CDZ Welfare vs Charity

[Tommy Tainant]

So what you are really saying is that Macs/Wal mart/whoever have a business model that cant work without all of us subsidising it with public handouts ?

Perhaps we would be better off without them. Other companies would come in and fill the void.

Or perhaps they would settle for a little less profit.

First, their business model would work, with or without, handouts.

Second, the myth that we are subsidize walmart is just that. It's a myth. Not true.

Third, if you removed Walmart, the other companies would in fact fill the void.... with the exact same wages, and business model.

The fundamental laws of economics, don't magically change because you eliminate a company. Under the same economic system, you will have the same economic results. This doesn't magically change because you banned Walmart or something.

Fourth and finally, no, they are not going to settle for a little less profit.

Not going to happen. Never has in the history of the world, and it's not going to happen today.

There is a couple of things, that I think people like you either don't know, or don't consider.

When you say that Walmart earned $10 Billion, that is Walmart Corporate. Not individual stores. Each store, is run as a separate business. Same with McDonald and Wendy's and so on. Each store has it's own revenue, it's own expenses, and it's own profit margin. Each one pays it's own employees, with it's own revenue from sales.

What's my point? Corporate might have some money, but that doesn't mean the store has money. Corporations do not subsidize stores. If you have to pay the store money, to keep that store open, then the corporation would have more profits closing the store.

So the rule is, the store has to make or break, on it's own. Therefore, if your store doesn't have the money to pay works $15/hr..... then it can't.

And while you think that somehow Walmart has endless cash to pay employees, I think fail to notice that Walmart has one of the slimest profit margins in the industry.

Walmarts profit margin was just 2.6%, with an average of only 3.3%.

That means that for every $100 of goods sold, Walmart makes a profit of just $3.00. Three dollars. And you think they can afford to just give everyone a massive raise? Not a chance.

People like me ?

Really ?

Corporations always bitch about everything that affects their bottom line. But faced with a problem they just adapt. That would be a mix of raising prices and cutting other expenditure.

The benefits to the economy would be considerable.Poor people spend all their income, they dont stash it away in Panama.

Lower welfare means reduced taxation means greater consumer spending. Its a virtuous circle that would ultimately benefit the likes of WalMart.

Poor people spend all their income, they dont stash it away in Panama.

And you wonder why they are still poor??

I see, you think they spend it all by choice?

Christ, there are a lot of silver-spoon-up-the-ass people here.

Generally yes. There was a lady in Canada that won $10 Million dollars. In under 10 years, she was completely broke, didn't own a car even, living in an apartment, and riding the bus to an low-wage job.

How can anyone possibly end up impoverished after winning $10 Million? She blew it all.

Did you know that most lottery winners end up bankrupt in under 10 years? Because getting millions doesn't change the way you live, that resulted in you being poor. As long as you keep living your life poor, you'll remain poor, no matter what you do.

Now take Steve Jobs for example. When he was fired by Apple computer, he ended up with $10 Million. What did he do with the money? He bought a small company, and invested into it. In 2006, Steve sold Pixar, which he bought for $10 Million, for $7.4 Billion to Disney.

This is true across the board. When you consume your income, then you remain poor. When you invest your income, you become rich.

When you live frugally, you become wealthy. When you lives beyond your means, and spend all you have, you end up poor.

For the vast majority of all people in especially America, the reason they are in the situation they are in, is due to the choices they have made.

This is just dogma driven nonsense. The reason poor people spend all their income isnt because they are irresponsible. It is because they have to in order to keep afloat. They are forced to take a short term view of their finances and act accordingly.

Why do you deny something that is blindingly obvious ?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Should we help the poor and jobless with charity or welfare ?

Charity -
Pros - No cost to the state
Giver feels they are doing good.

Cons - Not guaranteed
Feudal

Welfare -
Pros - We all pay in so it is a right.
Universal

Cons - Subject to political interference.
Workhouse stigma.

