Immigration

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

You repeat only what you hear, know nothing of the facts. Still maintain barney frank was responsible for the housing crash, no matter how many times its proven to you BUSH created and blew up the housing market

Wasn't it the Clinton administration that decided owning a house was a god given right.

The Clinton administration went to ridiculous lengths to increase the national home ownership rate. From low down payments and federal assistance, to lax regulations to give loans to first time buyers who had no business buying houses they couldn't afford. These erosions of lending standards were furthered by the Bush administration with his "ownership society" goals, but blaming it all on Bush, or all on Barney Frank is short sighted at best.

 

[The Other Side]

Wasn't it the Clinton administration that decided owning a house was a god given right.

The Clinton administration went to ridiculous lengths to increase the national home ownership rate. From low down payments and federal assistance, to lax regulations to give loans to first time buyers who had no business buying houses they couldn't afford. These erosions of lending standards were furthered by the Bush administration with his "ownership society" goals, but blaming it all on Bush, or all on Barney Frank is short sighted at best.

Psst, the housing bust had nothing to do with homes purchased under the Clinton adminstration and everything to do with interest only loans written for short terms under the Home Ownership society under Bush.

When those loans matured, the housing bubble had burst, leaving those home owners with nowhere to go but either bankruptcy, or walk ways.

Clinton never did away with downpayments, BUSH did. Clinton never eliminated qualifications, BUSH did. Clinton never said people with bad credit can own just as good a home as everyone else, BUSH did. Clinton never used section 8 funds to cover mortgages, BUSH did. Clinton never used goverment money for downpayments for poor people, BUSH did.

Dont believe me?

Try me.

Peace

TOS

 

[moreluck]

".......Wasn't it the Clinton administration that decided owning a house was a god given right....."


How ironic! You work for the gov't (state or federal) and the citizens pay for your house. Have Clintons ever OWNED a house???

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

Psst, the housing bust had nothing to do with homes purchased under the Clinton adminstration and everything to do with interest only loans written for short terms under the Home Ownership society under Bush.

When those loans matured, the housing bubble had burst, leaving those home owners with nowhere to go but either bankruptcy, or walk ways.

Clinton never did away with downpayments, BUSH did. Clinton never eliminated qualifications, BUSH did. Clinton never said people with bad credit can own just as good a home as everyone else, BUSH did. Clinton never used section 8 funds to cover mortgages, BUSH did. Clinton never used goverment money for downpayments for poor people, BUSH did.

Dont believe me?

Try me.

Peace

TOS

You still seem pretty set on trying to blame Bush for something that is far bigger than one person.

The things you say about Bush are mostly correct. But Clinton did loosen housing regulations with the Community Reinvestment Act, to put pressure on banks to loan in low-income areas. These steps led to riskier mortgage lending, by minimizing the role of credit histories and debt to income ratios, allowing low or no down payments, and encouraging the use of floating or adjustable interest rates.

Clinton had good intentions, but these ideas were abused by a lot of lenders and banks. Andrew Cuomo between 1997 and 2001 did nothing to stop this. Banks and lenders are mostly to blame. Fannie and Freddie were allowed to hold only 2.5% of capital to back their investments, while banks were required to hold 10%. Many lenders like Countrywide, using the subprime authorization , did not offset loan risks with savings deposits like traditional banks do.

Blaming one person is really over simplifying the problem. But if it makes you feel better more power to you.

 

[The Other Side]

You still seem pretty set on trying to blame Bush for something that is far bigger than one person.

The things you say about Bush are mostly correct. But Clinton did loosen housing regulations with the Community Reinvestment Act, to put pressure on banks to loan in low-income areas. These steps led to riskier mortgage lending, by minimizing the role of credit histories and debt to income ratios, allowing low or no down payments, and encouraging the use of floating or adjustable interest rates.

Clinton had good intentions, but these ideas were abused by a lot of lenders and banks. Andrew Cuomo between 1997 and 2001 did nothing to stop this. Banks and lenders are mostly to blame. Fannie and Freddie were allowed to hold only 2.5% of capital to back their investments, while banks were required to hold 10%. Many lenders like Countrywide, using the subprime authorization , did not offset loan risks with savings deposits like traditional banks do.

