Well are you?

[francoHFW]

8.1 trillion duh. What's your idiotic point? Missing the forest for the trees. Most of O's deficit is from fixing W's mess DUH.

Of course it is. It's never the Democrats fault. It's like I've always said, the best part of being a Democrat is never having to say you were wrong.

Where am I wrong ferchrissake? ANY argument AT ALL? Thanks for the W corrupt WORLD DEPRESSION. 2 trillion in bailouts, 800 billion for UE and welfare one year, STILL 300 billion NOW. With the GOP blocking ALL solutions. Wake UP!

You wake up. Nobody forced DumBama to bailout anybody. That was his decision alone. He spent over a trillion on Commie Care which we didn't and don't need. He spent close to that on his Pork Bill that didn't do squat for the economy. And how many billions on Clean Energy???

The corrupt world depression started under Clinton and those clown liberals that believed every black and poor person should be able to own their own home whether they could afford it or not. Without that, we would have never had a "W Depression."

Oh, blaming the recession on Clinton now, well it's different to blaming it on Obama the whole time, I'll give you that. So, Bush going to war and spending billions didn't do anything then?

They all played a part. I'm just pointing out the start of the problem, not the end results like FrankFart.

If not for the housing crisis, we would have enjoyed a good economy through the Bush years right into the McCain Presidency.

ACTUALLY, the economy was based on credit and loans on property. ANOTHER Pub bubble /bust...housing crisis LOL.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think my point is extremely clear, and I agree and disagree with you which is why it might be confusing. Perhaps I should explain who I am.

I'm a person that wants as much government out of our lives as possible. I don't believe in government micromanaging our lives and I don't believe the federal government has a role in making our lives better. I believe we as individuals should make our own lives better. Governments role is to govern--that's it.

I don't believe in robbing Peter to pay Paul. If you have that as a policy, the Paul's of your society generally have no objection.

More to the point: I agree with cutting social programs to the bone. That is to say, only those that have absolutely no choice but to survive on them. I believe that anybody physically and mentally capable of working should not be living on my tax dollar or yours. If you make lower wages, then work more hours. If you don't like the wages you bring in, make yourself worth more money--minimum wage increases are not the solution.

If you make a mistake in life such as having children before you can reasonably afford them or getting yourself into so much credit debt it seems impossible to pay back should not be my problem. You created the problem--you find the solution to your problem.

Now as for Maine: the requirements to continue on food stamps are one of three things: have a part-time job working at least 20 hours per week; be enrolled in a vocational program; or do volunteer work for 24 hours per month. That's it.

Most of the abusers of this program didn't want to do any of those things, so they opted to drop out. This is a shockwave to liberals who constantly tell us how people are starving in this country and cutting food stamps means putting more water in the soup. I call BS. I see what these SNAPs people are buying at the grocery store.

I am glad that you clarified your stance.

My understanding is that you want less government in our lives. Which means a support of a decrease in welfare benefits. However, to do this without increasing minimum wages enough to compensate you would have start suffering international sanctions due to human rights conditions, suffer a widespread increase in general crime rates, but especially violent crimes, and potentially start looking at anything from heavy civil uprising to outright civil war.

Usually, stating such dire consequences is nothing but a logical slippery slope fallacy. However, when you look at countries with a increasingly larger income inequality gaps (we will use the GINI coefficient here) none of them look good. Countries like Haiti, Namibia, and South Africa lead income inequality. Income inequality is also well researched (and increasingly so) as being positively correlated with homicides and health issues while negatively correlated with economic growth. So, especially given the particularly volatile situation we seem to be in already (the US has a much higher GINI coefficient than most other 1st world countries and, predictably, we also tend to have some of the worst homicide rates and health conditions among 1st world nations coupled with constant outcries from our citizens (Oregon militia, various protests, etc.)) an increase in inequality would, logically, lead to an increase in those issues, of which civil uprising or civil war is not outside the realm of reasonable consideration.

So, with the understanding that anybody with a basic education has...which is that increasing income inequality is generally a horrible idea, and coupled with the understanding that you want less government assistance for these individuals...the only real logical conclusion is that you agree FULLY with me. You want a minimum wage increase coupled with a decrease in welfare benefits.

Edit: You again mention that Maine's program decreased the amount of food stamp users...which I never disagreed with. However, you have still failed to show how that, exactly, means that they didn't need it in the first place? There are a lot of starving people in India and China that could use a welfare program, but are not on one. Just because you don't receive benefits doesn't mean you don't need them. There is zero logical connection there.

If you need such benefits, you would comply with one of the three requirements which are not all that hard to do. The point is because people are not complying, it must mean they don't need those benefits all that badly. I mean if somebody is going hungry, I mean really hungry, they will take two days to volunteer at a nursing home or hospital somewhere to get those benefits.

I do not agree with you in raising the minimum wage, so we don't totally agree. This prediction of out of control violence and crime is the exact same thing we heard in the 90's when the Republicans pushed through welfare reform. Welfare reform was a great success at the time, and there is no indication to show that the results of cutting programs this time would be any different.

