Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Far from mere opinion and inextricably cemented in reality.
Yes, but his source for the claim in question is not. How odd...
In this case, I am already familiar with the source materials that the author did not link to, and my familiarity with them is what leads me to suspect that the omission of a citation for his claim was not merely accidental...
That is sheer hubris, nothing more. You never seem to be able to back up your opinions with facts. It's also pretty clear from your comments that you didn't read the second paper I linked, you know, the one that finds an amplified amount of defaults coming from subprime neighborhoods. Where do you think the looser lending standards which triggered the increased focus on securitization came from?
Not that interesting. Like anyone, I try to keep my taxes to the legal minimum, but not being some self-deceiving, self-centered Republican schmuuck, I can easily see that the economy and society would be better off if that legal minimum were higher. As it used to be. I have everything I need, and I have everything I want, and I still have huge piles of money sitting around that I have to think up stuff to do with. Then along comes Bushie and starts handing me extra thousands upon thousands of dollars every year. I don't need that money. The people that he took it from do. It's past time to be giving it back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by msconnie73
If you don't feel as if you are paying enough taxes, then there is nothing preventing you from sending Uncle Sam an extra check each month to cover the difference since you feel so strongly about this.
Not only can she send Uncle Sam any extra amount of money she wishes (just like Warren Buffet can, but has NOT done), but she can also provide people carpool rides to help save the environment...something I bet she also has NOT done.
I have never run into anyone that didn't want to add to their net worth whether they needed the money or not. This is a first. It just doesn't compute with anyone who has worked hard to become successful in the first place. Something is just not right about what this person is saying. I really question whether she's being honest...
The difference is that shoppers choose a specific grocery store to shop from a myriad of choices.
No difference. You are required (albeit it by a different law) to eat. You will buy groceries somewhere. Such small effects as you can have at the margin by shopping around and using coupons are no different from coming up with IRS-approved deductions, offsets, and shelters. The bottom line is that you consume goods and services both from the grocery store and from the government. You are required to pay for both...under penalty of the law. Neither the government nor the grocery is in fact "stealing" money from you at all. You are simply trying in one case to get your ride at other people's expense. That doesn't really say much for your sense of Accountability® or Personal Responsibility®, does it...
If you don't feel as if you are paying enough taxes, then there is nothing preventing you from sending Uncle Sam an extra check each month to cover the difference since you feel so strongly about this.
Give the money back to Bushie? I don't think so! The first year, I sent the entire difference to the ACLU, but since then I have split the difference between a 501(c)(3) that I myself direct and various charitable organizations that work with those whom Bush abandons. Shelters, food banks, clinics, and of course, ACORN...
Give the money back to Bushie? I don't think so! The first year, I sent the entire difference to the ACLU, but since then I have split the difference between a 501(c)(3) that I myself direct and various charitable organizations that work with those whom Bush abandons. Shelters, food banks, clinics, and of course, ACORN...
Oh my gosh! I cannot believe what I'm reading!!! You are absolutely hilarious!!! I can't stop laughing AT YOU!!!
I believe that some wealthy people to earn their money- business owners, working people. I do NOT believe that inherited money is anyway earned. This would be the 'lucky uterus club'. I don't have much respect for that bunch of folks. I admire Warren Buffett's take on inheritance: you should leave kids enough money to do anything but not so much for them to do nothing. Growing Up Buffett: Warren Buffett's Children - News - CNBC.com
That is sheer hubris, nothing more. You never seem to be able to back up your opinions with facts.
Really? Feel free to fact check any post I have ever put up. Get back to me when you find one that makes factual claims for which there is not documentation available from reputable sources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
It's also pretty clear from your comments that you didn't read the second paper I linked...
That's correct, I hadn't. Quickly discovering a flaming lie within the first one seemed investigation enough. I have otherwise not enrolled in any class of yours and decline to recognize your authority to assign hundreds of pages worth of reading as any requirement for debunking baseless claims when you make them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
...you know, the one that finds an amplified amount of defaults coming from subprime neighborhoods. Where do you think the looser lending standards which triggered the increased focus on securitization came from?
Although I already have on several occasions, I'll be happy to explain it again, and to use the research of Mian and Sufi as the basis for it, since even though they are both from the University of Chicago, this second link of yours is to a perfectly respectable piece, and it backs up everything that I have been saying.
