Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Indeependent]

Yo retard...

Tell me when in our nations history did we off-shore thousands of factories, invite 3 million business visas to replace US citizens and have our White House administration look the other way when everyone making less than 50K/year was being handed a mortgage for 600K?

Prior to the retard GW, it never happened.

And your hero, Rush, was LAUGHING about what a GENIUS GW was!

Man, this is so absurd, I don't even know where to begin here. Deep breath and.....go!

First of all, since when is it the responsibility of the White House to monitor mortgages? I've seen some stupid fuck'n posts on USMB before, but this is one for the ages.

Second, in you're infinite left-wing stupidity, did you ever realize the mind-numbing contradictions of your failed ideology? If a person goes to the bank making $50k a year and is turned for a $600k mortgage, you people have a fuck'n aneurysm that "the average man can't get a loan and is locked out of the inner circle". And God forbid if that person is black!!! Christ Almighty will the thunder roar and the earth shake if a black person is turned down for the loan! And you'll find a Republican president to blame for that.

But......if that irresponsible person is granted that loan and the irresponsible person fails to pay it back, well then the banks were "predatory" and "taking advantage" of that person. And then you'll find a a Republican president to blame for that. Do see you how insanely fuck'n stupid you sound now? Whether they get the loan or they don't get the loan, either way you cry like a little itty-bitty fucking bitch and then randomly find the name of a Republican president to blame it on.

But wait - there's more! Third, and most importantly out of all of this, you're too fuck'n stupid to even realize that you and your fellow Dumbocrats are to blame for all of the "off-shoring". You demonize the wealthy. You punish success. You raise taxes on business. You implement crushing regulations. You make it very clear that you hate the business owner, their business, and the jobs that result from both. And then you stand there scratching your head trying to figure out why businesses are fleeing the U.S.? Really? This is literally as fuck'n stupid as a Nazi scratching their head trying to figure out why all of the Jews are fleeing from Auschwitz.

Look, I realize you are a serious dick. But for 10 seconds can you stop being such a dick and answer one serious question honestly? If it cost $60 million per year to move operations overseas and you could actually save $40 million per year to keep your business in the U.S., do you think anyone would ever move their business overseas? No, really - would they?

With as much vile and contempt that you assholes could muster, you have told corporate America to go fuck themselves. And so they said "ok - I'll take my ball over to that playground over there where I'm actually wanted and where I'm treated nicely". Until you realize that whoever makes doing business the best deal for business will get all of the businesses - and the subsequent jobs that go with it - you continue the "off-shoring" that you libtard's created. But sadly, Dumbocrats are just too damn dumb and brainwashed by their failed ideology to ever figure it out.

Banks are regulated.
The software denied the loan, so the paper was whipped out of the draw.
Based on Sarbanes/Oxley, signed into law by GW post dot com crash, the transaction was ILLEGAL.

In your language..."Got it, retard?"
Of course not!
No surprise.

You are stating that until post 9/11 all US businesses were unable to exist because of onerous wages, taxation and regulations.
So until post 9/11, Wall Street and all major corporations that existed in the US for DECADES either were an ILLUSION, running at a SEVERE LOSS (in which case, why didn't they simply go out of business) or SUDDENLY were being manned by the most incompetent CEOs in history.
And, and who but those very same corporations could muster the money to eliminate those pesky little factors.
But no, CEOs and Directors want Cheap, 24/7 and no benefits.
So sit back and watch your country crumble along with the EMERGING ASIAN MARKET that ISN'T EMERGING because their pay can't buy the products.
MORON!

You are so stupid and disingenuous it's amazing.

You're starting to make Liberals seem like they make sense.
But go ahead; in this country you're in the severe minority of Right Wing Ideologues.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fees, Commissions, Raises, that better position at the competition.

As you quite ambiguously post...
"they lowered standards to get poor folks into homes"
Who is "they"?
Be precise and don't be stupid.

The banks lowered standards.
You know, the standards that previously, unfairly, stopped poor risks from getting loans.