Anybody can fall on hard times so how do we help them get through it and back on the road to success ?

NB - I am not interested in the junkie round the corner who never works and drives a better car than you. Stick to the big picture.

False dilemma fallacy.

Both are perfectly appropriate and neither is ‘preferable’ to the other.

Indeed, in the United States public sector government agencies and private sector non-profits work in a partnership to address the needs of those disadvantaged.

Moreover, government administered public assistance programs are regulated by statute to ensure benefits are determined fairly and accurately to all those deserving, prohibiting discrimination based on race or religion, and affording applicants due process and the right to challenge the eligibility process – something not afforded by private sector entities.

 

[oldsoul]

But you cant do that when your son has an ear infection and you have no medical insurance.

Strawman, Obama care took care of that, didn't it? Oh, yeah, it didn't. Sorry, not a strawman after all. Guess we should let the libs "solve" all our problems.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Most people are not on welfare due to that type of situation. 70% of welfare cases in the United States are women with children born outside of wedlock.

Its an extreme example but just as relevant as the "lazy bitch" stereotype. In reality it doesnt matter as the key issue is to ensure that the children are looked after.

When you subsidize something you get more of it. Subsidize poverty, get more poverty. LBJ's Great Society initiatives destroyed American inner cities.

And if the corporations paid their due nobody would care.

Corporations have nothing to do with this discussion.

What are you subsidising ?
Thats right the big corporations who pay crap wages.

Which brings me to your second point.

That claim is patently false and one has nothing to do with the other, but you already knew that

Its a very simple proposition. If people in work still need assistance then we are subsidising their employers.
How can it be anything else ?

The government set the welfare limits, isn't it obvious?

Or do you think God does?

 

[oldsoul]

First, it always amazes me, how we have said for decades that the minimum wage causes job losses, and then when it happen, just as we say it will happen, every single time you claim that "but it was due to something else".

Did we say that the entire financial melt down was due exclusively to one economic policy? No. I don't know anyone anywhere that has suggest this.

But was it a contributing factor? Yes. Can you prove it wasn't?

Second, even if we put that argument aside, the fact is your side claims routinely, and even in this thread, that with a hike in the minimum wage the economy will boom. That people will have prosperity and higher wages, and economic growth, and so on.

Your side has made this claim hundreds on hundreds of times. Not ONE TIME......... NOT EVEN ONCE..... has that actually happened.

People were screaming that $5.25 was too law in the 1990s. In the 2000s, you said if only we can bump it up to $7.25. Now it's $7.25, and you are claiming it needs to be $10 or $15. Every single time the minimum wage goes up, the only result is that you claim it's not enough, and it needs to be higher, and people are on starvation wages.

So most rational people, look at the two sides, and what they claim the result of hiking the minimum wage will be.... and notice that your claims of Utopia have never come true, and our claims of job loss have always come true.... And quite frankly, for a person to assume that obviously the people who have been wrong every single time, are still right because "well it was something else that caused the problem".... is insane.

Did you not notices that the majority of job losses throughout the great recession, were at the lowest income level, which would be affected by minimum wage laws, rather than the high income level that would be affected by a financial melt down?

Please explain the mechanics of how a international bank losing money a Mortgage Backed Security, would magically cause high school students at McDonalds to lose their jobs? I'd love to hear your theory on how that worked.

So what you are really saying is that Macs/Wal mart/whoever have a business model that cant work without all of us subsidising it with public handouts ?

Perhaps we would be better off without them. Other companies would come in and fill the void.

Or perhaps they would settle for a little less profit.

First, their business model would work, with or without, handouts.

Second, the myth that we are subsidize walmart is just that. It's a myth. Not true.

Third, if you removed Walmart, the other companies would in fact fill the void.... with the exact same wages, and business model.

The fundamental laws of economics, don't magically change because you eliminate a company. Under the same economic system, you will have the same economic results. This doesn't magically change because you banned Walmart or something.

