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

[Rigby5]

Not all were irresponsible. Many would have made it if their loans had simply been refinanced to the lower fixed rates.

They had the ability to do that in most cases. If the bank wouldn't allow it, there were other banks to choose from. You don't need to keep your loan with the bank you originally opened the loan with. I would be willing to bet that most had the ability to do that, but didn't pay attention and just lived life day by day.

I bought my first house in 1986. Working two minimum wage jobs and had zero down. My ex still lives in that house.

I don't believe that for a minute. Nobody gave 0% down loans until the housing bubble.

In 1986 mortgage interest rates were around 10%.

I also remember reading during the bubble that it was the first time banks offered loans with 0% down. I wish I could find an article on it.

Yes, the bubble caused people to assume rising prices would not only pay off for everyone in the long run, but also that is they did not act immediately, rising prices would preclude them from ever being able to buy.

But the banks knew better, and still deceptively encouraged very risky no down payment loans.

What is worse is that these ARM loans, (Adjustable Rate Mortgages) were based on the British Libor instead of the US Primes. Which meant that when the recession hit, instead of mortgage rates going down as well, they artificially were jacked up to almost double what they were.

Libor scandal - Wikipedia

{...
The Libor scandal was a series of fraudulent actions connected to the Libor (London Interbank Offered Rate) and also the resulting investigation and reaction. The Libor is an average interest rate calculated through submissions of interest rates by major banks across the world. The scandal arose when it was discovered that banks were falsely inflating or deflating their rates so as to profit from trades, or to give the impression that they were more creditworthy than they were.[3] Libor underpins approximately $350 trillion in derivatives. It is currently administered by Intercontinental Exchange, which took over running the Libor in January 2014.[4]

The banks are supposed to submit the actual interest rates they are paying, or would expect to pay, for borrowing from other banks. The Libor is supposed to be the total assessment of the health of the financial system because if the banks being polled feel confident about the state of things, they report a low number and if the member banks feel a low degree of confidence in the financial system, they report a higher interest rate number. In June 2012, multiple criminal settlements by Barclays Bank revealed significant fraud and collusion by member banks connected to the rate submissions, leading to the scandal.[5][6][7]

Because Libor is used in US derivatives markets, an attempt to manipulate Libor is an attempt to manipulate US derivatives markets, and thus a violation of American law. Since mortgages, student loans, financial derivatives, and other financial products often rely on Libor as a reference rate, the manipulation of submissions used to calculate those rates can have significant negative effects on consumers and financial markets worldwide.

On 27 July 2012, the Financial Times published an article by a former trader which stated that Libor manipulation had been common since at least 1991.[8] Further reports on this have since come from the BBC[9][10] and Reuters.[11] On 28 November 2012, the Finance Committee of the Bundestag held a hearing to learn more about the issue.[12]

The British Bankers' Association (BBA) said on 25 September 2012 that it would transfer oversight of Libor to UK regulators, as predicted by bank analysts,[13] proposed by Financial Services Authority managing director Martin Wheatley's independent review recommendations.[14] Wheatley's review recommended that banks submitting rates to Libor must base them on actual inter-bank deposit market transactions and keep records of those transactions, that individual banks' LIBOR submissions be published after three months, and recommended criminal sanctions specifically for manipulation of benchmark interest rates.[15] Financial institution customers may experience higher and more volatile borrowing and hedging costs after implementation of the recommended reforms.[16] The UK government agreed to accept all of the Wheatley Review's recommendations and press for legislation implementing them.[17]

Significant reforms, in line with the Wheatley Review, came into effect in 2013 and a new administrator took over in early 2014.[18][19] The UK controls Libor through laws made in the UK Parliament.[20][21] In particular, the Financial Services Act 2012 brings Libor under UK regulatory oversight and creates a criminal offence for knowingly or deliberately making false or misleading statements relating to benchmark-setting.[18][22]

As of August 2015, UBS trader Tom Hayes was the only person convicted in connection with the Libor scandal. In the UK, six bankers accused over Libor were cleared in early 2016.[23][24]The UK Serious Fraud Office closed its investigation into the rigging of Libor in October 2019 following a detailed review of the available evidence.
...}

Unfortunately the LIBOR scandal was revealed too late, and no one ever compensated the millions of home owers whose houses were swindled from them.