They were only legislated to eliminate Blue Lining (I will leave it to you to look it up).
They weren't legislated to collect an unfathomable amount in Fees, Commissions and repossessions.

They were only legislated to eliminate Blue Lining

Do you mean Red Lining? LOL!

 

[Indeependent]

The banks lowered standards.
You know, the standards that previously, unfairly, stopped poor risks from getting loans.

They were only legislated to eliminate Blue Lining (I will leave it to you to look it up).
They weren't legislated to collect an unfathomable amount in Fees, Commissions and repossessions.

They were only legislated to eliminate Blue Lining

Do you mean Red Lining? LOL!

Yep! Red Lining. I don't know why "blue" got stuck in my head.
Must be this pile of Blu-Ray discs I have on my desk.

 

[Andylusion]

Your entire argument is a red herring.

I said my argument rather clearly IMO. You are reducing the entire nation to two people you are hating on. Which you are btw. Your entire argument is an emotional argument against imaginary people who you think made bad decisions.

It is intellectually vapid and offensive.

Again, your post is what someone with a weak argument says. "you hate" is not an argument. My examples are of the reality in the economy, that some people make choices that effect their long term income.

Your argument is "you hate, therefore what you see in real life economy, doesn't matter, and is not relevant.".

Mindlessly mocking arguments, because you can not actually deny them, is simply another way of saying you have no argument.

If you want to repeat your non-argument over and over, I'll point out your non-argument over and over. Please continue.

It is like you are trying to be stupid. You are using made up anecdotal evidence to describe an entire nation and demonize the entire middle class as it relates to other nations.

You have yet to come close to addressing any of my arguments. You made up some information a couple times and then made some blatantly illogical arguments.

Because you have no argument that I have seen. "You hate" is not an argument. That's what ignorant people say, when they have a weak argument.

Nor did I "demonize" anyone. Again, yet another argument ignorant people make, when they have no argument. "you demonize", is another way of saying "I have no argument".

What exactly, in your post was even remotely worth trying to counter? You have to make a valid argument first, then I'll counter it. You have to make a valid point first, before I have something to counter.

 

[Andylusion]

They were using automated systems that denied the mortgages that were eventually approved by bypassing the LAWS...Get it?
Of course not!

Does that change anything I said? Does that change that Government was suing banks to make those loans? Does that change the Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans securitization? Does that change the fact regulators showed up at BB&T demanding they lower their standards?

Of course not!

Blue Lining...
The Government was suing banks over the issue of Blue Lining, NOT handing out Loans of 600K to bus drivers making 35K/year.
Please do not hyperbolize.

You mean redlining, not blue lining. Never heard of blue lining.
Did you not listen to the video?

[ame=http://youtu.be/gpj4gcdm_JQ]HowThe Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis Starring HUD Sec Andrew Cuomo & Barack Obama - YouTube[/ame]

In the very first minute of the video, he makes it very clear about claims of institutionalize discrimination, that involved your credit history not being good enough to qualify for a loan.

That's not 'redlining'. That's flat out, you don't qualify for prime rate mortgages, and we're calling that discrimination. That is the definition of sub-prime.

And back to 'redlining'. I am still assuming that is what you were referring to.

The idea that redlining is "racists" or something, is just garbage. I've looked for evidence of that for a decade now. There is no solid evidence of anything 'racist' about redlining.

But why does redlining exist?

We need to grasp all neighborhoods, go through cycles. All do. All areas are either growing or declining. Redlining serves to not give loans in areas that are for whatever reason high risk.

For example, say you had a small town, built around a military base. Then you read that the administration is considering closing the base. You would redline the town, because you are not going to make a loan for a business, or a mortgage, in a town that next year the base could close, prices drop, businesses close, and end up losing tons of money on loans gone bad.

It's not a matter of race. All the people in the town could be purple. The fact is, the town is now high risk, because of some reason, and you don't want to make loans, even to credit worthy borrowers, because you could still lose your money.