Fourth and finally, no, they are not going to settle for a little less profit.

Not going to happen. Never has in the history of the world, and it's not going to happen today.

There is a couple of things, that I think people like you either don't know, or don't consider.

When you say that Walmart earned $10 Billion, that is Walmart Corporate. Not individual stores. Each store, is run as a separate business. Same with McDonald and Wendy's and so on. Each store has it's own revenue, it's own expenses, and it's own profit margin. Each one pays it's own employees, with it's own revenue from sales.

What's my point? Corporate might have some money, but that doesn't mean the store has money. Corporations do not subsidize stores. If you have to pay the store money, to keep that store open, then the corporation would have more profits closing the store.

So the rule is, the store has to make or break, on it's own. Therefore, if your store doesn't have the money to pay works $15/hr..... then it can't.

And while you think that somehow Walmart has endless cash to pay employees, I think fail to notice that Walmart has one of the slimest profit margins in the industry.

Walmarts profit margin was just 2.6%, with an average of only 3.3%.

That means that for every $100 of goods sold, Walmart makes a profit of just $3.00. Three dollars. And you think they can afford to just give everyone a massive raise? Not a chance.

People like me ?

Really ?

Corporations always bitch about everything that affects their bottom line. But faced with a problem they just adapt. That would be a mix of raising prices and cutting other expenditure.

The benefits to the economy would be considerable.Poor people spend all their income, they dont stash it away in Panama.

Lower welfare means reduced taxation means greater consumer spending. Its a virtuous circle that would ultimately benefit the likes of WalMart.

Poor people spend all their income, they dont stash it away in Panama.

And you wonder why they are still poor??

People spend up to their limit. Its human nature. And its easier to do when you are poor.Its not a judgement its just a fact.
What do you find difficult about that ?

Guess I'm swimming upstream then. I'm by no means rich, or even well to do, and yet, I do not spend up to my limit. Just one more way I am different from the "normal" people I guess. Oh, wait, I'm not all that weird after all.
Just 26% of Americans have no savings.
" Through the end of 2014, the rate was 4.4%, which is a steep decline from the 10.5% rate in 2012."
" Adults aged 55 and older have a positive personal savings rate of about 13%." "Millennials, on the other hand, meaning adults who are 35 and under, have a personal savings rate of negative 2%. Between high student loan debt and stagnating wages, saving anything at all proves to be impossible for many of them."
All from 23 Dizzying Average American Savings Statistics
Savings By Age in America
If you want to see how I generated this chart, please read on for methodology.



Calculated Based on Expenses and Increase in Assets
You will, of course, immediately notice there are two savings rates calculated. The Consumer Expenditures offers two ways to calculate savings rates, both of them pretty inaccurate: you can use Income After Taxes and subtract Expenses (CEX data is self-reported), or you can use Increase in Assets. Since both are pretty bad, I just reported both of them. Actual savings rates are, of course, lower than what either measure implies (because self-reported taxes are too low in the CEX) – but remember these are ostensibly net – after tax – savings rates. https://dqydj.com/how-much-do-americans-save-by-age/
So, while the rate of savings may be declining, people are still saving. Notice how the only group that has a negative rate are those who have yet to enter the work force.

 

[oldsoul]

Why do they need a/c?

The heat in Texas requires AC. Most of the Souths population would not be living there were it not for readily available AC.

Why do they need a car?

Because modern urban and suburban environments/planning assumes you have a car in the USA. And since we refuse to adequately fund mass transportation, people MUST have cars to get most jobs.

Why do they need a cable bill?

So they dont go insane and devour the fat rich people that they think are robbing them.

Wow. So how the heck did people survive before A/C? Did the south get settled after A/C was invented? I guess most, if not all, people where insane before cable then. I have had several jobs that I could, and did, walk/ride bike to. It really is not that hard. You just have to choose:

1. move closer to the job you want. or
2. take a job you want less.

