Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[frigidweirdo]

Let's assume a Walmart closes down. Another shop will open in it's place, assuming there's a market for stuff that Walmart sells, which there is. Perhaps you'd have a company which makes a profit and pays wages, and doesn't make them pay extra for healthcare and doesn't send them off to the government to collect welfare money.

Your logic is funny. Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff. However they don't save people money because they pay lower wages. They make massive profits. Let's say you're calculations are right, the $3 billion is STILL only half of their profits. They could easily afford to pay this stuff.

What the contribute is what everyone has to contribute. What they don't contribute and other companies do is the factor here.

It's like saying that this company pays X amount in tax therefore that's okay, even though everyone else pays X*2. I don't get it.

Walmart has people working, and has people taking. The right seem to hate it when people are on welfare, EXCEPT when people are on welfare and making someone else a shed load of cash. I don't get it.

I'm not in favor of people being on welfare. Some people have to be on welfare, but when big corporations are putting people on welfare, when this is an actual policy of the company, and then paying them much less so they can get the welfare to back up their meager wages, then something is wrong, wouldn't you say?

Correct, something is very wrong. But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare. Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability. People put themselves on welfare.

Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale. Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.

Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management. Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits. Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time. So does their warehouse people. Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.

Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them. It's an option. People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs. It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.

Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage! No, people should make themselves worth a living wage. Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.

Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.

Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.

Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.

No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable. It works that way with most companies that use manual labor. If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?

Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade. You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.

Big profits? So what? Companies don't base everything on profits. Companies are more focused on growth. That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.

After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it? Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth? Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses. You make your money by how much your investment grows.

I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.

But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.

Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.

Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.

The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.

Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs. Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians. The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.

If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.

What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government. Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage. That should be up to the individual. Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs. I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.

I'm not saying Social Programs aren't the responsibility of the politicians. I'm saying the politicians have been bought and do the bidding of the big companies.

This is about whether the rich should pay higher taxes. Yes. They don't because the money pays the politicians which then allow breaks all over the place. Making all sorts of chances for the rich to not pay their fair amount of tax.

What Walmart pays its workers should not be anything to do with the government. However the govt has made it easy for Walmart to get workers at such a low cost because the govt is willing to back them up. Stop this, it's not right. If you work you should not be getting welfare, the company should be paying a decent wage.

I don't know of other countries which pay workers welfare.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Correct, something is very wrong. But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare. Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability. People put themselves on welfare.

Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale. Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.

Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management. Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits. Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time. So does their warehouse people. Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.

Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them. It's an option. People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs. It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.

Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage! No, people should make themselves worth a living wage. Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.

Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.

Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.

Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.

No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable. It works that way with most companies that use manual labor. If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?

Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade. You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.

Big profits? So what? Companies don't base everything on profits. Companies are more focused on growth. That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.

After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it? Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth? Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses. You make your money by how much your investment grows.

I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.

But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.

Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.

Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.

The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.

Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs. Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians. The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.

If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.

What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government. Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage. That should be up to the individual. Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs. I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.

I'm not saying Social Programs aren't the responsibility of the politicians. I'm saying the politicians have been bought and do the bidding of the big companies.

This is about whether the rich should pay higher taxes. Yes. They don't because the money pays the politicians which then allow breaks all over the place. Making all sorts of chances for the rich to not pay their fair amount of tax.

What Walmart pays its workers should not be anything to do with the government. However the govt has made it easy for Walmart to get workers at such a low cost because the govt is willing to back them up. Stop this, it's not right. If you work you should not be getting welfare, the company should be paying a decent wage.

I don't know of other countries which pay workers welfare.

Probably because with other countries, if you don't make enough to eat, you starve. There is no welfare.

Let me ask: if you wanted to hire a lawn care company, would you hire one that will come out for $45.00 per cut, or one that will do the same job for $25.00 per cut? If your car needs some work done, do you choose the mechanic that charges $565.00 to fix your car, or one that will do the same exact job for $320.00?

You and I don't want to waste money paying labor more than they're worth no more than Wal-Mart. But if you need your lawn cut, or your car repaired, is it your responsibility to make sure they make a living wage and can stay off of welfare programs? Of course not. That's ridiculous.

Companies don't create jobs as a social obligation because they have no social obligation. They create jobs because they need help running their business. That's all. Whether politicians give minimum wage workers the world, or they don't give them anything at all, Wal-Mart could care less. All they care about is getting the labor they need for the price they want. What government offers their employees is none of their concern.

 

[Dad2three]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

No, I believe in equality. Not equality by policy but by opportunity, meaning we shouldn't force a part society to be more equal with the rest of society. Instead every American should pay as much as every other american, with exception of the poor (do we really need the 18% of those who make less than say 40,000 a year?) However the ultra rich (billionaires) have ways of getting around paying their fair share of taxes (not obamas definition of fair share which is actually unequal and more by his definition). The millionaires and the rich that Obama speaks of (those who make 250,000) are more of the new rich or nuvo-riche, the up and comers. Generally the small business owners and the employers of most Americans. We also have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and we wonder why, and get angry when companies like ford and Nabisco go to Mexico to conduct business. But the billionaires, the ones who can influence our politicians the most with money, power, and campaign donations keep getting regulation and laws passed in their favor, and get the blind eye from our politicians on the right and left.

This is why I support flat tax, you get taxed at 14.5% no matter who you are (except on your first 50,000 you make, or unless your a non-profit company). We get the ultra rich to pay an actual fair share, we don't over burden our new rich and small business, and those who make less than 50,000 (I just had 900$ taken out of my last pay check, thought I was the little guy) can have room to breath. Why does this not make sense?

Flat taxes ARE regressive. The US ranks on the bottom of ACTUAL Corp taxes paid EVEN if you want to conflate tax RATE with EFFECTIVE rates

Corps don't move to Mexico for tax purposes, but to build a better bottom line for the capital gains and dividends that only the top 1/10th of 1% of US receive!

HINT GOOD GOV'T POLICY COULD CHANGE IT, BUT VOTE FOR GOPers who don't "believe in" Govt and are shocked the system is rigged?

Small Biz BS huh? lol




Taxes on ‘Small Businesses’


Tim Scott’s Misleading Tax Claims

14.5% Good for you Bubs, you want to gut Gov't to about a third it's current size, THAT will not put US back into ANOTHER right wing depression *shaking head*

So you disagree with Kennedy's tax policy? And the results that brought?