Your major failure here seems to be not knowing the difference between CRA and subprime lending. CRA loans are those issued by deposit-taking banks and S&L's into low-and moderate-income (LMI) communities that they take deposits from. CRA loans may or may not have been at subprime terms. Subprime lending became legal in 1980 when federal law supplanted state usury laws and allowed for the first time risk-based pricing (higher interest rates, fees, and points) of credit. Mian and Sufi begin their analysis by defining areas of high subprime lending as of 1996. In that year, CRA loans were peaking, but subprime lending was booming in the aftermath of the Bush-41 recession and severe housing slump. Subprime markets, concentrated in LMI communities, at the time were dominated by non-prime lenders, namely finance companies such as Household Finance, Beneficial Finance, and The Money Store. They were making lots of money, but doing so by applying very high-cost terms that stood, in the absence of a prime alternative, as a significant barrier to wealth accumulation in LMI communities. It was this clientelle that CRA-covered prime lenders had begun penetrating in 1993, and nearly half of the LMI borrowers who were brought into the CRA program were qualified at prime terms. Nearly all the rest were qualified at near-prime (Alt-A) terms. Such loans were cheaper for borrowers than what they had been paying the finance companies, so CRA defaults were relatively few and far between. This situation continued through 1998, when a financial crisis triggered by a default on Russian-guaranteed assets hobbled the finance companies. By 2000, six of the top ten subprime lenders had folded, leaving CRA to play an even more important role in LMI communities. In 2001, Bush stopped making CRA compliance a key for anything and soon raised the CRA limits so that many smaller banks and S&L's were no longer covered. CRA lending basically plummeted. But never fear, just as Mian and Sufi report, there was a sudden surge of lending into subprime areas between 2002 and 2005, even though incomes in those areas were actually declining as a result of the First Bush Recession. As they report, none of this surge came from prime lenders...it came instead from private brokers and bank affiliates who were furiously writing paper at increasingly high-cost terms for sale to Wall Street investment banks who, with interest rates at historical lows, were making huge profits by selling relatively high-yield mortgage-backed securities and derivatives into the secondary markets. This acceptance of moral hazard given demand for securitization is the crux of Mian and Sufi's supply-based hypothesis for the subprime surge and eventual crisis, and if you would like to read about the events underlying that in more detail, spend ten minutes with this...apparently you didn't catch it in Post-155...
Bottom Line: This crisis arose when cowboy capitalists on Wall Street -- unrestrained in any way by laissez-faire free-market regulators who had been warned of problems and who were supposed to be minding this very store -- pursued giant profits and bonuses to the point of dumping more bad paper into the global secondary markets than what that system could handle. When interest rates rose and high-cost loans began to reset and adjust, everyone was left holding bad paper and the credit markets came to a halt. The portfolio of CRA loans had meanwhile performed better than industry averages. Those loans had nothing to do with this crisis.
Last edited by saganista; 03-01-2009 at 04:56 PM..
Bottom Line: This crisis arose when cowboy capitalists on Wall Street -- unrestrained in any way by laissez-faire free-market regulators who had been warned of problems and were supposed to be minding this very store -- pursued giant profits and bonuses to the point of dumping more bad paper into the global secondary markets than what that system could handle. When interest rates rose and high-cost loans began to reset and adjust, everyone was left holding bad paper and the credit markets came to a halt. The portfolio of CRA loans had meanwhile performed better than industry averages. Those loans had nothing to do with this crisis.
I agree. But don't forget, we are all part of the cycle and the problem. Weren't we all jubilant when our house values doubled in one year? When flip one house after another for profit? When we make money, when we are greedy, every one is happy, now that everything is screwed up, let's just blame other people.
What interests me is the fact that wages have not gone up since the 70s and the rich are getting richer off blue collar workers and others. If not taxing the rich really worked then why are middle and lower classes getting poorer and poorer? Why didn't these rich people raise the wages of people under them? Instead of hiring them for low wages or worse yet hiring illegals and or taking jobs overseas to get cheap labor. Instead we have greed. And now people are complaining about the U.S. becoming a socialist country. If Capitalism had worked we would not be in this mess, and when Capitalism begins to fail countries turn socialist. Now I am not talking about the Communist countries of Russia or China because they are not true socialists since they are totaliatarian governments. I am talking about true socialism, where everyone has a roof over their head, a job, medical care, and a higher education.
if they're making so much money why not invest in their companies. better, you can start your own company and compete with them. that way you can make shedloads too!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.