Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[bripat9643]

So you believe only capitalist countries harm the environment? Apparently you aren't familiar with the environmental record of communist countries.

Bri, two wrongs don't make a right--it's a logical fallacy. Let's stipulate communist countries create 10x worse disasters. Does that mean the disasters created at home are any less meaningful to the people suffering them? Obviously not. And personally, living a stones throw away from mountaintop removal sites, I can tell you all the nearby communities are drastically effected, especially the kids who go to school just a half mile down the road from a coal refinery and sludge dam at Marsh Fork Elementary. A quarter of students are absent each day because of health issues.

The issue isn't whether it's right. Georgie implied that environmental problems are purely the work of capitalism, that socialism doesn't do things like mountain top removal. That is clearly bullshit. Furthermore, it's not even clear that so-called "mountain top removal" is an environmental problem. We're not really talking about mountains here. They are really just large hills.

Second problem with your fallacious response is no communist country is actually communist in any real sense of the concept of communism. Now if by communism you mean a term of propaganda to distract from the real issues, then I'd agree with your definition. But the problem there is your point lacks substance in addition to being a fallacy.

I'd laugh to tears watching you define communism and demonstrate how it guides public policy in those alleged "communist" states. Let me save you the embarrassment:

I'm tired of hearing this argument that the communist countries weren't really communist. Communism is something like a triangle with four sides. YEah, it's impossible to draw, so you'll never see one. But plenty of people thought communism was possible, and the places they attempted to implement it is what we call "communism." We know they couldn't possibly have succeeded. That's the reason they are such disasters.

Virtually all countries are guided by profit and a tiny sector of their population dictates what is produced and what is done with the profits. The people are not part of the decision. Calling it communist, capitalist or whatever does not change the structure in which it operates. Namely, the workers are not involved in any deliberation about what they produce and spend 1/3rd of their life doing.

It's utterly meaningless to claim a country is guided by profit. Only private firms and corporations can earn a profit. You're attempt to label a country like Cuba as capitalist is absurd.

If the workers did make all the business decisions, the results would be even more of a disaster. The people who are most qualified to be making the decisions should be the ones who make them, not some fans of professional wrestling.

 

[bripat9643]

Does the US have a choice of high speed rail, the most efficient form of transportation like in all other developed and capitalist nations?

In and near large metropolitan ares yes. But obviously we are spread out to the point it is impractical. Even bus service is seriously impacted by the space the US occupies.

The most heavily trafficked corridors in the world are Boston to NYC and LA to SD and neither are "too spread out." In fact, a few years ago the US went to Spain poking around at the idea of hiring the Spanish to build the infrastructure instead of Americans who need jobs. Here was the plan:

"Too spread out" is such an uninformed statement I won't waste my time commenting on it.

A system like that would probably cost about $20 trillion dollars.

Hardly cost effective.

 

[georgephillip]

Not as much as the taxpayers lost on AIG.

Taxpayers made billions on AIG.

despite his role in the probable downfall of Western civilization

What was his role? Be specific.

How many billions did taxpayers make on AIG.
Show your work.

On Dec. 11, 2012, the Treasury sold its last remaining portion of AIG stock, ultimately earning a profit of about $5 billion. The Federal Reserve ultimately realized a profit of about $17.7 billion from its role in AIG's bailout.

Looks like over $22 billion.

AIG | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica

Anything else you're confused about?
Glad to help.

Now that you mention it...

"At ProPublica, we've provided a comprehensive bailout database since TARP's launch. It shows not only how much money has gone to each recipient, but how much each has paid in interest and dividend payments.

"With all this data, we're able to clearly show how deep in the hole the program remains.

"And the answer as of today is $123 billion.

Add that to the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which our site also tracks and is separate from the TARP -- and taxpayers are $257 billion in the hole."

How deep is the hole taxpayers currently find themselves in
Thanks for the link.

 

[bripat9643]

How many billions did taxpayers make on AIG.
Show your work.

On Dec. 11, 2012, the Treasury sold its last remaining portion of AIG stock, ultimately earning a profit of about $5 billion. The Federal Reserve ultimately realized a profit of about $17.7 billion from its role in AIG's bailout.

