarts to understand that if you get a loan at 2% on an ARM, it's only likely to go up from there. They were owning homes paycheck to paycheck, and even one percent more was enough for them go into default.

Bankers totally mislead people on ARM's. A few were at least fined. Should be know what they are getting into? They should but they should also be able to trust the banker or investment broker to not be corrupt.

There is nothing corrupt about selling a product. If you want to sell me your used car, and I just trust that it's never been in an accident or had major problems, is that your fault or mine? It's mine. What I should do is figure out how to get a car fax, and take it to a mechanic to look it over and tell me what's up with it.

If you don't reveal things you know about the car that you know is a problem, that is not OK.

 

[pknopp]

~S~

We still have not recovered. It's why we are cutting rates in a "great economy". If not for the Fed pumping billions the GDP would be in the negative.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It wasn't customer money.

Banks basically have two kinds of loans: prime loans and subprime loans. Prime loans are where the bank lends it's own money to the customer. Subprime loans (as the name suggests) are loans that are not as secure as prime loans, therefore the bank only makes money on processing the loan, and then sells it as securities to other entities.

And then there was the investment side.

And that's what caused the crash, not prime loans.

At one time, the only loans you could just about get were prime loans. The problem was (particularly for Democrats) that your credit and history had to be so good that a bank would be willing to risk making you a loan. It left a lot of people out of the loop, mostly minorities. Subprime was exit legislation from the Jimmy Carter years.

To compensate for the additional risk, government allowed for banks to charge higher interest rates, and use Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMS) in order to make loans to less than perfect creditworthy customers (Credit score of 620 or under). It was key to the housing collapse because even people that were paying on their home, got screwed when the interest rate increased. They didn't have the smarts to understand that if you get a loan at 2% on an ARM, it's only likely to go up from there. They were owning homes paycheck to paycheck, and even one percent more was enough for them go into default.

Bankers totally mislead people on ARM's. A few were at least fined. Should be know what they are getting into? They should but they should also be able to trust the banker or investment broker to not be corrupt.

There is nothing corrupt about selling a product. If you want to sell me your used car, and I just trust that it's never been in an accident or had major problems, is that your fault or mine? It's mine. What I should do is figure out how to get a car fax, and take it to a mechanic to look it over and tell me what's up with it.

If you don't reveal things you know about the car that you know is a problem, that is not OK.

No it's not. Not if you don't ask.

Trust me, I seen what the housing bubble did to my suburb. I know what kind of people got those loans. For them, it was a free pass out of the projects or ghetto. They didn't know what was up because they didn't care. All they knew is sign these papers, and you get a house in the suburbs.

They were irresponsible people from the get go. They didn't care about their credit because they either never had credit before, or it was terrible. They had nothing to protect. O% down, and so what if the bank comes back in a couple of years to take your house away? You only end up right back where you started. It was a paid vacation from the ghetto for a couple years.

They didn't pay on their house because they never had any intention of doing so.

 

[pknopp]

And then there was the investment side.

And that's what caused the crash, not prime loans.

At one time, the only loans you could just about get were prime loans. The problem was (particularly for Democrats) that your credit and history had to be so good that a bank would be willing to risk making you a loan. It left a lot of people out of the loop, mostly minorities. Subprime was exit legislation from the Jimmy Carter years.

To compensate for the additional risk, government allowed for banks to charge higher interest rates, and use Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMS) in order to make loans to less than perfect creditworthy customers (Credit score of 620 or under). It was key to the housing collapse because even people that were paying on their home, got screwed when the interest rate increased. They didn't have the smarts to understand that if you get a loan at 2% on an ARM, it's only likely to go up from there. They were owning homes paycheck to paycheck, and even one percent more was enough for them go into default.

Bankers totally mislead people on ARM's. A few were at least fined. Should be know what they are getting into? They should but they should also be able to trust the banker or investment broker to not be corrupt.

There is nothing corrupt about selling a product. If you want to sell me your used car, and I just trust that it's never been in an accident or had major problems, is that your fault or mine? It's mine. What I should do is figure out how to get a car fax, and take it to a mechanic to look it over and tell me what's up with it.

If you don't reveal things you know about the car that you know is a problem, that is not OK.

No it's not. Not if you don't ask.

Trust me, I seen what the housing bubble did to my suburb. I know what kind of people got those loans. For them, it was a free pass out of the projects or ghetto. They didn't know what was up because they didn't care. All they knew is sign these papers, and you get a house in the suburbs.

