80 percent of US adults face near poverty

cawacko said:
I read this article yesterday and in the back of my mind I thought 'I bet RazorX will probably post this'. I was wrong there but it did make the board.

I would have responded sooner but I really did want to see how many times Desh could respond to her own post before someone else jumped in. I'm not trying to be mean it's just a different posting style.

The reason I thought RazorX would have posted this was he would have thanked Obama for these numbers considering Obama has been in office five years now. Desh turned this into the Republicans doing however. When Desh said these people vote Republican I'm assuming she meant the poor white people because the article mentions poor racial and ethnic minorities. I can't imagine she is now claiming they vote Republican.

We've heard for years from all people, but especially those on the left, that we need to reduce our military spending. Well here we had made reductions to our military spending and the complaint is now about lost jobs.

I also find it difficult to wrap my brain around the idea that we are practicing austerity in the U.S. while running a $600 billion deficit. I'd hate to see what actual austerity looked like.

And Desh for stating you want to talk about all the facts I notice you left out the effects the tax increases had played on the economy and chose to focus solely on reductions in spending.

Leaving all that aside I read the comments section of the article yesterday and many posters attempted to point at the free trade agreements signed by the U.S. starting with NAFTA. I've always believed that our country will not grow economically by closing off or limiting our borders to trade. However that has moved our economy into a more service oriented role from a more manufacturing one. I believe this will continue to push our economic prosperity higher as a whole but it does lead to more disparate income disparities. Adding a dollar or two to the minimum wage sounds nice and all but that isn't going to do anything about reducing inequality.

We've had this discussion on the board before. One topic being do we alter our education system to emphasize more learning in a particular trade skill to help make someone more employable among other ideas?
Click to expand...

Lol, you have reached your apex. racist X thanked your post!
 
tekkychick said:
What if we had taken all the money we used to bail out the banks and used that to bail out homeowners? to provide jobs?

I do blame Repubs for blocking many of the programs Pres. Obama has proposed to help with jobs and safety net.

But not like Pres. Obama's proposals were big enough; he didn't push for single pay health care; he didn't support the progressive budget and he is pretty supportive of big business (those who think he's a socialist are dead wrong).

What if we took the money "saved" by sequestration and pumped it into votech training? - welders, carpenters, solar power installers, training on how to retrofit homes to be more energy efficient, nursing, EMTs, power line people, etc etc etc?

What if we focused on building a stronger middle class instead of worrying that rich people are paying a few percent too much in taxes?

To a small degree we are giving businesses incentive for hiring veterans; what if we gave more incentives to bring jobs into the US? and to hire low-skilled workers? We do this last to some degree- places like McDonald's can hire someone and have part of the wages paid by the govt - but then they often get rid of the people when the subsidy ends; how do we ensure the people stay on when the subsidy is done?

Community colleges and state colleges - at least in California - are bursting at the seams. What if we invested in more teachers, more class units, so people could actually do a four year degree in four years instead of five?

Yes, I do primarily blame republicans. But many dems aren't pushing big messages either. There are some - Tom Torlakson here in California working on schools; Grayson in Floriday; Warren, of course.

But - what if?

sigh.
Click to expand...

We need to invest our tax dollars into job creating ventures. The people are tired of war, so we need to find a new deal.

I just read an artice about how student debt is causing a lot of hardship. Graduates aren't making the big money necessary to pay their debts and their mortgage. People seeking higher degrees are strapped with debt the size of a mortgage.

Meantime, it is too expensive for the average commoner to run for office, it is now the lawyers, gynecologist, high finance guys that make the rules, often tilted in the favor of the wealthy and the international corporations.

They are dumbing us down and creating a cheap working class, their error in doing so is the slow down on purchasing of goods and services which in turn means less profit and fewer educated people to invent and perform. It is a wheel that keeps on tuning. Eventually the people will tire of it, there will be upheaval and life goes on.

This isn't anything that hasn't happened before! It is most unfortunate that it is happening to us so soon. We are still a young nation.
 
evince said:
cant touch this huh?


just too many facts to overcome which show your historically failed ideas are just that
Click to expand...


You know what party controls the presidentcy for the last 5 years as well as I do.
The Senate for the last 7 years and the House for 5 of the last 7 years....fool.
 
cawacko said:
Desh and you wonder why no one responds to your threads. You post an article that shows 4 out of 5 adults will face poverty or joblessness at some point in their lifetime and their has been growing inequality over decades yet your only response is this is all the House Republicans fault from 2010 on.
Click to expand...

Poor dummies....they just don't get it...
 
cawacko said:
The bailout of the banks was one of those big issues that transcended partisan lines as there were supporters and detractors on both sides. If you believe President Obama all the loan money has been paid back so there was no loss there.