The Venezuelan model works I guess?

You mean the demand side LBJ tax cuts Bubs? How'd Uncle Milties Chile free market experience work out again? About today's Honduras experiment? lol


Good little rightie though, ignore your ludicrous 14.5% posit, lol

 

[Dad2three]

More right wing nonsense NOT based in reality. Look to history to say you are full of shit Bubs


Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households



Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Unemployment benefits, paid for from an employer for employees that WORK.
Social Security, paid for from employer and employee from employees that WORK
Health insurance, should be paid for by the individuals and companies for employees that WORK
Social services like the ones actually in question are paid for by those that WORK so that those that are LAZY can get for free.
Why do you idiots always try to bring up things like social security that are paid for in advance to further your redistribution efforts.
Look Corky, the bottom line is simple. If you dont work for it, you should not get it. Sorry about your health but its not my job to make sure you stay healthy longer to suck off of my wallet.

Got it, you''l stick with the right wing hammock BS despite the FACT that it's a MYTH


Hint, CONservatives fought ALL those things you named ALSO

I know they did but HINT, they are at least earned by contributing. Welfare is NOT earned or a right. Its free money for the terminally stupid or lazy or both.
I would be happy to get a lump sum back of what Ive paid into SS and medicare all these years, not interest, just the actual dollar for dollar amount. Then have those programs cease to exist too.
My investments have done me much better than social security, imagine how much better off I would have been if I could have been investing that money too.
My theory is work and earn it, or starve. Y'all anti religious people should appreciate Darwins theory over religion.

Weird, I though there was a FIVE YEAR LIFETIME CAP ON THOSE LAZY WELFARE LEECHES? Dumbass!

Weird how the US looked like a fukn Darwin/Randian wet dream when the US didn't have the PROGRESSIVE policies that CREATED the worlds largest middle class!

how many of those leeches return to welfare within a year?
how long have you been on it.

A MANDATORY FIVE YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE DUMMY? lol

Your inability to use reason and instead just attack IS noted and discarded Bubs. NEVER got any type of welfare, unless tax credits for my rentals is considered welfare?

 

[Dad2three]

Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.

Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.

Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.

No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable. It works that way with most companies that use manual labor. If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?

Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade. You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.

Big profits? So what? Companies don't base everything on profits. Companies are more focused on growth. That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.

After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it? Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth? Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses. You make your money by how much your investment grows.

To bad there isn't ANYTHING that WE could do like GOOD GOV'T POLICY you fukkn wingnutters HATE


Your drivel and inability to accept hat Corp/"Job creators" have gamed the system is noted Bubs


Lowest sustained EFFECTIVE tax rate on the top 1/10th of 1% since the 1920's. Over HALF of AL;L US dividends and capital gains each year go to this small group of plutocrats



US Corp profits are at 40 year highs where their tax burden are near record lows (12% EFFECTIVE) WHILE the costs of their labor, for the first time EVER, is less than half of their expense

WOOOHOO CONS say keep lowering the net and allow the "job creators" to capture even more of US, perhaps the US will look like it did PRE PROGRESSIVE POLICY, like workhouses for the poor and REAL company stores using scrip!

People like you who are consumed with the wealthy fail to realize the competition in business today.

Today we have to consider companies that move overseas, bring in cheap foreign labor, invest in technology like automation, and even internet sales.

Competition is what brings (or keeps) prices down. Don't act like your not guilty of participation either. We all do it.

Wal-Mart is number one because they brought their consumers what they wanted: cheap products. That's it in a nut shell. Americans never cried that we need better paying jobs and are willing to pay for it. Oh, they may want better paying jobs, but they want other people to pay for it.

Well it doesn't work that way in Realville. In Realville, you either have cheap products or you have better paying jobs, but you can't have both. The very idea that you think government should regulate it against the will of the majority is a definition of fascism. Government shouldn't be running our businesses.

MORON IN REALVILLE, GOOD GOV'T POLICY CAN HELP.

Why is it conservatives "believe" tax cuts boom the economy, but helping those at the bottom (by increasing min wage, better conditions, etc) will destroy it? Do you Klowns EVER THINK?

Because it doesn't help and I have given several personal experiences to prove it.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intent whereas conservatives measure success by results."
Rush Limbaugh

Wanna hear about good government policy? Let's take the housing bubble for instance.

Back in the day, Democrats pushed for higher home ownership for minorities and poor people. These people were too irresponsible to secure a home loan, and petitioned Democrat politicians for a solution.

Democrats and various agencies pushed banks to make these loans. It took it's worst turn when 0% down and little credit check came into play.

What that did is draw all the lowlifes into my suburb from the inner-city. These people didn't have a pot to pizz in or a window to throw it out of. They came in droves, and with them, the crime.

Our police became so busy we often had to summon help from police departments from surrounding suburbs. We went from one murder every ten years or so to three to four every year. Businesses closed down, good people moved out in fear, housing values plummeted, the rental market was nearly destroyed, the remaining businesses that stayed open had to close much earlier in the evening, people couldn't take evening walks in safety any longer, gang fights not only common, but several incidents per night.

This is a prime example of what happens when you help "those on the bottom." If it's one thing our government hasn't (or refuses) learned, it's that if you take 3/4 cup of fresh wholesome milk, and mix that with 1/4 cup of stale curdled milk, you only have one thing, and that is one cup of rotton milk.

Government policy destroyed my suburb. It wasn't until government got out of the way and allowed banks to foreclose on the lowlifes sending them back to the inner-city when things started to turn back around. Industry had it right all along: only people that are credit worthy enough to live in the suburbs belong in the suburbs.

GOV'T AND DEMS FORCED THEM? lol

YOU FUKKN MORON


Like the US in the 1880's,1920's ,Ronnie's S&L crisis, DUBYA ALLOWED THE FREE MARKETS TO GO HOG WILD DUMMY

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.

(NAME THE LAW THAT REQUIRED THIS BUBS?)



Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.



Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (2004)
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule (2004)
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (2003)
Forcing GSEs (F/F) to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets 2004)
Giving away 40,000 free down payments PER YEAR 2004-2007
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (2003)


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.



WHAT DID THE DEMS DO 2004-2007 BUBS?

FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


MORON

 

[Dad2three]

Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.

Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.

Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.

No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable. It works that way with most companies that use manual labor. If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?

Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade. You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.

Big profits? So what? Companies don't base everything on profits. Companies are more focused on growth. That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.

After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it? Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth? Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses. You make your money by how much your investment grows.

I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.

But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.

Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.

Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.

The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.

Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs. Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians. The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.

If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.

What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government. Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage. That should be up to the individual. Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs. I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.

GAWD you are a low informed idiot. PERIOD

GOV'T POLICY MATTERED WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER, AND TODAY, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GOV'T POLICY MATTERS (hint conservative pushing "free trade", LOWERING the tax burden on those (Chinese) "job creators", it IS GOV'T policy that matters the most.

YOU THINK BENEFITS ARE TO GENEROUS? YOU FUKKN KLOWN

Yes, I do think government benefits are too generous. I have several articles to prove it as well, some claiming that people on welfare do better (dollar for dollar) than those working. Just ask, and I'll post them.

As for free trade, it was Bill Clinton that signed legislation for that. Yes, Republicans were behind it, but don't call it Republican efforts entirely. And who lowered the tax burden on the Chinese job creators?

YOU are too ignorant to actually have a conversation with Bubs


Right wing MYTH that those not working can make $70,000 a year right? lol

 

[Dad2three]

If it wasn't for unions and government in the early 20th century I doubt a middle class of 1/10th the size would of ever formed. The super wealthy wouldn't of ever paid their workers well enough for it to happen and guess what! With tax rates at 60%+ on the rich we had the biggest industry, best education and biggest middle class in history in 1950. How did that happen?

Its sad how when the rich started taking all the profit since 1980 all these things started becoming smaller....

One last thing,,,If the robber barons had been allowed to keep doing what they were doing...Well, I honestly doubt there'd be more then 1 or 2 corps per item for the demander if that. Competition? Pure capitalism destroys it and ends up valuing one big corp. That is the nature of it.

Right wing Klowns don't understand the concept of the game of monopoly, the basis of "free market capitalism", EVERYONE goes BK except 1 big winner!

Oh, so that's where you get your economic education from.

Says the Klown who lives off right wing memes created by the plutocrats since Lewis Powell 1971 memo. Go google it dummy!

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Unemployment benefits, paid for from an employer for employees that WORK.
Social Security, paid for from employer and employee from employees that WORK
Health insurance, should be paid for by the individuals and companies for employees that WORK
Social services like the ones actually in question are paid for by those that WORK so that those that are LAZY can get for free.
Why do you idiots always try to bring up things like social security that are paid for in advance to further your redistribution efforts.
Look Corky, the bottom line is simple. If you dont work for it, you should not get it. Sorry about your health but its not my job to make sure you stay healthy longer to suck off of my wallet.

Got it, you''l stick with the right wing hammock BS despite the FACT that it's a MYTH


Hint, CONservatives fought ALL those things you named ALSO

I know they did but HINT, they are at least earned by contributing. Welfare is NOT earned or a right. Its free money for the terminally stupid or lazy or both.
I would be happy to get a lump sum back of what Ive paid into SS and medicare all these years, not interest, just the actual dollar for dollar amount. Then have those programs cease to exist too.
My investments have done me much better than social security, imagine how much better off I would have been if I could have been investing that money too.
My theory is work and earn it, or starve. Y'all anti religious people should appreciate Darwins theory over religion.

Weird, I though there was a FIVE YEAR LIFETIME CAP ON THOSE LAZY WELFARE LEECHES? Dumbass!

Weird how the US looked like a fukn Darwin/Randian wet dream when the US didn't have the PROGRESSIVE policies that CREATED the worlds largest middle class!

how many of those leeches return to welfare within a year?
how long have you been on it.

A MANDATORY FIVE YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE DUMMY? lol

Your inability to use reason and instead just attack IS noted and discarded Bubs. NEVER got any type of welfare, unless tax credits for my rentals is considered welfare?

perhaps you should actually look into the reality of welfare. there is not mandatory five year limit that is adhered to.
as far as you owning rentals? LOL, based on what you post here, you are really not bright enough to own a rental, let alone your own home.
but thanks for the laugh Corky.

 

[Dad2three]

If it wasn't for unions and government in the early 20th century I doubt a middle class of 1/10th the size would of ever formed. The super wealthy wouldn't of ever paid their workers well enough for it to happen and guess what! With tax rates at 60%+ on the rich we had the biggest industry, best education and biggest middle class in history in 1950. How did that happen?

Its sad how when the rich started taking all the profit since 1980 all these things started becoming smaller....

One last thing,,,If the robber barons had been allowed to keep doing what they were doing...Well, I honestly doubt there'd be more then 1 or 2 corps per item for the demander if that. Competition? Pure capitalism destroys it and ends up valuing one big corp. That is the nature of it.

Right wing Klowns don't understand the concept of the game of monopoly, the basis of "free market capitalism", EVERYONE goes BK except 1 big winner!

Haha so every monopoly was created without the help of government?

Don't understand capitalism huh? I'm not surprised Bubs. Try reading about the Robber Barron's, perhaps grow a brain and realize most people get off Ayn Rands BS by 25 or so?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable. It works that way with most companies that use manual labor. If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?

Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade. You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.

Big profits? So what? Companies don't base everything on profits. Companies are more focused on growth. That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.

After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it? Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth? Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses. You make your money by how much your investment grows.

I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.

But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.

Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.

Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.

The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.

Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs. Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians. The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.

If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.

What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government. Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage. That should be up to the individual. Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs. I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.

GAWD you are a low informed idiot. PERIOD

GOV'T POLICY MATTERED WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER, AND TODAY, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GOV'T POLICY MATTERS (hint conservative pushing "free trade", LOWERING the tax burden on those (Chinese) "job creators", it IS GOV'T policy that matters the most.

YOU THINK BENEFITS ARE TO GENEROUS? YOU FUKKN KLOWN

Yes, I do think government benefits are too generous. I have several articles to prove it as well, some claiming that people on welfare do better (dollar for dollar) than those working. Just ask, and I'll post them.

As for free trade, it was Bill Clinton that signed legislation for that. Yes, Republicans were behind it, but don't call it Republican efforts entirely. And who lowered the tax burden on the Chinese job creators?

