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.
Income equality is an imaginary socialist talking point.
LOL, yes we are all equal.
Quote:
the biggest gap of inequality is the salaries, perks and opportunities provided the legislative class by uninformed, self serving, one issue, myopic voters.
I won't disagree that this is out of whack also.
Quote:
The money pool is finite. If you EARN or SAVE enough to make to live comfortably you don't need another million some CEO was granted by a board of directors.
It is not finite when the government wants more.
Quote:
The big businesses most often given a pass are colleges and universities, IRS compounding interest on theoretical money owed, infinite taxes being increased, a complictaed tax code created and championed for years by the former head Democrat Charlie rangel and company. Obama promised skyrocketing energy prices under his plan...and people voted for him. Clinton and nafta and legislation re banks and feds calling GWB racists because he questioned th solvency of Freddie and fannie...just before the crash..which further sapped the accounts of taxpayers. Obama with regulations passed by bypassing people's representatives that crush any attempt at strating a small business...the IRS waitiing for a rookie mistake to destroy the person financially for an unintentional mistake. Each family will save 2,500 dollars if obama care is passed. Cost of obamacare and medical coverage out of reach for the majority of the country.
• 41% of the economic inequality created between 1976-2000 was the result of the increase in single-parent households. [1]
...
Looking at this in isolation it looks bad and is an out for the real cause.
Wealth inequity per person Vs. per household.
We switched from single income households to dual income household during that time frame as well. So a single parent family would be at a stronger disadvantage now than in the past.
Ok, I'm done here, my posts stand for themselves, typical Americans,
not looking for solutions, only looking for excuses to keep the current system
going, well, you're going to lose, one way or another, because without solutions
there will be a massive uprising and/or a massive destruction of the planet's
very ability to survive.
Keep worshipping the mammon, especially that mammon held by the .001% who
sit on their duffs all day, while 30 year olds waste away in their parents' basements.
That's what you want.
Trillions of dollars were spent on giving free homes to tens of thousands of Americans who never should have qualified for mortgages but did because of HUD's/Fannie's/Freddie's "Affordable Lending" programs, and nearly $1 trillion per year is spent on means-tested welfare programs for which the recipients contribute not one thin dime, but you somehow think the top 0.001% cause those problems.
Growing up, my dad in the Air Force(military don't make big money) my mom was a stay at home take care of the kids mom. We had enough to live middle class, on the economy, not in base housing.
Not until the late 70's did my mom have to get a job right as I was graduating HS., because the money just didn't go as far. Now with no kids in the house, I making and paying my own way, mom had to work just so her and dad could pay the bills.
Inflation. They say it isn't there but it is. The cost to live and goods has risen exponentially, with value of service(wages) lagging behind(illegal labor, out sourcing).
Force self sufficientcy, will not prevent all single moms from happening, but looking around at all the struggling single moms whoring themselves out to make it, my deter them from taking the wrong path.
Instead of the high on the handouts they get, as an incentive to be a single mom
You can't get rid of the public assistance programs until you have something to replace it with. People are going to ****.
Very few couples work two minimum wage jobs. That problem is not even worth discussing.
Not worth discussing? Really, not worth discussing? I also did not say that a lot of couples work minimum wage jobs. That is the proposed solution it would seem. And that is kinda dishonest to put it this way. Yes, most will make above minimum wage if they stick around long enough but the point doesn't change.
Quote:
BTW, what wall street makes has nothing to do with what a single parent makes. Those are totally unrelated.
It is not. What we did to re-inflate the markets creates inflation (and it is there as noted earlier despite what the government wants to claim). That minimum wage doesn't go as far as it did in years past.
I'm not sure I have a sure fire solution but what we are doing today is certainly making the problem worse. So I would first eliminate government programs that exacerbate the problems.
That's a mistake is it not? A return on your investment is not supposed to be a guarantee is it?
Besides, we did not have to give the corrupt a free pass to do accomplish a reinflating of the market bubble.
When the private independent credit rating agencies misgraded the inherent risk of private label derivitives securities as investment grade, the floodgates opened.
The most conservative monies ( private and public pension plans and retirement funds and insurance ) flowed into these private label securities and in doing so became the source of funding the worst of the sub prime mortgages which substantially inflated the housing bubble.
