|
Anonymous targets...The FED? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Joss Weatherby |
Is it me, or are conservatives as a group wildly diverging on what they want the US economy to look like, or even fundamentally be based on... :conf:
I remember when conservatives were all about capital and growing implied wealth... Now a bunch of them talk about gold and like that... Its just confusing what you guys actually want... Do you even know? |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Is it me, or are conservatives as a group wildly diverging on what they want the US economy to look like, or even fundamentally be based on... :conf:
I remember when conservatives were all about capital and growing implied wealth... Now a bunch of them talk about gold and like that... Its just confusing what you guys actually want... Do you even know? |
I think you'll find that the means with which they mean to achieve them are quite inconsistent with the stated aims of what they'd like to achieve. |
|
|
| Zharen |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Well yeah, it wasn’t a panacea. Unemployment could’ve been much worse though, but I do agree with you that more is needed to bring the country right. Oh well, move here! ~5% unemployment, dollar parity, no Kevin! |
:stongue:
Well, I think the one thing both me and Kev can agree on is that Obama needs to do more in this country, instead of predicting which one of the NCAA final four will win. |
|
|
| Igaryok |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zharen
Yes, the unions killed America. I forgot they created subprime mortgages and bundled securities to be sold to investors around the world, later becoming toxic assets.
Oh wait... |
Yes, keep on repeating what the media is feeding you. If you would know anything about the mortgage industry you would know that certain government agencies pressured a lot of the banks to give out loans to people who were very unqualified. This stems from the idea that home ownership in America is some sort of a "guaranteed" right.
You should take some time and read up on the FHA backed mortgages that were granted to people with completely shot credit and barely an money for down-payment in mid 2000's.
I'm not saying that the banks and their greed are not to blame for this, but they are not the only ones responsible. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Igaryok
Yes, keep on repeating what the media is feeding you. If you would know anything about the mortgage industry you would know that certain government agencies pressured a lot of the banks to give out loans to people who were very unqualified. This stems from the idea that home ownership in America is some sort of a "guaranteed" right.
You should take some time and read up on the FHA backed mortgages that were granted to people with completely shot credit and barely an money for down-payment. |
Did the FHA have a part in deciding if the mortgages were granted or not?
There was a lot of seedy going on in the 2000s...
On the other hand, Unions had NOTHING to do with it. So kindly shut the up about them.
Corporations and business put us in the situation were are in now. Only government and cooperation by the people can fix it. |
|
|
| Igaryok |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Did the FHA have a part in deciding if the mortgages were granted or not?
There was a lot of seedy going on in the 2000s...
On the other hand, Unions had NOTHING to do with it. So kindly shut the up about them.
Corporations and business put us in the situation were are in now. Only government and cooperation by the people can fix it. |
Yes, the FHA had a big part in deciding whether the mortgages were granted or not. The qualification process was strictly based on numbers, but not the right numbers. People's credit was not taken into consideration, their living expenses for the most part were not taken into consideration. The only thing that was taken into consideration was their income and sometimes the amount of money they had to put down. Which is why the current "FHA-HAMP" program is a big mess, because once again it is strictly based on people's income, front-end ratio and back-end ratio rather than taking all their other vital expenses into consideration like food, and electricity.
The unions had plenty to do with failure of many corporations, as well as current budget deficits of many local government. Do you think it's right that an unskilled worker at GM who barely finished high school and does the same task day after day is paid $40/hour?
Look up why Toyota was thriving as a company in the 90's and 00's as a company and GM was failing and ultimately failed bankruptcy (apart from ty quality). You'll see a lot of studies, articles and opinions pointing to unions and their ridiculous demands.
And what's with you telling people to shut the up over internet? Are you just trying to prove that you're the forum idiot? |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Did the FHA have a part in deciding if the mortgages were granted or not?
There was a lot of seedy going on in the 2000s...
On the other hand, Unions had NOTHING to do with it. So kindly shut the up about them.
Corporations and business put us in the situation were are in now. Only government and cooperation by the people can fix it. |
I suppose Bill Clinton pushing the Community Redevelopment Act for "affordable housing" had nothing to do with any of this? Sicking his AG Janet Reno on banks of they didn't lend to people they KNEW couldn't pay back loans or had no business getting them in the first place... no responsibility in any of this?
Let me inform your stupid liberal ass of something: the CRA is responsible for initiating the domino effect that resulted in the mortgage meltdown. Years of it being in effect, despite the fact that it was well known that it was unsustainable, got us to this point. Now listen carefully because I'm only going to explain this once:
The CRA worked against economic common sense because it was based on "fairness" rather than, well, common sense. "Everyone deserves a house!" ... it's a hell of a way to get votes. You think banks EVER would have given loans to scores of people who couldn't actually qualify for them if they weren't forced? Lenders, who all have shareholders to answer to, were now forced to figure out creative ways to give all that worthless paper some value. So they did it by designing all kinds of strange financial products in the form of derivatives that were like insurance policies for the eventual default, and they were bought and then kicked down the road and repackaged and repackaged until finally they couldn't kick the can down the road anymore. The derivatives are how they spread the risk around and protected themselves at the time from the bad loans.
The CRA put the garbage into the market in the first place. And there was never any value in those loans to begin with, so it didn't matter how they kept repackaging it. Don't blame the corporations for having to comply with a stupid federal law that would have put them out of business a lot sooner. And don't blame the Bush administration because they made 17 attempts to reform Fannie and Freddie and were repeatedly told by Democrats Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, etc. on the record that housing was strong, Fannie and Freddie were sound, and there was no crisis.
