[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
The little guy created the mess. Some very large banks and corporations exacerbated the debacle, but the blame for that mess lies squarely upon every person in the US who borrowed way too much for their own personal capacity to pay it back.
[/quote]
Thank you! (internet applause)
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I’m not sure if you are responding to both parts of my post or just the first(it’s hard to tell over the internet), but just to clarify, the second part was in reference to government workers(politicians-pretty much any argument they make is ultimately meant to increase their power and control over others).[/quote]
Both parts. I’m in agreement. I don’t think it is good at all for government to step in and tell a company that they are forced to pay their employees any amount.
If a person doesn’t like what they are getting paid for doing what they do, they should either do something else or the same thing for someone else.
That shouldn’t require govt. intervention.
[/quote]
It has to require government intervention, otherwise corporations will just trample on people. Viva la profits above all else![/quote]
How would corporations trample on people?
Assuming your position is correct, would it not be better if the government not only intervened but ran the corporations then?[/quote]
hyperbole
[/quote]
Please explain.
The proper response to my questions would probably take the following form(or similar):
Corporations would trample on people by the following means: …
Yes/No, it would/would not be better if government ran(owned) corporations because…[/quote]
hyperbole is exaggerating a point to an extreme to make a point that would not other wise be .
[/quote]
I made no point, but merely asked questions.
The questions were:
How would corporations trample on people?
Assuming your position is correct, would it not be better if the government not only intervened but ran the corporations then?
Neither has been answered, so I, along with Countingbeans it seems, will continue waiting.[/quote]
I took it as you implied the point that Government could not run businesses .
Corporations do trample people’s rights , drug testing is a prime example . I can understand testing for impairment but testing to see if some one smoked marijuana 30 days ago is neither their business nor does it serve any purpose other than to exert their control .
Exploiting a low supply of jobs and a big supply of labor is another example of trampling on people . Our Government has a responsibility to ensure that people that are proud enough to want to work can out earn those content to ride on the welfare dole.
This bullshit that government has no place on regulating aspects of business is stupidity run amok . I just finished Tale of two cities . A tale of a cast system that failed the upper cast.
The disparity grew so large that the upper cast felt the lower cast were inferior . Does that soud familiar ?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
The little guy created the mess. Some very large banks and corporations exacerbated the debacle, but the blame for that mess lies squarely upon every person in the US who borrowed way too much for their own personal capacity to pay it back.
[/quote]
Thank you! (internet applause)[/quote]
I disagree with Skyz, The banks made all the profit . The people that bought outside their ability to pay no longer have the possession they could not afford . Just follow the money
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
The little guy created the mess. Some very large banks and corporations exacerbated the debacle, but the blame for that mess lies squarely upon every person in the US who borrowed way too much for their own personal capacity to pay it back.
[/quote]
Thank you! (internet applause)[/quote]
I disagree with Skyz, The banks made all the profit . The people that bought outside their ability to pay no longer have the possession they could not afford . Just follow the money
[/quote]
I’ll be sure to run that by the hundreds that closed down in the months following the crash.
Or the ones that were bailed out?
Wait, what was that you said about profit?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
The little guy created the mess. Some very large banks and corporations exacerbated the debacle, but the blame for that mess lies squarely upon every person in the US who borrowed way too much for their own personal capacity to pay it back.
[/quote]
Thank you! (internet applause)[/quote]
I disagree with Skyz, The banks made all the profit . The people that bought outside their ability to pay no longer have the possession they could not afford . Just follow the money
[/quote]
That’s not necessarily true. Many folks were given government assistance to keep from being forclosed on.
Regardless, had they financed a house within their budget they wouldn’t have been in a foreclosure situation in the first place.
Both sides should be blamed.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I’m not sure if you are responding to both parts of my post or just the first(it’s hard to tell over the internet), but just to clarify, the second part was in reference to government workers(politicians-pretty much any argument they make is ultimately meant to increase their power and control over others).[/quote]
Both parts. I’m in agreement. I don’t think it is good at all for government to step in and tell a company that they are forced to pay their employees any amount.
If a person doesn’t like what they are getting paid for doing what they do, they should either do something else or the same thing for someone else.
That shouldn’t require govt. intervention.
[/quote]
It has to require government intervention, otherwise corporations will just trample on people. Viva la profits above all else![/quote]
How would corporations trample on people?
Assuming your position is correct, would it not be better if the government not only intervened but ran the corporations then?[/quote]
hyperbole
[/quote]
Please explain.
The proper response to my questions would probably take the following form(or similar):
Corporations would trample on people by the following means: …
Yes/No, it would/would not be better if government ran(owned) corporations because…[/quote]
Financial sector corporations helped create a bubble by deregulating it’s sector. It became predatory. This in turn caused the real estate bubble to grow and eventually burst leaving everyday ordinary people to pick up the tab.