Those relatively few conservative investors who chose to perform their own due diligence, risk/ reward analysis instead of relying on independent credit ratings took a pass.
As the housing bubble inflated, FNMA/ FHLMC's market share substantially declined. Increasingly mortgages no longer met their minimum requirements and instead could be sold directly to Wall Street for subsequent private label repackaging.
If the only challenge FNMA/ FHLMC had was a whole lot of mortgage defaults, they could have weathered the storm. What brought them down was the investment of their own capital in these private label investment grade securities. They bet the farm on junk.
That in the midst of all this the SEC relaxed Net Capital Requirements for the fab five, Lehman, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Goldman made a bad situation worse.
The housing bubble was global, fueled mostly by private investment bankers and independent credit rating agencies. South Africa and New Zealand experienced the largest bubbles. Japan was still recovering from the bust of their own bubble 12 years prior and sat this one out. The Iceland bubble was fueled by mortgages that allowed the banks to reset the value of outstanding principal balances to inflation with no cap. When inflation hit 30% the mortgage balance increased 30%. Can you imagine?
When the private independent credit rating agencies misgraded the inherent risk of private label derivitives securities as investment grade, the floodgates opened.
The most conservative monies ( private and public pension plans and retirement funds and insurance ) flowed into these private label securities and in doing so became the source of funding the worst of the sub prime mortgages which substantially inflated the housing bubble.
Those relatively few conservative investors who chose to perform their own due diligence, risk/ reward analysis instead of relying on independent credit ratings took a pass.
As the housing bubble inflated, FNMA/ FHLMC's market share substantially declined. Increasingly mortgages no longer met their minimum requirements and instead could be sold directly to Wall Street for subsequent private label repackaging.
If the only challenge FNMA/ FHLMC had was a whole lot of mortgage defaults, they could have weathered the storm. What brought them down was the investment of their own capital in these private label investment grade securities. They bet the farm on junk.
That in the midst of all this the SEC relaxed Net Capital Requirements for the fab five, Lehman, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Goldman made a bad situation worse.
The housing bubble was global, fueled mostly by private investment bankers and independent credit rating agencies. South Africa and New Zealand experienced the largest bubbles. Japan was still recovering from the bust of their own bubble 12 years prior and sat this one out. The Iceland bubble was fueled by mortgages that allowed the banks to reset the value of outstanding principal balances to inflation with no cap. When inflation hit 30% the mortgage balance increased 30%. Can you imagine?
As the housing bubble inflated, FNMA/ FHLMC's market share substantially declined. Increasingly mortgages no longer met their minimum requirements and instead could be sold directly to Wall Street for subsequent private label repackaging.
That's where you're mistaken. The GSEs themselves lowered the lending standards opening the floodgates to subprime loans that were misrepresented by the GSEs (and subsequently, the private sector MBS-issuers) as "prime" because they met Fannie's and Freddie's lending standards.
A significant piece of the puzzle:
The GSEs themselves created the "automated underwriting" systems which they then foisted upon loan originators in the mid-1990s to speed up the underwriting process. These systems set underwriting standards for the mortgage industry (whether or not the loans were purchased by the GSEs) way too low, and greatly relaxed the underwriting approval process. An independent study of about 1,000 loans found that the same loans were 65% more likely to be approved by the automated processes versus the manual underwriting process.
Had loan originators NOT used the GSEs' automated underwriting system and continued to use manual underwriting instead, that extra 65% of high-risk loans wouldn't have been made.
It's easy to see where the problem started when you answer the question... Which of the following did the Federal Reserve create $2 trillion of QE to buy? Wall Street-issued MBS? Or GSE-issued (Fannie and Freddie) MBS?
Answer: GSE-issued (Fannie and Freddie) MBS. It WASN'T the private sector.
And Former Representative and Chair of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, commenting on the federal government's culpability in the financial crisis in his own words:
Quote:
Asked about the government's affordable housing goals compelling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the crisis to devote more than half their portfolios to riskier nonprime mortgages for low-income borrowers, Frank blurted out: "No more goals, no more telling the private sector how to invest in the housing market.
"Barney," Liesman asked, "are you suggesting that the goals of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the concept of promoting homeownership, was something that contributed to the crisis?
Let that sink in... No more telling the private sector how to invest in the housing market.
Telling...
Without that government-forced significant reduction in lending standards, none of the rest would have followed.
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.
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.