Looks like over $22 billion.

AIG | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica

Anything else you're confused about?
Glad to help.

Now that you mention it...

"At ProPublica, we've provided a comprehensive bailout database since TARP's launch. It shows not only how much money has gone to each recipient, but how much each has paid in interest and dividend payments.

"With all this data, we're able to clearly show how deep in the hole the program remains.

"And the answer as of today is $123 billion.

Add that to the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which our site also tracks and is separate from the TARP -- and taxpayers are $257 billion in the hole."

How deep is the hole taxpayers currently find themselves in
Thanks for the link.

The "hole" exists mainly because TARP funds were used to bailout GM, Chrysler and the UAW.

 

[georgephillip]

Back up Phillips! I tend to agree with you about TVA and your suggesting I don't accept that Appalachia contains more poverty because of capitalism. The fact that capitalists have chosen not to invest in Appalachia only means that people have the right to invest money where they choose to invest it. I also accept that people below the poverty line (which is artificially higher than reasonable) should be assisted. But under no circumstances can you blame that on Capitalism.

All of your examples prove nothing more than some people achieve more than others. But you seem to over look the fact that there are myriad reasons for those failures, and capitalism is not near to the most serious cause.

Capitalists are the most serious cause of mountain top removal, aren't they?

"Peer-reviewed studies show that mountaintop mining has serious environmental impacts, including loss of biodiversity and toxification of watersheds, that mitigation practices cannot successfully address.[5]

"There are also adverse human health impacts which result from contact with affected streams or exposure to airborne toxins and dust.[5]

"According to 21 scientific studies there has been major effects on the population in Appalachia where MTM takes place including over 50% higher cancer rates, 42% higher birth defect rates, and $75 billion a year in public health costs from pollution."

Socialize the cost.
Privatize the profits.
That's the problem.

Mountaintop removal mining - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you believe only capitalist countries harm the environment? Apparently you aren't familiar with the environmental record of communist countries.


Environmental disaster in eastern Europe - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

Environmental disaster in eastern Europe

In opting for economic development through all-out industrialisation and intensive agriculture, the Soviet Union and the countries of eastern Europe showed little concern for the natural environment. The Aral Sea basin was turned into a vast cotton plantation and nuclear activities were concentrated in the area of the Barents Sea, despite the vulnerability of the local ecosystems. While the economic recession of the 1990s has made it possible to cut down the emission of pollutants, the lack of administrative controls means there may yet be worse to come. Western aid is distributed case by case, without any overall plan, and is below promised levels and requirements. Yet industrial depollution and reconversion could be a major undertaking crucial for the future of the whole region.

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How many billions did taxpayers make on AIG.
Show your work.

On Dec. 11, 2012, the Treasury sold its last remaining portion of AIG stock, ultimately earning a profit of about $5 billion. The Federal Reserve ultimately realized a profit of about $17.7 billion from its role in AIG's bailout.

Looks like over $22 billion.

AIG | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica

Anything else you're confused about?
Glad to help.

Now that you mention it...

"At ProPublica, we've provided a comprehensive bailout database since TARP's launch. It shows not only how much money has gone to each recipient, but how much each has paid in interest and dividend payments.

"With all this data, we're able to clearly show how deep in the hole the program remains.

"And the answer as of today is $123 billion.

Add that to the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which our site also tracks and is separate from the TARP -- and taxpayers are $257 billion in the hole."

How deep is the hole taxpayers currently find themselves in
Thanks for the link.

"And the answer as of today is $123 billion.

I know you're a liberal and therefore bad with numbers. But come on.

I'll give you a hint. ProPublica, March 17, 2011, 9:27 a.m.

You're welcome.

 

[dnsmith35]

Does the US have a choice of high speed rail, the most efficient form of transportation like in all other developed and capitalist nations?

In and near large metropolitan ares yes. But obviously we are spread out to the point it is impractical. Even bus service is seriously impacted by the space the US occupies.

The most heavily trafficked corridors in the world are Boston to NYC and LA to SD and neither are "too spread out." In fact, a few years ago the US went to Spain poking around at the idea of hiring the Spanish to build the infrastructure instead of Americans who need jobs. Here was the plan:

"Too spread out" is such an uninformed statement I won't waste my time commenting on it.