YOU are too ignorant to actually have a conversation with Bubs


Right wing MYTH that those not working can make $70,000 a year right? lol

Ah yes, your public education is showing again. Where did I use the calculation of $70,000 per year? Try again, and read slower this time.

 

[Dad2three]

To bad there isn't ANYTHING that WE could do like GOOD GOV'T POLICY you fukkn wingnutters HATE


Your drivel and inability to accept hat Corp/"Job creators" have gamed the system is noted Bubs


Lowest sustained EFFECTIVE tax rate on the top 1/10th of 1% since the 1920's. Over HALF of AL;L US dividends and capital gains each year go to this small group of plutocrats



US Corp profits are at 40 year highs where their tax burden are near record lows (12% EFFECTIVE) WHILE the costs of their labor, for the first time EVER, is less than half of their expense

WOOOHOO CONS say keep lowering the net and allow the "job creators" to capture even more of US, perhaps the US will look like it did PRE PROGRESSIVE POLICY, like workhouses for the poor and REAL company stores using scrip!

People like you who are consumed with the wealthy fail to realize the competition in business today.

Today we have to consider companies that move overseas, bring in cheap foreign labor, invest in technology like automation, and even internet sales.

Competition is what brings (or keeps) prices down. Don't act like your not guilty of participation either. We all do it.

Wal-Mart is number one because they brought their consumers what they wanted: cheap products. That's it in a nut shell. Americans never cried that we need better paying jobs and are willing to pay for it. Oh, they may want better paying jobs, but they want other people to pay for it.

Well it doesn't work that way in Realville. In Realville, you either have cheap products or you have better paying jobs, but you can't have both. The very idea that you think government should regulate it against the will of the majority is a definition of fascism. Government shouldn't be running our businesses.

MORON IN REALVILLE, GOOD GOV'T POLICY CAN HELP.

Why is it conservatives "believe" tax cuts boom the economy, but helping those at the bottom (by increasing min wage, better conditions, etc) will destroy it? Do you Klowns EVER THINK?

Will business owners higher more entry level positions when the min wage is raised to 15.00? Or will they stop/have less hiring and have the current entry level positions do more work? Minimum wage raising has always been known as a job killer, except until recently. If not then why has every president not raised it when they've been in office? Because they're bought out? They definitely are not bought out by small business who this will undoubtably effect negatively the most (please explain how this is good for small business). So who really benefits from a raise in minimum wage? Id say this is one of many ways that help the ultra rich can close the door on their smaller sleeker competition. It's nothing but a bandaid on a flesh wound

I THOUGHT GOOD BIZ HIRES WORKERS BECAUSE THEY NEED HELP? IT'S ONLY IF THE HELP IS CHEAP THEY HAVE EXTRA MONEY TO THROW AT THEM??? lol



Min wages increases kills jobs? lol

HINT, COSTS ALWAYS GO UP, A GOOD BIZ WORKS WITH IT'


The Job Loss Myth

The Most Rigorous Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Reduce Employment

The opinion of the economics profession on the impact of the minimum wage has shifted significantly over the past fifteen years. Today, the most rigorous research shows little evidence of job reductions from a higher minimum wage. Indicative is a 2013 survey by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business in which leading economists agreed by a nearly 4 to 1 margin that the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs.

This page reviews the most widely-cited and influential studies on the impact of minimum wage increases on employment, and examines the primary reasons why low-wage employers can afford higher wages today.

The Job Loss Myth


Myth #1: Minimum wage jobs are primarily for teenagers or part-time workers who are just trying to score some extra cash


Jeepers Media/Mike Mozart
Economy
The 3 Biggest Myths About Raising the Minimum Wage



Like ATTN: on facebook for more content like this.

On Thursday, Senate Democrats plan on introducing the Raise the Wage Act. If passed, the bill would raise wages to $12 an hour by 2020, index the minimum wageto the median wage after 2021, and lift the minimum wage for tipped workers. The act is unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled Congress. It is likely, however, to help galvanize support for the raised wage -- and voter support for politicians who support a raised wage.

There are several key myths surrounding this once-uncontroversial policy. ATTN: took a moment to look into them:

Myth #1: Minimum wage jobs are primarily for teenagers or part-time workers who are just trying to score some extra cash.



Myth #2: Raising the minimum wage will raise prices. (After all, businesses will pass along the cost of more expensive labor to consumers by raising the prices of their products.)

Myth #3: Raising the wage kills jobs.

The 3 Biggest Myths About Raising the Minimum Wage

Minimum Wage Hike Would Eliminate 500,000 Jobs
James Sherk / @JamesBSherk / February 18, 2014

Surprise, surprise: An analysis released today found that a proposed minimum wage hike would eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Today the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) announced it agreed with the Heritage Foundation’s analysis of President Obama’s proposed minimum wage increase. Of course the CBO did not put it that way. But the agency came to the same conclusion Heritage did: a $10.10 minimum wage has no historical precedent and would jettison hundreds of thousands of jobs.

The Heritage Foundation found this analysis questionable. The most accurate inflation measures show that the minimum wage has never stood much above $8 an hour. So the President actually proposes hiking the minimum wage one-seventh above its all-time high. That would strongly encourage employers to hire fewer less skilled workers. Heritage Foundation analysis concluded that—even accounting for any stimulus effects—the proposed minimum wage hike would cost 300,000 jobs.

The Congressional Budget Office’s new report concurs. The CBO finds the minimum wage has never stood much above $8 an hour—if analysts use the best available measure of inflation (as CBO and Heritage did). The CBO also found the effects of hiring cutbacks overwhelm any “stimulus” effects from the minimum wage. The agency concluded a $10.10 minimum wage would cost 500,000 jobs—with less than a fifth of those getting higher pay coming from families below the poverty level. If anything, Heritage’s estimates were conservative.

Minimum Wage Hike Would Eliminate 500,000 Jobs

The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income

Raising the minimum wage would increase family income for many low-wage workers, moving some of them out of poverty. But some jobs for low-wage workers would probably be eliminated and the income of those workers would fall substantially.

Increasing the minimum wage would have two principal effects on low-wage workers. Most of them would receive higher pay that would increase their family’s income, and some of those families would see their income rise above the federal poverty threshold. But some jobs for low-wage workers would probably be eliminated, the income of most workers who became jobless would fall substantially, and the share of low-wage workers who were employed would probably fall slightly.

