Extending Unemployment Benefits

[Avorysuds]

Give a man to fish he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime.

Kinda hard when you guys want to take away his pole and then drain the lake to install a Wal-Mart parking lot.

You're easy.

So Wal-Mart is only supported by republicans? This is your argument at this point?

 

[Jarhead]

Yes, there were fraudlent mortgages and the reason that no one went to jail is that the banks were deregulated to where it was legal for them to bundle these mortgages to make money.

Fannie and Freddie Start Returning Fraudulent Mortgages to Banks, But Crime Goes Unpunished | The Agonist

They gambled for a profit and lost.

You also forget that these same people were told over and over that the market would only go up forever and never come down. You can't tell me that those lenders offering a jumbo no-income 2 year ARM weren't aware of what could happen. Do you think they sat down and calculated with the consumer EXACTLY how much their low payment would go up? They did not. You go to experts to like a mortgage lender because they are experts. Anyone can push paper across a desk and ask you to blindly sign without looking at it. They were totally playing on Americans' romantic idea of owning their own home and they had a mortgage for you if the only thing you had going for you was breathing. Had they never relaxed lending requirements, the housing bubble would not have happened, nor the credit collapse, right?

DO you see what you are saying?


They sat there and a man said I will lend you 300K and I will pay off your existing loan of 200K and you will have 100K in your pocket and not only that but your monthly payment is still going to be the same and there s absolutely no risk at all....and they believed it......and now they are victims

Victims of what? Being gulliuble?

So who is the worng doer....the one who buys the dress at an unbelivably low price....but it rips after the first cleaning........or the one who sold it to her at the unbelieveably low price

 

[Mr. Peepers]

They sat there and a man said I will lend you 300K and I will pay off your existing loan of 200K and you will have 100K in your pocket and not only that but your monthly payment is still going to be the same and there s absolutely no risk at all....and they believed it......and now they are victims

Victims of what? Being gulliuble?

So who is the worng doer....the one who buys the dress at an unbelivably low price....but it rips after the first cleaning........or the one who sold it to her at the unbelieveably low price

Yes! That is exactly what I'm saying. The average American can't even find Kansas on a map let alone understand ARM's and interest only mortgages. Why on earth would you OFFER something like this to someone who obviously only makes $20K a year? Because you know you get paid per loan originated and you make money selling the mortgages to traders. And you KNOW that sucker will get a nice surprise in 2 years when his payment goes from $600 a month to $2400. Come on, really???

 

[edthecynic]

I'd go with trickle down anyday.

Why? It's been proven that it doesn't work... twice.

Has it? Hmm.. well I remember Reagn used a trickle down system aka reaganomics or supply-side economics and it worked pretty darn well.

•Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.

•Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

•Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

•The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record | William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis

This study also exposes 12 fables of Reaganomics, such as that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, the Reagan tax cuts caused the deficit to explode, and Bill Clinton's economic record has been better than Reagan's.

Now, of course, those numbers were for all 8 of Reagan's years, but St Ronnie abandoned trickle down voodoo economics after it produced the 1981 - 82 Reagan Recession. All those positive numbers were a result of his tax increases and Keynesian deficit spending after abandoning Reaganomics.

 

[antagon]

Bullshit. I have read a book or two and you have no idea what your talking about.

stubborn as a longhorn!

perhaps you can inform from your reading or otherwise who aggregates more profits quantitatively from the sale of goods? is it the worker who gets $0.50 for every $10 widget they make or is it the owner who gets $.10 from every $10 widget, but takes his dime from every widget out the door?

is it the wealthy alone who hold the $10 to buy the goods in the first place, or is it the middle and lower class shopping at a bargain retailers who really constitute the demand that the owner set up shop to supply? would this system work if it were just the wealthy who had the money?

take the wealth from the owner... all of it... and give him a 60-day line of credit, he would be wealthy again at the end of the month.

in this same vacuum, if you take all of the wealth from the consumers, the whole system will fail, no matter how much money the owner has, or whether you extended the consumers 60 days credit or not.

that's my bullshit. your turn.