We don't live in Haiti or South Africa. We live in the United States where any citizen can be whatever they desire.

If you don't want to put much effort into working, you can be poor. If you want to live better than poverty, you learn a skill or trade. If you want better than middle-class, you go to college and learn a field in demand. If you want to be wealthy, you can start your own business, sacrifice unnecessary spending and use that money for investments, become a professional such as an engineer, a doctor, a lawyer or a number of other fields where there is great money at.

See, you don't have those options in other countries. That's why people are always trying to come here; because everybody does have that opportunity. But it takes a lot of hard work, a lot of sacrifices, and a lot of risk.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Of course it is. It's never the Democrats fault. It's like I've always said, the best part of being a Democrat is never having to say you were wrong.

Where am I wrong ferchrissake? ANY argument AT ALL? Thanks for the W corrupt WORLD DEPRESSION. 2 trillion in bailouts, 800 billion for UE and welfare one year, STILL 300 billion NOW. With the GOP blocking ALL solutions. Wake UP!

You wake up. Nobody forced DumBama to bailout anybody. That was his decision alone. He spent over a trillion on Commie Care which we didn't and don't need. He spent close to that on his Pork Bill that didn't do squat for the economy. And how many billions on Clean Energy???

The corrupt world depression started under Clinton and those clown liberals that believed every black and poor person should be able to own their own home whether they could afford it or not. Without that, we would have never had a "W Depression."

Oh, blaming the recession on Clinton now, well it's different to blaming it on Obama the whole time, I'll give you that. So, Bush going to war and spending billions didn't do anything then?

They all played a part. I'm just pointing out the start of the problem, not the end results like FrankFart.

If not for the housing crisis, we would have enjoyed a good economy through the Bush years right into the McCain Presidency.

ACTUALLY, the economy was based on credit and loans on property. ANOTHER Pub bubble /bust...housing crisis LOL.

Obviously you didn't click on one link I posted. Had you done that, you would realize how ignorant your statement is.

The truth of the matter is that blacks and poor people vote predominantly Democrat. Why would Republicans cater to them??? Well..... Bush did to a point, but Democrats stood to gain from giving away these home loans.

The housing bubble was in the making before Bush took presidency. Thanks to a good economy he created, it excelled the market and got way out of control. The Republicans tried to stop it by creating an oversight committee of F and F, but Democrats fought it tooth and nail. Need the video, just ask.

 

[frigidweirdo]

8.1 trillion duh. What's your idiotic point? Missing the forest for the trees. Most of O's deficit is from fixing W's mess DUH.

Of course it is. It's never the Democrats fault. It's like I've always said, the best part of being a Democrat is never having to say you were wrong.

Where am I wrong ferchrissake? ANY argument AT ALL? Thanks for the W corrupt WORLD DEPRESSION. 2 trillion in bailouts, 800 billion for UE and welfare one year, STILL 300 billion NOW. With the GOP blocking ALL solutions. Wake UP!

You wake up. Nobody forced DumBama to bailout anybody. That was his decision alone. He spent over a trillion on Commie Care which we didn't and don't need. He spent close to that on his Pork Bill that didn't do squat for the economy. And how many billions on Clean Energy???

The corrupt world depression started under Clinton and those clown liberals that believed every black and poor person should be able to own their own home whether they could afford it or not. Without that, we would have never had a "W Depression."

Oh, blaming the recession on Clinton now, well it's different to blaming it on Obama the whole time, I'll give you that. So, Bush going to war and spending billions didn't do anything then?

They all played a part. I'm just pointing out the start of the problem, not the end results like FrankFart.

If not for the housing crisis, we would have enjoyed a good economy through the Bush years right into the McCain Presidency.

The main problem are the two political parties, and also an attitude in the US of simply not wanting to solve the problems.

I guess this is why all "Superpowers" end up falling down, it happened to the Egyptians, the Romans, the Spanish, the British, the Chinese, you name it, they all peak and then they all get arrogant and then they all go downhill due to their complacency.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh, I see, relevance isn't relevance for you. Gotcha. How's this? On my last job, that I retired from (with a nice pension to go along with my military pension) I was making 98,970 per year with a full benefits package.

So, I went from .60 an hour in the early 60s to nearly $100,000 (well far above it with benefits) so see, relevance matters, if you don't want to stay at the bottom of the heap for your entire life.

Get it now?

Maybe you didn't read my post, but let me reiterate:

"You actually have to make a point and generally back that up with logic, knowledge, etc."

Now, personally, I'm happy to hear that you worked your way up out of the trenches (maybe even literally). Also, being a Marine veteran myself I'm happy to hear that you joined the select few who really put their ass on the line and serve the country.