What Options for Increasing the Minimum Wage Did CBO Examine?


For this report, CBO examined the effects on employment and family income of two options for increasing the federal minimum wage (see the figure below):



Of those workers who will earn up to $10.10 under current law, most—about 16.5 million, according to CBO’s estimates—would have higher earnings during an average week in the second half of 2016 if the $10.10 option was implemented. Some of the people earning slightly more than $10.10 would also have higher earnings under that option, for reasons discussed below. Further, a few higher-wage workers would owe their jobs and increased earnings to the heightened demand for goods and services that would result from the minimum-wage increase. The increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting from the higher minimum wage would total $31 billion, by CBO’s estimate.




Effects of the $10.10 Option on Employment and Income


Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects (see the table below). As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO’s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers.



The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income






FROM THE ACTUAL CBO, INCREASE WAGES FOR 16+ MILLION WORKERS? lol




Congressional Budget Office Report Finds Minimum Wage Lifts Wages for 16.5 Million Workers


On employment, CBO’s central estimate is that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would lead to a 0.3 percent decrease in employment and CBO acknowledges that the employment impact could be essentially zero. But even these estimates do not reflect the overall consensus view of economists which is that raising the minimum wage has little or no negative effect on employment.


For example, seven Nobel Prize winners and more than 600 other economists recently stated that: “In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market.”


Congressional Budget Office Report Finds Minimum Wage Lifts Wages for 16.5 Million Workers

 

[Dad2three]

Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.

Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.

Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.

No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable. It works that way with most companies that use manual labor. If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?

Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade. You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.

Big profits? So what? Companies don't base everything on profits. Companies are more focused on growth. That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.

After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it? Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth? Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses. You make your money by how much your investment grows.

I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.

But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.

Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.

Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.

The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.

Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs. Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians. The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.

If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.

What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government. Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage. That should be up to the individual. Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs. I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.

I'm not saying Social Programs aren't the responsibility of the politicians. I'm saying the politicians have been bought and do the bidding of the big companies.

This is about whether the rich should pay higher taxes. Yes. They don't because the money pays the politicians which then allow breaks all over the place. Making all sorts of chances for the rich to not pay their fair amount of tax.

What Walmart pays its workers should not be anything to do with the government. However the govt has made it easy for Walmart to get workers at such a low cost because the govt is willing to back them up. Stop this, it's not right. If you work you should not be getting welfare, the company should be paying a decent wage.

I don't know of other countries which pay workers welfare.

Probably because with other countries, if you don't make enough to eat, you starve. There is no welfare.

Let me ask: if you wanted to hire a lawn care company, would you hire one that will come out for $45.00 per cut, or one that will do the same job for $25.00 per cut? If your car needs some work done, do you choose the mechanic that charges $565.00 to fix your car, or one that will do the same exact job for $320.00?

You and I don't want to waste money paying labor more than they're worth no more than Wal-Mart. But if you need your lawn cut, or your car repaired, is it your responsibility to make sure they make a living wage and can stay off of welfare programs? Of course not. That's ridiculous.

Companies don't create jobs as a social obligation because they have no social obligation. They create jobs because they need help running their business. That's all. Whether politicians give minimum wage workers the world, or they don't give them anything at all, Wal-Mart could care less. All they care about is getting the labor they need for the price they want. What government offers their employees is none of their concern.

U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries

MORON


U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries | Economic Policy Institute



Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States


When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

• Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
• Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
• Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
• Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
• Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
• Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.



Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States


TURN OFF YOUR DAMN RADIO/TV AND GRAB SOME HISTORY BOOKS!!!

 

[Dad2three]

Got it, you''l stick with the right wing hammock BS despite the FACT that it's a MYTH


Hint, CONservatives fought ALL those things you named ALSO

I know they did but HINT, they are at least earned by contributing. Welfare is NOT earned or a right. Its free money for the terminally stupid or lazy or both.
I would be happy to get a lump sum back of what Ive paid into SS and medicare all these years, not interest, just the actual dollar for dollar amount. Then have those programs cease to exist too.
My investments have done me much better than social security, imagine how much better off I would have been if I could have been investing that money too.
My theory is work and earn it, or starve. Y'all anti religious people should appreciate Darwins theory over religion.

Weird, I though there was a FIVE YEAR LIFETIME CAP ON THOSE LAZY WELFARE LEECHES? Dumbass!

Weird how the US looked like a fukn Darwin/Randian wet dream when the US didn't have the PROGRESSIVE policies that CREATED the worlds largest middle class!

how many of those leeches return to welfare within a year?
how long have you been on it.

A MANDATORY FIVE YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE DUMMY? lol

Your inability to use reason and instead just attack IS noted and discarded Bubs. NEVER got any type of welfare, unless tax credits for my rentals is considered welfare?

perhaps you should actually look into the reality of welfare. there is not mandatory five year limit that is adhered to.
as far as you owning rentals? LOL, based on what you post here, you are really not bright enough to own a rental, let alone your own home.
but thanks for the laugh Corky.

Got it, YOU deny REALITY . I'm shocked Bubs, shocked, THERE IS A FIVE YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE. SNAP ISN'T WELFARE DUMMY

 

[Dad2three]

I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.

But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.

Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.

Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.

The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.

Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs. Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians. The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.

If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.

What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government. Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage. That should be up to the individual. Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs. I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.

GAWD you are a low informed idiot. PERIOD

GOV'T POLICY MATTERED WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER, AND TODAY, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GOV'T POLICY MATTERS (hint conservative pushing "free trade", LOWERING the tax burden on those (Chinese) "job creators", it IS GOV'T policy that matters the most.

YOU THINK BENEFITS ARE TO GENEROUS? YOU FUKKN KLOWN

Yes, I do think government benefits are too generous. I have several articles to prove it as well, some claiming that people on welfare do better (dollar for dollar) than those working. Just ask, and I'll post them.

As for free trade, it was Bill Clinton that signed legislation for that. Yes, Republicans were behind it, but don't call it Republican efforts entirely. And who lowered the tax burden on the Chinese job creators?

YOU are too ignorant to actually have a conversation with Bubs


Right wing MYTH that those not working can make $70,000 a year right? lol

Ah yes, your public education is showing again. Where did I use the calculation of $70,000 per year? Try again, and read slower this time.