Did you not read my comment? In which I said, "In and near large metropolitan areas yes. But obviously we are spread out to the point it is impractical. Even bus service is seriously impacted by the space the US occupies." There is nothing misinformed about that. My "large metropolitan areas" equal to the heavily trafficked corridors. You just repeated my comment in different words. Aren't you smart. I stand by my comment. Once you get away from the Northeast Corridor or the Los Angeles/San Diego/San Francisco Metropolitan areas, or the Seattle/Tacoma metro areas, there will not be enough people to take the trains. It would be a really ineffective waste of money. Having taken the train from NO to Chicago, and Chicago to Denver in the US and the Frankfort to Bremerhaven in Germany and the Metro in both Madrid and Paris, and the high speed trains in Japan, I believe I have a really good grasp on the value and problems presented by each. Personal experience always trumps listening to propaganda from any political point of view.

Now, as to your accusation that I have been less than polite to you, how polite does this sound? "Too spread out" is such an uninformed statement I won't waste my time commenting on it." I take it then, it is ok if you mock or insult me, but it is wrong for me to respond in kind? ROTFLMAO!

As to jobs for the Spanish, do you really believe they are going to import their laborers? Our engineers should go to what ever country has the safest, fastest, and most secure systems possible. Do you actually believe that the Chicago to San Francisco/Los Angeles, New Orleans to Chicago, Chicago to Seattle, or even the New Orleans to Washington, D. C. can be secured such that it would be safe from unexpected situations?

By the way, the southern route from N.O. to St. Petersburg has been eliminated for lack of interest.

AND YOU HAVE STILL NOT ANSWERED MY QUESTION IN POST #3699. Here it is again:

Let me explain it to you with an anecdote since you obviously are not smart enough to understand the tables and graphs I have posted. In addition, I will keep it local instead of including the destitute people all over the world for which you have cleary told us you have no compassion.

Mister A makes over $400,000 a year. We both recognize he needs no help.

Mister B makes about $60,000 a year, about what a union auto worker earns in wage.

Mister C makes $30,000 a year, and based on dependencies is just under the poverty line.

Mister D has no job, cannot get government assistance because he has no address. He has mental health problems and does not understand the processes to even go the the Health and Human Services to even try.

Messrs A, B, and C all lose their jobs but over time find new ones, BUT, at lower wages. Each now earns only what is in the next tier down.

According to the studies I have read their new wages have dropped by 30% making their new income is for A: $280,000; B: $42,000; and C: $21,000. Then there is old D, who is still sleeping in an old furniture box back in the woods so the people can't see him and call the cops to throw him out.

Making the assumption that you have enough money to help any one of them, but only to a specific amount of money, say $1,000 a month. Which one would you help? Put your single mother lady friend in the circumstances above explained in A, B, or C. Then tell me again, which one will you help?

This is a straight forward comparison showing the well off, the middle-wage group, and the relative poor and bouncing their situation against the old mentally ill homeless guy.

 

[georgephillip]

Absolutely not! It was stupidity in the fiscal and monetary policy of Clinton and Bush allowing interest levels to be so artificially low allowing buyers to buy when their credit was not good enough; and, allowing those low interest rates to allow people to buy more house than they could afford. It was also the fault of the government in allowing speculators to use ARMs with very low initial rates, hoping to flip their property before interest went up, then making their payment so high they could not pay it before the property could be sold.

BTW you did note that the FBI warning was about the financial loss of banking institutions rather than being aimed at the people buying and selling. You will also have to recognize that when the banks started PROTECTING themselves against loss by bundling many toxic loans they did so to prevent those losses to valuable lending institutions so needed by the government and the people to use to buy homes. (not low credit risks which were solicited by the government through CRA to "give more people the ability to own their home." You do realize that that solicitation brought people scrambling into a hot real estate market when they had no reasonable expectation to actually buy a house.

I blame the left wing extremist administration idiots who thought poor non credit worthy people deserve to own their own home when they really could not pay for them, much more than the investment bankers trying to mitigate their losses.

If you are going to address these issues, you really should educate yourself as to what they are and the impact on the market.