However, the point still stands that an anecdotal story for you doesn't mean much when talking about the diverse population of America in general. If your point is that we shouldn't raise minimal wages, exactly WHY are you saying that? Because you once made a minimum wage? Okay...that means nothing. Maybe you are saying that everybody making a minimum wage can work their way out of it. That would mean you would have to change the entire job structure of America however (you can't honestly say that you think that there are enough higher paying jobs out there to support all the individuals making minimum wage now to move into them).
I'm not even certain why you are fighting this so much. Generally speaking the people who most commonly shop at the places that have minimum wage jobs (like McDonald's, Wal-Mart, etc.) are the individuals who also work at a place like that. People who make higher wages tend to shop and higher end stores. So, if you actually made close to $100,000 you should be actively fighting FOR an increase in minimum wages (coupled with a decrease in welfare benefits). The reason is that you generally won't use the services provided by the lowest common denominator, but, being a tax payer, you are literally paying for their meal ticket. I'm really not sure why you would argue against such an obvious point.

I'll make the argument:

For one, a huge minimum wage increase would have a domino effect across the country. All wages would increase which means labor in the US would be much more expensive and cause more businesses to move overseas or make investments in automation to replace human beings. Because of the huge price increases, it would make online shopping more inviting which has an impact on mom and pop shops.

Next of course is it wouldn't solve anything. Only about 4% of our working population makes minimum wage. Therefore the only people we would most help are teenagers, college kids, and senior citizens who are just looking to keep busy during their retirement years.

Then there is the question if it would even help them. That's because even though they get a wage increase, everything they buy would be much more expensive as well. If I get a wage increase and now bring home $200.00 a month more than I did before, but my shopping bill for the month went up $200.00 a month more, how am I ahead?

Of course, labor costs are 20% or less of final prices, so you're just parroting the usual dupe bs...

It's not just labor cost, rent is higher, logistics are higher, everything is higher because every person in the chain expects to earn more money.

Rent is higher because the demand for rental units is unbelievable. We can charge whatever the market allows us. Kind of makes up for the losses we took during the housing bubble where it was damn near impossible to find good tenants. We had to lower the price of our rental units because we landlords were in competition with each other.

It's the exact opposite today. I just rented out one of my units last month. It's usually very difficult to find tenants this time of year up north with the cold and snow. The first day I put the ad out on Craig's List, I had ten replies; some of them even offering to take the unit sight unseen.

Rent is higher because wages are higher, therefore people will pay more, and therefore people will charge more. Poorer countries have lower rent, they have lower wages, they have lower costs all around the board.

That's just a fact, I don't think we need to go into why this is the case.

The point here is that poorer countries can produce stuff more cheaply. They often don't have the skill to do things when it comes to high quality, this is usually something done in richer countries with higher education standards.

Which again turns back to the fact that the US should be doing better with education and putting more direction into the economy, seeking a path for the future.

It isn't.

 

[Never3ndr]

If you need such benefits, you would comply with one of the three requirements which are not all that hard to do. The point is because people are not complying, it must mean they don't need those benefits all that badly. I mean if somebody is going hungry, I mean really hungry, they will take two days to volunteer at a nursing home or hospital somewhere to get those benefits.

I do not agree with you in raising the minimum wage, so we don't totally agree. This prediction of out of control violence and crime is the exact same thing we heard in the 90's when the Republicans pushed through welfare reform. Welfare reform was a great success at the time, and there is no indication to show that the results of cutting programs this time would be any different.

We don't live in Haiti or South Africa. We live in the United States where any citizen can be whatever they desire.

If you don't want to put much effort into working, you can be poor. If you want to live better than poverty, you learn a skill or trade. If you want better than middle-class, you go to college and learn a field in demand. If you want to be wealthy, you can start your own business, sacrifice unnecessary spending and use that money for investments, become a professional such as an engineer, a doctor, a lawyer or a number of other fields where there is great money at.

See, you don't have those options in other countries. That's why people are always trying to come here; because everybody does have that opportunity. But it takes a lot of hard work, a lot of sacrifices, and a lot of risk.

It is literally easier to steal enough money for food than it is to kick a dedicated drug habit. If you really think otherwise you are living in a fantasy world.

You don't agree with scientific studies done upon income equality? I won't argue with you. Since you obviously have a Ph.D. and peer reviewed papers, I shall let you publish your own work on the topic. However, until your own work becomes accepted, we shall have to go on our current understanding, which is a strong positive correlation between increasing income inequality and increasing crime and violent crime rates.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime&Inequality.pdf

Social capital, income inequality, and firearm violent crime

Again, if you don't agree with our understanding of the world then publish your own research on the matter. Until then you just look ignorant.

Now, the US is a first world nation, and we have a much larger degree of social and economic mobility than most other countries. That is undeniable. It also has nothing to do with the discussion on removing the welfare benefits on the impoverished to reduce tax burden (and size of government). Whether or not people move here to better themselves and whether or not you can move up or down the ladder has nothing to do with the fact that there is a bottom rung on the ladder and that the bottom rung is currently using a good deal of government assistance.

Again, if you want to speak from a logical or rational point of view and are actually looking to reduce welfare benefits...there is absolutely no way you can disagree with my point. (that we need to increase minimum wage coupled with a decrease in welfare benefits). Now, if you want to continue to wish the world operated in a way you deem fit or bring up unrelated points that have no bearing on the subject...then please, continue. I, for one, find it quite humorous.

