djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 5, 2012 23:26:34 GMT -5
Greed wears a blindfold. Millions were made through greed and now the price tag is going to haunt our economy for a long time. agreed. it is like the ball and chain on Jacob Marley's leg.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 6, 2012 9:26:28 GMT -5
Because it is a social problem Paul, especially where males are concerned. You cannot put a lot of rough, blue collar men in girly-girly jobs. That is one reason why so many urban youth are not responsible married men any more. No jobs except Mickey D's. The devil makes work for idle hands. Better to have some inefficiency and less welfare. The reason so many urban youth are not responsible, married men anymore is because the government is raising their babies, and people like Mitt Romney are pricing them out of the labor market- www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/01/romney-supports-automatic-hikes-in-minimum-wage/The simple fact is they aren't responsible because they don't have to be- and if they want to be, the government has put up roadblocks. There will be "blue collar" manufacturing jobs in America for decades to come, but they will NOT be unskilled. They will require technical ability, and they actually pay very well. We still need machinist, and operators and maintenance personnel for automation equipment. The bottom line is men are not the apes you describe. Your sexist and otherwise just plain strange assumptions about the male of the species completely dismisses the idea that they can, they will, they must adapt. The idea that we're ever going to return to low tech factories full of people manually putting things together is just plain fantasy. It's never going to happen. And we don't have the money to send irresponsible people who refuse to adapt a welfare check. If you're unfortunate enough to be one of the people who insists you ought to be able to keep an unskilled job for 30 or 40 hours a day, be paid as much as a doctor or an attorney, and retire with a pension that would make a Congressman blush-- time to put on your big boy pants and adapt. The gravy train came to a full and complete stop years ago- time to get your arms, legs, and butt out of the train and off to work.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 6, 2012 9:29:23 GMT -5
We made NO attempt to stop the housing bubble. GOD no. we encouraged it. that is because it was very profitable, and scored political points. Laffer and his minions thought everyone who was crying alarm was engaging in scare tactics. they were ALL wrong. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this has all been blamed on GOP policies. I know that at times the GOP went along- but I'd like to know specifically when was it decided that the taxpayer would back sub-prime mortgages, and who exactly- I want names- proposed that? Who opposed it? Who sounded the warning, and who dismissed it? I'm talking elected officials here, not the talking heads and political operatives.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 6, 2012 9:36:14 GMT -5
There's actually a book out called "Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon- which was written by two authors, one of which is a business writer at the New York Times. He figured that would mean the book tilts left but instead he found that the book basically lays the entire sub prime mortgage crisis at the feet of the Democratic Party. He says it’s a credible indictment of the Democratic Party that can be used as a WMD by Republican nominees for president.
It really doesn't matter how you 'feel' about it, Rush Limbaugh reviewed the book, and he is spot on. If you can refute the arguments- I'd love to hear it:
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2012 10:55:25 GMT -5
GOD no. we encouraged it. that is because it was very profitable, and scored political points. Laffer and his minions thought everyone who was crying alarm was engaging in scare tactics. they were ALL wrong. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this has all been blamed on GOP policies. I know that at times the GOP went along- but I'd like to know specifically when was it decided that the taxpayer would back sub-prime mortgages, and who exactly- I want names- proposed that? Who opposed it? Who sounded the warning, and who dismissed it? I'm talking elected officials here, not the talking heads and political operatives. Peter Schiff sounded the warning, and Art Laffer and pretty much the entire real estate industry and FOX News scoffed at him.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2012 10:56:25 GMT -5
There's actually a book out called "Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon- which was written by two authors, one of which is a business writer at the New York Times. He figured that would mean the book tilts left but instead he found that the book basically lays the entire sub prime mortgage crisis at the feet of the Democratic Party. He says it’s a credible indictment of the Democratic Party that can be used as a WMD by Republican nominees for president. It really doesn't matter how you 'feel' about it, Rush Limbaugh reviewed the book, and he is spot on. If you can refute the arguments- I'd love to hear it: i don't have 15 minutes right now. i doubt that i will have it at any time today, but i might.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Feb 6, 2012 11:08:55 GMT -5