$70,000 wasn't that Heritage Foundation BOGUS number they were throwing around a few years ago DUMMY?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable. It works that way with most companies that use manual labor. If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?

Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade. You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.

Big profits? So what? Companies don't base everything on profits. Companies are more focused on growth. That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.

After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it? Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth? Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses. You make your money by how much your investment grows.

To bad there isn't ANYTHING that WE could do like GOOD GOV'T POLICY you fukkn wingnutters HATE


Your drivel and inability to accept hat Corp/"Job creators" have gamed the system is noted Bubs


Lowest sustained EFFECTIVE tax rate on the top 1/10th of 1% since the 1920's. Over HALF of AL;L US dividends and capital gains each year go to this small group of plutocrats



US Corp profits are at 40 year highs where their tax burden are near record lows (12% EFFECTIVE) WHILE the costs of their labor, for the first time EVER, is less than half of their expense

WOOOHOO CONS say keep lowering the net and allow the "job creators" to capture even more of US, perhaps the US will look like it did PRE PROGRESSIVE POLICY, like workhouses for the poor and REAL company stores using scrip!

People like you who are consumed with the wealthy fail to realize the competition in business today.

Today we have to consider companies that move overseas, bring in cheap foreign labor, invest in technology like automation, and even internet sales.

Competition is what brings (or keeps) prices down. Don't act like your not guilty of participation either. We all do it.

Wal-Mart is number one because they brought their consumers what they wanted: cheap products. That's it in a nut shell. Americans never cried that we need better paying jobs and are willing to pay for it. Oh, they may want better paying jobs, but they want other people to pay for it.

Well it doesn't work that way in Realville. In Realville, you either have cheap products or you have better paying jobs, but you can't have both. The very idea that you think government should regulate it against the will of the majority is a definition of fascism. Government shouldn't be running our businesses.

MORON IN REALVILLE, GOOD GOV'T POLICY CAN HELP.

Why is it conservatives "believe" tax cuts boom the economy, but helping those at the bottom (by increasing min wage, better conditions, etc) will destroy it? Do you Klowns EVER THINK?

Because it doesn't help and I have given several personal experiences to prove it.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intent whereas conservatives measure success by results."
Rush Limbaugh

Wanna hear about good government policy? Let's take the housing bubble for instance.

Back in the day, Democrats pushed for higher home ownership for minorities and poor people. These people were too irresponsible to secure a home loan, and petitioned Democrat politicians for a solution.

Democrats and various agencies pushed banks to make these loans. It took it's worst turn when 0% down and little credit check came into play.

What that did is draw all the lowlifes into my suburb from the inner-city. These people didn't have a pot to pizz in or a window to throw it out of. They came in droves, and with them, the crime.

Our police became so busy we often had to summon help from police departments from surrounding suburbs. We went from one murder every ten years or so to three to four every year. Businesses closed down, good people moved out in fear, housing values plummeted, the rental market was nearly destroyed, the remaining businesses that stayed open had to close much earlier in the evening, people couldn't take evening walks in safety any longer, gang fights not only common, but several incidents per night.

This is a prime example of what happens when you help "those on the bottom." If it's one thing our government hasn't (or refuses) learned, it's that if you take 3/4 cup of fresh wholesome milk, and mix that with 1/4 cup of stale curdled milk, you only have one thing, and that is one cup of rotton milk.

Government policy destroyed my suburb. It wasn't until government got out of the way and allowed banks to foreclose on the lowlifes sending them back to the inner-city when things started to turn back around. Industry had it right all along: only people that are credit worthy enough to live in the suburbs belong in the suburbs.

GOV'T AND DEMS FORCED THEM? lol

YOU FUKKN MORON


Like the US in the 1880's,1920's ,Ronnie's S&L crisis, DUBYA ALLOWED THE FREE MARKETS TO GO HOG WILD DUMMY

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.

(NAME THE LAW THAT REQUIRED THIS BUBS?)



Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.



Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (2004)
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule (2004)
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (2003)
Forcing GSEs (F/F) to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets 2004)
Giving away 40,000 free down payments PER YEAR 2004-2007
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (2003)


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.



WHAT DID THE DEMS DO 2004-2007 BUBS?

FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


MORON

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending


How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis
Subprime Loans Labeled 'Affordable'

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 10, 2008

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis


What Fannie and Freddie Knew
The SEC shows how the toxic twins turbocharged the housing bubble.

December 23, 2011

What Fannie and Freddie Knew



Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far
Posted by: Peter Coy on February 27, 2008

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I know they did but HINT, they are at least earned by contributing. Welfare is NOT earned or a right. Its free money for the terminally stupid or lazy or both.
I would be happy to get a lump sum back of what Ive paid into SS and medicare all these years, not interest, just the actual dollar for dollar amount. Then have those programs cease to exist too.
My investments have done me much better than social security, imagine how much better off I would have been if I could have been investing that money too.
My theory is work and earn it, or starve. Y'all anti religious people should appreciate Darwins theory over religion.

Weird, I though there was a FIVE YEAR LIFETIME CAP ON THOSE LAZY WELFARE LEECHES? Dumbass!

Weird how the US looked like a fukn Darwin/Randian wet dream when the US didn't have the PROGRESSIVE policies that CREATED the worlds largest middle class!

how many of those leeches return to welfare within a year?
how long have you been on it.

A MANDATORY FIVE YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE DUMMY? lol

Your inability to use reason and instead just attack IS noted and discarded Bubs. NEVER got any type of welfare, unless tax credits for my rentals is considered welfare?

perhaps you should actually look into the reality of welfare. there is not mandatory five year limit that is adhered to.
as far as you owning rentals? LOL, based on what you post here, you are really not bright enough to own a rental, let alone your own home.
but thanks for the laugh Corky.

Got it, YOU deny REALITY . I'm shocked Bubs, shocked, THERE IS A FIVE YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE. SNAP ISN'T WELFARE DUMMY

can the states continue paying you your welfare after the 5 years? does that not still come from the taxpayer?
and yes, TANF is welfare, it is free money that you don't earn, it comes from responsible people that actually work.
but again Corky, thanks for playing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs. Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians. The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.

If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.