 

[francoHFW]

Where am I wrong ferchrissake? ANY argument AT ALL? Thanks for the W corrupt WORLD DEPRESSION. 2 trillion in bailouts, 800 billion for UE and welfare one year, STILL 300 billion NOW. With the GOP blocking ALL solutions. Wake UP!

You wake up. Nobody forced DumBama to bailout anybody. That was his decision alone. He spent over a trillion on Commie Care which we didn't and don't need. He spent close to that on his Pork Bill that didn't do squat for the economy. And how many billions on Clean Energy???

The corrupt world depression started under Clinton and those clown liberals that believed every black and poor person should be able to own their own home whether they could afford it or not. Without that, we would have never had a "W Depression."

Oh, blaming the recession on Clinton now, well it's different to blaming it on Obama the whole time, I'll give you that. So, Bush going to war and spending billions didn't do anything then?

They all played a part. I'm just pointing out the start of the problem, not the end results like FrankFart.

If not for the housing crisis, we would have enjoyed a good economy through the Bush years right into the McCain Presidency.

ACTUALLY, the economy was based on credit and loans on property. ANOTHER Pub bubble /bust...housing crisis LOL.

Obviously you didn't click on one link I posted. Had you done that, you would realize how ignorant your statement is.

The truth of the matter is that blacks and poor people vote predominantly Democrat. Why would Republicans cater to them??? Well..... Bush did to a point, but Democrats stood to gain from giving away these home loans.

The housing bubble was in the making before Bush took presidency. Thanks to a good economy he created, it excelled the market and got way out of control. The Republicans tried to stop it by creating an oversight committee of F and F, but Democrats fought it tooth and nail. Need the video, just ask.

Read 'em all. Peanuts compared to what the Booshies did...F+F had little to do with it, no matter what your propaganda video bleats about. They got into toxic stuff way late...

 

[francoHFW]

Of course it is. It's never the Democrats fault. It's like I've always said, the best part of being a Democrat is never having to say you were wrong.

Where am I wrong ferchrissake? ANY argument AT ALL? Thanks for the W corrupt WORLD DEPRESSION. 2 trillion in bailouts, 800 billion for UE and welfare one year, STILL 300 billion NOW. With the GOP blocking ALL solutions. Wake UP!

You wake up. Nobody forced DumBama to bailout anybody. That was his decision alone. He spent over a trillion on Commie Care which we didn't and don't need. He spent close to that on his Pork Bill that didn't do squat for the economy. And how many billions on Clean Energy???

The corrupt world depression started under Clinton and those clown liberals that believed every black and poor person should be able to own their own home whether they could afford it or not. Without that, we would have never had a "W Depression."

Oh, blaming the recession on Clinton now, well it's different to blaming it on Obama the whole time, I'll give you that. So, Bush going to war and spending billions didn't do anything then?

They all played a part. I'm just pointing out the start of the problem, not the end results like FrankFart.

If not for the housing crisis, we would have enjoyed a good economy through the Bush years right into the McCain Presidency.

The main problem are the two political parties, and also an attitude in the US of simply not wanting to solve the problems.

I guess this is why all "Superpowers" end up falling down, it happened to the Egyptians, the Romans, the Spanish, the British, the Chinese, you name it, they all peak and then they all get arrogant and then they all go downhill due to their complacency.

The USA isn't going anywhere= too many natural resources. We'd be fantastic without Pubs duping the chumps and robbing us blind since Grant...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You wake up. Nobody forced DumBama to bailout anybody. That was his decision alone. He spent over a trillion on Commie Care which we didn't and don't need. He spent close to that on his Pork Bill that didn't do squat for the economy. And how many billions on Clean Energy???

The corrupt world depression started under Clinton and those clown liberals that believed every black and poor person should be able to own their own home whether they could afford it or not. Without that, we would have never had a "W Depression."

Oh, blaming the recession on Clinton now, well it's different to blaming it on Obama the whole time, I'll give you that. So, Bush going to war and spending billions didn't do anything then?

They all played a part. I'm just pointing out the start of the problem, not the end results like FrankFart.

If not for the housing crisis, we would have enjoyed a good economy through the Bush years right into the McCain Presidency.

ACTUALLY, the economy was based on credit and loans on property. ANOTHER Pub bubble /bust...housing crisis LOL.

Obviously you didn't click on one link I posted. Had you done that, you would realize how ignorant your statement is.

The truth of the matter is that blacks and poor people vote predominantly Democrat. Why would Republicans cater to them??? Well..... Bush did to a point, but Democrats stood to gain from giving away these home loans.

The housing bubble was in the making before Bush took presidency. Thanks to a good economy he created, it excelled the market and got way out of control. The Republicans tried to stop it by creating an oversight committee of F and F, but Democrats fought it tooth and nail. Need the video, just ask.

Read 'em all. Peanuts compared to what the Booshies did...F+F had little to do with it, no matter what your propaganda video bleats about. They got into toxic stuff way late...

Obviously you didn't read one of them, or you'd realize that F and F (who takes their orders from HUD) were a main contributor to the housing bubble.