 

[pknopp]

Why should it cause taxes to skyrocket? Are we paying for things now?

If we don't have to raise taxes to pay for bombs and bail outs, why do we for health care?

When the hell has anything that the filthy government done that the cost didn't skyrocket? the government fucks up everything it touches. Just look at the corruption and mismanagement of the VA system, as an example. Trump had to go to the private sector to help fix that problem.

Their ain't no such thing as a free lunch. If you are going to give the stupid government control of your health care you are going to pay up the ass for it.

It is comical to see how naive you stupid Moon Bats are about the government. You dumb mutherfuckers think the government is your friend.

Everything has skyrocketed. Trucks are now $60-$80k in many cases. What do you consider that?

You are really dumb Moon Bat, aren't you? Either that or confused about everything, which is evident.

Of course pathetic little Moon Bats like you don't worry about cost because you want the government to control health care so you can get it for free. You are a greedy Moon Bat that thinks you are entitled to free health care simply because you are alive and the government will give it to you.

I have a much better idea than the fucking government doing health care. I'll provide for my own health care and you provide for yours and we leave the corrupt bloated oppressive government out of it. How does that sound Sport?

That's right, rather than address my point get triggered and call me names.

Typical.

You should be called names because you are confuses about this big time. You don't get a pass when you take idiotic positions. It doesn't get any more idiotic than advocating that the fucking government control our health care.

I did answer your confusion by saying that the right thing to do is for you pay for your health care and I pay for mine and we leave the worthless corrupt bloated oppressive government out of it.

Do you think any politician would ever get elected on running on ending Medicare?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No bank was sued to make a bad loan.

Baloney. That's how Obama got his start....organizing his community.

Who did Obama sue?

Local banks who didn't make enough loans in black areas.

Suing a local bank made Countrywide, Goldman Sachs, etc make bad loans?

Nope. Suing a local bank made a local bank write bad mortgages.
While Glass-Stegall was still law......weird.

Of course you have no proof of this. There were banks sued for redlining. As they should have been.

Of course you have no proof of this.

You want proof that Obama sued banks in Chicago?
Or that he forced them to make more loans in black neighborhoods?

There were banks sued for redlining.

Banks must make loans to poor people with bad credit scores.

What's the worst that could happen?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well yes, because I would say 99% was government, and the main "fault" of the banks as it were, was trusting government.

Government was suing banks to make bad loans.
Government was pushing banks to make bad loans.
Government incentivized banks to make bad loans.
Government even required banks to make bad loans in order to get merger approvals.
Government even guaranteed sub-prime loans.

And the problem is, with all this concerted effort to push banks to make bad loans, then you want to point at the banks and say they should not have done that. Well.... while technically true, that is entirely unfair.

Without government intervention, the sub-prime crash would never have happened. Because prior to 1997, the government didn't make any direct overt moves to push sub-prime loans, and before 1997, they were a niche market.

Prior to 1997, sub-prime loans were tiny, and the market was flat. There was no real significant growth, until the government got involved in 1997.

No bank was sued to make a bad loan. When you start like this, I stop.

From 1998


"They would not have qualified for loan, but for this affirmative action by the banks."
"To take a greater risk."
"which will be a higher risk, and I'm sure will be a higher default rate than the rest of the portfolio"

HUD being led by Andrew Cuomo,



Bill Clinton, openly saying that the money lent to people who did not qualify, was mostly done under his administration.