Look at the graph again, maybe you will understand it this time.

I couldn't help noticing your "educated" rant against government didn't mention the role of private ratings agencies.

Why is that?

1. I don't rant.

2. I explained what genuine economists say about the housing crash.

"Fraud is the principal credit risk of nonprime mortgage lending.

"It is impossible to detect fraud without reviewing a sample of the loan files.

"Paper loan files are bulky, so they are photographed and the images are stored on computer tapes.

"Unfortunately, 'most investors' (the large commercial and investment banks that purchased nonprime loans and pooled them to create financial derivatives) did not review the loan files before purchasing nonprime loans and did not even require the lender to provide loan tapes.

"The rating agencies never reviewed samples of loan files before giving AAA ratings to nonprime mortgage financial derivatives.

"The 'AAA' rating is supposed to indicate that there is virtually no credit risk -- the risk is equivalent to U.S. government bonds, which finance refers to as 'risk-free.'

"We know that the rating agencies attained their lucrative profits because they gave AAA ratings to nonprime financial derivatives exposed to staggering default risk.

"A graph of their profits in this era rises like a stairway to heaven [PDF].

"We also know that turning a blind eye to the mortgage fraud epidemic was the only way the rating agencies could hope to attain those profits.

"If they had reviewed even small samples of nonprime loans they would have had only two choices: (1) rating them as toxic waste, which would have made it impossible to sell the nonprime financial derivatives or (2) documenting that they were committing, and aiding and abetting, accounting control fraud."

William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis

None of those issues caused the housing crash. How ever unprincipled you think the banks were, their actions were only to mitigate their loses. Why do you think our left wing administration didn't pursue fraud charges? Because as bad as it was, it was not criminal fraud. Wake up to reality. Your attempts to dig for dirt is bullshit. The real "CRIME' which of course is not actionable, was the low and enticing interest rates by the Clinton and Bush Administration. Based on our current interest rates, if the banks are loose with their credit checks we are heading down the same road again.

Do you consider Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia a cause of the housing crash?

If so do you blame the banks or government?

 

[dnsmith35]

1. I don't rant.

2. I explained what genuine economists say about the housing crash.

"Fraud is the principal credit risk of nonprime mortgage lending.

"It is impossible to detect fraud without reviewing a sample of the loan files.

"Paper loan files are bulky, so they are photographed and the images are stored on computer tapes.

"Unfortunately, 'most investors' (the large commercial and investment banks that purchased nonprime loans and pooled them to create financial derivatives) did not review the loan files before purchasing nonprime loans and did not even require the lender to provide loan tapes.

"The rating agencies never reviewed samples of loan files before giving AAA ratings to nonprime mortgage financial derivatives.

"The 'AAA' rating is supposed to indicate that there is virtually no credit risk -- the risk is equivalent to U.S. government bonds, which finance refers to as 'risk-free.'

"We know that the rating agencies attained their lucrative profits because they gave AAA ratings to nonprime financial derivatives exposed to staggering default risk.

"A graph of their profits in this era rises like a stairway to heaven [PDF].

"We also know that turning a blind eye to the mortgage fraud epidemic was the only way the rating agencies could hope to attain those profits.

"If they had reviewed even small samples of nonprime loans they would have had only two choices: (1) rating them as toxic waste, which would have made it impossible to sell the nonprime financial derivatives or (2) documenting that they were committing, and aiding and abetting, accounting control fraud."

William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis

None of those issues caused the housing crash. How ever unprincipled you think the banks were, their actions were only to mitigate their loses. Why do you think our left wing administration didn't pursue fraud charges? Because as bad as it was, it was not criminal fraud. Wake up to reality. Your attempts to dig for dirt is bullshit. The real "CRIME' which of course is not actionable, was the low and enticing interest rates by the Clinton and Bush Administration. Based on our current interest rates, if the banks are loose with their credit checks we are heading down the same road again.

Do you consider Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia a cause of the housing crash?

If so do you blame the banks or government?

The government's fiscal and monetary policy CAUSED the crash. Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act did not cause the problem. I do believe that lack of oversight did cause problems, but mostly after the fact of the crash. As lending institutions tried to mitigate their loses by doing things such as bundling toxic loans and selling them as "good" investments.