Re-educate yourself- all you would do is repeat that old line about how the CRA caused everything forcing banks to loan to poor minorities. Let me know when you have an original thought on something. Most of what we're dealing with is the result of the collapse of the housing market after decades of Democrat housing policy. We've been over this too many times to count. I'm not interested in taking the time on this particular evening to re-educate you on the topic. I think both of you are in serious denial. The damned republicans are just as bad as the democrats any more and the CRA actually played a major role in the bubble. “We can put light where there’s darkness, and hope where there’s despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home.” — President Bush, Oct. 15, 2002 The American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) was signed into law on December 16, 2003. ADDI helped first-time homebuyers with the biggest hurdle to homeownership: downpayment and closing costs. The program was created to assist low-income first-time homebuyers in purchasing single-family homes by providing funds for downpayment, closing costs, and rehabilitation carried out in conjunction with the assisted home purchase. Bush talks about this in his stump speech. "In changing times, ownership can bring stability to your lives," he said Sept. 13 in Holland, Mich. "One of the great statistics of the last couple of years is the homeownership rate is at an all-time high in America. We got a plan to continue homeownership in America. I love the fact when people from all walks of life can open up the door where they're living and say, 'Welcome to my home. Welcome to my piece of property.'"
The Bush administration has pursued this housing goal in two ways: by making it easier to buy a home with a low down payment, and by threatening to punish FHA lenders that foreclose too eagerly. www.bankrate.com/brm/news/mortgages/20040923a1.asp The National Homeownership Strategy (NHS) may have been the most comprehensive, pervasive, impactful and transformational public policy initiative in U.S. history. Yet only a small percentage of Americans have ever heard of it. Even fewer understand the NHS’ stated goal of record homeownership or are able to confirm whether those objectives were met.
The NHS was a massive, complex, coordinated undertaking.
The public policy initiative consisted of 100 distinct action items detailed within “The National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream” released by HUD in May 1995. Specific examples of these action items include the following subject titles:
Action 11: Removing Barriers to Mortgage Financing for Starter Homes Action 29: Alternative Approaches to Homebuying Transactions Action 35: Home Mortgage Loan-to-Value Flexibility Action 36: Subsidies to Reduce Downpayment and Mortgage Costs Action 44: Flexible Mortgage Underwriting Criteria Action 45: Public-Private Leveraging for Affordable Home Financing theaffordablemortgagedepression.com/2010/03/11/origin-of-the-housing-bubble-the-national-homeownership-strategy.aspx As originally enacted in 1977, the CRA vaguely mandated regulators to consider whether an insured bank was serving the needs of the “whole” community. For 16 years, the act was invoked rather infrequently, but 1993 marked a decisive turn in its enforcement. What changed? Substantial media and political attention was showered upon a 1992 Boston Federal Reserve Bank study of discrimination in home mortgage lending. This study concluded that, while there was no overt discrimination in banks’ allocation of mortgage funds, loan officers gave whites preferential treatment. The methodology of the study has since been questioned, but at the time it was highly influential with regulators and members of the incoming Clinton administration; in 1993, bank regulators initiated a major effort to reform the CRA regulations.
In 1995, the regulators created new rules that sought to establish objective criteria for determining whether a bank was meeting CRA standards. Examiners no longer had the discretion they once had. For banks, simply proving that they were looking for qualified buyers wasn’t enough. Banks now had to show that they had actually made a requisite number of loans to low- and moderate-income (LMI) borrowers. The new regulations also required the use of “innovative or flexible” lending practices to address credit needs of LMI borrowers and neighborhoods. Thus, a law that was originally intended to encourage banks to use safe and sound practices in lending now required them to be “innovative” and “flexible.” In other words, it called for the relaxation of lending standards, and it was the bank regulators who were expected to enforce these relaxed standards. spectator.org/archives/2009/02/06/the-true-origins-of-this-finan To deny the CRA played a role or that this was due to decades of democrat polity is simply partisian bullshit that nobody is buying. Both Clinton and Bush played a major role in the market bubble because it bought votes.