And yes, the public sector unions are responsible for the decline of business and manufacturing across the country. All you know and understand is video games and weapon systems you read about. How do I know this? Because you sincerely believe that government is the only answer to our problems. Government produces nothing and creates the speed bumps in the road to prosperity. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Igaryok
Yes, the FHA had a big part in deciding whether the mortgages were granted or not. The qualification process was strictly based on numbers, but not the right numbers. People's credit was not taken into consideration, their living expenses for the most part were not taken into consideration. The only thing that was taken into consideration was their income and sometimes the amount of money they had to put down. Which is why the current "FHA-HAMP" program is a big mess, because once again it is strictly based on people's income, front-end ratio and back-end ratio rather than taking all their other vital expenses into consideration like food, and electricity.
The unions had plenty to do with failure of many corporations, as well as current budget deficits of many local government. Do you think it's right that an unskilled worker at GM who barely finished high school and does the same task day after day is paid $40/hour?
Look up why Toyota was thriving as a company in the 90's and 00's as a company and GM was failing and ultimately failed bankruptcy (apart from ty quality). You'll see a lot of studies, articles and opinions pointing to unions and their ridiculous demands.
And what's with you telling people to shut the up over internet? Are you just trying to prove that you're the forum idiot? |
Did you ever think that Toyota doesn't need a union because it actually provides for its employees to a very high degree, something large companies in the US have not been known to do?
Yes some unions get out of hand, the automotive union is one of them, but unions as an idea are not a bad thing. Workers deserve to have a consolidated voice to demand conditions that are suitable to work in, to provide a living wage, and to act as a political force for their interests.
The problem with them and government budgets being broke, public unions, is that there has been a failure to collect taxes. Cutting government programs is a failure of business to provide for their communities via taxes.
Taxes are a part of being a citizen, company or person ( its the same thing in the US) and they need to realize that they are contributing to the greater betterment of their community, county, state, and country. Workers in government should not be punished for the failures of business. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
I suppose Bill Clinton pushing the Community Redevelopment Act for "affordable housing" had nothing to do with any of this? Sicking his AG Janet Reno on banks of they didn't lend to people they KNEW couldn't pay back loans or had no business getting them in the first place... no responsibility in any of this?
Let me inform your stupid liberal ass of something: the CRA is responsible for initiating the domino effect that resulted in the mortgage meltdown. Years of it being in effect, despite the fact that it was well known that it was unsustainable, got us to this point. Now listen carefully because I'm only going to explain this once:
The CRA worked against economic common sense because it was based on "fairness" rather than, well, common sense. "Everyone deserves a house!" ... it's a hell of a way to get votes. You think banks EVER would have given loans to scores of people who couldn't actually qualify for them if they weren't forced? Lenders, who all have shareholders to answer to, were now forced to figure out creative ways to give all that worthless paper some value. So they did it by designing all kinds of strange financial products in the form of derivatives that were like insurance policies for the eventual default, and they were bought and then kicked down the road and repackaged and repackaged until finally they couldn't kick the can down the road anymore. The derivatives are how they spread the risk around and protected themselves at the time from the bad loans.
The CRA put the garbage into the market in the first place. And there was never any value in those loans to begin with, so it didn't matter how they kept repackaging it. Don't blame the corporations for having to comply with a stupid federal law that would have put them out of business a lot sooner. And don't blame the Bush administration because they made 17 attempts to reform Fannie and Freddie and were repeatedly told by Democrats Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, etc. on the record that housing was strong, Fannie and Freddie were sound, and there was no crisis.
And yes, the public sector unions are responsible for the decline of business and manufacturing across the country. All you know and understand is video games and weapon systems you read about. How do I know this? Because you sincerely believe that government is the only answer to our problems. Government produces nothing and creates the speed bumps in the road to prosperity. |
Clinton and Bush 1 and Reagan and Carter all paved the way for the total rape that occurred under Bush 2. None of it has been good. Its a problem in american society and culture, not of party. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Did you ever think that Toyota doesn't need a union because it actually provides for its employees to a very high degree, something large companies in the US have not been known to do?
Yes some unions get out of hand, the automotive union is one of them, but unions as an idea are not a bad thing. Workers deserve to have a consolidated voice to demand conditions that are suitable to work in, to provide a living wage, and to act as a political force for their interests.
The problem with them and government budgets being broke, public unions, is that there has been a failure to collect taxes. Cutting government programs is a failure of business to provide for their communities via taxes.
Taxes are a part of being a citizen, company or person ( its the same thing in the US) and they need to realize that they are contributing to the greater betterment of their community, county, state, and country. Workers in government should not be punished for the failures of business. |
What the is this garbage. Are you kidding me? Private sector unions are ok because they can't survive if the company paying them goes under. Public sector unions are dragging business and state budgets down in flames... they currently enjoy a salaray + benefit package TWICE what private sector employees get, and pensions that are generally something like 90% of their highest working salary + benefits FOR LIFE. Yet they expect the taxpayers who make half of what they do to fund this lavish lifestyle for them... and continue to demand tax raises over and over to feed their insatiable greed. What is this, the 1930? We don't need public sector unions anymore... they are totally useless in this day and age. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Clinton and Bush 1 and Reagan and Carter all paved the way for the total rape that occurred under Bush 2. None of it has been good. Its a problem in american society and culture, not of party. |
If Bush 2 caused a "total rape" as you say, what's your take on Obama's policies then... considering his debt growth and record spending dwarfs Bush in every regard? Fun fact: Obama's Feburary deficit was larger than Bush's deficit for the entire year of 2007. So, who is raping the out of us? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 75% of TARP funds went to institutions not covered by the CRA. |
|
|
|
|