The CRA was more of a cause, along with the fiscal/monetary policies, than the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. Attempting to put more people into privately owned homes, many of which did not have adequate credit, coupled with low interest which lured unsuspecting people into buying more home than they could afford. All of the bad fiscal/monetary policies caused the market to over heat and inflate significantly, starting in 1999 and continuing to its peak of price over value.

 

[georgephillip]

On Dec. 11, 2012, the Treasury sold its last remaining portion of AIG stock, ultimately earning a profit of about $5 billion. The Federal Reserve ultimately realized a profit of about $17.7 billion from its role in AIG's bailout.

Looks like over $22 billion.

AIG | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica

Anything else you're confused about?
Glad to help.

Now that you mention it...

"At ProPublica, we've provided a comprehensive bailout database since TARP's launch. It shows not only how much money has gone to each recipient, but how much each has paid in interest and dividend payments.

"With all this data, we're able to clearly show how deep in the hole the program remains.

"And the answer as of today is $123 billion.

Add that to the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which our site also tracks and is separate from the TARP -- and taxpayers are $257 billion in the hole."

How deep is the hole taxpayers currently find themselves in
Thanks for the link.

The "hole" exists mainly because TARP funds were used to bailout GM, Chrysler and the UAW.

US taxpayers handed over $11.2 billion to the board of directors and major shareholders of GM. Are you mad the majority of Americans got nothing in return?

 

[Indeependent]

None of those issues caused the housing crash. How ever unprincipled you think the banks were, their actions were only to mitigate their loses. Why do you think our left wing administration didn't pursue fraud charges? Because as bad as it was, it was not criminal fraud. Wake up to reality. Your attempts to dig for dirt is bullshit. The real "CRIME' which of course is not actionable, was the low and enticing interest rates by the Clinton and Bush Administration. Based on our current interest rates, if the banks are loose with their credit checks we are heading down the same road again.

Do you consider Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia a cause of the housing crash?

If so do you blame the banks or government?

The government's fiscal and monetary policy CAUSED the crash. Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act did not cause the problem. I do believe that lack of oversight did cause problems, but mostly after the fact of the crash. As lending institutions tried to mitigate their loses by doing things such as bundling toxic loans and selling them as "good" investments.

The CRA was more of a cause, along with the fiscal/monetary policies, than the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. Attempting to put more people into privately owned homes, many of which did not have adequate credit, coupled with low interest which lured unsuspecting people into buying more home than they could afford. All of the bad fiscal/monetary policies caused the market to over heat and inflate significantly, starting in 1999 and continuing to its peak of price over value.

The crash occurred in Sep 2008, about two years AFTER Lending Institutions started selling "Toxic" aka "Worthless" Loans.

The overwhelming number of Jumbo Mortgages occurred between 2006 and the crash, NOT back in 1999.
While it's true people making 30k/year were getting mortgages up to the 150K area, they were NOT being approved 600K mortgages until 2006.

 

[dnsmith35]

Do you consider Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia a cause of the housing crash?

If so do you blame the banks or government?

The government's fiscal and monetary policy CAUSED the crash. Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act did not cause the problem. I do believe that lack of oversight did cause problems, but mostly after the fact of the crash. As lending institutions tried to mitigate their loses by doing things such as bundling toxic loans and selling them as "good" investments.

The CRA was more of a cause, along with the fiscal/monetary policies, than the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. Attempting to put more people into privately owned homes, many of which did not have adequate credit, coupled with low interest which lured unsuspecting people into buying more home than they could afford. All of the bad fiscal/monetary policies caused the market to over heat and inflate significantly, starting in 1999 and continuing to its peak of price over value.

The crash occurred in Sep 2008, about two years AFTER Lending Institutions started selling "Toxic" aka "Worthless" Loans.

The overwhelming number of Jumbo Mortgages occurred between 2006 and the crash, NOT back in 1999.
While it's true people making 30k/year were getting mortgages up to the 150K area, they were NOT being approved 600K mortgages until 2006.

Are you suggesting that the banks did not know those loans were toxic "2 years before the crash?"

BTW, I did not say anything about Jumbo Mortgages. I said, "the inflation of housing prices over value STARTED IN 1999," then they PEAKED IN 2006.