I don't support bailing out homeowners. If someone took home equity money out to spend on different items then found themselves in over their head later on why should the taxpayers bail them out? If someone signed up for a teaser loan to buy a house they really couldn't afford again why should the government bail them out? I don't mean to sound heartless because I do feel for those who lost their homes but from a policy perspective I think it's wrong to support them.

You mention taking government money to provide jobs. What jobs did you have in mind? The economy is not going to grow by the government growing. It's the private sector and really the small business sector that provides economic and job growth.

You blame the Republicans for blocking Obama's jobs plans but look at the plans he's passed. The stimulus did not have near the effect his economic team claimed it would when implemented. The health care act is not helping job growth. The Dodd-Frank bill is a massive clusterfvck. It's understandable to me why people are questioning if another stimulus five years later is really the answer.

I know you wrote more but just my initial response.
Click to expand...

Re homeowners - it has really hurt our economy because we didn't bail them out. Why did we bail out businesses that made incredibly dumb (and in some cases possibly criminal) decisions but we won't do that for the average homeowner? I read about one place that used money to buy out the homeowner and then rented the house back to them; that kept neighborhoods strong; the homeowners had a place to live, they kept it up, they didn't have to move; but they weren't crippled by the debt or by walking away from the loan. Places that didn't do that have vacant homes, graffiti, crime.

The jobs - that whole list of votech jobs jumps to mind! The govt can fix our roads, our electrical grid, subsidize solar for homeowners or towns and pay for the people to install it. The govt could strengthen levees in California, restore the marshes around the mouth of the Mississippi River, weatherize houses - these all would create jobs. I agree his stimulus wasn't big enough, but it helped; but after that he could never get repubs to pass another bill.

And yeah, financial industry is doing its darndest to kill anything the Dodd-Frank bill will do to help in the future. Both sides are letting them do that.
 
cawacko said:
Desh and you wonder why no one responds to your threads. You post an article that shows 4 out of 5 adults will face poverty or joblessness at some point in their lifetime and their has been growing inequality over decades yet your only response is this is all the House Republicans fault from 2010 on.
Click to expand...

That is why I didn't bother. She doesn't even understand her own article.
 
cawacko said:
The bailout of the banks was one of those big issues that transcended partisan lines as there were supporters and detractors on both sides. If you believe President Obama all the loan money has been paid back so there was no loss there.

I don't support bailing out homeowners. If someone took home equity money out to spend on different items then found themselves in over their head later on why should the taxpayers bail them out? If someone signed up for a teaser loan to buy a house they really couldn't afford again why should the government bail them out? I don't mean to sound heartless because I do feel for those who lost their homes but from a policy perspective I think it's wrong to support them.

You mention taking government money to provide jobs. What jobs did you have in mind? The economy is not going to grow by the government growing. It's the private sector and really the small business sector that provides economic and job growth.

You blame the Republicans for blocking Obama's jobs plans but look at the plans he's passed. The stimulus did not have near the effect his economic team claimed it would when implemented. The health care act is not helping job growth. The Dodd-Frank bill is a massive clusterfvck. It's understandable to me why people are questioning if another stimulus five years later is really the answer.

I know you wrote more but just my initial response.
Click to expand...

The issue with the homeowner is that many of them were suckered by the banks. You know as well as I do you can twist numbers and statistics to make something look really appealing and.fiscally sound when it's really not.

Now....the folks that were into house flipping and all that? No, I don't feel sorry for. But honest, hardworking homeowners who were suckered? Yeah....they deserve a break.
 
Steelplate said:
The issue with the homeowner is that many of them were suckered by the banks. You know as well as I do you can twist numbers and statistics to make something look really appealing and.fiscally sound when it's really not.

Now....the folks that were into house flipping and all that? No, I don't feel sorry for. But honest, hardworking homeowners who were suckered? Yeah....they deserve a break.
Click to expand...

Yes nothing is ever anyone's fault

It is:

White people
Banks
Rich people
White people
White men
Big Pharma
Big Oil
Big Water
Big electric

Never anyone else's fault
 
Steelplate said:
The issue with the homeowner is that many of them were suckered by the banks. You know as well as I do you can twist numbers and statistics to make something look really appealing and.fiscally sound when it's really not.

Now....the folks that were into house flipping and all that? No, I don't feel sorry for. But honest, hardworking homeowners who were suckered? Yeah....they deserve a break.
Click to expand...



What advantage did the banks get by giving loans to those that could not afford to pay them back....how did that help banks ?

Do you remember the banks that wouldn't give loans to people without resources were commonly called 'racist' banks by the Democrats on the Senate floor ? this
was back in Bush's second term.
 
NOVA said:
What advantage did the banks get by giving loans to those that could not afford to pay them back....how did that help banks ?

Do you remember the banks that wouldn't give loans to people without resources were commonly called 'racist' banks by the Democrats on the Senate floor ? this
was back in Bush's second term.
Click to expand...

ROFL! You seriously posted this??? The banks gave the loans and promptly sold them off. Did you pay no attention during the debacle? the banks assumed no risk of the loans... they packaged them, sold them off, and sat there fat and happy.