They were irresponsible people from the get go. They didn't care about their credit because they either never had credit before, or it was terrible. They had nothing to protect. O% down, and so what if the bank comes back in a couple of years to take your house away? You only end up right back where you started. It was a paid vacation from the ghetto for a couple years.

They didn't pay on their house because they never had any intention of doing so.

Many of the people in these neighborhoods could have stayed in and paid for these homes but the same banks that misled them refused to refinance.

Now those homes sit boarded up. Does that really make sense?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Bankers totally mislead people on ARM's. A few were at least fined. Should be know what they are getting into? They should but they should also be able to trust the banker or investment broker to not be corrupt.

Borrows knew they would be in trouble when the balloon payments came. Lenders told them they could just remortgage at that time but when that time rolled around, home values had decreased.

Well we don’t agree on much Dave...but yes...the idiots that took out the loans are to blame and Clinton administration took out the safeguards on the insurance on the loans.

Those who took out the loans bear some blame as do the bankers. They are suppose to be the experts you go to for advice. The bankers did what was best for them, not their client.

The people who took out the loans signed the papers, and didn't know WTF they were signing. If you are going to make the biggest investment most Americans will make in their lives, and don't understand what you're doing, an extra couple hundred bucks for a lawyer or financial assistant isn't going to kill you.

Many did not have an extra couple hundred of bucks. Isn't it kinda sad though the idea of having to hire a lawyer to protect yourself from the bankers?

If they didn't have the extra couple hundred dollars, then they didn't have enough money to own a house to begin with. That was the problem, like I stated before, they got an ARM loan barely making payments from paycheck to paycheck. You can't do that when you own a home. What happens if the sewer lines clog and they need to be replaced? What happens if the roof starts leaking? You can't go into home ownership without plenty of backup money.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And that's what caused the crash, not prime loans.

At one time, the only loans you could just about get were prime loans. The problem was (particularly for Democrats) that your credit and history had to be so good that a bank would be willing to risk making you a loan. It left a lot of people out of the loop, mostly minorities. Subprime was exit legislation from the Jimmy Carter years.

To compensate for the additional risk, government allowed for banks to charge higher interest rates, and use Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMS) in order to make loans to less than perfect creditworthy customers (Credit score of 620 or under). It was key to the housing collapse because even people that were paying on their home, got screwed when the interest rate increased. They didn't have the smarts to understand that if you get a loan at 2% on an ARM, it's only likely to go up from there. They were owning homes paycheck to paycheck, and even one percent more was enough for them go into default.

Bankers totally mislead people on ARM's. A few were at least fined. Should be know what they are getting into? They should but they should also be able to trust the banker or investment broker to not be corrupt.

There is nothing corrupt about selling a product. If you want to sell me your used car, and I just trust that it's never been in an accident or had major problems, is that your fault or mine? It's mine. What I should do is figure out how to get a car fax, and take it to a mechanic to look it over and tell me what's up with it.

If you don't reveal things you know about the car that you know is a problem, that is not OK.

No it's not. Not if you don't ask.

Trust me, I seen what the housing bubble did to my suburb. I know what kind of people got those loans. For them, it was a free pass out of the projects or ghetto. They didn't know what was up because they didn't care. All they knew is sign these papers, and you get a house in the suburbs.

They were irresponsible people from the get go. They didn't care about their credit because they either never had credit before, or it was terrible. They had nothing to protect. O% down, and so what if the bank comes back in a couple of years to take your house away? You only end up right back where you started. It was a paid vacation from the ghetto for a couple years.

They didn't pay on their house because they never had any intention of doing so.

Many of the people in these neighborhoods could have stayed in and paid for these homes but the same banks that misled them refused to refinance.

Now those homes sit boarded up. Does that really make sense?

Absolutely not. That's why you should never cater to these people. If government stayed out of it, and left banks to make their own lending rules, those people would have never had the opportunity to buy a home in the first place. Yes, they would have continued to cry and charge racism, but in the end, it would have served them better.

The government got involved by trying to lure those people to buy houses for political advantage. What they really ended up doing is screwing those people.

Minorities' Home Ownership Booms Under Clinton but Still Lags Whites'

 

[Weatherman2020]

Dem policies are so awesome and popular they have to punish people with taxes and threaten them with laws to force people to OBEY!

Jesus fuck,. God forbid we have laws & God forbid we pay for what we spend.

