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.
You should look into WHY Bill Gates went into philanthropy. The short of it? He realized America HAS everything, therefore he wants to share that with the world that doesn't. But I guess that's a bad thing to conservatives because that takes their precious resources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOS2IAD
So, it's okay to you that Gates routinely screws over Americans who need work and hires visa workers instead?
Those suffering unemployed workers don't have "everything". What a ridiculous comment to make!
It would be no skin off Gates's back if he were to do the right thing and hire Americans. Yet, he refuses to do so. It's not just Americans he screws over. When congress and the senate refused to give him more H1-B visas, he had a hissy fit and opened up a campus in British Columbia. Apparently, the Canadians gave him visa workers. So, he's not just screwing over Americans, he's also screwing over Canadians, too.
Why do you have a problem with "Charity starts at home"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mwahfromtheheart
It's his company, sure. Aren't you for personal liberty?
Those suffering unemployed workers have options. Just saying ... Oh, but wait, you mean to tell me society can fail others if government doesn't step in? Tell me more!!!
I don't have a problem with charity starting at home. But my home can't feed the nation.
In 2001 the stock market flopped thanks to 9/11. In response, the fed drastically cut borrowing rates for banks, eventually all the way to .25%, in an attempt to spur economic activity among the middle class (after all, the middle class' biggest asset is housing). The banks sensed they could make a lot of money on the deal and started making riskier deals. When these deals started backfiring in 2006, it was noticed that banks were getting into serious trouble.
Meanwhile, there were a lot of middle class people defaulting on loans - which destroys consumerism as they wreck their credit and now have a mountain of debt to clear up. With a slowing economy and bank losses spiraling out of control, banks sold their loans to investment firms. When investment firms started showing significant losses from this, it sent the rest of the market into a spiral that crashed the economy.
Since banks took advantage of the low interest rates so recklessly by loaning out to sub-prime borrowers, how are they the victim? They didn't even want to take responsibility for their actions, they sold their mistakes to others.
The above is the typical liberal line on the banking crisis.
The real reason for the crisis was that Fannie and Freddie demanded that banks lend to poor people who were poor credit risks. In the last year before the collapse, almost 50% of all loans were sub-prime.
Since the banks understood that Fannie and Freddie would guarantee those loans, they went ahead and gave them.
The government backed Fannie and Freddie with taxpayer dollars.
So it was as much a government created as a bank created crisis.
And guess who really wanted banks to lend to poor people.
There's a huge number of churches and a range is appropriate in this case. So I'm not sure what you're babbling about.
YouR study's claim is not credible if it can't come up with a more definite percentage than "from 10% to 25%."
That should be obvious to anyone.
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.