Pretty simple. And then there is always the option of car-pooling....

 

[oldsoul]

In reality the welfare bill is dwarfed by the amounts that the big corps salt away in tax avoidance.

And yet libs, as well as cons, never seem to be able to close the loophole these "evil" corporations use. Nor do they close the loopholes that individuals use. Maybe the real answer is not welfare, but a simple, fair tax system. Maybe a consumption tax? Or would that be unacceptable too?
Sorry, off topic I know. It had to be addressed though.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Wow. So how the heck did people survive before A/C?

In houses DESIGNED for open air flow instead of modern house designs that have sealed rooms that presume you have central air flow through vents instead.

There was also the cool screened porch, a tall glass of ice cold tea, and houses placed to catch a nice evening breeze.

Did the south get settled after A/C was invented?

The population of the South was much lower than it is today. Makes me want to ban AC, cause then maybe all the Yankees would self-deport and not continue their stay and fucking up the South.

I guess most, if not all, people where insane before cable then.

People had other ways of entertaining themselves prior to TV that have almost entirely vanished save for radio and the movie theater.

Local plays, vaudville and the neighborhood musicians provided most people with their entertainment back in the days before WW2. Most circles of friends had people who could play a guitar/piano or carry a tune and they would entertain themselves by making their own music for themselves and family.

Do you ever do that, have friends and family over and sing songs and play what instruments your friends have and know how to play?

These are social conventions that are not likely to make their way back except for the few devotees.

I have had several jobs that I could, and did, walk/ride bike to. It really is not that hard. You just have to choose:

1. move closer to the job you want. or
2. take a job you want less.

Yes, there are always a handful of jobs nearby if you live in an urban area. The local CVS for example, or Giant or Wallmart. Most people need a much larger employer pool than that to find work, Einstein.

And if you are too poor to afford a car, how do you move across the county to a new place closer to the job? Hike it carrying one piece at a time?

Pretty simple. And then there is always the option of car-pooling....

Lol, CAR POOLING? This is a very certain indicator that you dont know what you are talking about as MOST j obs do not just happen to have fellow workers who live nearby.

Yes, things are always 'pretty simple' when it is someone elses problem and you are simply being a mindless critic.

 

[JimBowie1958]

In reality the welfare bill is dwarfed by the amounts that the big corps salt away in tax avoidance.

And yet libs, as well as cons, never seem to be able to close the loophole these "evil" corporations use.

That is because there are about 40,000 lobbyists that work in DC representing the corporations and few fellow citizens cannot make the trip that often.

The lobbyists are professionals who represent their clients quite well, and their salary is paid for ultimately from tax payer funds, that means YOU are paying the corporations to steal money from the mouths of your children and grandchildren, though I doubt you mind or have any children.

In 1950 corporations paid $2 for every $3 in taxes individuals paid into federal revenues.

Today it is only $1 for every $4 individuals pay in.

Not only are you getting screwed but the corporations have convinced you to like it and defend them while they do it to you.

 

[GaryDog]

But you cant do that when your son has an ear infection and you have no medical insurance.

Strawman, Obama care took care of that, didn't it? Oh, yeah, it didn't. Sorry, not a strawman after all. Guess we should let the libs "solve" all our problems.

He expanded Medicaid, actually, so his plan went a very long way toward solving that problem.

The only reason it's not completely solved is because Republicans are imaginary-friend worshiping psychopaths who think Obama has the mark of the beast.

 

[JimBowie1958]

But you cant do that when your son has an ear infection and you have no medical insurance.

Strawman, Obama care took care of that, didn't it? Oh, yeah, it didn't. Sorry, not a strawman after all. Guess we should let the libs "solve" all our problems.

He expanded Medicaid, actually, so his plan went a very long way toward solving that problem.

Except for the funding it part, which is why he has managed to double the national debt.

