U;tra- Rich are screwing the middle class and the poor

Five-Guys Burgers

 

I have never been employed by a poor person.

 

Which system is better? Which system offers the most opportunity, the most freedom and liberty and created the strongest middle class in history?

 

Dictatorship of the farmers , you really need to read about the French revolution.
In which other system a potato picker could execute a high state official for corruption ? French revolution only .

 

Convence me the French "middle class" during the revolution was better off and had more freedom and liberty and economic opportunity that the American middle class of the last 60 years.

 

Actually yes I was on earth. And unquestionably socialism was to blame for that. The reason we had the crash was not because of Capitalism. That's patently absurd. It has little to nothing to do with the bundling of those assets and selling them like the liberals and democrats would have you believe... And I can prove it. Let me ask you this... regardless of the bundling and trading of those mortgages... would our economy have crashed if those individuals who got mortgages would have paid them off? The answer is no. Everybody would have made money, they would have had their homes and our economy would still be soaring.

Now we have to look at WHY did those people not pay their loans? They did not pay them off because they did not have the capability of paying them off even BEFORE they got the loan. Well that can't be right... why would you lend money to someone that you KNOW can't pay you back? The answer? You were FORCED to do so.

We had/have socialist crackpots in our government who were (and still are) arguing that it should be a RIGHT to own a home. They have been arguing for it for years. More recently, people like Nancy Pelosi and Bahney Fwank were arguing that people should have a right to own a home. They attempted to accomplish this by building on the Community Reinvestment Act. This act, and it's subsequent revisions through legislation, essentially requires banks to lower their lending standards and gives loans to people who could not have qualified for them otherwise. These mortgages and loans were toxic, but the banks were required to get CRA certification if they were a certain size. Since the banks didn't want them, they bundled all loans that they considered to be toxic assets and sold them to investors who thought they could either sell them to someone else or make money off of them because the people would pay back their loans. I don't blame them. If I was forced to provide loans to people that I KNEW could not pay me back, I'd want to put the responsibility on someone else as well. Of course these people, predictably, could not pay back the loans. Once enough people defaulted on their loans the bundled assets could not be paid for and so they failed as well which started a domino effect all the way back to the banks and the builders.

Read this:
"Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry. He also charges the Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA.[102] In "The Trillion dollar Bank Shakedown that Bodes Ill for Cities," Manhattan Institute scholar Howard Husock quoted the CEO of a midsize bank who noted: "... 20 percent of his institution's CRA-related mortgages, which required only $500 down payments, were delinquent in their very first year, and probably 7 percent will end in foreclosure."[107] American Enterprise Scholar Edward Pinto stated that, in 2008, Bank of America reported that its CRA portfolio, which constituted only 7 percent of its owned residential mortgages, was responsible for 29 percent of its losses.[108] In a commentary for CNN, Congressman Ron Paul, who serves on the United States House Committee on Financial Services, charged the CRA with "forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks."[109] In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Austrian school economist Russell Roberts wrote that the CRA subsidized low-income housing by pressuring banks to serve poor borrowers and poor regions of the country.[110] A recent study by Agarwal, Benmelech, Bergman, and Seru published as a NBER working paper found that, over the period 1999-2009, necessity to conform to the Community Reinvestment Act led to riskier lending by banks.[111] The Agarwal et al. study is disputed by some commentators.[112][113]"

Our economy failed because of two things. Socialists in government were essentially forcing banks to provide loans to people that the banks KNEW could not pay them back and would have NEVER received loans previously. With that being said... if those morons who were so irresponsible to go and get loans and mortgages that they couldn't afford actually paid back their loans, none of it would have mattered because none of them would have failed and nothing would be going wrong.

Also I'd like to point out... we compounded THAT dumbass socialist behavior with even MORE dumbass socialist behavior by bailing out banks, automotive companies, builders and homeowners that hurt our economy even further. But that's another discussion.

 

I'm very aware of how the economy works. It's easier to simply call certain policies socialist than to actually explain every time how people should look at the economy. The most simplistic way for me to explain how it works is to look at the economy as a horizontal line. On the left end of the line is capitalism. On the right end of the line is communism. Everything in between is socialism and the further you go to the right, the more socialism you have. You can never be completely on one end of the line or the other. It's simply an impossibility. There will always be some in a capitalist economy who want to support those who cannot support themselves through socialist policies... and there will always be some in a communist society who are more concerned with themselves than they are with helping others.

The question is... where on that line should the economy be?

Capitalism is the most efficient, effective and viable economic system and provides the best opportunity for success for all involved.

 

You can have your riots and your revolution... there have been many, many examples of the poor rioting and stealing from the rich. You can steal everything they have. The problem is, history shows that the rich will become rich again and the poor may get some money for a time, but they will eventually return to being poor. There's a reason for this. It's not because the rich are screwing the poor over. It's because the POOR are screwing the poor over. If the poor want to improve their lot in life, they need to work hard to improve their abilities to provide for themselves. Many poor have realized this and have become rich.

Socialism keeps people in bondage, capitalism provides freedom.

 

As I said before... for a family of 3 the poverty line is $19,000. If ONE of those 3 works a full time job and a part time job both for minimum wage, the other two of you can sit on your lazy ass all day and do nothing and he'll be making a little over $22,000 a year. Even that one guy who is actually working to support you, sleeping 8 hours a day has ~54 hours left in his week with which to better himself or sit around and screw off with the other two bums.

No. You're supposed to go to school, pay attention in school, do your homework, get good grades, go to college, get a degree... or don't go to college and learn a trade skill or two or three and become good at your craft. You'll make far more than minimum wage over the course of your life.

Or you can screw around in school, not pay attention, hang out with your friends, go to parties, get drunk and bang chickenheads, do drugs, drop out of high school or graduate from high school and just get a minimum wage job doing the easiest thing you can just to make it by, don't learn a skill, don't have any ambition and end up making minimum wage for the rest of your life and crying and (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about how the other guy who actually prepared for his future should have to help support you and your dumbass decisions.

(BTW when I say "you" I mean a generalized "you"... not you personally.)

 

We've only tried one system. Maybe two if you count communism, but I personally don't because it was besieged for 50 years by capitalists.

 

Is there an ignore function here? I only want to talk to sensible people.

 

What a historical ignoramus? If you look back at early capitalism, booms and busts (bulls and bears) were frequent and quite severe in regional areas where capitalism had progressed the most. The real evidence (as opposed to the theories of crony capitalism apologists) just doesn't bear this view out. The "socialism" might have delayed the bust and thus heightened its impact, but that's a bit like blaming dams for floods.

 

To one who has even an ounce of critical thinking to apply to all that is going on, they realize the above makes sense.

No one person has ALL of the answers about it... but looking into it is a wise thing (especially at this point in time).

 

Use this link; looking to the left hand side of the page, scroll down until you see "Edit Ignore List".

I have the most rude, insulting and hostile people (that I've encountered) on my list; they are a distraction and take up screen space.

None of us are perfectly sensible... but it seems that some people only want to evoke the most negative human emotions when they post. They are better off being ignored.

 

His first claim was so absurd and obviously false that I didn't even bother to read the rest of his post.

 

It is an inherently corrupt system indeed, and nothing more than a pyramid scheme, about to go bust.

- - - Updated - - -

You'll soon be outsourced by a rich person.

 

A system based entirely on debt? It's a hamster wheel, and a game of musical chairs that ALWAYS screws somebody for the benefit of somebody else. It's hardly 'free', nor grants liberty. It revokes liberty.

- - - Updated - - -

Theis system of debt, based exclusively on debt, for debt and for the benefit of the rich, will crumble. It has to, by design, and it will.

 

Those were the old days that you refer to bro. Going to school, paying attention, blah, blah, is merely a fallacy today. The rules have changed, and they are solely and exclusively dedicated to the debtors, and nothing more. Enjoy your spin on the hamster wheel...it never end. It isn't supposed to, by design. Play by the rules, and you'll perish by them. The rules are, cut somebody's throat, or die when they cut yours. The old days of work and reward are gone bro...nothing more than a distant dream at this point.

 

Perfectly good point.

It still amazes me, that some would believe that their loyalty to a dog-eat-dog, cut-throat system... will bring them security, favor or rewards.

Obviously, some people are still 'asleep'.

 

That was a novel concept, when I was 16 (the working to improve part). I've since learned that it only matters what the fattest of the fat want, and it has nothing to do with me. Enjoy your ride over the falls downstream, and 'work' to slow it down a little if you must but, you're still going over the falls, along with the rest of us.

 

I guess they think that so long as they play the game, like a good soldier, nothing bad will happen to them, and the cutthroats will congratulate them, or something.

 

What system based entirely on debt is better?

You mean capitalism? I bought a new guitar the other week at Guitar Center, how did they screw me? I work as a commissioned salesman, how am I screwed?
And please be specific on each.

How has my liberty been revoked?

Now which system is better? Which system offers the most opportunity, the most freedom and liberty and created the strongest middle class in history?

 

Always played by the rules and was loyal to those whom I worked for. Have done quite well and will retire in the top 10% of wealth. What I am afraid of as far as being screwed are the leftist who would to take my hard earned wealth and give it to those who did not earn it did not do the things necessary to earn it or else pissed it away. Now THAT would be getting screwed.

 

Exactly!! It's like 'honor' among thieves.

 

Our monetary system is based entirely on debt, Sir. You didn't know that?
Apparently you're young and idealistic. I used to be too then, I grew up.
You have no liberty...only debt, and the futile exercise of the repayment of it. Nothing more. Which system?