So banking can be made into a public utility. The private bankers get almost free money and don’t even inject it back into the economy. They just make money off of the nearly free money guaranteed by the public sector. This is fair? Or part of the so-called “free market”?
One only needs to look at the Bank of North Dakota to see how this could work out.
[/quote]
The little guy created the mess. Some very large banks and corporations exacerbated the debacle, but the blame for that mess lies squarely upon every person in the US who borrowed way too much for their own personal capacity to pay it back.
[/quote]
I was offered $500k to buy a house in 2007. I knew I could not afford that, and in fact I did not think I could afford the $315k that I borrowed. I am extremely conservative with my money, and now 6 years later I am glad I did it.
Individuals need to do a budget and determine if they can afford the payments. There is enough blame to spread around to everyone. If one person would have said, “No, I can not afford this.” we would not be in the situation that we are in. You can blame the borrower, the lender, and definitely the politician that forced the lenders to lend the money to the high risk individuals.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I was offered $500k to buy a house in 2007. I knew I could not afford that, and in fact I did not think I could afford the $315k that I borrowed. I am extremely conservative with my money, and now 6 years later I am glad I did it.
Individuals need to do a budget and determine if they can afford the payments. There is enough blame to spread around to everyone. If one person would have said, “No, I can not afford this.” we would not be in the situation that we are in. You can blame the borrower, the lender, and definitely the politician that forced the lenders to lend the money to the high risk individuals.[/quote]
I think this is the majority of the problem, People that tried to benefit their financial picture (even though they lost) does not equate to CRIME. People making money at other peoples expense , if not illegal should be . Intent is the word of the day
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I was offered $500k to buy a house in 2007. I knew I could not afford that, and in fact I did not think I could afford the $315k that I borrowed. I am extremely conservative with my money, and now 6 years later I am glad I did it.
Individuals need to do a budget and determine if they can afford the payments. There is enough blame to spread around to everyone. If one person would have said, “No, I can not afford this.” we would not be in the situation that we are in. You can blame the borrower, the lender, and definitely the politician that forced the lenders to lend the money to the high risk individuals.[/quote]
I think this is the majority of the problem, People that tried to benefit their financial picture (even though they lost) does not equate to CRIME. People making money at other peoples expense , if not illegal should be . Intent is the word of the day
[/quote]
In this day in time Credit is the name of the game. I treat credit like a cobra snake. If mishandled it will bite you in the butt and then what? You are screwed. I don’t think the banks are 100% to blame. The politicians (Dems and Repubs) believed that owning a house was the American Dream. The Politicians forced the banks to lend to sub prime borrowers. The Banks liked making the fees and then sold the loans to Fannie Mae as quick as they could, because they knew they were going to blow up at some point. People with bad credit have bad credit for a reason. They do not know how to manage their finances.
There is a lot of blame to go around.
I bought up 7 properties in the aftermath. My net worth right now is up $500k because of it, and now easy money is making it go up each day. I will be selling my properties in the next 2 years and walking with $500-$750k and making $30k a year in cashflow. I only had to use $50k to get that type of return.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
The little guy created the mess. Some very large banks and corporations exacerbated the debacle, but the blame for that mess lies squarely upon every person in the US who borrowed way too much for their own personal capacity to pay it back.
[/quote]
Thank you! (internet applause)[/quote]
I disagree with Skyz, The banks made all the profit . The people that bought outside their ability to pay no longer have the possession they could not afford . Just follow the money
[/quote]
I’ll be sure to run that by the hundreds that closed down in the months following the crash.
Or the ones that were bailed out?
Wait, what was that you said about profit?
[/quote]
If I steal your money then it is ok ? Or do I have to be a bank ?
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I was offered $500k to buy a house in 2007. I knew I could not afford that, and in fact I did not think I could afford the $315k that I borrowed. I am extremely conservative with my money, and now 6 years later I am glad I did it.
Individuals need to do a budget and determine if they can afford the payments. There is enough blame to spread around to everyone. If one person would have said, “No, I can not afford this.” we would not be in the situation that we are in. You can blame the borrower, the lender, and definitely the politician that forced the lenders to lend the money to the high risk individuals.[/quote]
I think this is the majority of the problem, People that tried to benefit their financial picture (even though they lost) does not equate to CRIME. People making money at other peoples expense , if not illegal should be . Intent is the word of the day
[/quote]
In this day in time Credit is the name of the game. I treat credit like a cobra snake. If mishandled it will bite you in the butt and then what? You are screwed. I don’t think the banks are 100% to blame. The politicians (Dems and Repubs) believed that owning a house was the American Dream. The Politicians forced the banks to lend to sub prime borrowers. The Banks liked making the fees and then sold the loans to Fannie Mae as quick as they could, because they knew they were going to blow up at some point. People with bad credit have bad credit for a reason. They do not know how to manage their finances.
There is a lot of blame to go around.