 

[georgephillip]

None of those issues caused the housing crash. How ever unprincipled you think the banks were, their actions were only to mitigate their loses. Why do you think our left wing administration didn't pursue fraud charges? Because as bad as it was, it was not criminal fraud. Wake up to reality. Your attempts to dig for dirt is bullshit. The real "CRIME' which of course is not actionable, was the low and enticing interest rates by the Clinton and Bush Administration. Based on our current interest rates, if the banks are loose with their credit checks we are heading down the same road again.

Do you consider Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia a cause of the housing crash?

If so do you blame the banks or government?

The government's fiscal and monetary policy CAUSED the crash. Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act did not cause the problem. I do believe that lack of oversight did cause problems, but mostly after the fact of the crash. As lending institutions tried to mitigate their loses by doing things such as bundling toxic loans and selling them as "good" investments.

The CRA was more of a cause, along with the fiscal/monetary policies, than the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. Attempting to put more people into privately owned homes, many of which did not have adequate credit, coupled with low interest which lured unsuspecting people into buying more home than they could afford. All of the bad fiscal/monetary policies caused the market to over heat and inflate significantly, starting in 1999 and continuing to its peak of price over value.

The current crisis is rooted in poor performing mortgage loans made between 2005-07. The CRA was passed decades ago and hadn't been changed substantively since 1995. Nothing in CRA legislation required banks to make loans to people incapable of repaying the loans. Independent nonbank lenders like Ameriquest and Countrywide originated a substantial share of subprime mortgages yet were not directly influenced by CRA obligations. The CRA was not the cause of the current crisis; an epidemic of mortgage fraud at the behest of Wall Street banks was.

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=4136&

 

[dnsmith35]

Do you consider Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia a cause of the housing crash?

If so do you blame the banks or government?

The government's fiscal and monetary policy CAUSED the crash. Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act did not cause the problem. I do believe that lack of oversight did cause problems, but mostly after the fact of the crash. As lending institutions tried to mitigate their loses by doing things such as bundling toxic loans and selling them as "good" investments.

The CRA was more of a cause, along with the fiscal/monetary policies, than the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. Attempting to put more people into privately owned homes, many of which did not have adequate credit, coupled with low interest which lured unsuspecting people into buying more home than they could afford. All of the bad fiscal/monetary policies caused the market to over heat and inflate significantly, starting in 1999 and continuing to its peak of price over value.

The current crisis is rooted in poor performing mortgage loans made between 2005-07. The CRA was passed decades ago and hadn't been changed substantively since 1995. Nothing in CRA legislation required banks to make loans to people incapable of repaying the loans. Independent nonbank lenders like Ameriquest and Countrywide originated a substantial share of subprime mortgages yet were not directly influenced by CRA obligations. The CRA was not the cause of the current crisis; an epidemic of mortgage fraud at the behest of Wall Street banks was.

Did the CRA cause the mortgage market meltdown? - Community Dividend - Publications & Papers | The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

You are correct that the law has not been changed substantively. But, Clinton and Bush policies forced bank regulators to pressure mortgage lenders to push loans to less credit worthy people. The mortgage fraud follows bad fiscal/monetary policy and the misuse of the CRA a distant 3rd. We know that the CRA as it dealt with financing multi family dwellings in red lined areas was not a problem. It was the push for more single family homes in the lower wage families that did help heat up the market. It was not even those who lost their homes, but the sheer quantity of new buyers, and speculators taking advantage of cheap loans that caused the bubble. The bubble was not caused by mortgage fraud.

 

[bripat9643]

Now that you mention it...

"At ProPublica, we've provided a comprehensive bailout database since TARP's launch. It shows not only how much money has gone to each recipient, but how much each has paid in interest and dividend payments.

"With all this data, we're able to clearly show how deep in the hole the program remains.

"And the answer as of today is $123 billion.

Add that to the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which our site also tracks and is separate from the TARP -- and taxpayers are $257 billion in the hole."

How deep is the hole taxpayers currently find themselves in
Thanks for the link.

The "hole" exists mainly because TARP funds were used to bailout GM, Chrysler and the UAW.