That's why all redlining exists. If you have a neighborhood, where crime has suddenly increased drastically. Home prices tend to fall. You don't want to make a loan, and then lose your money. If section 8 housing moves into the area. If the local manufacturing plant is closing. If the city announced plans to build a highway through the middle of that area.

All of these things can drastically harm the housing market price. Therefore all can drastically increase the risk of making loans there.

Bankers know this. That's why they created redlining.

And when the government forced banks to not adhere to sound business practice, you end up with a crash. That's how that works.

 

[georgephillip]

"In 2012, the top 5 percent of earners were responsible for 38 percent of domestic consumption, up from 28 percent in 1995, the researchers found.

"Even more striking, the current recovery has been driven almost entirely by the upper crust, according to Mr. Fazzari and Mr. Cynamon. Since 2009, the year the recession ended, inflation-adjusted spending by this top echelon has risen 17 percent, compared with just 1 percent among the bottom 95 percent."

Those who doubt the US middle class is steadily eroding should ask the business world

"In response to the upward shift in spending, PricewaterhouseCoopers clients like big stores and restaurants are chasing richer customers with a wider offering of high-end goods and services, or focusing on rock-bottom prices to attract the expanding ranks of penny-pinching consumers.

“'As a retailer or restaurant chain, if you’re not at the really high level or the low level, that’s a tough place to be,' Mr. Maxwell said. 'You don’t want to be stuck in the middle.'”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/business/the-middle-class-is-steadily-eroding-just-ask-the-business-world.html?_r=1

 

[georgephillip]

Riskier lending. Why?
How is that possible?
Because they lowered standards to get poor folks into homes.

Fees, Commissions, Raises, that better position at the competition.

As you quite ambiguously post...
"they lowered standards to get poor folks into homes"
Who is "they"?
Be precise and don't be stupid.

The banks lowered standards.
You know, the standards that previously, unfairly, stopped poor risks from getting loans.

Which banks "lowered standards?"
How large were their MBS fees?
Who got unfairly rich?

 

[georgephillip]

Capitalism guarantees nothing.

And that's the beauty of it.

Fuck anyone who thinks otherwise.

Capitalism guarantees consolidation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation which is beautiful only to butt fucked slaves.

 

[Bombur]

Again, your post is what someone with a weak argument says. "you hate" is not an argument. My examples are of the reality in the economy, that some people make choices that effect their long term income.

Your argument is "you hate, therefore what you see in real life economy, doesn't matter, and is not relevant.".

Mindlessly mocking arguments, because you can not actually deny them, is simply another way of saying you have no argument.

If you want to repeat your non-argument over and over, I'll point out your non-argument over and over. Please continue.

It is like you are trying to be stupid. You are using made up anecdotal evidence to describe an entire nation and demonize the entire middle class as it relates to other nations.

You have yet to come close to addressing any of my arguments. You made up some information a couple times and then made some blatantly illogical arguments.

Because you have no argument that I have seen. "You hate" is not an argument. That's what ignorant people say, when they have a weak argument.

Nor did I "demonize" anyone. Again, yet another argument ignorant people make, when they have no argument. "you demonize", is another way of saying "I have no argument".

What exactly, in your post was even remotely worth trying to counter? You have to make a valid argument first, then I'll counter it. You have to make a valid point first, before I have something to counter.

Information was presented to you that compared nations to one another. Your response was to make up two stories about a social worker and a burger flipper and blamed these imaginary people and their poor choices.

This argument has no logical or intellectual merit. It is anecdotal, it is an appeal to emotion (hate), it is a demonstration of ignorance (equating the middle class of the US to these two professions), and it completely misses the point of the graph. There really isn't enough bad things I could say about your argument. It has less than no intellectual merit and it doesn't only demonstrate a significant lack of intelligence but a rather open hostility towards your fellow Americans.

 

[bripat9643]

They were only legislated to eliminate Blue Lining (I will leave it to you to look it up).
They weren't legislated to collect an unfathomable amount in Fees, Commissions and repossessions.