I bought up 7 properties in the aftermath. My net worth right now is up $500k because of it, and now easy money is making it go up each day. I will be selling my properties in the next 2 years and walking with $500-$750k and making $30k a year in cashflow. I only had to use $50k to get that type of return.[/quote]
I think the politicians bought into this anti regulation nonsense . Regulations are laws . Nothing more nothing less. We need a law to stipulate where in the process profit can be taken out . The way the banks were doing it was right at the beginning before obligations . The best way to rob the bank is run it
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
The little guy created the mess. Some very large banks and corporations exacerbated the debacle, but the blame for that mess lies squarely upon every person in the US who borrowed way too much for their own personal capacity to pay it back.
[/quote]
Thank you! (internet applause)[/quote]
I disagree with Skyz, The banks made all the profit . The people that bought outside their ability to pay no longer have the possession they could not afford . Just follow the money
[/quote]
I’ll be sure to run that by the hundreds that closed down in the months following the crash.
Or the ones that were bailed out?
Wait, what was that you said about profit?
[/quote]
If I steal your money then it is ok ? Or do I have to be a bank ?
[/quote]
If I ask you for some and we enter into a contract wherein I pay you back plus interest, then I welch on it, then there was no theft except on the part of the borrower.
I’m surprised that no regular people were charged with theft by deception. I think that the only thing that prevented it is that the banks were so damn willing to be decieved, and the large majority of America that got caught with their hand in the cookie jar cried foul louder and faster than the lending institutions.
Or are you accusing banks of usury because they tried to make money?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
We need a law to stipulate where in the process profit can be taken out .[/quote]
Really? You want government determining when and where profit can be made?
Is this a honest and true statement or are you trolling?
What do you mean here? The banks had no obligation other than get returns, both short and long, for their investors…
That is what they did.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
The little guy created the mess. Some very large banks and corporations exacerbated the debacle, but the blame for that mess lies squarely upon every person in the US who borrowed way too much for their own personal capacity to pay it back.
[/quote]
Thank you! (internet applause)[/quote]
I disagree with Skyz, The banks made all the profit . The people that bought outside their ability to pay no longer have the possession they could not afford . Just follow the money
[/quote]
I’ll be sure to run that by the hundreds that closed down in the months following the crash.
Or the ones that were bailed out?
Wait, what was that you said about profit?
[/quote]
If I steal your money then it is ok ? Or do I have to be a bank ?
[/quote]
If I ask you for some and we enter into a contract wherein I pay you back plus interest, then I welch on it, then there was no theft except on the part of the borrower.
I’m surprised that no regular people were charged with theft by deception. I think that the only thing that prevented it is that the banks were so damn willing to be decieved, and the large majority of America that got caught with their hand in the cookie jar cried foul louder and faster than the lending institutions.
Or are you accusing banks of usury because they tried to make money?
[/quote]
Let’s say I contract with you $100,000 to build an addition to your house . Then I take the $100,000 as a bonus file bankruptcy and don’t honor my obligation ? There are laws about me doing that . But banks must not because American Tax payers bail out the banks and key peopke take the money as bonuses . The money was for the banks obligations . Same as your 100k
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
What do you mean here? The banks had no obligation other than get returns,
[/quote]
Why did we bail them out , from what ? Because they could not pay their returns ?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[/quote]
Really? You want government determining when and where profit can be made?
[/quote]
Yes I want the Gov to make laws that prohibit stealing no matter how complex the MO is
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
What do you mean here? The banks had no obligation other than get returns,
[/quote]
Why did we bail them out , from what ? Because they could not pay their returns ?
[/quote]
What does TARP stand for?
They were bailed out because they are government cronies who’s balance sheet suddenly looked like massive shit and the market tanked for their products. And it isn’t like they could turn around and take the subordinated RE and sell it for a small loss, the housing market tanked as well. And it isn’t like they could collect the insurance they had on such products, the same company insured all those products. They were fucked, their stock prices dropped towards the floor. The few that could started trying to buy the banks that were failing, if not just to paoch the whale clients…
Of course the offical reason (among many) was credit markets dried up, and the movement of money came to a stand still… Which is bad, but not the whole story.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Really? You want government determining when and where profit can be made?
[/quote]
Yes I want the Gov to make laws that prohibit stealing no matter how complex the MO is
[/quote]
Move to N. Korea or Cuba then.
Profit isn’t stealing, unless you are a lefty.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
What do you mean here? The banks had no obligation other than get returns,
[/quote]
Why did we bail them out , from what ?
[/quote]
That’s an outstanding question, pittbulll.
You, like most union guys I’ve ever met, seem to be well-meaning, if nothing else.
Freedom entails responsibility(consequences) for actions. If a business or individual makes poor decisions, let it or them fail(unless charitable private donations save it or them).
There should be a wall of separation between the economy and state.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[/quote]
Really? You want government determining when and where profit can be made?
[/quote]
Yes I want the Gov to make laws that prohibit stealing no matter how complex the MO is
[/quote]
Who stole what from whom?