|
|
dothedd
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 20:43:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,683
|
Post by dothedd on Feb 6, 2012 13:52:50 GMT -5
Because it is a social problem Paul, especially where males are concerned. You cannot put a lot of rough, blue collar men in girly-girly jobs. That is one reason why so many urban youth are not responsible married men any more. No jobs except Mickey D's. The devil makes work for idle hands. Better to have some inefficiency and less welfare. The reason so many urban youth are not responsible, married men anymore is because the government is raising their babies, and people like Mitt Romney are pricing them out of the labor market- www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/01/romney-supports-automatic-hikes-in-minimum-wage/The simple fact is they aren't responsible because they don't have to be- and if they want to be, the government has put up roadblocks. There will be "blue collar" manufacturing jobs in America for decades to come, but they will NOT be unskilled. They will require technical ability, and they actually pay very well. We still need machinist, and operators and maintenance personnel for automation equipment. The bottom line is men are not the apes you describe. Your sexist and otherwise just plain strange assumptions about the male of the species completely dismisses the idea that they can, they will, they must adapt. The idea that we're ever going to return to low tech factories full of people manually putting things together is just plain fantasy. It's never going to happen. And we don't have the money to send irresponsible people who refuse to adapt a welfare check. If you're unfortunate enough to be one of the people who insists you ought to be able to keep an unskilled job for 30 or 40 hours a day, be paid as much as a doctor or an attorney, and retire with a pension that would make a Congressman blush-- time to put on your big boy pants and adapt. The gravy train came to a full and complete stop years ago- time to get your arms, legs, and butt out of the train and off to work. CHECK OUT - Uncle Sam's Plantation by Star Parker on Amazon.DEFINITELY A ...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 6, 2012 14:24:05 GMT -5
You really have to address the question: Why should unskilled jobs pay well? Why should people that are unambitious, haven't done anything to better themselves, have relatively few marketable skills, and those they have are possessed by large numbers (there's a big supply vs. demand of these individuals), and who aren't even willing to work hard-- put in long days without a lot of 'overtime' etc. be paid well? Because they work hard? Whose fault is that? Lazy people work hard. That's what my parents taught me. My dad drilled it into my head that if I didn't work hard now (when I was a kid) with my mind, I'd work hard with my body the rest of my life. When I said I didn't care, and I like hard work, my dad explained to me that I could only do those kinds of jobs for so long because my body would quit on me. My grandpa was actually the one that said those jobs aren't going to be there. I don't think it's a giant mystery to blue collar workers that their jobs are going away and will never come back. I think they've known this for a long time. It's hard to feel for people that have had years- if not decades to make the transition.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Feb 6, 2012 14:47:53 GMT -5
RECESSIONOMICS
25%
That's about how much less the 114,000 new Florida jobs added last year paid than the jobs that disappeared, according to a Tampa Bay Times analysis of jobs and industry wage data. The drop in Florida unemployment masks a troubling trend: The new jobs continue to pay far less than the ones that have been lost. The economic recovery grew and broadened during 2011. Florida created 10 times more jobs than it lost, and in a bright sign some higher-paying industries like financial services and manufacturing started hiring again. Nevertheless, many of the new jobs are still clustered in the low-wage spectrum: retail clerks, theme park workers, and restaurant help. And which industries are still losing jobs? The big three are government, construction and information - all industries that pay annual wages north of $40,000 on average. - tampabay.com
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2012 15:12:48 GMT -5
RECESSIONOMICS 25% That's about how much less the 114,000 new Florida jobs added last year paid than the jobs that disappeared, according to a Tampa Bay Times analysis of jobs and industry wage data. The drop in Florida unemployment masks a troubling trend: The new jobs continue to pay far less than the ones that have been lost. The economic recovery grew and broadened during 2011. Florida created 10 times more jobs than it lost, and in a bright sign some higher-paying industries like financial services and manufacturing started hiring again. Nevertheless, many of the new jobs are still clustered in the low-wage spectrum: retail clerks, theme park workers, and restaurant help. And which industries are still losing jobs? The big three are government, construction and information - all industries that pay annual wages north of $40,000 on average. - tampabay.com yep. this happened in the 90's too. it is part of an economic restructuring based on world markets.
|
|