They were only legislated to eliminate Blue Lining

Do you mean Red Lining? LOL!

Yep! Red Lining. I don't know why "blue" got stuck in my head.
Must be this pile of Blu-Ray discs I have on my desk.

Accusations of "red lining" were just a left-wing propaganda scam used to justify forcing banks to lower the credit standards for black applicants. I distinctly recall debating the issue with some left-wing forum apparatchiks over in the CompuServe Political debate forum. This propaganda campaign was used to justify passing the CRA.

It was all bullshit from the get-go, and it caused the collapse of our mortgage industry.

 

[bripat9643]

Capitalism guarantees nothing.

And that's the beauty of it.

Fuck anyone who thinks otherwise.

Capitalism guarantees consolidation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation which is beautiful only to butt fucked slaves.

It does no such thing. That's nothing but commie propaganda. This "inequality" meme is similar to the global warming meme and the "red lining" meme. These are all propaganda campaigns designed to justify more socialism. They have no basis in fact.

 

[bripat9643]

Fees, Commissions, Raises, that better position at the competition.

As you quite ambiguously post...
"they lowered standards to get poor folks into homes"
Who is "they"?
Be precise and don't be stupid.

The banks lowered standards.
You know, the standards that previously, unfairly, stopped poor risks from getting loans.

Which banks "lowered standards?"
How large were their MBS fees?
Who got unfairly rich?

They all lowered their standards. There was no such thing as a "no doc" mortgage until the CRA was enforced.

 

[Bombur]

The banks lowered standards.
You know, the standards that previously, unfairly, stopped poor risks from getting loans.

Which banks "lowered standards?"
How large were their MBS fees?
Who got unfairly rich?

They all lowered their standards. There was no such thing as a "no doc" mortgage until the CRA was enforced.

No-doc mortgages were not being made to be in compliance with the CRA. They were being made because those creating the MBS were trying to make money and lowered their standards independent of CRA requirements.

 

[bripat9643]

"In 2012, the top 5 percent of earners were responsible for 38 percent of domestic consumption, up from 28 percent in 1995, the researchers found.]

How could they possibly measure what someone consumed?

""Even more striking, the current recovery has been driven almost entirely by the upper crust, according to Mr. Fazzari and Mr. Cynamon. Since 2009, the year the recession ended, inflation-adjusted spending by this top echelon has risen 17 percent, compared with just 1 percent among the bottom 95 percent.".

Again, how would they know what a given individual spends? Do they have access to his checking account records and his credit card bills?

Those who doubt the US middle class is steadily eroding should ask the business world

"In response to the upward shift in spending, PricewaterhouseCoopers clients like big stores and restaurants are chasing richer customers with a wider offering of high-end goods and services, or focusing on rock-bottom prices to attract the expanding ranks of penny-pinching consumers.

“'As a retailer or restaurant chain, if you’re not at the really high level or the low level, that’s a tough place to be,' Mr. Maxwell said. 'You don’t want to be stuck in the middle.'”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/business/the-middle-class-is-steadily-eroding-just-ask-the-business-world.html?_r=1

Well that's really scientific.

So far you've got zip, nada, nothing.

 

[bripat9643]

Which banks "lowered standards?"
How large were their MBS fees?
Who got unfairly rich?

They all lowered their standards. There was no such thing as a "no doc" mortgage until the CRA was enforced.

No-doc mortgages were not being made to be in compliance with the CRA. They were being made because those creating the MBS were trying to make money and lowered their standards independent of CRA requirements.

The only reason they could lower their standards is the fact the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were willing to purchase a large number of such mortgages. The lenders passed the problem loans onto the government. They took zero risk. They also began offering zero down mortgages, which meant the borrower was risking virtually nothing. If you can't put together the scratch to make a 10% down payment on a mortgage, then the odds aren't good that you're going to be able to make the payments when the going gets tough. Yet, Fannie and Freddie purchased many such loans on the secondary market.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fees, Commissions, Raises, that better position at the competition.