Obama 2007 at NASDAQ "Subprime lending started off as a good idea - helping Americans buy homes who couldn't previously afford to."
https://2008election.procon.org/sourcefiles/Obama20070917.pdf

How Obama Bankrupted Black Homeowners | Investor's Business Daily

The pressure worked. In 1994, Clinton's top bank regulators signed a landmark anti-redlining policy that declared traditional mortgage underwriting standards racist and mandated banks apply easier lending rules for minorities.​

John Allison wrote a book:
https://www.amazon.com/Financial-Crisis-Free-Market-Cure/dp/0071806776&tag=ff0d01-20

In this he describes how he was an executive at a bank in the late 90s, and had regulators say that their standards were discriminator, and how they had to change them. The regulators never explained how they were discriminatory, nor what they should do to improve, only that they needed changed.

The fact that the Clinton Administration was suing banks to force them to make bad loans, is beyond debate. It is a documented, video'd, recorded and published fact.

Once again, you have the right to be wrong... .but if you deny this, that's all you are..... is wrong.

I haven't argued that the government didn't push for lower standards. The banks did it when they were freed up and the government gaurantees the loans.

Greenspan said his biggest mistake in trusting that the banks would do the right thing.

The banks did it when they were freed up and the government gaurantees the loans.

The government guaranteed bad loans?

It's like teaching a class to third graders. Seriously, how old are you? Or is this just another bad attempt of getting clicks up for the site?

Third graders are better at posting proof than you are.

 

[pyetro]

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

Dubious source, and no direct quote form Sanders.
None of us heard of that Website until today.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Put your healthcare in the hands of government bueracrats that don't give a shit about you, whose bosses are corrupt politicians elected by special interest groups. It will also cause your taxes to sky rocket. What could possible go wrong?

Another ignorant fucking Trumpette.

The government is the payer,. YOU choose where to get your care from PRIVATE doctors in PRIVATE institutions.

Yeah, like Trump gives a shit about you and isn't "the hands of government", ROFL

 

[Rigby5]

Put your healthcare in the hands of government bueracrats that don't give a shit about you, whose bosses are corrupt politicians elected by special interest groups. It will also cause your taxes to sky rocket. What could possible go wrong?

Another ignorant fucking Trumpette.

The government is the payer,. YOU choose where to get your care from PRIVATE doctors in PRIVATE institutions.

Still making the doctors employees of the state. In other words slaves. You want to enslave an entire profession so you can get something for free.

If government took over and didn't pay the doctors what they are getting paid today, we would end up with a huge doctor shortage. You don't go to school for years and years, only to make five figures when it's all said and done.

Doctors make more money under public health care than they do under private insurance.
That is because over half the current overhead for running a medical practice is hiring the huge staff needed to fill out all the insurance paperwork. We are talking about tens of billions wasted.
Also the corporate layers currently skimming are removed, such as the insurance companies and the large medical corporations that have bought up all the medical providers, into monopolies.

Without insurance companies dictating which doctors you have to see, then you have a wider range of choice, so you need fewer doctors and can just keep them more busy.

Another advantage of public health care that people do not realize, is that private insurance often is not taken by out of state providers or in other countries. Travelers do not realize they are not covered at all. And all those prepaid insurance premiums are useless and lost if you change jobs.

 

[pknopp]

Who did Obama sue?

Local banks who didn't make enough loans in black areas.

Suing a local bank made Countrywide, Goldman Sachs, etc make bad loans?

Nope. Suing a local bank made a local bank write bad mortgages.
While Glass-Stegall was still law......weird.

Of course you have no proof of this. There were banks sued for redlining. As they should have been.

Of course you have no proof of this.

You want proof that Obama sued banks in Chicago?
Or that he forced them to make more loans in black neighborhoods?

There were banks sued for redlining.

Banks must make loans to poor people with bad credit scores.

What's the worst that could happen?

Banks were turning down loans for people who would otherwise qualify for a loan based solely on the neighborhood.

Now you may argue a business should be able to do this. Overall I would agree......except for when they take money from the government which they all do.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

~S~

And they screwed the foreign depositors.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

The loans were mostly paid back.

The loans were mostly paid back.

The US Treasury made tens of billions on bank TARP.

 

[flack]

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.

The loans were mostly paid back.

The banks? At least we are no longer claiming they were all paid back.