Blaming one person is really over simplifying the problem. But if it makes you feel better more power to you.

DRIVEIN,

An avalanche always starts at the top of the hill. As it slides down, it picks up momemtum and it starts wiping out everything in its path. The speed of an avalance picks up as the weight of the avalance increases and with the housing bubble, it does the same thing. First, listen to BUSH long before the housing market crashed. When fannie and freddie were solvent, and the banks werent upside down.

Burning Down The House: (Karl Rove - Bush Version) - YouTube

As I said to you before, CLINTON did not remove downpayments from his home buying program. BUSH was the first to suggest the removal of downpayments alltogether. It was BUSH who pushed the Downpayment assistance act to give taxpayer money to low income families to buy homes.

This lent itself to the future failure of those homes sold under these programs.

You heard BUSH himself talking about using goverment money to make mortgage payments from section 8. These million homes ALL FAILED and were foreclosed upon.

You are correct, ONE person cant be held responsible for the total collapse, but they can be held responsible for starting the avalanche that took the nation down.

It was a Short game win for wall street, and a long game loss for all americans.

BUSH and his cronies took advantage of americans in his 8 years knowing full well all those 7 million homes would be doomed to fail. But what did they care? They werent going to be in office when it all came crashing down anyways, and they would take billions of dollars with them.

The joke is to attempt to place blame on carter, clinton, barney frank or anyone else.

This was the republicans dream idea. They own it.

Unfortunately, we are paying for it.

Peace

TOS

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

DRIVEIN,

An avalanche always starts at the top of the hill. As it slides down, it picks up momemtum and it starts wiping out everything in its path. The speed of an avalance picks up as the weight of the avalance increases and with the housing bubble, it does the same thing. First, listen to BUSH long before the housing market crashed. When fannie and freddie were solvent, and the banks werent upside down.

You are correct, ONE person cant be held responsible for the total collapse, but they can be held responsible for starting the avalanche that took the nation down.

It was a Short game win for wall street, and a long game loss for all americans.

If I come across as trying to defend Bush, I'm sorry, I don't like him anymore than you do. However, I think we should agree that the real blame is Wall Street and the banks. It wasn't just a short game win for Wall Street, it was a long term game win. The economy is crap, but Wall Street is doing just fine. The rich get richer.... you know the drill.

 

[moreluck]

If I come across as trying to defend Bush, I'm sorry, I don't like him anymore than you do. However, I think we should agree that the real blame is Wall Street and the banks. It wasn't just a short game win for Wall Street, it was a long term game win. The economy is crap, but Wall Street is doing just fine. The rich get richer.... you know the drill.

"The rich get richer"........does not mean that the poor get poorer. Quite the contrary. The rich will spend their new made money and spread it around.
Made $14,000 on Weds. in the market......it's not in my mattress !!!! It's being used !! It's being spread in the retail market .

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

"The rich get richer"........does not mean that the poor get poorer. Quite the contrary. The rich will spend their new made money and spread it around.
Made $14,000 on Weds. in the market......it's not in my mattress !!!! It's being used !! It's being spread in the retail market .

How does you spending money in a store help a person working there making minimum wage? They're making the same amount whether you buy something or not, there's no profit sharing in retail jobs.

 

[Babagounj]

Had she not spent the money then the min wage worker most probably would be out of a job .
Stores that do not make money close .

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

Had she not spent the money then the min wage worker most probably would be out of a job .
Stores that do not make money close .

I saw that response coming from a mile away I should have addressed it in the original post. It is the typical republican idea, trickle down economics.

Your argument is based on the idea that the store would have gone out of business if she hadn't spent her EXTRA 14,000 dollars she got from wall street. The company simply makes MORE money, the worker makes the same.

The money is not spread around to people of every economic level, it is spread around amongst the rich.

 

[Babagounj]

No .
In Keynes' theory, one person's spending goes towards another person's earnings, and when that person spends his or her earnings, he or she is, in effect, supporting another person's earnings. This cycle continues on and helps support a normal, functioning economy.