The only reason it's not completely solved is because Republicans are imaginary-friend worshiping psychopaths who think Obama has the mark of the beast.

No Republicans worship imaginary friends, and that you would say something as ignorant as that proves you have no grasp on that topic either.

 

[GaryDog]

But you cant do that when your son has an ear infection and you have no medical insurance.

Strawman, Obama care took care of that, didn't it? Oh, yeah, it didn't. Sorry, not a strawman after all. Guess we should let the libs "solve" all our problems.

He expanded Medicaid, actually, so his plan went a very long way toward solving that problem.

Except for the funding it part, which is why he has managed to double the national debt.

The only reason it's not completely solved is because Republicans are imaginary-friend worshiping psychopaths who think Obama has the mark of the beast.

No Republicans worship imaginary friends, and that you would say something as ignorant as that proves you have no grasp on that topic either.

You can't argue that the GOP fanaticism with saying no to everything Obama proposes is anything but religious devotion.

The non-funding of medicaid is also a GOP problem. Obama's proposals for taxes were wiped out with the Norquist pledge.

And, naturally, any cuts to the $50 billion F-35 program or other military boondoggles would be sacrilege, in keeping with the GOP's government bible.

 

[JimBowie1958]

But you cant do that when your son has an ear infection and you have no medical insurance.

Strawman, Obama care took care of that, didn't it? Oh, yeah, it didn't. Sorry, not a strawman after all. Guess we should let the libs "solve" all our problems.

He expanded Medicaid, actually, so his plan went a very long way toward solving that problem.

Except for the funding it part, which is why he has managed to double the national debt.

The only reason it's not completely solved is because Republicans are imaginary-friend worshiping psychopaths who think Obama has the mark of the beast.

No Republicans worship imaginary friends, and that you would say something as ignorant as that proves you have no grasp on that topic either.

You can't argue that the GOP fanaticism with saying no to everything Obama proposes is anything but religious devotion.

This last Congress has been average in activity. Historical Statistics about Legislation in the U.S. Congress -- GovTrack.us

And their opposition to Obamas Marxism is not entirely based on religion, as most of it is based on economics and a desire to not destroy this country.

Like a racist seeing everything bad as being caused by other races, you fixate on religion due to your antireligious bigotry.

 

[GaryDog]

But you cant do that when your son has an ear infection and you have no medical insurance.

Strawman, Obama care took care of that, didn't it? Oh, yeah, it didn't. Sorry, not a strawman after all. Guess we should let the libs "solve" all our problems.

He expanded Medicaid, actually, so his plan went a very long way toward solving that problem.

Except for the funding it part, which is why he has managed to double the national debt.

The only reason it's not completely solved is because Republicans are imaginary-friend worshiping psychopaths who think Obama has the mark of the beast.

No Republicans worship imaginary friends, and that you would say something as ignorant as that proves you have no grasp on that topic either.

You can't argue that the GOP fanaticism with saying no to everything Obama proposes is anything but religious devotion.

This last Congress has been average in activity. Historical Statistics about Legislation in the U.S. Congress -- GovTrack.us

And their opposition to Obamas Marxism is not entirely based on religion, as most of it is based on economics and a desire to not destroy this country.

Like a racist seeing everything bad as being caused by other races, you fixate on religion due to your antireligious bigotry.

Yeah, you have zero clue what Marxism is. But that's probably because you've foregone actual education for homeschooling with a bible in your face.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yeah, you have zero clue what Marxism is. But that's probably because you've foregone actual education for homeschooling with a bible in your face.

Wow, three wrong assertions in a row; you are on a roll today.

BTW, I have forgotten more about Marxism than you have ever known, dude.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Seriously, when did humans give up on education?

1933.....then re-committed to it three more times.




I couldn't resist.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I would disagree. The minimum wage was a significant contributing factor. If you compare the minimum wage, to the unemployment rate, there is a clear collation between the two. The Greek Minimum wage was indexed to inflation, which increased with the rise of the minimum wage.