US taxpayers handed over $11.2 billion to the board of directors and major shareholders of GM. Are you mad the majority of Americans got nothing in return?

The handed over more than that when you consider the loss they took on the purchase of GM stock.

What did they get in return?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Now that you mention it...

"At ProPublica, we've provided a comprehensive bailout database since TARP's launch. It shows not only how much money has gone to each recipient, but how much each has paid in interest and dividend payments.

"With all this data, we're able to clearly show how deep in the hole the program remains.

"And the answer as of today is $123 billion.

Add that to the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which our site also tracks and is separate from the TARP -- and taxpayers are $257 billion in the hole."

How deep is the hole taxpayers currently find themselves in
Thanks for the link.

The "hole" exists mainly because TARP funds were used to bailout GM, Chrysler and the UAW.

US taxpayers handed over $11.2 billion to the board of directors and major shareholders of GM. Are you mad the majority of Americans got nothing in return?

GM shareholders got bailed out? Can you prove it?

 

[Indeependent]

The government's fiscal and monetary policy CAUSED the crash. Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act did not cause the problem. I do believe that lack of oversight did cause problems, but mostly after the fact of the crash. As lending institutions tried to mitigate their loses by doing things such as bundling toxic loans and selling them as "good" investments.

The CRA was more of a cause, along with the fiscal/monetary policies, than the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. Attempting to put more people into privately owned homes, many of which did not have adequate credit, coupled with low interest which lured unsuspecting people into buying more home than they could afford. All of the bad fiscal/monetary policies caused the market to over heat and inflate significantly, starting in 1999 and continuing to its peak of price over value.

The crash occurred in Sep 2008, about two years AFTER Lending Institutions started selling "Toxic" aka "Worthless" Loans.

The overwhelming number of Jumbo Mortgages occurred between 2006 and the crash, NOT back in 1999.
While it's true people making 30k/year were getting mortgages up to the 150K area, they were NOT being approved 600K mortgages until 2006.

Are you suggesting that the banks did not know those loans were toxic "2 years before the crash?"

BTW, I did not say anything about Jumbo Mortgages. I said, "the inflation of housing prices over value STARTED IN 1999," then they PEAKED IN 2006.

Banks have historically bundled poorly valued loans but this time they did it to such an extent that they couldn't come up with any Accounting tricks to offset the damage.

The banks handed out Jumbo Mortgages like cans of Coke to Lenders who didn't qualify on the Vendor databases; that's why the great majority of Mortgages and Home Equity Loans had to be "Approved" on paper.
The Inflation was caused by Lenders knowing they most probably wouldn't be audited.

There's not ONE Legislative document in existence that would allow a person earning 30K/year to qualify for such a Loan.
I've been asking for one for over three years now and not one Free Market fanatic can produce such a document.

 

[dnsmith35]

The crash occurred in Sep 2008, about two years AFTER Lending Institutions started selling "Toxic" aka "Worthless" Loans.

The overwhelming number of Jumbo Mortgages occurred between 2006 and the crash, NOT back in 1999.
While it's true people making 30k/year were getting mortgages up to the 150K area, they were NOT being approved 600K mortgages until 2006.

Are you suggesting that the banks did not know those loans were toxic "2 years before the crash?"

BTW, I did not say anything about Jumbo Mortgages. I said, "the inflation of housing prices over value STARTED IN 1999," then they PEAKED IN 2006.

Banks have historically bundled poorly valued loans but this time they did it to such an extent that they couldn't come up with any Accounting tricks to offset the damage.

Relevance?

The banks handed out Jumbo Mortgages like cans of Coke to Lenders who didn't qualify on the Vendor databases; that's why the great majority of Mortgages and Home Equity Loans had to be "Approved" on paper.

Relevance?

The Inflation was caused by Lenders knowing they most probably wouldn't be audited.

There's not ONE Legislative document in existence that would allow a person earning 30K/year to qualify for such a Loan.

I bought a house in 1965 with a $300 down payment with a salary of less than $250 a month. So tell me about it Einstein.