They were paid back in part with other government programs that were never paid back. (HARP)

• HARP was a government program designed to help underwater homeowners—with homes worth less than the outstanding mortgage balance—refinance their loans.
• The program expired on Dec. 31, 2018.
• HARP allowed mortgagors to either lower their monthly mortgage payments or to pay down the loan faster by lowering their interest rates, and allowed them to build more equity.
• After it expired, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac rolled out high LTV programs for distressed homeowners.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In 2008 Democrats said they fixed healthcare.

How’d that work out here 11 years later?

Just as well as Obama slowing the rise of the oceans.

 

[Rigby5]

Put your healthcare in the hands of government bueracrats that don't give a shit about you, whose bosses are corrupt politicians elected by special interest groups. It will also cause your taxes to sky rocket. What could possible go wrong?

Why should it cause taxes to skyrocket? Are we paying for things now?

If we don't have to raise taxes to pay for bombs and bail outs, why do we for health care?

When the hell has anything that the filthy government done that the cost didn't skyrocket? the government fucks up everything it touches. Just look at the corruption and mismanagement of the VA system, as an example. Trump had to go to the private sector to help fix that problem.

Their ain't no such thing as a free lunch. If you are going to give the stupid government control of your health care you are going to pay up the ass for it.

It is comical to see how naive you stupid Moon Bats are about the government. You dumb mutherfuckers think the government is your friend.

Everything has skyrocketed. Trucks are now $60-$80k in many cases. What do you consider that?

You are really dumb Moon Bat, aren't you? Either that or confused about everything, which is evident.

Of course pathetic little Moon Bats like you don't worry about cost because you want the government to control health care so you can get it for free. You are a greedy Moon Bat that thinks you are entitled to free health care simply because you are alive and the government will give it to you.

I have a much better idea than the fucking government doing health care. I'll provide for my own health care and you provide for yours and we leave the corrupt bloated oppressive government out of it. How does that sound Sport?

Health care has become a monopoly, due to the involvement of big investor insurance companies.
There is no way you or any individual can buck the monopoly alone.
And with insurance, you prepay, so then have absolutely no way to effect quality or costs, when you finally do need medical services.

My experience is proof.
I have paid in over half a million dollars in insurance premiums over my lifetime, and never got back a single cent.
That is because all medical services were less than the deductible.
And now that I retired and lost my job, all those premiums paid in are gone, wasted, thrown away.
I get nothing.

So if you think you can or do pay for your own health care, you are mistaken.
You are being ripped off totally, and are paying over twice what you should, due to an abusive monopoly that you are helping to perpetuate.
And if you are getting it through an employer benefit plan, it is tax exempt, so that then it is being subsidized by poor people who do not get tax exemptions for the health care they are forced to pay more for.
That is because as single buyers instead of group employer buyers, they can't negotiate as low of prices.
So you are helping to steal from poor people, not the other way around.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

The loans were mostly paid back.

The banks? At least we are no longer claiming they were all paid back.

They were paid back in part with other government programs that were never paid back. (HARP)

They were paid back in part with other government programs that were never paid back. (HARP)

HARP was a give away to home owners.
Who was supposed to pay it back?

 

[flack]

Put your healthcare in the hands of government bueracrats that don't give a shit about you, whose bosses are corrupt politicians elected by special interest groups. It will also cause your taxes to sky rocket. What could possible go wrong?

Why should it cause taxes to skyrocket? Are we paying for things now?

If we don't have to raise taxes to pay for bombs and bail outs, why do we for health care?

When the hell has anything that the filthy government done that the cost didn't skyrocket? the government fucks up everything it touches. Just look at the corruption and mismanagement of the VA system, as an example. Trump had to go to the private sector to help fix that problem.

Their ain't no such thing as a free lunch. If you are going to give the stupid government control of your health care you are going to pay up the ass for it.

It is comical to see how naive you stupid Moon Bats are about the government. You dumb mutherfuckers think the government is your friend.

Everything has skyrocketed. Trucks are now $60-$80k in many cases. What do you consider that?

Technology and regulations.