What's a widget?

Oh and longhorns are anything but stubborn.

a widget is a hypothetical product.

city slicker that i am, i wouldn't know a longhorn's temperament from from a yellow widget.

my point is that in a chicken and egg scenario between demand and supply, the demand lays the supply every time. business people rise out of the ranks of everyone else at the recognition of potential demand for something, and the wealth realized from that comes from the demand - the ranks of everyone else. its not even worth calling wealth at a rate of 25k a year, but as the individually inane consumer activity trickles upward, fewer and fewer people in the favor of business owners get their hands on the proceeds. the owner himself has .1% of 500,000 $20,000 incomes at the end of the quarter...

 

[Jarhead]

They sat there and a man said I will lend you 300K and I will pay off your existing loan of 200K and you will have 100K in your pocket and not only that but your monthly payment is still going to be the same and there s absolutely no risk at all....and they believed it......and now they are victims

Victims of what? Being gulliuble?

So who is the worng doer....the one who buys the dress at an unbelivably low price....but it rips after the first cleaning........or the one who sold it to her at the unbelieveably low price

Yes! That is exactly what I'm saying. The average American can't even find Kansas on a map let alone understand ARM's and interest only mortgages. Why on earth would you OFFER something like this to someone who obviously only makes $20K a year? Because you know you get paid per loan originated and you make money selling the mortgages to traders. And you KNOW that sucker will get a nice surprise in 2 years when his payment goes from $600 a month to $2400. Come on, really???

Peepers....

Do you know what an underwriter is?
DO you know what their responsibility is?

No one making 20K a year got a mortgage unless the LIED on the application.

So yes, perhaps the banks did not check he information.......but the borrower had to lie and then SWEAR to that lie when they signed the application.

It does not take intelligence to realize that if I have to lie to get it, something is not good here.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

They sat there and a man said I will lend you 300K and I will pay off your existing loan of 200K and you will have 100K in your pocket and not only that but your monthly payment is still going to be the same and there s absolutely no risk at all....and they believed it......and now they are victims

Victims of what? Being gulliuble?

So who is the worng doer....the one who buys the dress at an unbelivably low price....but it rips after the first cleaning........or the one who sold it to her at the unbelieveably low price

Yes! That is exactly what I'm saying. The average American can't even find Kansas on a map let alone understand ARM's and interest only mortgages. Why on earth would you OFFER something like this to someone who obviously only makes $20K a year? Because you know you get paid per loan originated and you make money selling the mortgages to traders. And you KNOW that sucker will get a nice surprise in 2 years when his payment goes from $600 a month to $2400. Come on, really???

So it's the lenders fault if you don't understand the loan agreement?

Ever heard of CRA (Community Reinvestment Act)?

Read more: Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Why? It's been proven that it doesn't work... twice.

Has it? Hmm.. well I remember Reagn used a trickle down system aka reaganomics or supply-side economics and it worked pretty darn well.

•Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.

•Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

•Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

•The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record | William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis

This study also exposes 12 fables of Reaganomics, such as that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, the Reagan tax cuts caused the deficit to explode, and Bill Clinton's economic record has been better than Reagan's.

Now, of course, those numbers were for all 8 of Reagan's years, but St Ronnie abandoned trickle down voodoo economics after it produced the 1981 - 82 Reagan Recession. All those positive numbers were a result of his tax increases and Keynesian deficit spending after abandoning Reaganomics.

Now of course you'll have to prove everything you just said.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

stubborn as a longhorn!

perhaps you can inform from your reading or otherwise who aggregates more profits quantitatively from the sale of goods? is it the worker who gets $0.50 for every $10 widget they make or is it the owner who gets $.10 from every $10 widget, but takes his dime from every widget out the door?

is it the wealthy alone who hold the $10 to buy the goods in the first place, or is it the middle and lower class shopping at a bargain retailers who really constitute the demand that the owner set up shop to supply? would this system work if it were just the wealthy who had the money?

take the wealth from the owner... all of it... and give him a 60-day line of credit, he would be wealthy again at the end of the month.

in this same vacuum, if you take all of the wealth from the consumers, the whole system will fail, no matter how much money the owner has, or whether you extended the consumers 60 days credit or not.

that's my bullshit. your turn.

What's a widget?

Oh and longhorns are anything but stubborn.

a widget is a hypothetical product.

city slicker that i am, i wouldn't know a longhorn's temperament from from a yellow widget.

my point is that in a chicken and egg scenario between demand and supply, the demand lays the supply every time. business people rise out of the ranks of everyone else at the recognition of potential demand for something, and the wealth realized from that comes from the demand - the ranks of everyone else. its not even worth calling wealth at a rate of 25k a year, but as the individually inane consumer activity trickles upward, fewer and fewer people in the favor of business owners get their hands on the proceeds. the owner himself has .1% of 500,000 $20,000 incomes at the end of the quarter...

This may come as a shock, but I'm no economist, however I think the free market economy is the best, that's what built this country and it's what we need to sick with.

 

[edthecynic]

Has it? Hmm.. well I remember Reagn used a trickle down system aka reaganomics or supply-side economics and it worked pretty darn well.

•Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.

•Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

•Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

•The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record | William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis

This study also exposes 12 fables of Reaganomics, such as that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, the Reagan tax cuts caused the deficit to explode, and Bill Clinton's economic record has been better than Reagan's.

Now, of course, those numbers were for all 8 of Reagan's years, but St Ronnie abandoned trickle down voodoo economics after it produced the 1981 - 82 Reagan Recession. All those positive numbers were a result of his tax increases and Keynesian deficit spending after abandoning Reaganomics.

Now of course you'll have to prove everything you just said.

Your own link says that Reaganomics ended with an anti-supply side tax increase. The Right Wing Think Tank simply pretends that taxes didn't increase until Bush I.
From your link:

Just as controversial is the issue of when the Reagan era ended. Again, Reagan's political foes often describe the entire
12 years of the Reagan and Bush administrations as the "Reagan years."
[7]
At first blush this seems logical: two
Republican administrations in succession would normally suggest a continuation of policy from one to the other. Yet
the real and dramatic shift in economic policyin Washington occurred not in 1993, with the start of the Clinton
administration, but rather in 1990, with George Bush's repudiation of his "no new taxes" pledge that led to both the
enactment of a large anti-supply-side tax increase

Here is a list of anti-supply side tax increases after Reagan abandoned his voodoo economics that produced 10.8% UE by Dec 1982.

First term

1. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982

2. Highway Revenue Act of 1982

3. Social Security Amendments of 1983

4. Interest and Dividend Tax Compliance Act of 1983

5. Deficit Reduction Act of 1984

Second term

6. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985

7. Tax Reform Act of 1986

8. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987

 

[edthecynic]

They sat there and a man said I will lend you 300K and I will pay off your existing loan of 200K and you will have 100K in your pocket and not only that but your monthly payment is still going to be the same and there s absolutely no risk at all....and they believed it......and now they are victims

Victims of what? Being gulliuble?

So who is the worng doer....the one who buys the dress at an unbelivably low price....but it rips after the first cleaning........or the one who sold it to her at the unbelieveably low price

Yes! That is exactly what I'm saying. The average American can't even find Kansas on a map let alone understand ARM's and interest only mortgages. Why on earth would you OFFER something like this to someone who obviously only makes $20K a year? Because you know you get paid per loan originated and you make money selling the mortgages to traders. And you KNOW that sucker will get a nice surprise in 2 years when his payment goes from $600 a month to $2400. Come on, really???

So it's the lenders fault if you don't understand the loan agreement?

Ever heard of CRA (Community Reinvestment Act)?

