Unless Citizens United is overturned, I'm not sure how you can do that.
The GI Bill was successful, but it was also a way to pay back people putting their lives on the line for the country. That's a bit different from just loaning to anyone.
Can You Imagine How Badly It Might Have Gone If Trump* Had Been Elected In 2008?
- Thread starter PoliTalker
- Start date
Unless Citizens United is overturned, I'm not sure how you can do that.
The GI Bill was successful, but it was also a way to pay back people putting their lives on the line for the country. That's a bit different from just loaning to anyone.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Celticguy,
It doesn't, nor should it have to. It's the right thing to do because it makes sense and it serves to promote the general welfare.
The rates only need to be high enough to pay the defaults, not to do that plus make sleazy credit guys filthy rich. A government agency can do any function cheaper than a for-profit organization because it can run exactly the same way with one difference, that difference being it does not have to make a profit.
It comes from depositors who have money in checking and savings accounts. It would also be possible to sell bonds. The market would dictate rates. Banking is no mystery. The payments on existing loans should exceed new loans being made. It starts off slowly and is operated in a safe practice which ensures continuation of the model. Make it all adhere to safe FDIC practices, be FDIC insured. I don't see the problem. Again, this business model has the distinct advantage of not having to generate a profit. That allows it to out-compete any other business such as a Buy-Here-Pay-Here car lot, or a Payday Loan Joint.
It doesn't, nor should it have to. It's the right thing to do because it makes sense and it serves to promote the general welfare.
The rates only need to be high enough to pay the defaults, not to do that plus make sleazy credit guys filthy rich. A government agency can do any function cheaper than a for-profit organization because it can run exactly the same way with one difference, that difference being it does not have to make a profit.
It comes from depositors who have money in checking and savings accounts. It would also be possible to sell bonds. The market would dictate rates. Banking is no mystery. The payments on existing loans should exceed new loans being made. It starts off slowly and is operated in a safe practice which ensures continuation of the model. Make it all adhere to safe FDIC practices, be FDIC insured. I don't see the problem. Again, this business model has the distinct advantage of not having to generate a profit. That allows it to out-compete any other business such as a Buy-Here-Pay-Here car lot, or a Payday Loan Joint.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Woko Haram,
Yes. Overturn Citizens United. No small feat. But not impossible if you have a plan. There is a plan. It sounds good. Here it is:
The GI Bill was successful, but it was also a way to pay back people putting their lives on the line for the country. That's a bit different from just loaning to anyone.[/QUOTE]
So is free college vs college loans.
Grant/loan.
Apples/oranges.
Yes. Overturn Citizens United. No small feat. But not impossible if you have a plan. There is a plan. It sounds good. Here it is:
The GI Bill was successful, but it was also a way to pay back people putting their lives on the line for the country. That's a bit different from just loaning to anyone.[/QUOTE]
So is free college vs college loans.
Grant/loan.
Apples/oranges.
Credit unions are non profit and wont touch this because of the high default rate.
Payday lending companies are not wildly profitable. Cash America, the largest payday loan company in the country, had a 2016 net profit margin of 0.87% (source).May 28, 2019
And lets not forget the USPS has alwsys hemorrhaged money. So much for effiency.
Its not for the general welfare as only a portion of citizens are eligible.
The right thing to do is learn how to budget, save and develop creditworthiness.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Celticguy,
The records show a very small profit on purpose to keep their tax obligation low. That's because they are paying very high salaries to the owners. The USPS would not have to pay those high salaries, so the difference could be used to reduce the interest rate charged to borrowers.
That should be forgotten at the outset because it is not true. The USPS is burdened with a requirement to prefund a retirement program for all current and potential employees for a period of 75 years into the future, an onerous requirement placed upon it by Republicans determined to kill the USPS. Take away that requirement (thus placing it on a level playing field with UPS and Fedex) and the USPS is wildly profitable. No other business is required to prefund a retirement program for unborn workers. If such a law were imposed on any other business, Republicans would cry foul.
The same could be said of food assistance programs.