Lol, we have had a Minimum Wage in English speaking nations ever since the Middle Ages.

If it is OK to 'hire' people for less than starvation wages, why not just have slavery? At least one was bound by law to make sure that slaves had the minimum necessities, unlike what Libertarians now set as the low bar...well, actually they have no low bar.

I have never had a Libertarian explain to me in a rational way, based on Libertarian principles, why a person cannot voluntarily enter enter a contract binding themselves over as property of another person, i.e. slavery in all its inglorious evil.

Would you care to present why such voluntary slavery is disallowed under Libertarianism? Such an arrangement would seem to be preferable to starving in back alleys working for a few pennies a day.

"less than starvation wages". Again, this is ridiculous. Obesity is a problem for the poorest people, rather than the richest. You go to Southeast Asian, and you know they are poor, because you can see their bones. You go to most African nations, and you know they are poor because they are sticks.

Only in mindless left-wing world, do you see people suffering from obesity, and claim they are on starvation wages.

REading comprehension FAIL. I never said that our poor are on starvation wages...not yet anyway. But you libertarians, or whatever you are, dont seem to ahve a problem with the concept of allowing people who cant find work to starve.

Now go ahead and twist what I said again, no one is missing what you are doing.

More than that, I have actually lived off of less than $12,000 a year, and had food to spare.

I did too when I was an 11B and when I was just out of the service.

Food is not that expensive. It really isn't. In fact, I know people who lived on $10,000 a year, and fed their kids.

Feeding one's kids starchy foods is not a healthy diet and is one source of what is leading the poor into obesity.

Not that you care, I realize.

The question is, are people better off earning ZERO because they have no job, due to your minimum wage, or would they be better off earning something?

Answer: they would be better off earning something.

I.e. they would be better off earning the bare minimum, living in squalor, living hungry from day to day, not knowign where their next meal will come from or able to get proper health care, etc.

Yeah, that disreard for ones fellow man is what I am driving at. Thanks for the help but it isnt needed.

Every time someone ends up unemployed for a long period of time, they lose their employ-ability. Most employers will not hire someone that has been out of work for a year or more.

Moreover, when they do get a job, they start all over at the very bottom rung of the ladder. The only way to advance up the ladder, is to start at the bottom.

That is an easily disproven lie. Managers do not start at the bottom of the employed pool of man power.

Those who inherit businesses do not start at the bottom.

roflmao

Every month they spend on welfare and food stamps, is a month they could have been gaining credibility, work experience, and becoming promotable at a job.

Is working for low-wages fun? No it sucks. But I did it because many of the jobs I have gotten after those crappy low wage jobs, considered me because I worked those crappy low wage jobs.

If I had been on welfare, farting around watching TV and playing video games, I would never have gotten the better jobs.

So because you could do it EVERYONE ELSE must be able to do it also?

You live in a fantasy, dude.

Yes, as a matter of fact yes. I worked THREE jobs at the same time, when I had to. You can do it. Anyone can do it. It's a matter of choice. Yes, you don't want to do it. I didn't want to do it. But I had bills to pay.

Why people like you think no one should ever have to do anything that isn't fun, is beyond me.

You read the stories of super wealthy CEOs, many had to work their butts off. The current CEO of Walmart worked unloading Walmart trucks in a distribution center. Have you ever been in one? Hot as crap in there. When it's 80º outside, it's 100º inside. You think it was 'fun' for him? NO. It sucked. But that's how you win.

You have to work the low-wage hourly trunk unloader, to work your way up and end up CEO.

Managers do not start at the bottom of the employed pool of man power.

Well you have the right to be wrong. The CEO of my last job, started out as an hourly worker. The CEO of Walmart, started off as an hourly worker. Simon Cowell started off in the mailroom as an hourly worker. Dan Adler at Walt Disney, started off hourly mail room worker. Brian Dunn started off as a floor sales rep, now CEO of Best Buy. Jim Ziemer, CEO of Harley-Davidson, started off unloading freight. Ursula Burns was a summer intern for Xerox, now CEO. Andrew Taylor was an entry level car washer for Hertz, now CEO.