As you quite ambiguously post...
"they lowered standards to get poor folks into homes"
Who is "they"?
Be precise and don't be stupid.

The banks lowered standards.
You know, the standards that previously, unfairly, stopped poor risks from getting loans.

Which banks "lowered standards?"
How large were their MBS fees?
Who got unfairly rich?

Which banks "lowered standards?"

The ones that were lending to more poor risks than before.

Who got unfairly rich?

The Dem crooks running Fannie and Freddie.

 

[Bombur]

They all lowered their standards. There was no such thing as a "no doc" mortgage until the CRA was enforced.

No-doc mortgages were not being made to be in compliance with the CRA. They were being made because those creating the MBS were trying to make money and lowered their standards independent of CRA requirements.

The only reason they could lower their standards is the fact the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were willing to purchase a large number of such mortgages. The lenders passed the problem loans onto the government. They took zero risk. They also began offering zero down mortgages, which meant the borrower was risking virtually nothing. If you can't put together the scratch to make a 10% down payment on a mortgage, then the odds aren't good that you're going to be able to make the payments when the going gets tough. Yet, Fannie and Freddie purchased many such loans on the secondary market.

A lot of financial institutions did.

I have pointed out that F&F were wrong multiple times but it is important to understand that their guilt is also shared by other financial institutions and the ratings agencies.

The mortgages themselves were improperly rated before they were even packaged into MBS. Regulations for the sub-prime loans decreased as the financial institutions no longer considered them a burden they needed to carry in order to be CRA compliant but a way to turn a profit. The attempt to make a profit off of the sub-prime loans was a decision made by the private institutions and when that failed they lost money as the market intended.

 

[Contumacious]

An ad hominem is a sign that you have lost the exchange.
You are stating that because individuals behaved in an underhanded manner in order to profit that this behavior was sanctioned by legislation.

You've got to be kidding.

Yo retard

tell me when in our nations history , prior to the enactment of The Community Reinvestment Act (1977) did events like these occurr.

.

Yo retard...

Tell me when in our nations history did we off-shore thousands of factories, invite 3 million business visas to replace US citizens and have our White House administration look the other way when everyone making less than 50K/year was being handed a mortgage for 600K?

Prior to the retard GW, it never happened.

And your hero, Rush, was LAUGHING about what a GENIUS GW was!

Once again, please link to the legislation.
But you CAN'T...It DOESN'T exist.

Again, retards

tell me when in our nations history , prior to the enactment of The Community Reinvestment Act (1977) did events like these occur.

 

[RKMBrown]

Answer: NEVER

You are a fall guy for a Republican president who spent money like a Liberal.

Really? I give GWB a very low grade as president and I have always correctly identified him as the big government, spend recklessly liberal that he is.

Would you like to try again junior?

Eggzactly. I don't know a single conservative that supported the spending sprees. I know some RINOs like that protectionist guy that are really just communists that say they are conservative to undermine the opposition party. Bush was a socialist in TX and ended up being a socialist in DC. Better president than Obama, but then Obama's the biggest piece of shit to ever occupy the office.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yo retard

tell me when in our nations history , prior to the enactment of The Community Reinvestment Act (1977) did events like these occurr.

.

Yo retard...

Tell me when in our nations history did we off-shore thousands of factories, invite 3 million business visas to replace US citizens and have our White House administration look the other way when everyone making less than 50K/year was being handed a mortgage for 600K?

Prior to the retard GW, it never happened.

And your hero, Rush, was LAUGHING about what a GENIUS GW was!

Once again, please link to the legislation.
But you CAN'T...It DOESN'T exist.

Again, retards

tell me when in our nations history , prior to the enactment of The Community Reinvestment Act (1977) did events like these occur.

To be fair, it would seem we have a housing bubble or some other major correction about once every generation.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-economic-crash-repeated-every-generation-1800-2012-1