Which is quite nearly impossible at minimum wage income or less. It has been estimated that a worker at minimum wage would have to work 127 hours per week to afford the rent on a small 2 bedroom home, or the equivalent of working more than 3 full time jobs.
The records show a very small profit on purpose to keep their tax obligation low. That's because they are paying very high salaries to the owners. The USPS would not have to pay those high salaries, so the difference could be used to reduce the interest rate charged to borrowers.
That should be forgotten at the outset because it is not true. The USPS is burdened with a requirement to prefund a retirement program for all current and potential employees for a period of 75 years into the future, an onerous requirement placed upon it by Republicans determined to kill the USPS. Take away that requirement (thus placing it on a level playing field with UPS and Fedex) and the USPS is wildly profitable. No other business is required to prefund a retirement program for unborn workers. If such a law were imposed on any other business, Republicans would cry foul.
The same could be said of food assistance programs.
Which is quite nearly impossible at minimum wage income or less. It has been estimated that a worker at minimum wage would have to work 127 hours per week to afford the rent on a small 2 bedroom home, or the equivalent of working more than 3 full time jobs.
Link regarding credit union hiding profits.
Usps get bailed out annually to the tune of billions. You like to insist on benefits and now you ate badmouthing them. Pick one please.
Yes there is quite a lot of unconstitutional spending. Adding more is no way to rectify this.
Average time at mih wage is 2 months.
Mexicans save and send back to the hacienda huge sums of money. They know how to budget and live simply and they do it with minimal education.
I think we're giving more than enough things out for "free." That drives inflation and leads to more taxes.
If you want to fix college, stop federally backing college loans. That will normalize tuition prices, and more people will opt for community college, because it's cheaper. We need more tradesmen at this point.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Several months ago, there was a news article about how the trade crafts are finding it harder and harder to find competent workers and some have actually started offering scholarships to attend trade schools.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Celticguy,
I was talking about the sleazy credit guys. You turned it into credit unions.
Again, USPS has the most onerous benefit package ever seen, done on purpose, by Republicans not Democrats, Meant to cripple the USPS so an argument can be made to end it. Backfired. They are doing fine. And if they were allowed to have a more reasonable benefit package, it would be profitable.
There doesn't need to be any more spending to do this. Just drop the absurd requirement to prefund for 75 years into the future. Nobody else has to meet that.
That's good to know.
Yeah, and 47 people to a bedroom. (probably an exaggeration) They also pay withholding tax on income and never get a refund.
I was talking about the sleazy credit guys. You turned it into credit unions.
Again, USPS has the most onerous benefit package ever seen, done on purpose, by Republicans not Democrats, Meant to cripple the USPS so an argument can be made to end it. Backfired. They are doing fine. And if they were allowed to have a more reasonable benefit package, it would be profitable.
There doesn't need to be any more spending to do this. Just drop the absurd requirement to prefund for 75 years into the future. Nobody else has to meet that.
That's good to know.
Yeah, and 47 people to a bedroom. (probably an exaggeration) They also pay withholding tax on income and never get a refund.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Woko Haram,
Taxes are actually a good thing when they are used to support good government. One thing is for sure. We cannot expect to have a good government if we don't pay for one.
We need a far more effective education system. The Chinese have out-educated us for two generations and it has had predictable results. They are surpassing us technologically. They regularly score higher than US students in STEM. The last thing we need to do is cut back on education. We need to figure out how to crank out smart graduates able to compete in today's world and tomorrow's world. Taxing the rich to keep America great is how we have to do it. Believe me. It won't hurt them. The super-rich have so much money most people can't even comprehend the difference between average wealth and that of the super-rich, who, btw, use a minuscule fraction of their wealth to support an extremely extravagant lifestyle. In many cases that money came from the sweat and hard labor of many poorly paid workers.
Taxes are actually a good thing when they are used to support good government. One thing is for sure. We cannot expect to have a good government if we don't pay for one.