 

[Rigby5]

Put your healthcare in the hands of government bueracrats that don't give a shit about you, whose bosses are corrupt politicians elected by special interest groups. It will also cause your taxes to sky rocket. What could possible go wrong?

Why should it cause taxes to skyrocket? Are we paying for things now?

If we don't have to raise taxes to pay for bombs and bail outs, why do we for health care?

When the hell has anything that the filthy government done that the cost didn't skyrocket? the government fucks up everything it touches. Just look at the corruption and mismanagement of the VA system, as an example. Trump had to go to the private sector to help fix that problem.

Their ain't no such thing as a free lunch. If you are going to give the stupid government control of your health care you are going to pay up the ass for it.

It is comical to see how naive you stupid Moon Bats are about the government. You dumb mutherfuckers think the government is your friend.

Everything has skyrocketed. Trucks are now $60-$80k in many cases. What do you consider that?

I consider it another one of your diversions. Health Insurance Inflation

You ignoring that everything has gone up but only condemning it one area is the one doing the diverting.

Did Obamacare address any portion of costs? No, it was a total failure and a sell out to wall street.

Inflation is not the cause of increased health care costs.
Health care costs are rising at over twice the rate of inflation.
Health care costs are rising due to insurance companies deliberately creating prepaid medical monopolies that prevent people from being able to shop around and get reasonable prices.

 

[flack]

Put your healthcare in the hands of government bueracrats that don't give a shit about you, whose bosses are corrupt politicians elected by special interest groups. It will also cause your taxes to sky rocket. What could possible go wrong?

Another ignorant fucking Trumpette.

The government is the payer,. YOU choose where to get your care from PRIVATE doctors in PRIVATE institutions.

Still making the doctors employees of the state. In other words slaves. You want to enslave an entire profession so you can get something for free.

If government took over and didn't pay the doctors what they are getting paid today, we would end up with a huge doctor shortage. You don't go to school for years and years, only to make five figures when it's all said and done.

yep

 

[Grumblenuts]

From 1998


"They would not have qualified for loan, but for this affirmative action by the banks."
"To take a greater risk."
"which will be a higher risk, and I'm sure will be a higher default rate than the rest of the portfolio"

HUD being led by Andrew Cuomo,



Bill Clinton, openly saying that the money lent to people who did not qualify, was mostly done under his administration.

Obama 2007 at NASDAQ "Subprime lending started off as a good idea - helping Americans buy homes who couldn't previously afford to."
https://2008election.procon.org/sourcefiles/Obama20070917.pdf

How Obama Bankrupted Black Homeowners | Investor's Business Daily

The pressure worked. In 1994, Clinton's top bank regulators signed a landmark anti-redlining policy that declared traditional mortgage underwriting standards racist and mandated banks apply easier lending rules for minorities.​

John Allison wrote a book:
https://www.amazon.com/Financial-Crisis-Free-Market-Cure/dp/0071806776&tag=ff0d01-20

In this he describes how he was an executive at a bank in the late 90s, and had regulators say that their standards were discriminator, and how they had to change them. The regulators never explained how they were discriminatory, nor what they should do to improve, only that they needed changed.

The fact that the Clinton Administration was suing banks to force them to make bad loans, is beyond debate. It is a documented, video'd, recorded and published fact.

Once again, you have the right to be wrong... .but if you deny this, that's all you are..... is wrong.

I haven't argued that the government didn't push for lower standards. The banks did it when they were freed up and the government gaurantees the loans.

Greenspan said his biggest mistake in trusting that the banks would do the right thing.

Greenspan, was a brilliant idiot. You can't trust people to do the right thing, when government is directly suing people to do the wrong thing.

The banks did it when they were freed up and the government gaurantees the loans.

And there is where the rub comes. If the government guaranteed the loans..... then the banks didn't do it.

The banks were always 'freed up'. There was never anything that prevented banks from making a sub-prime loan. Any bank could have made a subprime loan before the 90s, or the 80s, or even the 70s. Nothing ever prevented a bank from making a bad loan.

They simply didn't. Why? Because it was a bad loan. Without government backing the loan, they would have lost money. So they simply didn't make the loan.