You are wrong. Period.

....allowing people who cant find work...

Well, on this specific statement here, that's where you and I will obviously never agree. I have been able to find work every single time I have looked. There has never been a time, where I couldn't find work. In the worst recession, I found work.

Where are these people who magically can't find work? You might not be able to find work you want. But you can find work. You may not find work that pays what you want, but you can find work.

I was reading the story of a guy who worked for one of the banks in New York. He made 6-figures. The bank was closed, and he was unemployed.

He could have......... screamed and wailed about the rich, complained about Republicans, whined and moaned on unemployment compensation, and tried collecting as much government handouts as possible. But no, instead he got a job.... at McDonalds. So here's a guy flipping burgers over for $8/hr, who used to make 6-figures.

After he worked there for a week, the manager came over, and said "ok, you are not like the other people here, what's up? Who are you, and what's your story?" He laid it all out, and the following week, recruiters from McDonald's Corporate showed up, and interviewed him on the job. Now he's a low-level executive for McDonald's making closer to what he did before.

People who tell me, they can't find work, are one of two things. A: they are such bad employees no one wants them. B: They are simply not looking. I've had THREE job offers in this week ALONE. I have no degrees. No certifications. No skills. No abilities I am aware of. Care to explain?

I.e. they would be better off earning the bare minimum, living in squalor, living hungry from day to day, not knowign where their next meal will come from or able to get proper health care, etc.

I.E. they would be better living in poverty, off the hard work of people who pay taxes, for the rest of their lives with zero hope for improvement.

Once again, the left is the greatest destroyer of the poor that has ever existed. While proclaiming their moral superiority, they setup millions to hopelessness and misery for life.

The whole reason for state control to supplant welfare is to prevent people from being allowed to help each other, or themselves. This in turn allows the state to control the population. The size of the population, who is allowed to live, die, breed, eat....who controls the land and all of our resources. Statists use "welfare" to direct control of ALL those things.

It should be no surprise for whom those on welfare vote....80% of the time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The election of Franklin Roosevelt caused the Mortgage Meltdown.
Had he not ignored the Constitution, and invaded the private home market....Fannie Mae....it never would have happened.


1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.


2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy


3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.


4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.



That's the CliffNotes version.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The whole reason for state control to supplant welfare is to prevent people from being allowed to help each other, or themselves.

Really? I thought it was so people wouldnt be living in roadside camps, shantytowns, starving in work camps or in drafty log cabins.

And all that is WITH what welfare we can afford, cant imagine how bad it would be with just the tender mercies of the general public.

See, all those people already receive welfare. That is the state of living that the government likes to subject us to. When our working class was able to make a living by extracting our publicly owned resources, and before our minorities and our public schools came under the management of the feds, these people lived perfectly reasonable lives.

And, more...

1. ‘Welfare’ as a wholly owned subsidiary of the government, and its main result is the incentivizing of a disrespect for oneself, and for the entity that provides the welfare. As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.
   1. Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence.
      From Peter Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” chapter five.

2. Charles Murray’s “Losing Ground” documented this effect using social indicators such as work, marriage, legitimacy, crime, and alcohol and drug abuse, and showing how the massive increase in government welfare programs worsened the problem

 

[JimBowie1958]

The election of Franklin Roosevelt caused the Mortgage Meltdown.
Had he not ignored the Constitution, and invaded the private home market....Fannie Mae....it never would have happened.

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.

2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy

3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.

4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.

That's the CliffNotes version.

That is very weak soup to blame the mortgage meltdown of 2008 on FDR who died in 1945.

Modern government is not going to return to its agricultural past and shrinka magically down to its dimensions of 1900.

You do not help your cause with such contorted reasoning.