What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government. Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage. That should be up to the individual. Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs. I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.

GAWD you are a low informed idiot. PERIOD

GOV'T POLICY MATTERED WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER, AND TODAY, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GOV'T POLICY MATTERS (hint conservative pushing "free trade", LOWERING the tax burden on those (Chinese) "job creators", it IS GOV'T policy that matters the most.

YOU THINK BENEFITS ARE TO GENEROUS? YOU FUKKN KLOWN

Yes, I do think government benefits are too generous. I have several articles to prove it as well, some claiming that people on welfare do better (dollar for dollar) than those working. Just ask, and I'll post them.

As for free trade, it was Bill Clinton that signed legislation for that. Yes, Republicans were behind it, but don't call it Republican efforts entirely. And who lowered the tax burden on the Chinese job creators?

YOU are too ignorant to actually have a conversation with Bubs


Right wing MYTH that those not working can make $70,000 a year right? lol

Ah yes, your public education is showing again. Where did I use the calculation of $70,000 per year? Try again, and read slower this time.

$70,000 wasn't that Heritage Foundation BOGUS number they were throwing around a few years ago DUMMY?

I don't know, I don't follow Heritage. Perhaps you do.

But my sources say that welfare pays near or over working people's wages. In fact, in NYC for example, people on welfare make out better than the starting wage of a public school teacher.

The US Census states that people on welfare live with most of the amenities that working people have such as microwave ovens, big screen televisions, air conditioning and automobiles among other things. Plus there is no need to be concerned about family size. While welfare does have limitations, welfare for children does not, and they pay quite handsomely for children.

 

[sakinago]

If it wasn't for unions and government in the early 20th century I doubt a middle class of 1/10th the size would of ever formed. The super wealthy wouldn't of ever paid their workers well enough for it to happen and guess what! With tax rates at 60%+ on the rich we had the biggest industry, best education and biggest middle class in history in 1950. How did that happen?

Its sad how when the rich started taking all the profit since 1980 all these things started becoming smaller....

One last thing,,,If the robber barons had been allowed to keep doing what they were doing...Well, I honestly doubt there'd be more then 1 or 2 corps per item for the demander if that. Competition? Pure capitalism destroys it and ends up valuing one big corp. That is the nature of it.

Right wing Klowns don't understand the concept of the game of monopoly, the basis of "free market capitalism", EVERYONE goes BK except 1 big winner!

Haha so every monopoly was created without the help of government?

Don't understand capitalism huh? I'm not surprised Bubs. Try reading about the Robber Barron's, perhaps grow a brain and realize most people get off Ayn Rands BS by 25 or so?

Nice deflection. So robber Barron's had no help from the rulers and princes of the times?
So JFK tax policy was bad for the economy?
Would you prefer the Venezuelan/Bernie sanders system of free trade as bad?

Yes rich people influence politicians, you seem to be mad at only the rich in general and one set of politicians. But hey we just need the right person in charge to do the right thing right?

No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable. It works that way with most companies that use manual labor. If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?

Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade. You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.

Big profits? So what? Companies don't base everything on profits. Companies are more focused on growth. That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.

After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it? Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth? Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses. You make your money by how much your investment grows.

I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.

But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.

Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.

Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.

The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.

Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs. Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians. The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.

If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.

What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government. Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage. That should be up to the individual. Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs. I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.

I'm not saying Social Programs aren't the responsibility of the politicians. I'm saying the politicians have been bought and do the bidding of the big companies.

This is about whether the rich should pay higher taxes. Yes. They don't because the money pays the politicians which then allow breaks all over the place. Making all sorts of chances for the rich to not pay their fair amount of tax.

What Walmart pays its workers should not be anything to do with the government. However the govt has made it easy for Walmart to get workers at such a low cost because the govt is willing to back them up. Stop this, it's not right. If you work you should not be getting welfare, the company should be paying a decent wage.

I don't know of other countries which pay workers welfare.

Probably because with other countries, if you don't make enough to eat, you starve. There is no welfare.

Let me ask: if you wanted to hire a lawn care company, would you hire one that will come out for $45.00 per cut, or one that will do the same job for $25.00 per cut? If your car needs some work done, do you choose the mechanic that charges $565.00 to fix your car, or one that will do the same exact job for $320.00?

You and I don't want to waste money paying labor more than they're worth no more than Wal-Mart. But if you need your lawn cut, or your car repaired, is it your responsibility to make sure they make a living wage and can stay off of welfare programs? Of course not. That's ridiculous.

Companies don't create jobs as a social obligation because they have no social obligation. They create jobs because they need help running their business. That's all. Whether politicians give minimum wage workers the world, or they don't give them anything at all, Wal-Mart could care less. All they care about is getting the labor they need for the price they want. What government offers their employees is none of their concern.

U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries

MORON


U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries | Economic Policy Institute



Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States


When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

• Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
• Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
• Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
• Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
• Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
• Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.



Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States


TURN OFF YOUR DAMN RADIO/TV AND GRAB SOME HISTORY BOOKS!!!

nice sources, and individualism is bad how? So the people in power getting it wrong only need more power and then they'll start doing it right?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Probably because with other countries, if you don't make enough to eat, you starve. There is no welfare.

Let me ask: if you wanted to hire a lawn care company, would you hire one that will come out for $45.00 per cut, or one that will do the same job for $25.00 per cut? If your car needs some work done, do you choose the mechanic that charges $565.00 to fix your car, or one that will do the same exact job for $320.00?

You and I don't want to waste money paying labor more than they're worth no more than Wal-Mart. But if you need your lawn cut, or your car repaired, is it your responsibility to make sure they make a living wage and can stay off of welfare programs? Of course not. That's ridiculous.

Companies don't create jobs as a social obligation because they have no social obligation. They create jobs because they need help running their business. That's all. Whether politicians give minimum wage workers the world, or they don't give them anything at all, Wal-Mart could care less. All they care about is getting the labor they need for the price they want. What government offers their employees is none of their concern.

But these people HAVE JOBS. Why should people with jobs be starving? I mean, who takes on a job where they don't earn enough money? Minimum wage would stop Walmart taking the piss, take away the welfare, have companies PAY their employees at the very least a wage which allows them to live.

The difference between European countries and the US is that if you have a job in Europe you'll almost certainly be able to live. Also you know you'll get healthcare. In the US you have a job you might not be able to do either.