 

[francoHFW]

I read them all, and you are FOS. F+F got 1/4 of the bailout. Guess what?

 

[francoHFW]

Who was in charge of HUD and ignored warnings about subprime and gave Countrywide etc most of the market?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you need such benefits, you would comply with one of the three requirements which are not all that hard to do. The point is because people are not complying, it must mean they don't need those benefits all that badly. I mean if somebody is going hungry, I mean really hungry, they will take two days to volunteer at a nursing home or hospital somewhere to get those benefits.

I do not agree with you in raising the minimum wage, so we don't totally agree. This prediction of out of control violence and crime is the exact same thing we heard in the 90's when the Republicans pushed through welfare reform. Welfare reform was a great success at the time, and there is no indication to show that the results of cutting programs this time would be any different.

We don't live in Haiti or South Africa. We live in the United States where any citizen can be whatever they desire.

If you don't want to put much effort into working, you can be poor. If you want to live better than poverty, you learn a skill or trade. If you want better than middle-class, you go to college and learn a field in demand. If you want to be wealthy, you can start your own business, sacrifice unnecessary spending and use that money for investments, become a professional such as an engineer, a doctor, a lawyer or a number of other fields where there is great money at.

See, you don't have those options in other countries. That's why people are always trying to come here; because everybody does have that opportunity. But it takes a lot of hard work, a lot of sacrifices, and a lot of risk.

It is literally easier to steal enough money for food than it is to kick a dedicated drug habit. If you really think otherwise you are living in a fantasy world.

You don't agree with scientific studies done upon income equality? I won't argue with you. Since you obviously have a Ph.D. and peer reviewed papers, I shall let you publish your own work on the topic. However, until your own work becomes accepted, we shall have to go on our current understanding, which is a strong positive correlation between increasing income inequality and increasing crime and violent crime rates.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime&Inequality.pdf

Social capital, income inequality, and firearm violent crime

Again, if you don't agree with our understanding of the world then publish your own research on the matter. Until then you just look ignorant.

Now, the US is a first world nation, and we have a much larger degree of social and economic mobility than most other countries. That is undeniable. It also has nothing to do with the discussion on removing the welfare benefits on the impoverished to reduce tax burden (and size of government). Whether or not people move here to better themselves and whether or not you can move up or down the ladder has nothing to do with the fact that there is a bottom rung on the ladder and that the bottom rung is currently using a good deal of government assistance.

Again, if you want to speak from a logical or rational point of view and are actually looking to reduce welfare benefits...there is absolutely no way you can disagree with my point. Now, if you want to continue to wish the world operated in a way you deem fit or bring up unrelated points that have no bearing on the subject...then please, continue. I, for one, find it quite humorous.

Glad to see you are in such a festive mood.

The United States has been on the decline in violent crime and in particular, gun crime violence since the mid 90's. Although I would attribute that to armed citizenry, I don't (and nobody does) have evidence to support my theory.

It does not discount the FBI statistics that show this decrease regardless of the economy. But I digress to address this income inequality concern of yours:

What is income inequality? It means some are making more money than others? Who is responsible for this income equality? The people at the bottom.

Yes, that's correct, you read it right. The people that are responsible for income inequality are people just like you and me. How? That's quite simple.

Sometime this week, you are going to transfer your wealth to the top; not just you, so am I, so will everybody on this blog.

Sometime this week, you might buy a Microsoft program, an I-pad, an I-phone. Sometime this week, you may stop at McDonald's for lunch, or perhaps Wendy's or Burger King, all very wealthy organizations. Maybe you don't eat fast food, but you do buy gas, don't you? Well guess what? You transfer your money to the top with every fill up. And what about that cell phone you use everyday? Think middle-class people own those companies? What about your cable or satellite service? That's right, transferring more of your money to the top. You do realize that your roof shingles and perhaps asphalt driveway are mostly oil, don't you? Don't replace those items if you don't want to transfer your money to those multi-billion dollar oil companies.

Yes, we all transfer our money to the top. In fact, most people do it repeatedly every single week. In return for giving our money to those evil rich people, they provide us with products and services such as the computer you are using or the internet service to which we can communicate from across the street or across the globe.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Where am I wrong ferchrissake? ANY argument AT ALL? Thanks for the W corrupt WORLD DEPRESSION. 2 trillion in bailouts, 800 billion for UE and welfare one year, STILL 300 billion NOW. With the GOP blocking ALL solutions. Wake UP!

You wake up. Nobody forced DumBama to bailout anybody. That was his decision alone. He spent over a trillion on Commie Care which we didn't and don't need. He spent close to that on his Pork Bill that didn't do squat for the economy. And how many billions on Clean Energy???

The corrupt world depression started under Clinton and those clown liberals that believed every black and poor person should be able to own their own home whether they could afford it or not. Without that, we would have never had a "W Depression."

Oh, blaming the recession on Clinton now, well it's different to blaming it on Obama the whole time, I'll give you that. So, Bush going to war and spending billions didn't do anything then?

They all played a part. I'm just pointing out the start of the problem, not the end results like FrankFart.