Read more: Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending

The CRA had nothing to do with the housing bubble, borrowers had to be qualified to get the loans. It was Bush's Dec 2003 ADDI, American Dream Downpayment Initiative, that made no down payment loans for more than the property was worth to unqualified borrowers with bad credit who couldn't make payments.

After this speech in 2002 the amount of subprime mortgages went up radically.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV4Fc7150eI&feature=related]YouTube - Who REALLY Started the Foreclosure Crisis--DON'T MISS THIS![/ame]


American Dream Downpayment Initiative - Affordable Housing - CPD - HUD
American Dream Downpayment Initiative
Summary

The American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) was signed into law on December 16, 2003. The American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act authorizes up to $200 million annually for fiscal years 2004 - 2007. ADDI will provide funds to all fifty states and to local participating jurisdictions that have a population of at least 150,000 or will receive an allocation of at least $50,000 under the ADDI formula. ADDI will be administered as a part of the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, a formula grant program.

Purpose

ADDI aims to increase the homeownership rate, especially among lower income and minority households, and to revitalize and stabilize communities. ADDI will help first-time homebuyers with the biggest hurdle to homeownership: downpayment and closing costs. The program was created to assist low-income first-time homebuyers in purchasing single-family homes by providing funds for downpayment, closing costs, and rehabilitation carried out in conjunction with the assisted home purchase.

Type of Assistance

ADDI will provide downpayment, closing costs, and rehabilitation assistance to eligible individuals. The amount of ADDI assistance provided may not exceed $10,000 or six percent of the purchase price of the home, whichever is greater. The rehabilitation must be completed within one year of the home purchase. Rehabilitation may include, but is not limited to, the reduction of lead paint hazards and the remediation of other home health hazards.

Eligible Customers

To be eligible for ADDI assistance, individuals must be first-time homebuyers interested in purchasing single family housing. A first-time homebuyer is defined as an individual and his or her spouse who have not owned a home during the three-year period prior to the purchase of a home with ADDI assistance. ADDI funds may be used to purchase one- to four- family housing, condominium unit, cooperative unit, or manufactured housing. Additionally, individuals who qualify for ADDI assistance must have incomes not exceeding 80% of area median income.

Eligible Activities

ADDI funds may be used for downpayment, closing costs and, if necessary, rehabilitation in conjunction with home purchase. ADDI funds used for rehabilitation may not exceed twenty percent of the participating jurisdiction's total ADDI allocation. The rehabilitation assisted with ADDI funds must be completed within one year of the home purchase.

Funding Status

In FY 2007, Congress appropriated $24,750,000 for ADDI. Previously, Congress appropriated $74,513,000 in FY2003 and $86,984 in FY2004, $49,600,000 in FY2005 and $24,750,000 in FY2006. HUD has issued formula allocations for FY 2007 to assist participating jurisdictions in preparing their consolidated plans.

Obtaining Assistance

First, check the formula allocation page to determine whether your local HOME administering agency received ADDI funding. If they did not receive ADDI funding, ADDI funds may be available through your state. Every state received ADDI funds. The contacts for state are available in the HOME administering agency list.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Home Ownership and President Bush[/ame]


USATODAY.com - Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership

Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership
By Thomas A. Fogarty, USA TODAY

In a bid to boost minority homeownership, President Bush will ask Congress for authority to eliminate the down-payment requirement for Federal Housing Administration loans.

In announcing the plan Monday at a home builders show in Las Vegas, Federal Housing Commissioner John Weicher called the proposal the "most significant FHA initiative in more than a decade." It would lead to 150,000 first-time owners annually, he said.

Nothing-down options are available on the private mortgage market, but, in general, they require the borrower to have pristine credit. Bush's proposed change would extend the nothing-down option to borrowers with blemished credit.

The FHA isn't a direct lender, but guarantees loan payments for mortgages on moderately priced owner-occupied property. The FHA guarantee now permits private lenders to finance as much as 97% of the purchase price of a home for millions of low- and middle-income borrowers.

