Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Their War on the PoorThere is no law forcing you to live with a den of thieves, you are free to move about the country to find and make your opportunities.
Laws are not the only means of getting people to obey. Having never grown up in poverty one will not know that the opportunity to choose to leave the neighborhood or stay is not there.
Peer pressure, social pressure, going where the money is (crime) can constrict one's innate ability to choose liberty. Indeed, they can leads to bad decisions and it's often because people are ill informed. Our education system panders to wealth just like opportunities to work do. Though more service jobs exist than ever, they are often shameful and are dead end.
There is so much that can be said here but if you are unwilling to recognize the disparity in this country is not just income, it runs all the way down into the psyche. I know because I grew up in it and have been homeless. If you haven't lived that way you simply have no genuine idea what really means and what the causes are. You hear others who've never been homeless talk about it but that's as good as the info gets. It's an entirely different world to be in poverty, it's plain and simple and no one is willing to try that because poverty is not inviting.
59% of Americans will experience poverty for a year or more. If you haven't then you aren't part of the majority of people. You may want to recalibrate your understanding to account for the breadth of this problem. It's a human problem stemming from bad policy and greed. There is a war going on against the poor and working class. The 2 minute video explains this with rigor.
War on the Poor
"Most Americans are on a downward escalator. Median household pay is dropping, adjusted for inflation. A smaller share of working-age Americans are in jobs than at any time in the last three decades.
Only 113,000 jobs were added to the U.S. economy in January, on top of a paltry 75,000 in December.
"We need a new WPA to rebuild the nation's crumbling infrastructure, a higher minimum wage, strong unions, investments in education, and extended unemployment benefits for those who still can't find a job.
"When 95% of the economic gains go to the top 1%, the middle class and poor don't have the purchasing power to keep it going."
Their War on the PoorLaws are not the only means of getting people to obey. Having never grown up in poverty one will not know that the opportunity to choose to leave the neighborhood or stay is not there.
Peer pressure, social pressure, going where the money is (crime) can constrict one's innate ability to choose liberty. Indeed, they can leads to bad decisions and it's often because people are ill informed. Our education system panders to wealth just like opportunities to work do. Though more service jobs exist than ever, they are often shameful and are dead end.
There is so much that can be said here but if you are unwilling to recognize the disparity in this country is not just income, it runs all the way down into the psyche. I know because I grew up in it and have been homeless. If you haven't lived that way you simply have no genuine idea what really means and what the causes are. You hear others who've never been homeless talk about it but that's as good as the info gets. It's an entirely different world to be in poverty, it's plain and simple and no one is willing to try that because poverty is not inviting.
59% of Americans will experience poverty for a year or more. If you haven't then you aren't part of the majority of people. You may want to recalibrate your understanding to account for the breadth of this problem. It's a human problem stemming from bad policy and greed. There is a war going on against the poor and working class. The 2 minute video explains this with rigor.
War on the Poor
"Most Americans are on a downward escalator. Median household pay is dropping, adjusted for inflation. A smaller share of working-age Americans are in jobs than at any time in the last three decades.
Only 113,000 jobs were added to the U.S. economy in January, on top of a paltry 75,000 in December.
"We need a new WPA to rebuild the nation's crumbling infrastructure, a higher minimum wage, strong unions, investments in education, and extended unemployment benefits for those who still can't find a job.
"When 95% of the economic gains go to the top 1%, the middle class and poor don't have the purchasing power to keep it going."
"Most Americans are on a downward escalator. Median household pay is dropping, adjusted for inflation. A smaller share of working-age Americans are in jobs than at any time in the last three decades.
Obama and Obamacare, killing jobs, shrinking incomes, all across America.
Their War on the Poor
"Most Americans are on a downward escalator. Median household pay is dropping, adjusted for inflation. A smaller share of working-age Americans are in jobs than at any time in the last three decades.
Only 113,000 jobs were added to the U.S. economy in January, on top of a paltry 75,000 in December.
"We need a new WPA to rebuild the nation's crumbling infrastructure, a higher minimum wage, strong unions, investments in education, and extended unemployment benefits for those who still can't find a job.
"When 95% of the economic gains go to the top 1%, the middle class and poor don't have the purchasing power to keep it going."
"Most Americans are on a downward escalator. Median household pay is dropping, adjusted for inflation. A smaller share of working-age Americans are in jobs than at any time in the last three decades.
Obama and Obamacare, killing jobs, shrinking incomes, all across America.
Another example of the superhuman powers of the private sector markets. They can predict legislation decades in advance!
I apologize for assuming you had any connection to reality.
Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
Ready for the best part?
Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.
"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."
Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."
Obamacare will help people who don't want to work just to have health care cut back, quit, and retire, opening up jobs for the UE. THAT'S ACTUAL FREEDOM, hater dupes lol...
I can agree Obamacare is not the best piece of legislation but having become a beneficiary and can finally get my rotting teeth checked, Naturally Obamacare has its downside and a small upside as do most things.
Saying Obamacare is the main problem distracts from the fact the top 1% is siphoning off most of the profits generated by capitalism. It's a way to instill division when the real issues are happening behind closed doors and right under our noses. The media has successfully hijacked our understanding of what's high priority and what isn't.
I can agree Obamacare is not the best piece of legislation but having become a beneficiary and can finally get my rotting teeth checked, Naturally Obamacare has its downside and a small upside as do most things. To isolate focus on negativity, "anger points" (see Karl Rove 2004) and "the other side" (see concept of Othering) keeps us divided so the rich can maintain their power. Public relations campaigns are exactly propaganda but this word has taken a negative connotation and is not used. This is destroying America from within. Keeping the middle class and working class divided against itself on wedge issues that don't mean a whole lot to economy or the average citizen trying to make a living.
Goethe said, "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
Indeed, the American public is intentionally divided against itself by billions of dollars spent to misinform the voters and cause them to make irrational decisions (e.g. go into unpayable debt) which is the opposite of a truly free market. In a free market people make decisions rationally. The depth of consumerism based on whims and irrational behaviors is enormous. Until we correctly prioritize our platforms, we will never overcome the master/slave dialectic that's been in place for quite some time. If you don't think it's a master/slave then how do you explain 85 individuals owning as much as 3.5 billion people globally? That is unthinkable and yet concrete.
Inequality Myopia
There's more to it than Democrats care to know.
By Ron Ross 2.6.14
SmallerLarger
...
At least in their rhetoric, Democrats have made equality their number one priority. It has become more an obsession than a policy objective. Mother Jones contributor Kevin Drum writes, The heart and soul of liberalism is economic egalitarianism. According to Jon N. Hall, For progressives, equality is an end in itself, and a higher value than freedom, happiness, or prosperity.
Furthermore, liberals have a one-dimensional vision of equality. Virtually the only kind of inequality they ever address is income inequality. The human experience, however, is multi-faceted.
If it were possible to create conditions that would result in equal incomes for all Americans, there would still be wide differences in intelligence, athletic ability, health, ambition, and beauty, just to name a few. If we all had equal incomes, we would not all magically feel equal. Equality of incomes does not equal equality, and equality does not equal fairness.
For liberals it is an article of faith that income inequality is increasing in America. They cite statistics indicating as much. Nevertheless, those statistics are themselves over-simplifications. Such statistics usually hide at least as much as they reveal. Economist Walter Williams observes that Most of whats said about income inequality is stupid or, at best, ill-informed.
...
Exaggerating and over-emphasizing negative news while ignoring positive news is not a harmless endeavor. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation just released The 2014 Gates Annual Letter. They title it 3 Myths That Block Progress for the Poor. Here is how they summarize their letter:
By almost any measure, the world is better than it has ever been. People are living longer, healthier lives. Many nations that were aid recipients are now self-sufficient. You might think that such striking progress would be widely celebrated, but in fact, Melinda and are I are struck by how many people think the world is getting worse. The belief that the world cant solve extreme poverty and disease isnt just mistaken. It is harmful. Thats why in this years letter we take apart some of the myths that slow down the work. The next time you hear these myths, we hope you will do the same.
Thats excellent advice. I wonder, however, if the Gates have asked themselves why there are so many people who think the world is getting worse? Its in large part because creating the myth serves the purposes of liberal politicians.
...
In a number of speeches President Obama has referred to millionaires and billionaires, with contempt and resentment practically dripping from those words. The resentment toward the one percent is driven primarily by envy rather than actually wanting to do something for the poor. Envy is not a sound foundation for public policy. The left apparently is bothered more by the existence of rich people than by the existence of poor people. They subscribe to the absurd belief that wealth causes poverty.
...
When it comes to addressing the issue, Democrat policies increase the amount of inequality rather than reduce it. Inequality is a problem liberals would rather hype than solve.
Inequality Myopia | The American Spectator
It is like you want me to think you are a clown.
I have explained what I thought about the price increases in 1997 like 3 times now and you don't know if I know the prices increased in 1997.
I owe an apology. I thought you had repeated the idea that it didn't start in 1997. My mistake. I jumped too quick in my reply.