If not for the housing crisis, we would have enjoyed a good economy through the Bush years right into the McCain Presidency.

The main problem are the two political parties, and also an attitude in the US of simply not wanting to solve the problems.

I guess this is why all "Superpowers" end up falling down, it happened to the Egyptians, the Romans, the Spanish, the British, the Chinese, you name it, they all peak and then they all get arrogant and then they all go downhill due to their complacency.

The USA isn't going anywhere= too many natural resources. We'd be fantastic without Pubs duping the chumps and robbing us blind since Grant...

You believe what you like, the facts speak otherwise.

 

[francoHFW]

If you need such benefits, you would comply with one of the three requirements which are not all that hard to do. The point is because people are not complying, it must mean they don't need those benefits all that badly. I mean if somebody is going hungry, I mean really hungry, they will take two days to volunteer at a nursing home or hospital somewhere to get those benefits.

I do not agree with you in raising the minimum wage, so we don't totally agree. This prediction of out of control violence and crime is the exact same thing we heard in the 90's when the Republicans pushed through welfare reform. Welfare reform was a great success at the time, and there is no indication to show that the results of cutting programs this time would be any different.

We don't live in Haiti or South Africa. We live in the United States where any citizen can be whatever they desire.

If you don't want to put much effort into working, you can be poor. If you want to live better than poverty, you learn a skill or trade. If you want better than middle-class, you go to college and learn a field in demand. If you want to be wealthy, you can start your own business, sacrifice unnecessary spending and use that money for investments, become a professional such as an engineer, a doctor, a lawyer or a number of other fields where there is great money at.

See, you don't have those options in other countries. That's why people are always trying to come here; because everybody does have that opportunity. But it takes a lot of hard work, a lot of sacrifices, and a lot of risk.

It is literally easier to steal enough money for food than it is to kick a dedicated drug habit. If you really think otherwise you are living in a fantasy world.

You don't agree with scientific studies done upon income equality? I won't argue with you. Since you obviously have a Ph.D. and peer reviewed papers, I shall let you publish your own work on the topic. However, until your own work becomes accepted, we shall have to go on our current understanding, which is a strong positive correlation between increasing income inequality and increasing crime and violent crime rates.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime&Inequality.pdf

Social capital, income inequality, and firearm violent crime

Again, if you don't agree with our understanding of the world then publish your own research on the matter. Until then you just look ignorant.

Now, the US is a first world nation, and we have a much larger degree of social and economic mobility than most other countries. That is undeniable. It also has nothing to do with the discussion on removing the welfare benefits on the impoverished to reduce tax burden (and size of government). Whether or not people move here to better themselves and whether or not you can move up or down the ladder has nothing to do with the fact that there is a bottom rung on the ladder and that the bottom rung is currently using a good deal of government assistance.

Again, if you want to speak from a logical or rational point of view and are actually looking to reduce welfare benefits...there is absolutely no way you can disagree with my point. Now, if you want to continue to wish the world operated in a way you deem fit or bring up unrelated points that have no bearing on the subject...then please, continue. I, for one, find it quite humorous.

Glad to see you are in such a festive mood.

The United States has been on the decline in violent crime and in particular, gun crime violence since the mid 90's. Although I would attribute that to armed citizenry, I don't (and nobody does) have evidence to support my theory.

It does not discount the FBI statistics that show this decrease regardless of the economy. But I digress to address this income inequality concern of yours:

What is income inequality? It means some are making more money than others? Who is responsible for this income equality? The people at the bottom.

Yes, that's correct, you read it right. The people that are responsible for income inequality are people just like you and me. How? That's quite simple.

Sometime this week, you are going to transfer your wealth to the top; not just you, so am I, so will everybody on this blog.

Sometime this week, you might buy a Microsoft program, an I-pad, an I-phone. Sometime this week, you may stop at McDonald's for lunch, or perhaps Wendy's or Burger King, all very wealthy organizations. Maybe you don't eat fast food, but you do buy gas, don't you? Well guess what? You transfer your money to the top with every fill up. And what about that cell phone you use everyday? Think middle-class people own those companies? What about your cable or satellite service? That's right, transferring more of your money to the top. You do realize that your roof shingles and perhaps asphalt driveway is mostly oil, don't you? Don't replace those items if you don't want to transfer your money to those multi-billion dollar oil companies.

Yes, we all transfer our money to the top. In fact, most people do it repeatedly every single week. In return for giving our money to those evil rich people, they provide us with products and services such as the computer you are using or the internet service to which we can communicate from across the street or across the globe.

And don't pay enough because unions are shot, and pay no more in taxes than the non-rich under GOP tax rates...Great job!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Who was in charge of HUD and ignored warnings about subprime and gave Countrywide etc most of the market?

HUD is a bureaucracy if you didn't already know. They make their own rules as they go along. F&F being a part government and part private industry take their orders from HUD who sets the parameters for issuing or buying toxic loans.

In other words, if you are a bank who wishes to make home loans, you must use the guidelines set by F&F if you want to sell those loans as as securities.