No wonder you love these skyrocketing deficits. Is this why you voted for Trump?

Which Democrat is calling for reducing the deficit?
I’ll wait.

All of them. When they talk abut rolling back Trump's gift to the wealthy and well off corporations.

Why are you supporting a President who is skyrocketing the deficit

Lie.
Every Democrat wants to increase the deficit, some up to 4X of what it is now.

Todays budget was created by Pelosi and the squad. How’s that going?

So since you’re so concerned about the deficit, why do you support Democrats?

 

[pknopp]

Borrows knew they would be in trouble when the balloon payments came. Lenders told them they could just remortgage at that time but when that time rolled around, home values had decreased.

Well we don’t agree on much Dave...but yes...the idiots that took out the loans are to blame and Clinton administration took out the safeguards on the insurance on the loans.

Those who took out the loans bear some blame as do the bankers. They are suppose to be the experts you go to for advice. The bankers did what was best for them, not their client.

The people who took out the loans signed the papers, and didn't know WTF they were signing. If you are going to make the biggest investment most Americans will make in their lives, and don't understand what you're doing, an extra couple hundred bucks for a lawyer or financial assistant isn't going to kill you.

Many did not have an extra couple hundred of bucks. Isn't it kinda sad though the idea of having to hire a lawyer to protect yourself from the bankers?

If they didn't have the extra couple hundred dollars, then they didn't have enough money to own a house to begin with. That was the problem, like I stated before, they got an ARM loan barely making payments from paycheck to paycheck. You can't do that when you own a home. What happens if the sewer lines clog and they need to be replaced? What happens if the roof starts leaking? You can't go into home ownership without plenty of backup money.

Millions have indeed done so. I did.

 

[pknopp]

Bankers totally mislead people on ARM's. A few were at least fined. Should be know what they are getting into? They should but they should also be able to trust the banker or investment broker to not be corrupt.

There is nothing corrupt about selling a product. If you want to sell me your used car, and I just trust that it's never been in an accident or had major problems, is that your fault or mine? It's mine. What I should do is figure out how to get a car fax, and take it to a mechanic to look it over and tell me what's up with it.

If you don't reveal things you know about the car that you know is a problem, that is not OK.

No it's not. Not if you don't ask.

Trust me, I seen what the housing bubble did to my suburb. I know what kind of people got those loans. For them, it was a free pass out of the projects or ghetto. They didn't know what was up because they didn't care. All they knew is sign these papers, and you get a house in the suburbs.

They were irresponsible people from the get go. They didn't care about their credit because they either never had credit before, or it was terrible. They had nothing to protect. O% down, and so what if the bank comes back in a couple of years to take your house away? You only end up right back where you started. It was a paid vacation from the ghetto for a couple years.

They didn't pay on their house because they never had any intention of doing so.

Many of the people in these neighborhoods could have stayed in and paid for these homes but the same banks that misled them refused to refinance.

Now those homes sit boarded up. Does that really make sense?

Absolutely not. That's why you should never cater to these people. If government stayed out of it, and left banks to make their own lending rules, those people would have never had the opportunity to buy a home in the first place. Yes, they would have continued to cry and charge racism, but in the end, it would have served them better.

The government got involved by trying to lure those people to buy houses for political advantage. What they really ended up doing is screwing those people.

Minorities' Home Ownership Booms Under Clinton but Still Lags Whites'

The banks were indeed also culpable for what went on. See, I don't try and hide the government's involvement here unlike you and others do with the banks.

So how did we address the mess? We kicked people out of their houses, sometimes illegally, sometimes people who could have stayed but then gave banks billions.

 

[NightFox]

It is downright laughable that you actually believe this. The government can't even deliver the fucking mail without pissing red ink all over the place, and you think they'll be able to optimally budget the multi-trillion dollar industry that is healthcare?

You don't smart so good, do you...

So you think if there is government takeover of healthcare you'll still be paying premiums for private insurance?

And you're questioning my intelligence?

No, dumbass. I'm saying your "offset" won't exist because the government can't even budget a free lunch.

Jesus Christ do I need to spell things out in crayon for you or what?

Do seniors like and support Medicare?

They really don't have any viable alternatives to compare it to, not to mention they've already paid for it (without being given a choice as to whether or not they wanted to).

Perhaps if the Medicare system were optional from the get go your question might have more relevance.

My question is valid. Try and cancel it.

LOL, yeah you endorsing yourself makes it so much more relevant.