We need a far more effective education system. The Chinese have out-educated us for two generations and it has had predictable results. They are surpassing us technologically. They regularly score higher than US students in STEM. The last thing we need to do is cut back on education. We need to figure out how to crank out smart graduates able to compete in today's world and tomorrow's world. Taxing the rich to keep America great is how we have to do it. Believe me. It won't hurt them. The super-rich have so much money most people can't even comprehend the difference between average wealth and that of the super-rich, who, btw, use a minuscule fraction of their wealth to support an extremely extravagant lifestyle. In many cases that money came from the sweat and hard labor of many poorly paid workers.
I don't know about that. In the last several decades, there has been a steady flow of people moving from high tax states to low tax ones. There has been little to no movement in the opposite direction. If more taxation means better government, you would think there would be more movement in that direction.
I'm all for using certain other countries as a role model for reforming education here, but I wouldn't use China. Better models would involve South Korea and Germany. Germany is very good at playing to the strengths of students and helping direct them towards either trades or academia. There's a lot more respect for trades over there as well.
South Korea has an advanced combination of public and private education systems that serve their students well. Teachers are highly respected and highly paid.
I told you credit unions are non-profit but cant afford high risk loans and you said they are only non-profit because they overpay executives. This is silly so i asked for proof so you tried to duck it. Tisk tisk...
Link that USPS benefits are a republican idea.
The notion that lenders used depositer's money to lend was a quaint but long gone concept. When i bought my first house i assumed a loan from the last institution that this. Fannie and Freddie May ended that.
Yes they understand that 16 can live as cheaply as one (thats a real life number). They did this where they came from and realized the benefits. No Air Jordans either. Priorities and discipline.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Celticguy,
Andrew Yang wants to let the USPS offer basic banking services. He's right.
Andrew Yang wants to let the USPS offer basic banking services. He's right.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
I voted for President Obama in two general elections but I certainly didn't ever vote for him in a Democratic Primary. Obama was honest, competent, and decent...but he was not particularly liberal. He was a "centrist" or "moderate" Democrat which means that in some ways, he was a Republican-Lite.
I'll gladly take honest, competent, and decent over a vile, fascist, real Republican, but I'd vastly prefer a progressive who'll drag us out of the mid-20th Century where we ideologically remain.
I'll gladly take honest, competent, and decent over a vile, fascist, real Republican, but I'd vastly prefer a progressive who'll drag us out of the mid-20th Century where we ideologically remain.
Scut Farkus
Verified User
hey stupid. the bankers caused the crash lock stock and barrell, from begininng to end. they skipped due diligence on qualifying loan recipients, causing tons of loans to originate THAT THEY KNEW WOULD GO BAD. then they repackaged these bad loans in with good ones in bundles they sold as an investment product. there was a market created to hedge against these products, which the banks also invested in. then they made credit default swaps between banks to quell nerves. then when it all went pear shaped, they came to congress, and got made whole with toxic asset reallocation programs, while people lost homes.
Germany also has much higher personal taxation than us. If you can manage to get the average citizen on board with higher taxes (and not just on rich people), then that might work. Until then, trying to just increase taxes on the wealthy won't properly fund this idea.
I agree with your post, but I think you meant to quote someone else.
EDIT: after reading your post more closely, I think I see where there may be a misunderstanding.
Everything you said here is more or less true, but do you know why they were so eager to lend? The CRA created an environment where lending to risky consumers was supported by government. There would be no incentive to do this without the history of bailouts by government. There would also be less of an incentive to do so without the legal pressure of the CRA.
The CRA itself is legislation that has largely evolved as a response to things like redlining. There is a general belief that banks discriminated against poor minorities in lending, especially with regard to mortgages. Overcompensation for correcting this has come in the form of laws that open the door for suing banks for discrimination on loans. So while the banks themselves did act recklessly, it wasn't without political pressure to do so.
The side of this that can mostly be blamed on banks has to do with toxic CDOs that you referenced. It is true that banks should take most of the blame for that, although they would act somewhat less recklessly without any reason to believe that government would bail them out.
Last edited:
Scut Farkus
Verified User
I think I just spiked off when you said something about government staying out of bank regulation. laissez faire is just not workable in this world of hyperinflated fiat petrodollars based on banker preapproved asset bubbles leveraged five times on mark to model wet dream. or maybe the question is, workable for whom? :eyebrow$:
#barter2020