When it comes to home loans, there are two categories of loans the bank makes: one is a prime mortgage where the bank uses their own money which are under strict guidelines to insure repayment. The other is subprime loans which were created at the end of the Carter administration. Subprime loans are higher risk which is why they are typically issued as an Adjustable Rate Mortgage loan (or ARM) that are subject to change based on interest rates.

The culprit of the housing collapse came from subprime mortgages. That's because the bank made money on processing the loans, and adhering to government standards, were able to sell those loans as bundled securities.

When those securities hit the market and were found to be not secure at all because of all the bad loans, the housing collapse began and it couldn't be stopped.

The point is, you can't sell bad security loans to begin with if you don't have bad loans in the first place. And that first place came with this notion that everybody should be able to buy a home regardless of credit or background check.

 

[francoHFW]

You wake up. Nobody forced DumBama to bailout anybody. That was his decision alone. He spent over a trillion on Commie Care which we didn't and don't need. He spent close to that on his Pork Bill that didn't do squat for the economy. And how many billions on Clean Energy???

The corrupt world depression started under Clinton and those clown liberals that believed every black and poor person should be able to own their own home whether they could afford it or not. Without that, we would have never had a "W Depression."

Oh, blaming the recession on Clinton now, well it's different to blaming it on Obama the whole time, I'll give you that. So, Bush going to war and spending billions didn't do anything then?

They all played a part. I'm just pointing out the start of the problem, not the end results like FrankFart.

If not for the housing crisis, we would have enjoyed a good economy through the Bush years right into the McCain Presidency.

The main problem are the two political parties, and also an attitude in the US of simply not wanting to solve the problems.

I guess this is why all "Superpowers" end up falling down, it happened to the Egyptians, the Romans, the Spanish, the British, the Chinese, you name it, they all peak and then they all get arrogant and then they all go downhill due to their complacency.

The USA isn't going anywhere= too many natural resources. We'd be fantastic without Pubs duping the chumps and robbing us blind since Grant...

You believe what you like, the facts speak otherwise.

If the GOP stays in charge, you could be right. Oligarchies suq.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If you need such benefits, you would comply with one of the three requirements which are not all that hard to do. The point is because people are not complying, it must mean they don't need those benefits all that badly. I mean if somebody is going hungry, I mean really hungry, they will take two days to volunteer at a nursing home or hospital somewhere to get those benefits.

I do not agree with you in raising the minimum wage, so we don't totally agree. This prediction of out of control violence and crime is the exact same thing we heard in the 90's when the Republicans pushed through welfare reform. Welfare reform was a great success at the time, and there is no indication to show that the results of cutting programs this time would be any different.

We don't live in Haiti or South Africa. We live in the United States where any citizen can be whatever they desire.

If you don't want to put much effort into working, you can be poor. If you want to live better than poverty, you learn a skill or trade. If you want better than middle-class, you go to college and learn a field in demand. If you want to be wealthy, you can start your own business, sacrifice unnecessary spending and use that money for investments, become a professional such as an engineer, a doctor, a lawyer or a number of other fields where there is great money at.

See, you don't have those options in other countries. That's why people are always trying to come here; because everybody does have that opportunity. But it takes a lot of hard work, a lot of sacrifices, and a lot of risk.

It is literally easier to steal enough money for food than it is to kick a dedicated drug habit. If you really think otherwise you are living in a fantasy world.

You don't agree with scientific studies done upon income equality? I won't argue with you. Since you obviously have a Ph.D. and peer reviewed papers, I shall let you publish your own work on the topic. However, until your own work becomes accepted, we shall have to go on our current understanding, which is a strong positive correlation between increasing income inequality and increasing crime and violent crime rates.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime&Inequality.pdf

Social capital, income inequality, and firearm violent crime

Again, if you don't agree with our understanding of the world then publish your own research on the matter. Until then you just look ignorant.

Now, the US is a first world nation, and we have a much larger degree of social and economic mobility than most other countries. That is undeniable. It also has nothing to do with the discussion on removing the welfare benefits on the impoverished to reduce tax burden (and size of government). Whether or not people move here to better themselves and whether or not you can move up or down the ladder has nothing to do with the fact that there is a bottom rung on the ladder and that the bottom rung is currently using a good deal of government assistance.

Again, if you want to speak from a logical or rational point of view and are actually looking to reduce welfare benefits...there is absolutely no way you can disagree with my point. Now, if you want to continue to wish the world operated in a way you deem fit or bring up unrelated points that have no bearing on the subject...then please, continue. I, for one, find it quite humorous.

Glad to see you are in such a festive mood.

The United States has been on the decline in violent crime and in particular, gun crime violence since the mid 90's. Although I would attribute that to armed citizenry, I don't (and nobody does) have evidence to support my theory.

It does not discount the FBI statistics that show this decrease regardless of the economy. But I digress to address this income inequality concern of yours:

What is income inequality? It means some are making more money than others? Who is responsible for this income equality? The people at the bottom.

Yes, that's correct, you read it right. The people that are responsible for income inequality are people just like you and me. How? That's quite simple.