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

No .
In Keynes' theory, one person's spending goes towards another person's earnings, and when that person spends his or her earnings, he or she is, in effect, supporting another person's earnings. This cycle continues on and helps support a normal, functioning economy.

This is not the case when Wall Street influences economic policy to benefit themselves. It is not a normal, functioning economy. The entire concept of minimum wage destroys the Keynesian Theory. In fact, Keynesians have historically been opposed to minimum wage laws, and sympathetic to its victims.

​

 

[moreluck]

How does you spending money in a store help a person working there making minimum wage? They're making the same amount whether you buy something or not, there's no profit sharing in retail jobs.

They don't get laid off or dropped down to P/T.

 

[moreluck]

I saw that response coming from a mile away I should have addressed it in the original post. It is the typical republican idea, trickle down economics.

Your argument is based on the idea that the store would have gone out of business if she hadn't spent her EXTRA 14,000 dollars she got from wall street. The company simply makes MORE money, the worker makes the same.

The money is not spread around to people of every economic level, it is spread around amongst the rich.

The worker makes the same......but he's employed !!! He's self sufficient instead of on welfare and you supporting him.

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

They don't get laid off or dropped down to P/T.

The employee is already p/t so the employer can avoid giving him benefits, thanks obama. He is already overworked and underpaid. The workforce is bare bones already, they can't lay him off without closing the store.

The worker makes the same......but he's employed !!! He's self sufficient instead of on welfare and you supporting him.

Welfare and food stamp recipients are not all unemployed, many are simply underemployed and underpaid.

So you're agreeing that it doesn't improve his situation at all? You make 14,000 dollars for doing nothing except playing the wall street game, to blow on some things you don't need, and his employer's CEO gets a bonus. The employee is still making minimum wage. Hooray for the status quo.

I like how you justify your wall street money by pretending you're doing a favor to some poor person. Classic.

 

[moreluck]

If I make $$$$ it's because of due diligence, study of the market, persistence,etc.....not just sitting around doing nothing!!

Sitting around,doing nothing is the problem out there.

If the $$$ buys me groceries.....that's things I don't need ???????? I don't buy tchotchkes !!

I provide for myself and I get viewed as a freeloader? Some people's thinking is backwards. Finding creative ways to make $$$ and not resorting to crime is enterprising!!

 

[moreluck]

....."I like how you justify your wall street money by pretending you're doing a favor to some poor person. Classic. ......."(Drive in)

I try to use real situations as an example.....don't worry, I won't share anymore with the likes of you.
I suppose you think working real estate is just going to houses and looking around.......get some real life experience .

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

​

If I make $$$$ it's because of due diligence, study of the market, persistence,etc.....not just sitting around doing nothing!!

Sitting around,doing nothing is the problem out there.

If the $$$ buys me groceries.....that's things I don't need ???????? I don't buy tchotchkes !!

I provide for myself and I get viewed as a freeloader? Some people's thinking is backwards. Finding creative ways to make $$$ and not resorting to crime is enterprising!!

Wow. You got a little touchy about your money quick. I never called you a freeloader. It's your money, you earned it, you can spend it however you want. I have no problem with that.

I don't think you went out and bought 14,000 dollars worth of groceries though. You stated yourself that because you made extra money, you were going to go out and spend that money in retail. You said that is why you don't see the wall street game as a poor get poorer situation.

I simply disagree. Retail jobs are some of the lowest paying jobs in America. No matter how much you spend, you're not doing them any favors. The profit from extra sales are put into the pockets of upper management and CEO's bonuses. The worker is still part-time and making about minimum wage.

The wall street money is simply shuffled around between rich people. The only time the poor person touches it is when he rings you up at his second part-time job.

 

[moreluck]

...."The wall street money is simply shuffled around between rich people......."

With your own words......where do the poor get poorer in your statement?????

 

[moreluck]

...."You got a little touchy about your money quick. ....."

So much so that I'm taking it to Nevada next week...........CA. can KMA!!!