In the proposal soon to be delivered to Congress, Bush would allow the FHA to guarantee loans for the full purchase price of the home, plus down-payment costs. As a practical matter, the FHA would guarantee mortgages as high as 103% of the value of the underlying property.

 

[saveliberty]

Oxymoron: Tax reform.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Now, of course, those numbers were for all 8 of Reagan's years, but St Ronnie abandoned trickle down voodoo economics after it produced the 1981 - 82 Reagan Recession. All those positive numbers were a result of his tax increases and Keynesian deficit spending after abandoning Reaganomics.

Now of course you'll have to prove everything you just said.

Your own link says that Reaganomics ended with an anti-supply side tax increase. The Right Wing Think Tank simply pretends that taxes didn't increase until Bush I.
From your link:

Just as controversial is the issue of when the Reagan era ended. Again, Reagan's political foes often describe the entire
12 years of the Reagan and Bush administrations as the "Reagan years."
[7]
At first blush this seems logical: two
Republican administrations in succession would normally suggest a continuation of policy from one to the other. Yet
the real and dramatic shift in economic policyin Washington occurred not in 1993, with the start of the Clinton
administration, but rather in 1990, with George Bush's repudiation of his "no new taxes" pledge that led to both the
enactment of a large anti-supply-side tax increase

Here is a list of anti-supply side tax increases after Reagan abandoned his voodoo economics that produced 10.8% UE by Dec 1982.

First term

1. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982

2. Highway Revenue Act of 1982

3. Social Security Amendments of 1983

4. Interest and Dividend Tax Compliance Act of 1983

5. Deficit Reduction Act of 1984

Second term

6. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985

7. Tax Reform Act of 1986

8. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987

You sure did a nice hatchet job there, but you're wrong and you know it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yes! That is exactly what I'm saying. The average American can't even find Kansas on a map let alone understand ARM's and interest only mortgages. Why on earth would you OFFER something like this to someone who obviously only makes $20K a year? Because you know you get paid per loan originated and you make money selling the mortgages to traders. And you KNOW that sucker will get a nice surprise in 2 years when his payment goes from $600 a month to $2400. Come on, really???

So it's the lenders fault if you don't understand the loan agreement?

Ever heard of CRA (Community Reinvestment Act)?

Read more: Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending

The CRA had nothing to do with the housing bubble, borrowers had to be qualified to get the loans. It was Bush's Dec 2003 ADDI, American Dream Downpayment Initiative, that made no down payment loans for more than the property was worth to unqualified borrowers with bad credit who couldn't make payments.

After this speech in 2002 the amount of subprime mortgages went up radically.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV4Fc7150eI&feature=related]YouTube - Who REALLY Started the Foreclosure Crisis--DON'T MISS THIS![/ame]


American Dream Downpayment Initiative - Affordable Housing - CPD - HUD
American Dream Downpayment Initiative
Summary

The American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) was signed into law on December 16, 2003. The American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act authorizes up to $200 million annually for fiscal years 2004 - 2007. ADDI will provide funds to all fifty states and to local participating jurisdictions that have a population of at least 150,000 or will receive an allocation of at least $50,000 under the ADDI formula. ADDI will be administered as a part of the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, a formula grant program.

Purpose

ADDI aims to increase the homeownership rate, especially among lower income and minority households, and to revitalize and stabilize communities. ADDI will help first-time homebuyers with the biggest hurdle to homeownership: downpayment and closing costs. The program was created to assist low-income first-time homebuyers in purchasing single-family homes by providing funds for downpayment, closing costs, and rehabilitation carried out in conjunction with the assisted home purchase.

Type of Assistance

ADDI will provide downpayment, closing costs, and rehabilitation assistance to eligible individuals. The amount of ADDI assistance provided may not exceed $10,000 or six percent of the purchase price of the home, whichever is greater. The rehabilitation must be completed within one year of the home purchase. Rehabilitation may include, but is not limited to, the reduction of lead paint hazards and the remediation of other home health hazards.