And yes, banks charged people of color higher interest rates than white people, even with the same income and debt ratios and risk factors. RACISM. deal with it.
 
tekkychick said:
ROFL! You seriously posted this??? The banks gave the loans and promptly sold them off. Did you pay no attention during the debacle? the banks assumed no risk of the loans... they packaged them, sold them off, and sat there fat and happy.

And yes, banks charged people of color higher interest rates than white people, even with the same income and debt ratios and risk factors. RACISM. deal with it.
Click to expand...

Who did they sell them off to? Oh yeah, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And the gobblement comes full circle.

Odd thing is that this did not happen in Canada, but them Canada's gobblement doeSt subsidize home loans.

Who gave us 30 year mortgages? Oh yeah. The gobblement. Bankstas love it because they keep people in perpetual debt. Debt is a form of slavery. Be debt free.
 
tekkychick said:
ROFL! You seriously posted this??? The banks gave the loans and promptly sold them off. Did you pay no attention during the debacle? the banks assumed no risk of the loans... they packaged them, sold them off, and sat there fat and happy.

And yes, banks charged people of color higher interest rates than white people, even with the same income and debt ratios and risk factors. RACISM. deal with it.
Click to expand...

What she said....I know that Slimebaugh doesn't deal in truth though.
 
tekkychick said:
ROFL! You seriously posted this??? The banks gave the loans and promptly sold them off. Did you pay no attention during the debacle? the banks assumed no risk of the loans... they packaged them, sold them off, and sat there fat and happy.

And yes, banks charged people of color higher interest rates than white people, even with the same income and debt ratios and risk factors. RACISM. deal with it.
Click to expand...
\


Of course they sold them off....Freddy and Fannie eventually bought up the loans....thats what they are for...banks have been selling loans to other institutions
for a hundred years....

The the banks were forced to invest in previously red-lined neighborhoods or they were labeled racist....they gave people loans that would not have
qualified for them before, both whites and blacks...thats what the gov. wanted them to do....selling mortgages to Freddie and Fanny is normal business thats been going on
for decades....the gov. would take the risk....

Charging higher rates for some but not others certainly is racist....thats a different matter than the wholesale sub-prime issue....
whites were given more sub-prime loans than any other race...
Lets not mix apples and oranges here.....gov. got just what they demanded....loans to unqualified borrowers....all races were included....

The racist treatment of some lenders concerning blacks and Hispanics was another issue...
gov. caused the problem that led to the racist lending by some banks.
 
NOVA said:
\


Of course they sold them off....Freddy and Fannie eventually bought up the loans....thats what they are for...banks have been selling loans to other institutions
for a hundred years....

The the banks were forced to invest in previously red-lined neighborhoods or they were labeled racist....they gave people loans that would not have
qualified for them before, both whites and blacks...thats what the gov. wanted them to do....selling mortgages to Freddie and Fanny is normal business thats been going on
for decades....the gov. would take the risk....

Charging higher rates for some but not others certainly is racist....thats a different matter than the wholesale sub-prime issue....
whites were given more sub-prime loans than any other race...
Lets not mix apples and oranges here.....gov. got just what they demanded....loans to unqualified borrowers....all races were included....

The racist treatment of some lenders concerning blacks and Hispanics was another issue...
gov. caused the problem that led to the racist lending by some banks.
Click to expand...

Here's a list of the top 25 subprime lenders when the crisis happened.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2009/subprime-25

I think you overestimate Freddie and Fannie's influence and are minimizing the movers and shakers.
 
Steelplate said:
Here's a list of the top 25 subprime lenders when the crisis happened.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2009/subprime-25

I think you overestimate Freddie and Fannie's influence and are minimizing the movers and shakers.
Click to expand...


I'm not accusing Freddie and Fannie of anything....I merely said they (the gov.) bought the shitty loans...
It was gov. demanding that red lining stop and banks reconsider, strongly reconsider, lending to previously unqualified borrowers....


The other side....

The Department of Justice is scouring the country looking for crimes relating to the mortgage crisis. This has resulted in censures and fines that are unfair to major lenders.
During the mid 2000s, encouraged by Congress,(and we know who controlled Congress then) banks lowered credit standards to make more loans and earn higher profits. In many cases, these loans were for homes in communities populated by people of color. The banks miscalculated in the same way many individual borrowers did. Home values were not going to increase in perpetuity and be a “second way out” for lenders and for borrowers unable to repay loans. As we now know, the housing market in the aforementioned time period was a huge bubble waiting to burst; and burst it did.
The banks relished lending to disadvantaged neighborhoods because they could justifiably charge higher rates that would more than offset higher expected default rates. The transactions were structured to force sales in the event of non-payment. And, so long as housing prices increased, the banks felt confident they could come out whole.

http://tinyurl.com/kceqlwb
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top