It was government, not the banks, which changed the market incentives, which caused banks to make bad loans.

This is why I say it's 99% government. You are pointing to 1% of the cause. If government had not guaranteed those loans.... we wouldn't be discussing a subprime crash, because it never would have happened.

Before 1997, when Freddie Mac guaranteed sub-prime loans, and allowed them to be bundled with prime loans.... subprime was a niche market. Flat growth from the graph I posted before.

At least I am grateful you are aware of the issue unlike others.

Yeah, quite the polished presentation. Of course there's some truth to every assertion. Way beyond Andy's normal capabilities though so vastly lifted from a Koch Bros think tank bucket no doubt. Problem is some of us were quite alive and aware throughout. Typical rw nutjob rewriting of history. Corporate corruption? Oh np, we'll just skip ahead to everyone freaking out over the outcome and look back very selectively so as to put all the blame on govt. Greedy private lenders, bundlers, financial advisors, investors, insurers? All innocent as the driven snow. Govt made me do it! Bad govt, BAD! Government changed the market incentives causing banks to make bad loans!

Yeah, right. Cry me a river. Who corrupted the govt officials to play along? No higher govt position or salary is lucrative enough for any professional to take on such huge personal risk. It takes a system wide concerted effort by groups of private shitheads with deep, deep pockets and a common commitment to steal all they possibly can in order to keep gaining vastly more. We corrupted them and then they helped us. See? Their fault! We're victims!

First you get some money, then you corrupt some power, then you get boatloads more money! Want to know who's really to blame? Same as ever.. duh!.. follow the money! Proof that greed uber alles capitalism has been attempted enough and run its course. The supposed "free market" is and always was bullshit doomed to fail. Significant public transparency and oversight is absolutely required. Legal ability to hide and take zero responsibility is the problem.

Very nicely written with one caveat. Just because you are bribed does not excuse your dirty work.

Why not, caveat emptor does? lol.

Of course there's some truth to every assertion.

 

[flack]

Why should it cause taxes to skyrocket? Are we paying for things now?

If we don't have to raise taxes to pay for bombs and bail outs, why do we for health care?

When the hell has anything that the filthy government done that the cost didn't skyrocket? the government fucks up everything it touches. Just look at the corruption and mismanagement of the VA system, as an example. Trump had to go to the private sector to help fix that problem.

Their ain't no such thing as a free lunch. If you are going to give the stupid government control of your health care you are going to pay up the ass for it.

It is comical to see how naive you stupid Moon Bats are about the government. You dumb mutherfuckers think the government is your friend.

Everything has skyrocketed. Trucks are now $60-$80k in many cases. What do you consider that?

I consider it another one of your diversions. Health Insurance Inflation

You ignoring that everything has gone up but only condemning it one area is the one doing the diverting.

Did Obamacare address any portion of costs? No, it was a total failure and a sell out to wall street.

Inflation is not the cause of increased health care costs.
Health care costs are rising at over twice the rate of inflation.
Health care costs are rising due to insurance companies deliberately creating prepaid medical monopolies that prevent people from being able to shop around and get reasonable prices.

Technology is a factor as well.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Local banks who didn't make enough loans in black areas.

Suing a local bank made Countrywide, Goldman Sachs, etc make bad loans?

Nope. Suing a local bank made a local bank write bad mortgages.
While Glass-Stegall was still law......weird.

Of course you have no proof of this. There were banks sued for redlining. As they should have been.

Of course you have no proof of this.

You want proof that Obama sued banks in Chicago?
Or that he forced them to make more loans in black neighborhoods?

There were banks sued for redlining.

Banks must make loans to poor people with bad credit scores.

What's the worst that could happen?

Banks were turning down loans for people who would otherwise qualify for a loan based solely on the neighborhood.

Now you may argue a business should be able to do this. Overall I would agree......except for when they take money from the government which they all do.

Banks were turning down loans for people who would otherwise qualify for a loan based solely on the neighborhood.

The data doesn't support your feeling.