Eligible Customers

To be eligible for ADDI assistance, individuals must be first-time homebuyers interested in purchasing single family housing. A first-time homebuyer is defined as an individual and his or her spouse who have not owned a home during the three-year period prior to the purchase of a home with ADDI assistance. ADDI funds may be used to purchase one- to four- family housing, condominium unit, cooperative unit, or manufactured housing. Additionally, individuals who qualify for ADDI assistance must have incomes not exceeding 80% of area median income.

Eligible Activities

ADDI funds may be used for downpayment, closing costs and, if necessary, rehabilitation in conjunction with home purchase. ADDI funds used for rehabilitation may not exceed twenty percent of the participating jurisdiction's total ADDI allocation. The rehabilitation assisted with ADDI funds must be completed within one year of the home purchase.

Funding Status

In FY 2007, Congress appropriated $24,750,000 for ADDI. Previously, Congress appropriated $74,513,000 in FY2003 and $86,984 in FY2004, $49,600,000 in FY2005 and $24,750,000 in FY2006. HUD has issued formula allocations for FY 2007 to assist participating jurisdictions in preparing their consolidated plans.

Obtaining Assistance

First, check the formula allocation page to determine whether your local HOME administering agency received ADDI funding. If they did not receive ADDI funding, ADDI funds may be available through your state. Every state received ADDI funds. The contacts for state are available in the HOME administering agency list.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Home Ownership and President Bush[/ame]


USATODAY.com - Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership

Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership
By Thomas A. Fogarty, USA TODAY

In a bid to boost minority homeownership, President Bush will ask Congress for authority to eliminate the down-payment requirement for Federal Housing Administration loans.

In announcing the plan Monday at a home builders show in Las Vegas, Federal Housing Commissioner John Weicher called the proposal the "most significant FHA initiative in more than a decade." It would lead to 150,000 first-time owners annually, he said.

Nothing-down options are available on the private mortgage market, but, in general, they require the borrower to have pristine credit. Bush's proposed change would extend the nothing-down option to borrowers with blemished credit.

The FHA isn't a direct lender, but guarantees loan payments for mortgages on moderately priced owner-occupied property. The FHA guarantee now permits private lenders to finance as much as 97% of the purchase price of a home for millions of low- and middle-income borrowers.

In the proposal soon to be delivered to Congress, Bush would allow the FHA to guarantee loans for the full purchase price of the home, plus down-payment costs. As a practical matter, the FHA would guarantee mortgages as high as 103% of the value of the underlying property.

Go back to the Clinton years and you'll be singing a different tune.

 

[antagon]

What's a widget?

Oh and longhorns are anything but stubborn.

a widget is a hypothetical product.

city slicker that i am, i wouldn't know a longhorn's temperament from from a yellow widget.

my point is that in a chicken and egg scenario between demand and supply, the demand lays the supply every time. business people rise out of the ranks of everyone else at the recognition of potential demand for something, and the wealth realized from that comes from the demand - the ranks of everyone else. its not even worth calling wealth at a rate of 25k a year, but as the individually inane consumer activity trickles upward, fewer and fewer people in the favor of business owners get their hands on the proceeds. the owner himself has .1% of 500,000 $20,000 incomes at the end of the quarter...

This may come as a shock, but I'm no economist, however I think the free market economy is the best, that's what built this country and it's what we need to sick with.

what i have described is a free market economy. i've not gotten into the role of government or anything quite yet. a free market trickles cash from the masses to the owners of the means of production, not particularly the other way around. if the money starts with the masses and the supply gets cut off, it will trickle up to the owners until the masses are feudal peasants who could just be offered food and shelter for complying with the wealthy's command.

the role of government suggested in wealth of nations (adam smith's book) and by economists since involves not cutting off the supply. the result is that the wealthy get even wealthier and that the masses are able to express their demand in a free marketplace. part of the supply is recirculating tax money.

sometimes, some of that recirculation is unemployment insurance.

our country was found at the dawn of capitalism altogether. some countries still operate that type of system (more merchantilist than capitalist), but the performance differential is like putting a model t and a vette in a roadrace.