965 Enlisted Basic Military Pay Chart

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1965 Enlisted Basic Military Pay Chart
Pay Grade Years of Service
Less than 2 Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6
E-7 261.00 312.90 324.30 335.70 347.10
E-6 225.00 273.00 284.40 295.80 307.50
E-5 194.10 239.10 250.50 261.60 278.70
E-4 165.50 204.90 216.00 233.10 244.80
E-3 117.90 164.70 176.40 187.80 187.80
E-2 97.50 136.50 136.50 136.50 136.50
E-1 93.90 125.10 125.10 125.10 125.10
E-1 with less than 4 months of service 87.90

And I bought another house while keeping that one in 1968 with E-5 with just $324.90 a month​

I've been asking for one for over three years now and not one Free Market fanatic can produce such a document.

This liberal can tell you all about it. Remember, LIBERAL, not LEFT WING EXTREMIST!

At $30,000 income, without other debt, a person can buy a house with a $400 to $500 payment depending on the credit history. As a realtor during my grad school work I sold a number of them. You really should do some research about an issue before making nonsensical statements.

 

[Againsheila]

To add to my last response to gnarley: I believe that blacks are as capable of learning and are just as intelligent as anyone else. Their propensity to drop out of school is a personality trait of the individuals. There is no excuse for a person to opt out of education and then complain they are being discriminated against in the job world. That is so much horse puckey.

The major reason that most kids drop out of school has to do with their inability to comprehend what is being taught because they were failed in the first six years of their public schooling. That is a shared responsibility of their parents and the public schools.

When public schools are proud that 76% of their fourth grade students can read at grade level, and that 72% of their third grade students can compute math at their grade level, you know you have a problem. They are failing at least one quarter of their charges, and are creating disfunctional adults.

I do agree that parental emphasis is a great thing to assist school success. But I further blame the teachers who do not accept the fact that some parents either can't or won't help their kids. Therefore it is up to the school system to give them that assistance which the parents do not afford. To say, "it is the fault of lax parental assistance" is a cop out. Face it, not only do some parents not help, some can actually be hostile to the concept to education, and the schoOl system MUST DO WHAT IS NECESSARY.

IMO, there are certain things the parents are responsible for and certain things the teachers are responsible for. If the teachers actually taught reading, writing and arithmetic and the parents took care of behavior, social graces and morals, things would be great. Instead, we have far too many teachers trying to teach our kids morals, or lack thereof, while ignoring their actual education.

How about we forget how many mommies Heather has unless it's part of a story problem?

 

[Indeependent]

Are you suggesting that the banks did not know those loans were toxic "2 years before the crash?"

BTW, I did not say anything about Jumbo Mortgages. I said, "the inflation of housing prices over value STARTED IN 1999," then they PEAKED IN 2006.

Relevance?Relevance? I bought a house in 1965 with a $300 down payment with a salary of less than $250 a month. So tell me about it Einstein.

965 Enlisted Basic Military Pay Chart

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1965 Enlisted Basic Military Pay Chart
Pay Grade Years of Service
Less than 2 Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6
E-7 261.00 312.90 324.30 335.70 347.10
E-6 225.00 273.00 284.40 295.80 307.50
E-5 194.10 239.10 250.50 261.60 278.70
E-4 165.50 204.90 216.00 233.10 244.80
E-3 117.90 164.70 176.40 187.80 187.80
E-2 97.50 136.50 136.50 136.50 136.50
E-1 93.90 125.10 125.10 125.10 125.10
E-1 with less than 4 months of service 87.90

And I bought another house while keeping that one in 1968 with E-5 with just $324.90 a month​

I've been asking for one for over three years now and not one Free Market fanatic can produce such a document.

This liberal can tell you all about it. Remember, LIBERAL, not LEFT WING EXTREMIST!

At $30,000 income, without other debt, a person can buy a house with a $400 to $500 payment depending on the credit history. As a realtor during my grad school work I sold a number of them. You really should do some research about an issue before making nonsensical statements.

Let's keep to 2006 to the crash and not veer off to 1950 or whatever.
So a bus driver living in Nassau County earning 30K/year in 2006 could pay a 600K mortgage over 30 years?

You are also overtly revising history as you state that the Toxic Loans came AFTER the crash of Sep 2008, and that's complete nonsense.
Your Target is Business Good, Government Bad and that requires revisionism.