Yes, some countries have no welfare and you don't work you don't eat. But we're talking about one of the richest countries in the world here, not Nepal, not Somalia. But the USA.

I would choose the cheaper option unless I knew the more expensive option were worth paying more. That's not the point. If I could have everything free, I'd go for free. However I don't get free food, i don't get free housing, I don't get free much at all. I pay my way, I pay the market price if I could afford it.

The point here is that Walmart is offering lower prices because it's saving money due to government policies on health and welfare. Is that right? No it isn't. Capitalism dictates (you know, what Republicans like) that companies survive or not based on their own merits, not on whether they can bribe officials, or whether they can take advantage of welfare.


Companies don't create jobs as a social welfare program. But they're willing to use social welfare to make more profits. Hmmm....

 

[Dad2three]

To bad there isn't ANYTHING that WE could do like GOOD GOV'T POLICY you fukkn wingnutters HATE


Your drivel and inability to accept hat Corp/"Job creators" have gamed the system is noted Bubs


Lowest sustained EFFECTIVE tax rate on the top 1/10th of 1% since the 1920's. Over HALF of AL;L US dividends and capital gains each year go to this small group of plutocrats



US Corp profits are at 40 year highs where their tax burden are near record lows (12% EFFECTIVE) WHILE the costs of their labor, for the first time EVER, is less than half of their expense

WOOOHOO CONS say keep lowering the net and allow the "job creators" to capture even more of US, perhaps the US will look like it did PRE PROGRESSIVE POLICY, like workhouses for the poor and REAL company stores using scrip!

People like you who are consumed with the wealthy fail to realize the competition in business today.

Today we have to consider companies that move overseas, bring in cheap foreign labor, invest in technology like automation, and even internet sales.

Competition is what brings (or keeps) prices down. Don't act like your not guilty of participation either. We all do it.

Wal-Mart is number one because they brought their consumers what they wanted: cheap products. That's it in a nut shell. Americans never cried that we need better paying jobs and are willing to pay for it. Oh, they may want better paying jobs, but they want other people to pay for it.

Well it doesn't work that way in Realville. In Realville, you either have cheap products or you have better paying jobs, but you can't have both. The very idea that you think government should regulate it against the will of the majority is a definition of fascism. Government shouldn't be running our businesses.

MORON IN REALVILLE, GOOD GOV'T POLICY CAN HELP.

Why is it conservatives "believe" tax cuts boom the economy, but helping those at the bottom (by increasing min wage, better conditions, etc) will destroy it? Do you Klowns EVER THINK?

Because it doesn't help and I have given several personal experiences to prove it.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intent whereas conservatives measure success by results."
Rush Limbaugh

Wanna hear about good government policy? Let's take the housing bubble for instance.

Back in the day, Democrats pushed for higher home ownership for minorities and poor people. These people were too irresponsible to secure a home loan, and petitioned Democrat politicians for a solution.

Democrats and various agencies pushed banks to make these loans. It took it's worst turn when 0% down and little credit check came into play.

What that did is draw all the lowlifes into my suburb from the inner-city. These people didn't have a pot to pizz in or a window to throw it out of. They came in droves, and with them, the crime.

Our police became so busy we often had to summon help from police departments from surrounding suburbs. We went from one murder every ten years or so to three to four every year. Businesses closed down, good people moved out in fear, housing values plummeted, the rental market was nearly destroyed, the remaining businesses that stayed open had to close much earlier in the evening, people couldn't take evening walks in safety any longer, gang fights not only common, but several incidents per night.

This is a prime example of what happens when you help "those on the bottom." If it's one thing our government hasn't (or refuses) learned, it's that if you take 3/4 cup of fresh wholesome milk, and mix that with 1/4 cup of stale curdled milk, you only have one thing, and that is one cup of rotton milk.

Government policy destroyed my suburb. It wasn't until government got out of the way and allowed banks to foreclose on the lowlifes sending them back to the inner-city when things started to turn back around. Industry had it right all along: only people that are credit worthy enough to live in the suburbs belong in the suburbs.

GOV'T AND DEMS FORCED THEM? lol

YOU FUKKN MORON


Like the US in the 1880's,1920's ,Ronnie's S&L crisis, DUBYA ALLOWED THE FREE MARKETS TO GO HOG WILD DUMMY

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.

(NAME THE LAW THAT REQUIRED THIS BUBS?)



Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.



Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (2004)
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule (2004)
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (2003)
Forcing GSEs (F/F) to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets 2004)
Giving away 40,000 free down payments PER YEAR 2004-2007
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (2003)


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.



WHAT DID THE DEMS DO 2004-2007 BUBS?

FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


MORON

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending


How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis
Subprime Loans Labeled 'Affordable'

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 10, 2008

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis


What Fannie and Freddie Knew
The SEC shows how the toxic twins turbocharged the housing bubble.

December 23, 2011

What Fannie and Freddie Knew



Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far
Posted by: Peter Coy on February 27, 2008

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

lol, SERIOUSLY? BUBBA, WHY'S CLINTON'S LAWS TAKE SO LONG TO TAKE EFFECT?

IF THE FEDERAL GOV'T REQUIRED BANKSTERS TO LOAN, WHY'D SO MANY GET SUED AND SETTLE ?

HINT GET OFF RIGHT WING MEMES AND BS



NOW REREAD THIS AND ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION:



"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.


(YOU KNOW WHAT NO/LOW DOC LOANS ARE RIGHT BUBS? HINT, NOT QUALIFY FOR ANY GOV'T BACKING, FROM HUD, F/F, ETC)


GIVE ME THE LAW THAT REQUIRED THIS TO HAPPEN BUBS?





Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them



WHAT TOOK SO LONG IF IT WAS CLINTON?

SEE THAT?

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf






It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.


More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.


Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis


YES, DUBYA HOSED F/F AND GOT THEM INTO TROUBLE AFTER CLINTON HAD GOOD QUALITY LOANS WITH F/F HOWEVER!


June 17, 2004

(CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004







Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis


Talk radio and the blogosphere are pushing the idea that the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit was triggered by finance giants Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's lending money to poor and minority Americans. But federal housing data reveal that that charge isn't true. Instead, it was the private sector that was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.


Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis