Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: I challenge Justthefacts, Justhefacts, Where2begin, DependentClass, The99arelazy, and LardButtsReincarnation to a debate. ALL ON THE SAME PAGE TODAY. Not tonight when justhefacts wakes up or gets home. TODAY. RIGHT NOW.

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 4, 2012, 12:40 p.m. EST by ModestCapitalist (2342)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I already know that justhefacts uses multiple IDs to tag team its opponents and vote their comments down. I already know beyond any shadow of a doubt that justhefacts, Where2Begin, and The99are lazy are one in the same. I'm not sure about DependentClass and LardButtsReincarnation yet but I strongly suspect it.

The challenge is on the table. I already know that justhefacts is primarily a late evening/late night poster. That ID won't show up for at least 7 hours. Lets see how many of the others show up TODAY while justhefacts is away or asleep.

Lets also see how many 'new' users show up and take sides with justhefacts, Where2Begin, The99arelazy, DependentClass, and LardButtsReincarnation.

I'm waiting.

Tick tock tick tock tick tock.

Update: Its been over two hours and NONE of those IDs have shown up. NOT ONE OF THEM.

Still waiting. Tick tock tick tock tick tock.

Update: Its been over THREE hours and NONE of those IDs have shown up. NOT ONE OF THEM.

Still waiting. Tick tock tick tock tick tock.

Update: Its been over SEVEN hours and NONE of those IDs have shown up. NOT ONE OF THEM.

Still waiting. Tick tock tick tock tick tock.

Final update: Justhefacts is online commenting on another page. It was just over 7 hours as I predicted it would be when I created this page. That doesn't make me a genius. It makes justhefacts predictable.

111 Comments

111 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

"justthefacts" is ANYTHING BUT the facts. He is a long-outed T R O L L.

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 2 years ago

LoL, we try to tell those trolls but they never listen. Funny how they waste their time here with their rants. They likely believe they influencing us to convert to their Tea Party ideology. Sadly for them it works just the opposite. They only show that their beliefs are derived from their anger and hate spewing. It's sick but only emboldens US.

A duality for sure. And what a wonderful one for us.

Lesson: When they say just the facts, it will be anything but.

[-] 3 points by Menton (26) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Interesting ModCap. I noticed the same while reading OWS Form Posts. I like reading your posts. BTW ... I am a grandfather, with a struggling small business. (3 employees) I agree with your small business vs big corporations comments. I also believe big corporations (thru well paid lobbyists) steer/run Washingtion ---creating corporate welfare. Its not the people's government ( public sector)... it is 'corporate' government and un-American. I am tired of it. "We the people" have been sold out by 'bought' politicians.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21299) 2 years ago

I urge you to keep posting. We're trying to have real debates here about real issues with real people.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

greedy and a multiple personality disorder to boot. justhefacts must feel he deserves more wealth so he can distribute it to each one of his different personalities. Does that make him a socialist?

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

Ha! Yes, that does make it a socialist.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

These guys really hate you. Means you must be doing something right. Keep up the good work MC.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

Yeah. I've got two or three that are trying very hard to intimidate me. One of them can't even remember what he typed two hours ago. So he is getting a little easier to deal with. It gets tiring at times but thats life. I appreciate the support. I've been reading your comments as well. Glad to be on the same team.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

that's pretty funny...considering you never provide the citations to your comments and use biased partisan websites as your "sources"

Please try and keep up with the discussion, will you?

I know it's difficult for your dim bulb mind to think beyond the most simple things and those things programed into it by others...but try, please try..

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

Again scammer, we've been through this. I have cited sources which include 'official' reports from government entities and independent reports from research groups. Its up to you which reports to believe or disbelieve but I have cited sources many times.

Dim bulb huh?

Well, this dim bulb predicted on air and online that we were headed for a severe economic crisis way back in '05'. Not to mention the springtime market instability of '07', the recession of '07', the failed Bush stimulus, the bankruptcy of one or two of the big three, the limited success of the second stimulus, the short and shallow recovery under Obama, and the coming global depression. I predicted all of it.

I also went on the air last spring with an ABSOLUTE PROMISE that Porter Stansberry's prediction that the US dollar would lose its place as the world's reserve currency by December of 2011 was DEAD WRONG. In fact, I went on the air with an ABSOLUTE PROMISE that Porter Stansberry's prediction would not happen AT ALL as long as we remain the largest consumer market in the world.

Did you make any similar predictions based on your 'official reports' and 'raw data'?

Hell no you didn't. As a die-hard conservative partisan puppet obsessed with 'official' sources of data, you simply weren't capable of doing so.

I did and I can prove it. Like I said before, that challenge is on the table.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

tell us more about this coming global depression .. is it for sure ? how will things recover afterward ? will there be countries going bankrupt? I find this stuff quite fascinating .. I don't know how you made your earlier predictions , but certainly bang on.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

no you haven't....it's that simple....as for the rest of your rhetoric, not interested...until you back it up with something credible

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I guess that explains the recent attacks. Now the shills all know who you are.

fuck the scumbags.

Now we know who they are too.

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (21299) 2 years ago

Why do you defend the interests of the 1%? Are you part of the 1%? If not, why would you defend the interests of the wealthy instead of your own?

[-] 1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

the interests of achievers ARE my own..I'm not a ne'er-do-well, collectivist drone...thanks for asking

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21299) 2 years ago

Thanks. You are the first troll to answer the question. So, I'll take that as you're in the 1% otherwise you are just a drone for the rich which would be a sad thing.

[-] 1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

nope, but I hit the 25% this year...after living out of my car......on the way up, as far as life will take me, I was top 10% several years ago, and I learned the lessons of failure....instead of blaming others....what's your story?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21299) 2 years ago

Thank you so much for your honesty (I think - LOL!)

I've had my share of hard times but overall I've been lucky enough in life so I've always had compassion for others who have less than me. I will always fight for those who are powerless.

Why don't you join us instead of arguing against your own interests. I'm being serious. There is more to life than material gain. Surely having gone through what you have you can have empathy for those in poverty, for those who are underpaid, those who are laid off for no good reason?

I commend your success story, but being successful doesn't necessarily mean you want corporations running your government, does it?

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

why should I advocate for the inactive....it's not about where you are, it's about where you're going....those who sit in place get trampled by those in motion...it's just a fact. I'm all fior reasonable accommodations, but we have those NOW.....6-12 months of unemployment is enough, any m0re than that and you're lazy, no one is "owed" a job or wage...you "earn" it based on your skill and replaceability....

Sorry, I'll not lend my efforts to those who don't match them, or offer equitable exchange for them.....

and I reject the notion "corporations" run the government....corporations are false entities.....Men run the government, some good, some bad....as always

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21299) 2 years ago

Here. Read this article from today's NYT about social mobility and the lack of it in this country especially for the poor and the wealthy. Both groups tend to be born into their group and stay there:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21299) 2 years ago

Have you heard of Citizens United?

I think you are misguided to root for the rich, when you are not rich yourself, just because you want to be rich someday. Strive for something more important. Life is short.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

what about citizens united?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21299) 2 years ago

I'll assume you know what it is. You say you don't think corporations run the government. Huh.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

Do YOU know what citizens united did?...I'm a bit skeptical

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

I root for all who achieve, take action to, aspire to ,, or wish to....

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

beautifulworld your wasting your time talking to shlammer.. there is only one way to deal with his kind.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21299) 2 years ago

I like to take the soft approach. None of the rest of you guys do that.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

you will only get hurt in the process .. take my advice stay away from that junk.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

for you, I think, the way to deal with us is to park our cars, bring our food, mow our lawns and polish or shoes.....but, that MIGHT be above your skill level...

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

there you go .. with your encouraging words . I was almost ready to give up. I didn't think you had an ounce of compassion . so considerate of you to be concerned with my skill level.. I could never be a Back-Rider like you .. your my hero

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

HAHAHA.....I love that term....it shows you guys have NO clue...

and that would be "YOU'RE", genius.....I guess I was right..maybe you could deliver papers....I did that from 11-14, you're probably in your 20's....

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

LoL!

that's hysterical!

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21299) 2 years ago

Isn't it? I've been asking them all. They never reply.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I'm sure the fool isn't one of the one percent,

and I feel so so sad

bwa hahahaha!

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21299) 2 years ago

He's not, see above, but at least he is honest (maybe). That means a lot (maybe).

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

he's an idiot, just like all the rest.

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (21299) 2 years ago

These people are unbelievable. I just don't understand what planet they are from! They have no idea that they are completely indoctrinated and that the 1% is laughing at them.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

not that I aspire to THAT much sustained effort...but, where do you think the 1% come from?

If you say inheritance, or privilege, you'll be wrong....and they don't remain at the top all their lives, generally..

a study of the richest 400, by Forbes, shows over 2/3's are entirely self-made...no privilege, or advantage,,

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/1019/forbes-400-rich-list-09-net-worth-statistics-recipe-for-riches.html

and the IRS tracks the top 400 taxpayers as well, if you look on table 4, in the 17 years of the data, 2676 people made the list only once, 439 only twice....only 4 made the list all 17 years, and only 92 had a run of ten years or more...it's not a static group, and neither are the "1%".....it's made up of mostly achievers....

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08intop400.pdf

and the idea that 1.5 million people (the 1%) are working together toward ANY common goal, is simply ludicrous...they are working individually toward their own goals...a characteristic you should emulate...not reject or denounce

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I'm sure there are a portion of them that know exactly what they are doing.

If we keep after them, and do so with the truth, it may be possible to subvert them - though it may never show in a forum like this.

[-] 1 points by IslandActivist (191) from Keaau, HI 2 years ago

I just talked with two of them last night and earlier today, that's interesting. I am interested to see what would happen. I don't really want to see that much bashing and abuse, more of debates and discussions. Maybe all of us will make some progress. Too bad you can't tag people in.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

Lets get the debate started:

"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society." -Albert Einstein 1949

"The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions." -Albert Einstein 1949

"The United States economy is like a poker game where the chips have become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and where the other fellows can stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit runs out the game will stop." -Mariner Eccles Chairman of the Federal Reserve under FDR

You're probably wondering. If these guys were right and the wealth was heavily concentrated just prior to the Great Depression, how did we recover?

That's simple but not well known. There was a partial redistribution from the mid '30's to the mid '70's.

So why are we in this mess again?

"The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide and is growing so fast that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself." Allen Greenspan testifying before congress in the spring of '05'.

Robert Reich and a dozen more prominent economists have gone on record with similar views.

All that progress made after the Great Depression has been reversed over the last 35 years. The richest one percent now own 43% of America's financial wealth. That's way too much. Its caising economic instability. But they absolutely will not stop.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Red flag: Filibuster

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

Lets get the debate started:

The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.

According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 98 percent of Americans, saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.

The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009.

Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.

Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated 44 percent of all United States wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the lower majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed.

Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a public works program, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, some US wealth was gradually transferred back down to the majority. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. By 1976, the richest 1 percent held less than 20 percent. The lower majority held the rest. And rightfully so. It was the best year ever for the middle and lower classes. This was the recovery. A partial redistribution of wealth.

Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own over 40 percent of all US wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes are sharing the rest. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. If there is no redistribution, there will be no recovery.

Note: A knowledgable and trustworthy contributor has gone on record with a claim that effective tax rates for the rich were considerably lower than book rates during the years of redistribution that I have made reference to. His point was that the rich were able to avoid those very high marginal rates of 70-90% under the condition that they invested specifically in American jobs. His claim is that effective rates for the rich probably never exceeded 39% and certainly never exceeded 45%. My belief is that if true, those effective rates for the rich were still considerably higher than previous lows of '29'. Also that such policies still would have contributed to a partial redistribution by forcing the rich to either share profits and potential income through mass job creation or share income through very high marginal tax rates. This knowledgable contributor and I agree that there was in effect, a redistribution but disagree on the use of the word.

One thing is clear from recent events. The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. Book rates for the rich remain at all time lows. Their corporate golden geese are heavily subsidized. The benefits of corporate welfare are paid almost exclusively to the rich. Our Federal, State, and local leaders are sold out. Most of whom, are rich and trying to get even richer at our expense. They won't do anything about the obscene concentration of wealth. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible.

For the good of society, stop giving so much of your money to rich people. Stop concentrating the wealth. This may be our last chance to prevent the worst economic depression in world history. No redistribution. No recovery.

Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, use any portion, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority who have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Red flag: Filibuster

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

Would a cap on sales profits prevent the accumulation of wealth ?

Would a cap on sales profits have prevented the great depression ?

There is a difference between a doctors wealth and a salesmans wealth . one earns their wealth the other does not. but looking at great wealth it is always achieved through profits. Cap their profits and we close the gap between rich and poor, along with a whole host of positive results.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Tax on profits would prevent the accumulation of wealth.

[-] 0 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

None of which includes helping people work for what they want.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

but certainly includes keeping what people have worked for . without letting the bloodsucking vampires in the market take it all away. cap them out of existence would be my suggestion .. let the government run the markets at non profit .. vote yes.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Its the government that has set the taxes where they are not corporations.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

than let the governement place a cap on corporate profits.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Taxes are a cap on profits.

[-] 1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

where would that cap be? most "corporations operate on profit margins of cents on the dollar......while small business often "keystone" cost/price (charge double the cost)

How would your supposed profit tax affect small business, which must operate on larger margins to survive?

Also, given the small profit margins of most large companies, an increase in taxes would necessarily lead to higher prices or loss of jobs, is this really the end you're seeking?

would you expect business to operate at zero profit? how long do you suppose that would last before the exodus begins and more companies leave for better environments?

You guys really have no clue what you are talking about, it's all emotion, mostly envy and covetousness....why don't you get a clue, although...that would take some effort and research

and don't start posting some stupid news story, or blog post about the size of corporate profits without backing that up with gross sales, payroll, benefits, and tax liability (and posting "refund" amounts isn't addressing taxes paid)...no cherry-picking

Yep, I'm talking to you "modestcapitalist" and your nonsense repetitive posting of fallacious information, for which you have no official or verifiable sources......

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

you're the one doing the cherry picking when you say cents on the dollar. let's have the real numbers . let's have full transparency. than we will talk.

[-] 1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

you can easily find the net profit margin of any company traded on the stock exchange...it's part of the information investors look at for before investing......I'll give you an example, let's use Exxon mobile....you lefties hate exxon......here is Exxon's ( I use this site when choosing investments...but the info is found on several sites...

Exxon Mobile...profit margin 8.24% that is 8.24 cents on every dollar of sales that is represented as profit.....

Feel free to enter in any company you wish and check their market presence...

http://ycharts.com/companies/XOM/profit_margin

full analysis: http://ycharts.com/companies/XOM

Apple Inc....which is near the top of profitable companies earns 23.43 cents on each dollar of sales.....

http://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL

Is that specific enough for you?

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

the net profit margin is not what I am looking for ..

[-] 1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

net profits are "actual" profits.....so what statistic are you looking to manipulate? Gross profits.....that don't include the cost of doing business, like payroll, taxation, and administrative/organizational/maintenance costs?

Just what are you looking for? Anything that will allow you to demonize business, whether it's true, or not?

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

transparency of all profit markup.

you are already demonized .. so don't worry it wont hurt.

[-] 1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

Tax returns are FOI act documents...you can certainly get that info if you truly desire it....

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

the point is , the profit margin is after all salaries are paid .. including huge bonuses .. so the profit margin that is made public looks small. so the cap would not go on the profit margin , but on the profit markup. this would reduce the salaries and bonuses .. quite substantially.

[-] 1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

Do you really think something like that would pass constitutional scrutiny?

and your "Huge Bonuses" are a mere fraction of overall payrolls, even in the largest example.....so, how do you suppose to regulate that.....and how would you suppose businesses would attract the best executive...(not that you consider that in your envious, covetous proposal)

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

that's silly - why would you debate such clowns . . . .

wait - I guess if they take the bait they may leave the rest of us alone. That would not be a bad thing . . . .

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

Hey genius. Everybody including Einstein made/makes mistakes. Everyone without exception. But Einstein's sheer volume of brilliant work in fields that you, I, and 99.9 % of the US population can hardly comprehend sets him apart as one of the world's great thinkers. Not to mention that he was a mathematician. The field of economics overlaps heavily.

Einstein wasn't the only one to attribute the Great Depression primarily to a heavy concentration of wealth. So too did Mariner Eccles who worked with FDR to implement policies to PARTIALLY REVERSE THAT CONCENTRATION.

Guess what? The Great Depression OFFICIALLY ENDED WITH THOSE POLICIES IN PLACE. That makes Einstein's quote relevant. Damn relevant.

But while we're on the subject of mistakes:

You said this:

"HERE are the facts:1) 1977, the CRA was passed by democratically controlled congress and president (Jimmy Carter). Designed to encourage banks to give loans to previously unqualified people.

2) Clinton Revised this act and forced banks to give out loans or pay penalties in 1995. A democratic president."

Thats colossal BS. A steaming load of die-hard conservative partisan puppet crap. The CRA was passed in 1977 in an attempt to end discrimination of qualified potential borrowers who lived in the same communities where their funds were deposited. The law specifically stated that loans were to be made responsibly.

The penalties and policies you refer to were either the result of discrimination or part of a calculated marketing effort involving representatives lobbied by the finance industry. Otherwise, the banks would not have agreed to them. Thats right. They said "OK. We'll do it!" Look it up. The banks agreed to those policies and penalties.

How much did Clinton accept in campaign funds from the finance industry? I honestly don't recall. But if your implication is true, then the mortgage giants would have supported his opponents exclusively. So answer the question. How much did Clinton accept in campaign funds from the mortgage industry?

Sub-Prime was a calculated effort to sell more homes to a shrinking middle class, artificially inflate the market, repossess homes during a period of artificial inflation, resell those homes, and MAKE BANKERS AND INVESTORS RICHER!

Do you have any idea at all how incredibly profitable those sub-prime loans were and for how many years before the house of cards finally fell in? Any idea at all?

Do you have any idea how many billions were reaped? Do you have any idea who Henry Paulson is and how he reaped over a BILLION DOLLARS in one year?

Look it up.

I want to address this issue in particular. Then, I'll pick apart the rest of your essay one bogus point at a time.

Respond.

[-] 0 points by kelliwankenobi (21) 2 years ago
  1. FDR didn’t know what to do about the Great Depression he inherited from Herbert Hoover, so he tried everything. He hiked taxes, spent more money, established monopolies, enforced cartels, filed antitrust lawsuits, promoted compulsory unionism, multiplied business regulations, denounced investors, and started welfare programs, public works projects, a big entitlement, on and on.

One theme runs through such misguided policies: the failure to focus single-mindedly on the recovery of the private sector that pays all the bills, including tax bills. FDR was very much a creature of the “progressive” era, when many intellectuals embraced the view that experts could make a better world if only they had enough power. Some of FDR’s New Dealers were impressed by Mussolini’s fascist corporate state model, others liked Stalin’s centralized economic planning in the Soviet Union, and still others just seemed to believe that any problem could be fixed by issuing more laws and regulations. With very few exceptions, New Deal discussions weren’t about helping the private sector recover. Discussions were about making government bigger. He would have done better to remove obstacles — starting with Hoover’s obstacles — that interfered with the ability of the private sector to recover and prosper.

  1. By intervening, even just threatening to intervene, in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York; the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America has a $3-billion agreement with the Bank of America; a coalition of groups headed by New Jersey Citizen Action has a five-year, $13-billion agreement with First Union Corporation. Similar deals operate in almost every major U.S. city. Observes Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, which has $220 million in bank mortgage money to parcel out, "CRA is the backbone of everything we do. The National Homeownership Strategy began in 1994 when Clinton directed HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to come up with a plan, and Cisneros convened what HUD called a "historic meeting" of private and public housing-industry organizations in August 1994. Add President Clinton to the long list of people who deserve a share of the blame for the housing bubble and bust. A recently re-exposed document shows that his administration went to ridiculous lengths to increase the national homeownership rate. It promoted paper-thin downpayments and pushed for ways to get lenders to give mortgage loans to first-time buyers with shaky financing and incomes. It’s clear now that the erosion of lending standards pushed prices up by increasing demand, and later led to waves of defaults by people who never should have bought a home in the first place.
[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

All that pasting and/or typing and you still can't grasp the two major points of my last response.

FDR knew damn well what to do about the Great Depression. His policies were intended to partially redistribute wealth. THEY WORKED. GROWTH WAS UP AND UNEMPLOYMENT DOWN EVERY YEAR UNDER FDR BUT ONE. THE GREAT DEPRESSION OFFICIALLY ENDED UNDER FDR.

Sub-Prime lending wasn't forced on the mortgage industry. THE MORTGAGE INDUSTRY ATE IT UP. THE MARKET SKYROCKETED FROM '94' TO '06'. BILLIONS WERE PAID TO BANKERS AND INVESTORS. RECORD PROFITS WERE MADE FOR A SOLID DECADE.

You deny or debunk those two facts if you can.

[-] 0 points by kelliwankenobi (21) 2 years ago

The Great Depression was the worst economic crisis in U.S. history. From 1931 to 1940 unemployment was always in double digits. In April 1939, almost ten years after the crisis began, more than one in five Americans still could not find work. Your fucking stupid if you think the new deal worked!

Roosevelt’s death in the last year of the war prevented him from unveiling his New Deal revival. But President Harry Truman was on board for most of the new reforms. In the months after the end of the war Truman gave major speeches showcasing a full employment bill—with jobs and spending to be triggered if people failed to find work in the private sector. He also endorsed a national health care program and a federal housing program.

But 1946 was very different from 1933. In 1933 large Democratic majorities in Congress and public support gave FDR his New Deal, but stagnation and unemployment persisted. By contrast, Truman had only a small Democratic majority—and no majority at all if you subtract the more conservative southern Democrats. Plus, the failure of FDR’s New Deal left fewer Americans cheering for an encore.

In short the Republicans and southern Democrats refused to give Truman his New Deal revival. Sometimes they emasculated his bills; other times they just killed them.

After many years of confiscatory taxes, businessmen desperately needed incentives to expand. By 1945 the top marginal income tax rate was 94 percent on all income over $200,000. We also had a high excess-profits tax that had absorbed more than one-third of all corporate profits since 1943—and another corporate tax that reached as high as 40 percent on other profits.

In 1945 and 1946 Congress repealed the excess-profits tax, cut the corporate tax to a maximum 38 percent, and cut the top income tax rate to 86 percent. In 1948 Congress sliced the top marginal rate further, to 82 percent.

Those rates were still high, but they were the first cuts since the 1920s and sent the message that businesses could keep much of what they earned. The year 1946 was not without ups and downs in employment, occasional strikes, and rising prices. But the “regime certainty” of the 1920s had largely returned, and entrepreneurs believed they could invest again and be allowed to make money.

oh yeah, the banks ate up profits???I have never not agreed the banks fucked up but it all began with Carter and was made worse by Clinton!

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

First paragraph. Yup. Thats why they called it the GREAT DEPRESSION. It was caused by the heaviset concentration of wealth in American history. or at the very least the heaviest post industrial revolution concentration of wealth. That concentration wasn't even addressed until FDR came along. So don't feed me that '10 year' crap. Still, the depression officially ended under FDR. You must know that all that is needed to officially end a depression is for growth to return. It did and unemployment was down. Every year but one under FDR. Damn right the New Deal worked. But it took many years to fully restore that battered middle class.

There is only one place in the universe where a 'quick' recovery from such a crisis is possible. That place is Fantasy Land.

Sure tax rates fluctuated. Corporate and individual. But they remained MUCH higher than those of '29'. The rich were prevented from hoarding more wealth. Otherwise, there NEVER would have been a recovery. Its just that simple.

If you still believe that the CRA of '77' had anything to to with the housing crash of '07', then you still don't know what the CRA was, how it was implemented, and why it had become necessary.

No bank in America has ever been 'forced' to make a loan. Otherwise, they would be 'forced' right now. I know what you're thinking. Those penalties and the subsequent agreement to make more loans available to minorities. Again, that was not a 'forced' act. It was a settlement in response to charges of discrimination.

The housing market would have tanked with or without the CRA. With or without sub-prime. You can't keep shrinking a middle class and expect to sustain any market which ultimately relies on profits made from that shrinking middle class. It just can't work.

[-] 0 points by kelliwankenobi (21) 2 years ago

Many believe erroneously that the stock market crash that occurred on Black Tuesday, October 29, 1929 is one and the same with the Great Depression. In fact, it was one of the major causes that led to the Great Depression. Two months after the original crash in October, stockholders had lost more than $40 billion dollars. Even though the stock market began to regain some of its losses, by the end of 1930, it just was not enough and America truly entered what is called the Great Depression. Throughout the 1930s over 9,000 banks failed. Bank deposits were uninsured and thus as banks failed people simply lost their savings. Surviving banks, unsure of the economic situation and concerned for their own survival, stopped being as willing to create new loans. This exacerbated the situation leading to less and less expenditures. 3. Reduction in Purchasing Across the Board With the stock market crash and the fears of further economic woes, individuals from all classes stopped purchasing items. This then led to a reduction in the number of items produced and thus a reduction in the workforce. As people lost their jobs, they were unable to keep up with paying for items they had bought through installment plans and their items were repossessed. More and more inventory began to accumulate. The unemployment rate rose above 25% which meant, of course, even less spending to help alleviate the economic situation. As businesses began failing, the government created the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930 to help protect American companies. This charged a high tax for imports thereby leading to less trade between America and foreign countries along with some economic retaliation.

While not a direct cause of the Great Depression, the drought that occurred in the Mississippi Valley in 1930 was of such proportions that many could not even pay their taxes or other debts and had to sell their farms for no profit to themselves. The area was nicknamed "The Dust Bowl." wealth concentration is the biggest bunch of bullshit ever..jesus christ...your impossibly dumb!

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

I already read that. Its near identical to something that jvlynn posted two weeks ago in response to my essay regarding the Great Depression.

Its lightly sprinkled with facts but written specifically to divert attention from that record high concentration of wealth in 1929.

Otherwise, there never would have been a reduction in 'demand', there never would have been a crash, and there never would have been a depression.

Again genius. A drought in '30' could not have directly or indirectly caused the crash of '29' or the depression. You're confusing aggravating circumstances with the single greatest underlying cause.

Damn right that record high concentration of wealth in 1929 caused the Great Depression.

DAMN RIGHT THE SECOND HIGHEST CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH IN AMERICAN HISTORY CAUSED THE GREAT RECESSION. OBAMA'S SPENDING ALREADY OFFICIALLY ENDED THE RECESSION BUT THERE WILL BE NO RECOVERY FOR THE MASSES WITHOUT A PARTIAL REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. NO WAY IN HELL.

[-] 0 points by kelliwankenobi (21) 2 years ago

the drought exacerbated the depression to varying degrees i didn;t say it cause it ....chill out....

With only loose stock market regulations in place before the Great Depression, investors were able speculate wildly, buying stocks on margin, needing only 10% of the price of a stock to be able to complete the purchase. Rampant speculation led to falsely high stock prices, and when the stock market began to tumble in the months leading up to the October 1929 crash, speculative investors couldn’t make their margin calls, and a massive sell-off began. While the great rise in the stock market (from 181 points in early 1928 to 381 points in September 1929) was fueled by optimism and false hope, the plunge was flamed by stark fear.

We need regulation but not too much...be careful what you ask for....you may get it and live to regret it or your kids will and their kids and their kids......

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

I realize that but all financial gimmicks regardless of their complexity depend ultimately on a transfer of funds from one party to another. The market has always relied on consumers with money to spend. Everything changes when too much wealth becomes concentrated. With a consumer driven economy, the market would have remained stable indefinetly if it weren't for that shrinking middle class. The financial gimmicks didn't cause the depression. They only effected to some degree where and when the market losses would be taken and by whom. They didn't cause the crash itself. Otherwise, it would have recovered in a matter of days.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

It’s clear now that the erosion of lending standards pushed prices up by increasing demand, and later led to waves of defaults by people who never should have bought a home in the first place.

Had there been a cap on profits the plan would have worked great.. initially the intentions were to be helpful to the buyers , but the greedy sellers with the unfettered profit nonlaw took advantage of the high demands .. do you see how its really not ten steps down the road .. but actually in your back yard.

[-] 0 points by kelliwankenobi (21) 2 years ago

In 1995, as a result of interest from President Bill Clinton's administration, the implementing regulations for the CRA were strengthened by focusing the financial regulators' attention on institutions' performance in helping to meet community credit needs.

These revisions with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. These changes were very controversial and as a result, the regulators agreed to revisit the rule after it had been fully implemented for seven years. Thus in 2002, the regulators opened up the regulation for review and potential revision.

Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997 by Bear Stearns. The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent.

Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market. Thus leading us to the problems of today.

Just like all other administrations, the effect of a presidency often isn't felt until after he leaves office. Clinton reaped the benefits of the Reagan/Bush era, and George W. Bush, is having to deal with the problems created by his predecessor and are now coming to fruition.

[-] 3 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

You're still refusing to acknowledge the underlying cause.

THERE NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN SUCH A MARKET FOR SUBPRIME IF IT HADN'T BEEN FOR THAT SHRINKING MIDDLE CLASS.

You seem to have some statistics to draw from at will. So answer this.

How many foreclosures took place from '06' to '08' on CRA loans and how many on non CRA loans?

How many on homes under $150,000 and how many on homes over $150,000?

What were the total losses in each catergory?

If you must alter the fields slightly, thats fine. But please don't dance your way around these questions. You obviously have statistics to draw from at will. So draw. Answer those questions.

First post the answers, then your commentary.

It will be very interesting to see if you, with all your knowledge, are willing or able to answer those very specific questions.

How many foreclosures took place from '06' to '08' on CRA loans and how many on non CRA loans?

How many on homes under $150,000 and how many on homes over $150,000?

What were the total losses in each catergory?

Answer please.

[-] 0 points by kelliwankenobi (21) 2 years ago

As a result of foreclosures, home values have fallen by about 33 percent since the peak of the market in 2006. Between 2006 and 2010, banks seized about 3 million homes.

A total of about 6 million properties could be repossessed by 2013. This is because about 5 million delinquent loans have not yet entered the foreclosure phase as of 2011 and now it is 2012

According to RealtyTrac, 2.87 million properties received notices of default, auction or repossession in 2010.

CRA Banks had a significantly lower market share of high cost loans than of all loans so it is a rigged number....In Detroit it was 41% but in Phoenix it was much lower....suffice it to say it paid a significant role and was the match that lit the whole thing on fire. You can find enormous information both pro and con...The banks no doubt greatly exacerbated the problem and I never said they didn't....Remember I am root cause guy!! How bout shitheads like barney frank and bill clinton not forcing lending institutions into giving bad loans......that again via cra was the root cause! I rest my case because you are stupidly anti-capitalist!

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

See that? You admitted that CRA banks had a significantly lower market share of high cost loans. I would still like all those figures but that was one of the points I was trying to make.

The CRA did not cause the crash. Those banks were not 'forced' to make irresponsible loans.

Regardless, the market for 'responsible' loans shrank right along with a shrinking middle class. It all comes back to the relative strength of the middle class.

I've made my position crystal clear. I'm not anti-capitalist. I'm anti-blood-thirsty get filthy disgusting rich winner take all and fuck the rest capitalist.

[-] 0 points by kelliwankenobi (21) 2 years ago

hahaha... In 1995, Bill Clinton’s HUD made the policy decision to allow Fannie and Freddie to purchase subprime mortgage securities. Supposedly, HUD expected that Freddie and Fannie would impose their usual high standards upon subprime lenders. They did… mostly (hey, it’s still a subprime loan, after all), for a while, anyway. But this was still a bad idea (more on this in a moment). In 1999, Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act’s prohibition against banks acting as any combination of investment bank, commercial bank, and/or insurance company. Having more than one of those under one roof was a bad idea in 1929 because it creates conflict-of-interest on the part of the bankers/brokers, but apparently it’s a good idea in 1999. This paved the way for the formation of Citigroup and other investment/commercial/insurance banks. The GLB Act also reduced the number of banks to which the CRA applied, and altered their requirements so that they’d have to report on their CRA compliance less often. This was considered bad news because it meant that the remaining 70 percent of loans were virtually un-auditable, and the reasons that loan decisions were made were untraceable. And Congressman Ron Paul made a speech predicting that these policies of increased lending to poor people would result in a credit collapse and a bailout. Spooky, eh? As a result, the FDIC decided to strongly discourage the practice of “predatory lending”. And any bank found guilty of predatory lending was considered a higher risk, resulting in a lower CRA performance rating for that bank, both of which made FDIC insurance significantly more expensive. Interestingly, this move seems to have been quite effective. The FDIC’s measures to prevent irresponsible and predatory lending worked, and worked really well. So, if CRA wasn’t the problem, what was? What brought down Fannie Mae? Remember the HUD? They expected that Fannie and Freddie would buy only the best quality subprime loans. But that backfired: what that ended up doing was making the market for these loans, including the even-crappier ones, bigger.Consider this: between 2005 and 2008, Fannie made loans to risky (sub-prime) borrowers of more than $270 billion dollars. That staggering sum is more than three times as much as all earlier years combined. But if it was all the HUD’s fault, then between 2005 and 2008, Fannie should have only increased subprime investment by about 6%, not 300%. And this would seem to have only a tangential relationship with the 30-year-old CRA. Something happened in 2004 or 2005! (One allegation I’ve heard is that Countrywide Mortgage started strong-arming Fannie into buying more of their riskiest loans at about that point.) It seems to me that a large part of the Fannie problem was the HUD, enabling large scale sub-prime investing, and encouraging Fannie and Freddie to invest heavily in “affordable” housing. But that’s not the entirety of the problem; the HUD opened the door, but cannot have been responsible for the huge increase in sub-prime investment starting in 2005. However, even minimal investment in sub-prime mortgages (that HUD was trying to create) created demand in the sub-prime mortgage-backed securities market, which drove up the cost and encouraged other folks to invest as well.

I think the real lesson to be learned here is that there is no simple answer to questions like “what caused this economic mess?”, no matter how much politicians would love to say “it’s the other guy and his party’s fault”. But it all BEGAN with the CRA.....

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

yes , I understand your research. but you also must consider on the lax rules also was added a lowering of interest rates which encouraged high amounts of borrowing. But what you are not considering is how this was all in good intentions .. easy rules low rates .. its a gesture of kindness towards those in need .. but after this leaves the hands of the government it goes into the free market system where anyone selling a home raised their prices through the roof. so all that good will and intent went out the window . for what is low interests rates when the item than goes up triple in value? Had there been a cap on profit markup .. those home prices would not have been allowed to go through the roof .. and home buyers would not have needed the large loans they ended up with .. keep in mind the whole economy had excitment in the air .. with all the sudden huge profits everyone was making .. it gave a false sense of assurity to borrowers that they would have a job to pay for these loans . .. it goes deeeper yet .. now that all those profits were made they simply piled up at the top ..and as I mentioned began to trickle back .. but far to slowly to maintain employment for those with the huge loans ... so the problem really wasn't because of the governments good intentions , it was because of the greedy market that took advantage of the sudden high demand.. had there been regulation on profit .. we would not be in this mess ..

[-] 0 points by kelliwankenobi (21) 2 years ago

hell is paid with good intentions....listen, we live in a world where their is a trade off...what ows and it's ilk proposes is dangerous....kinda like putting out a fire with gasoline....goodluck...you mean well....

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

perhaps I missed it , but what solution did you bring to the table ?

[-] 0 points by kelliwankenobi (21) 2 years ago

I am right about cap on profits....I do not have all the solutions that fixes this mess...no one does....this is ultimately my point....wild speculation right or left is is drowning out solutions....one thing I am not willing to pay the price on is trading freedom for tyranny.....fuck big government....

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

Do you drive a car ? When you drive do you follow speed limits, do you feel speed limits are tyranny imposed by the government? A cap on profits is like a cap on speed limits, they both protect the public from danger.

[-] 0 points by kelliwankenobi (21) 2 years ago

I see your point and it is well taken but we need to worry less about big business than big government....their is a sick symbiotic relationship between government and business that is hurting all of us ( we the people ) it is also hurting business and government in and of itself.....government ultimately regulates business right....who regulates government? We the people? Not anymore and not for a long long time! See what I mean by tyranny? by further regulating markets a stranglehold will be put on business and it will ultimately hurt everyone!!!!

[-] 0 points by kelliwankenobi (21) 2 years ago

caps on profits kill incentive and stifle growth....we need to be creating 400k jobs a month just to take care of new job market entree's not to mention the millions out of work...cut profits and you will have a depression unlike anything the world has ever seen!

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

What assurance can you give that jobs untimately transfer wealth back to the middle class?

Would those jobs transfer wealth back to the middle class if the finance industry decided to increase its fees and then hire 1000 more people to handle the paperwork?

Would those jobs transfer wealth back to the middle class if the health care industry decided to charge even more for every procedure and then hire 1000 more people to handle the paperwork?

Would those jobs transfer wealth back to the middle class if the energy industry decided to charge even more for every gallon of gas and every kilowatt of power and then hire another 1000 people to handle the paperwork?

THE DEVIL IS ALWAYS IN THE DETAILS. WE DON'T NEED A BIGGER ECONOMY. WE ALREADY TRIED THAT. IT DIDN'T WORK. WE NEED A MORE FAIR, REASONABLE, AND JUST ECONOMY. OTHERWISE, THERE WILL BE NO RECOVERY FOR THE MASSES EVER NO MATTER HOW MANY JOBS ARE CREATED.

[-] 0 points by kelliwankenobi (21) 2 years ago

friend...you are right about the devil being in the details.....it is! We cannot stick a baseball bat between the spokes of a moving bike....it will flip the passenger off! I think we both can also agree we want as much opportunity for as may people as possible. That is where we diverge.....I am right about cap on profits....I do not have all the solutions that fixes this mess...no one does....this is ultimately my point....wild speculation right or left is is drowning out solutions....one thing I am not willing to pay the price on is trading freedom for tyranny.....fuck big government....

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

I don't want tyranny either. Fuck big business.

Well, too big anyway. I don't want Bud designing and building my next car in his garage. I want it designed and built by a proven manufacturer.

But big business has become too big and too powerful.

[-] 0 points by kelliwankenobi (21) 2 years ago

how bout crony capitalism..you know bought and paid for politicians who then pick and choose winners and losers...cap length of service in the courts, congress and the senate.....that is where we begin.....

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

not true. the profit cap only goes onsales profits between points of buy and sell , and not on manufacturing profits. A cap on sales profits would lower prices at the retail level. Resulting in an increase in sales . which would increase manufacturing orders and thus increase jobs. all due to a cap on profits the economy would actually recover .. see how you can not think deeply ..

[-] 0 points by kelliwankenobi (21) 2 years ago

the retail market would greatly disagree with you... The problem with a forced regulatory lowering of profits between buy and sell is initially the layoffs in the retail sector would be massive with retailers going out of business in droves.....their would be no recovery....the economy would cease to exist....a vacumn would be created and that vacumn would be filled with anarchy but ultimately the vacumn would be filled by tyranny! This is the great reality seen by those who understand that while we need to end crony capitalism and return to free markets, we also must not react so far to the left that we end up in a the middle of a soft tyranny or worse....a totalitarian state. This is man kinds historical precedent...beware! I have thought about this deeply.....there is a great cause and effect at work.....choose wrong and we're all fucked!

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

of course retail would disagree. but what do they base their disagreement on?

I suggest a transparency law to start this whole thing off. Let the retailers show the consumer what the actual mark up is on producta . all the way from manufacture to wholesaler to retailer.. list the prices for all to see .. and than we can talk about what happens next.

Here is something else , you say they would go out of business .. well I say they would have an increase in sales .. so instead of selling one item at 300 % markup, they would sell ten items at 30% markup with prices lowered their sales volume will increase . now the big benefit is how this effects the manufacturing . with sales volume so high manufacture will be hiring big time.. The main thing you need to see when you step back and look at the whole picture is how unevenly the distribution of wealth has been divided. and that should be the goal to level that distribution .. because doing so will insure everyone has a portion of the pie to sustain themselves with .. especially those now at the bottom with rations so slim they have lost their homes.. it is a big complicated mess to follow and understand .. but to keep things simple .. placing a cap will lower prices and increase sales which will increase jobs.. and did I mention with all this tax revenue will also be generated. everyone wins .. with a cap ..and the filthy rich no longer have the extreme wealth .. but would they really even notice a difference in their lifestyle?

[-] 0 points by kelliwankenobi (21) 2 years ago

the market place is made up of many many things from taxes, health care, market allowance and share to competition etc etc etc.....your fix all solution will not fix the problem but only exacerbate the problem....I'm not a fan of crony capitalism but the free market is a beautiful thing if left to function as intended....profit = increased wealth for all if crony capitalism, elected official favoritism towards donors "union and big business" coupled to unenforced laws that protect consumers, and activist courts are cleaned up with a return to the constitution as our guiding principles etc etc etc. This is hard and very few want to try it...

I have an idea..it is simple....Caps on how long congress and the senate can serve with state, local, and federal government providing via tax a set amount politicians can use to run campaigns and voila no more bought and paid for politicians....this is a drop in the bucket monetary wise!

[-] 0 points by kelliwankenobi (21) 2 years ago

Hank Paulson went to Congress for $700 billion in bailout funds. He intended to use these to buy up toxic securities from a range of banks and hold them. Essentially, the idea was to create a "bad bank" owned by the governemnt. While this would have forced participating banks to declare large losses, it would have created certainty about their solvency by removing illiquid assets from their balance sheets. Paulson realized after receiving the first half of the monies that the policy wouldn't work with his plan - the assets had already proved unpriceable and the enormous, up-front costs were dramatically more than it had available.

He therefore decided that a better solution, albeit one that would be worked out bank-by-bank, would involve the government taking an equity stake in the major financial institutions and, where necessary, issuing insurance on the value of the illiquid assets, making up the difference if they all below an agreed floor price. Paulson reasoned that investors would know that the bank is secure, but that it would reduce the requirement for immediate capital.

The problem with the strategy that Paulson pursued is that the direct investment into financial institutions wasn't transparent and diluted equity holders. It also didn't do anything to stimulate lending, whereas a cleaner balance sheet might have provided existing banks with a fresh start. Moreover, the insurance issued against the existing portfolio, which has now been issued at AIG, Citibank and Bank of America, has the potential to put the government in significant risk for having liabilities well above those that are funded or budgeted, essentially forcing the government to order and supervise an orderly liquidation, as opposed to risking a disorderly one.

[-] 0 points by kelliwankenobi (21) 2 years ago

n 1995, as a result of interest from President Bill Clinton's administration, the implementing regulations for the CRA were strengthened by focusing the financial regulators' attention on institutions' performance in helping to meet community credit needs.

These revisions with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. These changes were very controversial and as a result, the regulators agreed to revisit the rule after it had been fully implemented for seven years. Thus in 2002, the regulators opened up the regulation for review and potential revision.

Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997 by Bear Stearns. The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent.

Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market. Thus leading us to the problems of today.

Just like all other administrations, the effect of a presidency often isn't felt until after he leaves office. Clinton reaped the benefits of the Reagan/Bush era, and George W. Bush, is having to deal with the problems created by his predecessor and are now coming to fruition.

[-] 1 points by cogwheeler (1) 2 years ago

kelliwankenobi,

The whole context you are promoting becomes unhinged, when you look at the size of what was going on, and when. The common arguement the GSE's caused this surrounds what we make of the 350bb in sub-prime debt they bought in each 2006 and 2007. The mortgage market had 12 trillion in outstanding loans, at the time. Sub-prime and Alt-A were about 1.8 trillion of this. This is important because the private market dominated sub-prime space, from top to bottom, before and immediately leading to, the crash.

Your arguement has merit, and instead of debating whether the CRA was toothless and didn't apply to many "non-banks", I would test how reasonable a person you are by asking if you recognize the ability of private banks to sell loans, and how that lowered their emphasis on qualifying criteria?

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

There never would have been such a market for subprime to begin with if it weren't for that shrinking middle class. The market never would have inflated if it weren't for subprime. It would have failed sooner at a more gradual rate. Instead, it was artificially inflated for over a decade until it finally collapsed. The GSEs didn't cause the crisis. They only aggrevated it. Compounding the losses which otherwise, would have been more gradual and spread out among a larger number of smaller institutions. But there never would have been a crisis if it weren't for that shrinking middle class.

Sure I recognize that ability to sell loans. Thats a big point with me. I never said that the qualifying criteria wasn't watered down. It was in response to a shrinking middle class though not to the extent that its been implied so many times. I bought my home in the '90's. Because of my sloppy credit, I had to put down way over 10%. and there weren't any McMansions sold in the hood. The CRA was nothing but a scoring system intended to rate banks on their willingness to make loans in the same communities where funds were deposited. But those CRA encouraged loans were not the bulk of the problem. Not even close.Those CRA loans were of modest size. THERE WERE NO MCMANSIONS SOLD IN THE HOOD.

Sorry cogwheeler. I mistakenly responded to your post under the assumption that it was written by kelliwankenobi in another attempt to discredit me. I'll leave it anyway. I just wanted to make that clear.

[-] 0 points by kelliwankenobi (21) 2 years ago

no doubt the situation was criminally taken advantage of by the banks....I do not argue that point. ...but the root cause remains the entitlement mentality that was the foundation of CRA implemented by Democrats...I simply gave the FACTS to validate my points....

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

unfettered markets caused the recession. they [markets] sucked all that borrowed money out of the economy causing economic colapse.

[-] -2 points by kelliwankenobi (21) 2 years ago

umm... I just gave a targeted timeline of facts and you come back with unfettered markets.....I give you root cause and you give me 10 steps down the road.....geez....your a drone of the liberal left!

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

you said democrats caused the recession. I said unfettered markets caused the recession.. would you like the whole explanation ..

edit: my explanation trumps your root cause.

[-] -1 points by kelliwankenobi (21) 2 years ago

think not smarty pants

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

you don't see it ? it's too deep for you ? you're an after the fact type of person ? reactive never proactive? how could you be with your single dimension mind.

[-] 0 points by kelliwankenobi (21) 2 years ago

too deep huh...hahahahaha.....wow...I prove point after point after point with facts after fact after fact and that is the best you have! ok whatever!!! you have no argument other than some vague inaccurate notion it is all to deep for me.....go away poser.,...

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

posting facts ? what does that solve ? only provides information .. which is okay .. but that information is available to everyone .. the solutions on the other hand require careful contemplation and deep thoughtful exercise. where as you point out the facts leading up to the recession but you do not see the problems with unfettered profits .. simply because it is not a fact that you could read somewhere .. so listen carefully and read this .. unfettered profits caused the colapse of the economy . and the only way to get a handle on this is to place a cap on profits.. here is something you should be aware of .. it's called the trickle down effect .. this is what we are now experiencing.. it is what economists refer to when they say the system corrects itself.. but in fact it is us who need to correct the system with a cap on profits .. now have a nice day

[-] 0 points by kelliwankenobi (21) 2 years ago

Profit does not have to be an opponent of business ethics. We do not have to be confined by the false dilemma of “people or profit.” We do need to put profit in its place, in an ethical framework that encompasses the key elements of human action. In order to accomplish this, we need to develop an ethics of purpose, or teleology, that allows us to analyze corporate activities in terms of their normative function in society. This function may change as society changes, but if a business becomes good-for-nothing, why should it exist? The tobacco industry today is facing just this problem. At the same time, business decision makers need more than an ethic of purpose. They also need to explore relevant principles and probable consequences. If we remember that businesses, like most of us, should eat to live, rather than live to eat, then the place of profit in a comprehensive ethic will be less of a mystery. You my friend are obviously not qualified to figure out the dilemma because you are a reactionary...cap profits and we have it all figured out....this is bullshit and you know it but are too proud to admit it. Personal responsibility and a culture that promotes that is ultimately the solution...this will never be legislated except under tyranny which is not the trade off I'm willing to pay! The great debate goes on....Don't be afraid of it! You might just change your mind or better yet...become less stupid!

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

A cap on profits will fix the problem .. and it is you that will not admit this .. it is a logical solution that looks at fairness of outcome. It is not tyranny . in fact it opposes tyranny and that is exactly what the free market is , a tyranny based organization. where as the government is for the people by the people with a responsibility to root out the tyrannies that oppress us . thats right we are being oppressed by free markets .. they have the upper hand and we need government to help us with regulation.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

Caps are prohibitions. They only incite more criminal behavior.

Promoting long term growth vs. short term profit for corporations, as a fiduciary responsibility to share holders, is how to change the current destructive culture.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Taxes are the ultimate cap on profits. 90% top bracket will fix a lot of things.

[-] 0 points by kelliwankenobi (21) 2 years ago

god your stupid

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

taxes and caps

here is the difference:

when we cap profits the profiteer makes a limited amount of profit per sale . and the consumer enjoys low prices.

but if we allow unlimited profit and try to take away some of the profits through taxes the price will simply go up for the consumer as the profiteer tries to maintain his net profit.

the difference is felt by the consumer.

[-] 0 points by kelliwankenobi (21) 2 years ago

how do you calculate what is excessive profit...who sets the value? Government? hahahaha....geez you people think you have the answers and your just lost to the unintended consequences thru what you propose....cause and effect and cause and effect and cause and effect!

[-] 0 points by kelliwankenobi (21) 2 years ago

your half right.....but i seem to like you anyway