Now I can move on from that point.
Saying that a price spike is not unusual, doesn't mean anything. Nor does it change anything that I have said.
The price spikes in the 1970s were the result of high inflation, which drove up prices. Drastic devaluing of the currency through high inflation, typically results in people investing in property. That increase in people investing in property as a hedge against inflation, naturally results in a price increase. If you look, the housing price bubble started in 1976, right after inflation peaked in 1975 at 12%.
In the 1980s, the cause was a sudden lowering of interest rates, and a high GDP growth rate. The boom started right at 1984, when the growth rate hit nearly 10%, and the interest rates were cut in half from their 1970s high.
Both of these have clear policy causes.
If you look at the broad spectrum of the graph, house prices have been relatively stable from the late 1940s, until 1997, with only those two exceptions of the 1970s inflation, and the 1980s interest rate cut and high GDP.
What happened in 1997? None of these. There was no huge inflation. There was no spike in interest rates, or sudden drop in interest rates. There was no boom in the economy, which was fairly steady at 4% to 5%.
There is no explanation, and yet the housing market made a drastic increase in prices.
You have not given any satisfactory explanation to why that happened. I suggest I did. Freddie Mac, validating Sub-prime Mortgage Backed Securities, with a AAA rating, in 1997, would explain why there was suddenly a drastic increase in sub-prime loans, and that would explain why prices dramatically increased, because lowering the lending standards, by securitizing sub-prime loans, increased the number of people who qualified to get a mortgage. Increased Demand, static supply... price goes up.
Again, unlike the prior two booms, you can't blame it on interest rates going up or down, because they didn't in the late 1990s. You can't blame it on inflation driving investment, because there was little inflation. You can't blame it on a booming economy, because there was no booming economy.
There is no logical, identifiable reason for this price bubble, other than what I have outlined.
So again, here is your opportunity to give your own reason. What do you think caused the price bubble in 1997?
Interesting side note, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, was pushed by liberals as a solution to so-called mortgage discrimination, and passed in 1975. Odd that directly after the very first attempt at mortgage affirmative action, that there was a bubble. However, I can find no evidence linking the bubble to this act. It was more likely the high inflation rate. It is an interesting coincidence.
Like I said before there are many reasons why the prices would have started to increase in 1997. If I was only given two choices, lower standards on loans or the rise of MBS that hid those sub-prime loans I would go with the MBS. That said there were other nations seeing a rise in home prices and it is very hard to know exactly why there was a boom in 1997.
There is no doubt that MBS played a massive part in the boom and bust as I have already talked about. No one is denying this as far as I am aware and the single biggest problem with the MBS is the hidden risk. A risk that increases drastically in a bubble and hides poor behavior by those creating the mortgages in the first place.
A lot of people at these financial institutions and ratings agencies get paid a lot of money to know the risk on an investment. Decision makers are paid a lot of money to know and make the right decision for their companies. The idea that a government agency is at fault for hiding risk from them is absolutely ridiculous. I don't care if F&F rated them AAA(which they have no authority to do), there is no way a private company would outsource the health of their own company to a government agency's analysis. The system doesn't work that way and you keep suggesting that it does which is absurd.
While I am uncertain about 1997 I am certain that the drop in interest rates played a big part in the crisis as did the proliferation of sub-prime loans that were not mandated by the government.
You can blame the government for failing to regulate and failing to enforce regulations. You can blame F&F for not understanding the risk of the MBS. You can blame government for repealing Glass-Steagall. You can blame the The Commodities Futures Modernization Act. You can blame interest rates. You can blame anyone who ever thought markets could regulate themselves. Blame is everywhere but very little of it actually rests at the feet of some poor people getting a sub-prime loan. That is what this issue is ultimately about, not blaming government generally or capitalism or whatever. There is enough blame for everyone except the people who actually need these laws. The economy doesn't come crashing down because some poor people got a mortgage.
Obama is no different from the rich bitches that have come before him:Their War on the PoorLaws are not the only means of getting people to obey. Having never grown up in poverty one will not know that the opportunity to choose to leave the neighborhood or stay is not there.
Peer pressure, social pressure, going where the money is (crime) can constrict one's innate ability to choose liberty. Indeed, they can leads to bad decisions and it's often because people are ill informed. Our education system panders to wealth just like opportunities to work do. Though more service jobs exist than ever, they are often shameful and are dead end.