 

[edthecynic]

Now of course you'll have to prove everything you just said.

Your own link says that Reaganomics ended with an anti-supply side tax increase. The Right Wing Think Tank simply pretends that taxes didn't increase until Bush I.
From your link:

Just as controversial is the issue of when the Reagan era ended. Again, Reagan's political foes often describe the entire
12 years of the Reagan and Bush administrations as the "Reagan years."
[7]
At first blush this seems logical: two
Republican administrations in succession would normally suggest a continuation of policy from one to the other. Yet
the real and dramatic shift in economic policyin Washington occurred not in 1993, with the start of the Clinton
administration, but rather in 1990, with George Bush's repudiation of his "no new taxes" pledge that led to both the
enactment of a large anti-supply-side tax increase

Here is a list of anti-supply side tax increases after Reagan abandoned his voodoo economics that produced 10.8% UE by Dec 1982.

First term

1. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982

2. Highway Revenue Act of 1982

3. Social Security Amendments of 1983

4. Interest and Dividend Tax Compliance Act of 1983

5. Deficit Reduction Act of 1984

Second term

6. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985

7. Tax Reform Act of 1986

8. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987

You sure did a nice hatchet job there, but you're wrong and you know it.

Your own link said a tax increase was the end of the Reagan supply side economic policy and that was the late 1982 TEFRA tax increase, the largest peacetime tax increase in history. You know I'm Right but you just can't handle the Reagan Myth going kaplooey.

 

[edthecynic]

What's a widget?

Oh and longhorns are anything but stubborn.

a widget is a hypothetical product.

city slicker that i am, i wouldn't know a longhorn's temperament from from a yellow widget.

my point is that in a chicken and egg scenario between demand and supply, the demand lays the supply every time. business people rise out of the ranks of everyone else at the recognition of potential demand for something, and the wealth realized from that comes from the demand - the ranks of everyone else. its not even worth calling wealth at a rate of 25k a year, but as the individually inane consumer activity trickles upward, fewer and fewer people in the favor of business owners get their hands on the proceeds. the owner himself has .1% of 500,000 $20,000 incomes at the end of the quarter...

This may come as a shock, but I'm no economist, however I think the free market economy is the best, that's what built this country and it's what we need to sick with.

There is no such thing as a "free market economy" today. We've had a MONOPOLISTIC economy for over 100 years. You need to get up to speed!

 

[Rozman]

Why do we need to extend the benefits anyway?....Every night I see Obama patting himself on the back for the great job he's doing and how great a job the stimulus is doing.

 

[antagon]

Why do we need to extend the benefits anyway?....Every night I see Obama patting himself on the back for the great job he's doing and how great a job the stimulus is doing.

the man likes patting himself on the back, i guess.

 

[DiamondDave]

Yep... you have the right to care and do lots of things to support them.. .it still does not make it the responsibility of you or government to take care of the responsibilities of others.... if you wish to freely donate to help a cause, including the cause of the unemployed, knock yourself out... and you'll receive nothing but praise from me... but when you force it upon others, nope, I will condemn support of any such action

Even if it's at the cost of the production and economy of the whole country??? Are you that blind? A prosperous, stable populace makes for a prosperous stable economy. If anything, it's trickle up, NOT trickle down - when people have extra money, they SPEND it, causing a ripple all the way to the top. We can now see that trickle down was a farce and a half... Every time it's been tried, it has failed, from Reagan to Bush part deux.

There are positives and negatives with freedom... and it is still preferable to the bullshit nanny government control and interference that you stand for....

We see that governmental wealth redistribution is not a farce... it is a complete 45000Ton pile of fucking manure that has been baking in the sun under plastic... every time it has been tried it has not only failed, brought down the society, and hurt the economy, it has also destroyed the very freedom me and others fought for