Sometime this week, you are going to transfer your wealth to the top; not just you, so am I, so will everybody on this blog.

Sometime this week, you might buy a Microsoft program, an I-pad, an I-phone. Sometime this week, you may stop at McDonald's for lunch, or perhaps Wendy's or Burger King, all very wealthy organizations. Maybe you don't eat fast food, but you do buy gas, don't you? Well guess what? You transfer your money to the top with every fill up. And what about that cell phone you use everyday? Think middle-class people own those companies? What about your cable or satellite service? That's right, transferring more of your money to the top. You do realize that your roof shingles and perhaps asphalt driveway is mostly oil, don't you? Don't replace those items if you don't want to transfer your money to those multi-billion dollar oil companies.

Yes, we all transfer our money to the top. In fact, most people do it repeatedly every single week. In return for giving our money to those evil rich people, they provide us with products and services such as the computer you are using or the internet service to which we can communicate from across the street or across the globe.

You say violent crime is falling because of higher gun ownership huh?

When gun ownership has been going down, probably due to a reduction in violent crime.

The number of guns has been rising, the number of people with guns has been dropping.

Funny how you can make statistics say what you will.

 

[francoHFW]

Who was in charge of HUD and ignored warnings about subprime and gave Countrywide etc most of the market?

HUD is a bureaucracy if you didn't already know. They make their own rules as they go along. F&F being a part government and part private industry take their orders from HUD who sets the parameters for issuing or buying toxic loans.

In other words, if you are a bank who wishes to make home loans, you must use the guidelines set by F&F if you want to sell those loans as as securities.

When it comes to home loans, there are two categories of loans the bank makes: one is a prime mortgage where the bank uses their own money which are under strict guidelines to insure repayment. The other is subprime loans which were created at the end of the Carter administration. Subprime loans are higher risk which is why they are typically issued as an Adjustable Rate Mortgage loan (or ARM) that are subject to change based on interest rates.

The culprit of the housing collapse came from subprime mortgages. That's because the bank made money on processing the loans, and adhering to government standards, were able to sell those loans as bundled securities.

When those securities hit the market and were found to be not secure at all because of all the bad loans, the housing collapse began and it couldn't be stopped.

The point is, you can't sell bad security loans to begin with if you don't have bad loans in the first place. And that first place came with this notion that everybody should be able to buy a home regardless of credit or background check.

...that started with Countrywide etc, pals of Boooshies, regulated by Boooshies, that took over the market under Boooshies...

 

[francoHFW]

Who was in charge of HUD and ignored warnings about subprime and gave Countrywide etc most of the market?

HUD is a bureaucracy if you didn't already know. They make their own rules as they go along. F&F being a part government and part private industry take their orders from HUD who sets the parameters for issuing or buying toxic loans.

In other words, if you are a bank who wishes to make home loans, you must use the guidelines set by F&F if you want to sell those loans as as securities.

When it comes to home loans, there are two categories of loans the bank makes: one is a prime mortgage where the bank uses their own money which are under strict guidelines to insure repayment. The other is subprime loans which were created at the end of the Carter administration. Subprime loans are higher risk which is why they are typically issued as an Adjustable Rate Mortgage loan (or ARM) that are subject to change based on interest rates.

The culprit of the housing collapse came from subprime mortgages. That's because the bank made money on processing the loans, and adhering to government standards, were able to sell those loans as bundled securities.

When those securities hit the market and were found to be not secure at all because of all the bad loans, the housing collapse began and it couldn't be stopped.

The point is, you can't sell bad security loans to begin with if you don't have bad loans in the first place. And that first place came with this notion that everybody should be able to buy a home regardless of credit or background check.

...that started with Countrywide etc, pals of Boooshies, regulated by Boooshies, that took over the market under Boooshies...

more like the end of the crack craze...

 

[francoHFW]

Who was in charge of HUD and ignored warnings about subprime and gave Countrywide etc most of the market?

HUD is a bureaucracy if you didn't already know. They make their own rules as they go along. F&F being a part government and part private industry take their orders from HUD who sets the parameters for issuing or buying toxic loans.

In other words, if you are a bank who wishes to make home loans, you must use the guidelines set by F&F if you want to sell those loans as as securities.

When it comes to home loans, there are two categories of loans the bank makes: one is a prime mortgage where the bank uses their own money which are under strict guidelines to insure repayment. The other is subprime loans which were created at the end of the Carter administration. Subprime loans are higher risk which is why they are typically issued as an Adjustable Rate Mortgage loan (or ARM) that are subject to change based on interest rates.

The culprit of the housing collapse came from subprime mortgages. That's because the bank made money on processing the loans, and adhering to government standards, were able to sell those loans as bundled securities.

When those securities hit the market and were found to be not secure at all because of all the bad loans, the housing collapse began and it couldn't be stopped.

The point is, you can't sell bad security loans to begin with if you don't have bad loans in the first place. And that first place came with this notion that everybody should be able to buy a home regardless of credit or background check.

So is the IRS, yet you think they're an anti-GOP conspiracy lol...So explain Countrywide. Should be good...