There is so much that can be said here but if you are unwilling to recognize the disparity in this country is not just income, it runs all the way down into the psyche. I know because I grew up in it and have been homeless. If you haven't lived that way you simply have no genuine idea what really means and what the causes are. You hear others who've never been homeless talk about it but that's as good as the info gets. It's an entirely different world to be in poverty, it's plain and simple and no one is willing to try that because poverty is not inviting.
59% of Americans will experience poverty for a year or more. If you haven't then you aren't part of the majority of people. You may want to recalibrate your understanding to account for the breadth of this problem. It's a human problem stemming from bad policy and greed. There is a war going on against the poor and working class. The 2 minute video explains this with rigor.
War on the Poor
"Most Americans are on a downward escalator. Median household pay is dropping, adjusted for inflation. A smaller share of working-age Americans are in jobs than at any time in the last three decades.
Only 113,000 jobs were added to the U.S. economy in January, on top of a paltry 75,000 in December.
"We need a new WPA to rebuild the nation's crumbling infrastructure, a higher minimum wage, strong unions, investments in education, and extended unemployment benefits for those who still can't find a job.
"When 95% of the economic gains go to the top 1%, the middle class and poor don't have the purchasing power to keep it going."
"Most Americans are on a downward escalator. Median household pay is dropping, adjusted for inflation. A smaller share of working-age Americans are in jobs than at any time in the last three decades.
Obama and Obamacare, killing jobs, shrinking incomes, all across America.
Obama is no different from the rich bitches that have come before him:Their War on the Poor
"Most Americans are on a downward escalator. Median household pay is dropping, adjusted for inflation. A smaller share of working-age Americans are in jobs than at any time in the last three decades.
Only 113,000 jobs were added to the U.S. economy in January, on top of a paltry 75,000 in December.
"We need a new WPA to rebuild the nation's crumbling infrastructure, a higher minimum wage, strong unions, investments in education, and extended unemployment benefits for those who still can't find a job.
"When 95% of the economic gains go to the top 1%, the middle class and poor don't have the purchasing power to keep it going."
"Most Americans are on a downward escalator. Median household pay is dropping, adjusted for inflation. A smaller share of working-age Americans are in jobs than at any time in the last three decades.
Obama and Obamacare, killing jobs, shrinking incomes, all across America.
"In 2007, $407,056 was the average income of households at the lower boundary of Americas
top one percent; and the average income at the divide between the 99.9 percent and the top
one-tenth of one percent was $2,065,541.
 "In 2007, all 'very rich' households in the top one-tenth of one percent earned nearly $4.5
million on average; and the 'rich' households in the rest of the top one percent averaged just
over one million dollars. By 2010, the very rich households averaged $4.9 million in income,
and the rich households were still earning just over one million per year (a tad more than in
2007).
 "To offer some perspective on these income levels: over the 2007-10 period, the least affluent
90% of U.S. households made $30,000 a year on average; those between the 90th and 95th
percentiles averaged $130,000 a year; and households between from the 95th through the 98th
percentiles took in an average of $210,000 a year."
http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/sites/default/files/ssn_basic_facts_hicks_on_the_very_rich.pdf
There were housing bubbles in other nations in 97 too. There are a lot of reasons why there can be a bubble starting in 97 but a lot of things happened between 97 and the crash that caused this historic bubble besides what was going on in 97.
There is no doubt that F&F played a part in the MBS problem. The thing is the market is not set up to depend on them to make all the decisions. The market is not set up to allow a government institution to be a ratings agency or manage the risk portfolios of these financial institutions.
The risk that was taken on by these institutions was in no way limited to what the government was mandating. I have said this multiple times and it is important. The demand for sub-prime mortgages far outstripped the requirements of the government. The claim that these institutions failed because of risk that was forced upon them is simply false.
Secondly the institutions lowered their standards far below what the CRA asked for. In fact one of the major faults you can place at the feet of government is the failure to regulate the markets both in terms of loan standards and balance sheet requirements.
If you don't understand that private institutions are in charge of their own financial security then I don't know what to tell you. There were plenty of banks that met CRA guidelines and didn't crash. The ones that crashed generally tried to maximize their profits by betting on the AAA rating of MBS.
You are overstating the backing of F&F by the Federal government which was a mistake many investors made. They equated F&F to the federal government beyond what the law actually establishes. The bailout of F&F went beyond what the Federal government was legally required to do.
The whole reason F&F exists isn't to make financial decisions for the entire market. Those decisions to go above and beyond the federal requirements were their own. F&F was not regulated enough either btw.
Glass Steagall mattered because it played a major part in the amount of capital flowing into the bubble and the assets that were put at risk. Glass Steagall is important when talking about the size of the bubble and the need for a bailout.
