• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Food Stamp Rolls to Grow Through 2014, CBO Says

the problem is far older than that, and is even broader than bipartisan. it began in the early 1970s or before.

the decades surrounding globalization and mechanization will be interesting historically. it's almost as if we're entering a post-labor economy. unfortunately, it's happening from the ground up, as those jobs are most easily replaced by machines or cheap labor. when that labor ceases to be cheap, it will be a race to the bottom. once the bottom is reached, those jobs will be mechanized as well.

The problem goes much further back than that, over 2 thousand years ago, people were teaching others, how to manage their money well.
It still hasn't caught on.
 

Oh my, a liberal that wants government to spend more money on systems that can not support themselves. Go figure.

Are you trying to make an argument that people with cars or cell phones should not receive fed/state food assistance because they have cars or cell phones? Do you have any clue as to how little you have to make to qualify for SANP assistance? We are talking poverty level.

When 'poverty' includes having a car and the latest smart phone with an expensive unlimited data plan, it would appear someone has re-defined what 'poverty' is.
 
The problem goes much further back than that, over 2 thousand years ago, people were teaching others, how to manage their money well.
It still hasn't caught on.
Ah, huge job losses and massive wealth deterioration...due to the biggest recession since '29....is caused by....poor personal money management.

Interesting position.
 
Ah, huge job losses and massive wealth deterioration...due to the biggest recession since '29....is caused by....poor personal money management.

Interesting position.


That definitely has a part to play for sure. Just because you are given a credit card with a $ limit, doesn't mean that you actually spend it. Just because you are offered that $500K house with no income verification, and a payment of interest only, doesn't mean that you actually sign the loan and take the house you know damned well you can NOT afford.

j-mac
 
When 'poverty' includes having a car and the latest smart phone with an expensive unlimited data plan, it would appear someone has re-defined what 'poverty' is.
Again, you have made some huge assumptions based on single point anecdotal data without displaying any understanding of the program or of the terms used.

Dealing in absolutes without any tolerance or charity during a significant economic crisis for many families is bizarre.
 
Again, you have made some huge assumptions based on single point anecdotal data without displaying any understanding of the program or of the terms used.

Dealing in absolutes without any tolerance or charity during a significant economic crisis for many families is bizarre.

"Charity" isn't always measured in terms of money redistributed in the form of give aways is it? "Charity" is also IMHO, teaching people to do the right things so that they can become self sufficient.....

j-mac
 
That definitely has a part to play for sure. Just because you are given a credit card with a $ limit, doesn't mean that you actually spend it. Just because you are offered that $500K house with no income verification, and a payment of interest only, doesn't mean that you actually sign the loan and take the house you know damned well you can NOT afford.

j-mac
Many many people were able to maintain the mortgage they assumed until the job losses came.

And this argument of shifting the blame from those who controlled the lending (who should have the much better knowledge of the market) to the borrower is weak, very weak.....and it points again to this defense of the wealthy, which makes no sense from multiple aspects.
 
"Charity" isn't always measured in terms of money redistributed in the form of give aways is it? "Charity" is also IMHO, teaching people to do the right things so that they can become self sufficient.....

j-mac
I'm sorry...how do you "teach" someone to get a job when you have 5 people competing for a single job? Again, your argument assumes a "normal" job market and this is anything but normal. The charity we are talking about RIGHT NOW, HERE, is food.
 
Last edited:
Again, you have made some huge assumptions based on single point anecdotal data without displaying any understanding of the program or of the terms used.

You are one of the one's that thinks a car and a smart phone are necessities of modern life. Spin however you want, you have re-defined poverty to a level that would leave most of the truly poor in the world laughing at you.

But you are not alone. Many consider 'poverty' to be a much higher standard of living than it is in the rest of the world. There are people that choose poorly, the blame for their choices falls on nobody but themselves.

Many many people were able to maintain the mortgage they assumed until the job losses came.

And this argument of shifting the blame from those who controlled the lending (who should have the much better knowledge of the market) to the borrower is weak, very weak.....and it points again to this defense of the wealthy, which makes no sense from multiple aspects.

And many people think ahead and do not put themselves into a house that stretches their limits. They consider the possibility of 'what if' and get what they know they can make work if hard times come. It's called being responsible.

Because a bank offers to give someone money, it doesn't make the bank the bad party if someone comes along and makes the bad decision to get into something they know they should not get into. Calling out a lack of personal responsibility is not shifting blame or defending the 'rich'.
 
You are one of the one's that thinks a car and a smart phone are necessities of modern life.
A car and a phone are a requirement for most jobs, again you assume both are Rolls-Royce units, this is a stupid suggestion.
Spin however you want, you have re-defined poverty to a level that would leave most of the truly poor in the world laughing at you.
Again, you are doing the assuming, and we know how that results.

But you are not alone. Many consider 'poverty' to be a much higher standard of living than it is in the rest of the world.
Again, you can't define either.
There are people that choose poorly, the blame for their choices falls on nobody but themselves.
Right, the huge increases of SNAP recipients is caused by poor choices......not the huge job losses and wealth depletion. These people "choice" was to quit and spend their life savings for the heck of it.... what blindness.



And many people think ahead and do not put themselves into a house that stretches their limits. They consider the possibility of 'what if' and get what they know they can make work if hard times come. It's called being responsible.
Again, the assumption that people have not totally depleted their savings due to extraordinary economic conditions, again the blindness continues.

Because a bank offers to give someone money, it doesn't make the bank the bad party if someone comes along and makes the bad decision to get into something they know they should not get into. Calling out a lack of personal responsibility is not shifting blame or defending the 'rich'.
Since most of the early defaulters were due in large measure to NINA loans, the lenders were definitely in the wrong. Most of the later defaults came from income loss and wealth depletion which is not the fault of the borrower.


You have yet to make an argument reflecting the reality of the situation.
 
Last edited:
I may well get a warning for it, but it must be said: You are a freaking moron. Pure and simple.

Just admit what you are, another liberal that does not believe in personal responsibility, that wants to blame any and all that have made a success of themselves, as if that is a bad thing. Another liberal that believes it's governments job to play robin hood, because those 'poor' people are too stupid to fend for themselves. Another liberal that has no real point to argue so he sticks to appeals to emotion rather than reality or personal responsibility. Another liberal that has no concept of the different between necessities and desires. Another liberal it is not worth engaging because there is no substance to engage.

581132_432947293401396_205344452828349_1543137_619565494_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
I may well get a warning for it, but it must be said: You are a freaking moron. Pure and simple.

Just admit what you are, another liberal that does not believe in personal responsibility, that wants to blame any and all that have made a success of themselves, as if that is a bad thing. Another liberal that believes it's governments job to play robin hood, because those 'poor' people are too stupid to fend for themselves. Another liberal that has no real point to argue so he sticks to appeals to emotion rather than reality or personal responsibility. Another liberal that has no concept of the different between necessities and desires. Another liberal it is not worth engaging because there is no substance to engage.
Are you respond to me? I ask because you couldn't quote anyone and this is posted on a new page.
 
Many many people were able to maintain the mortgage they assumed until the job losses came.

And this argument of shifting the blame from those who controlled the lending (who should have the much better knowledge of the market) to the borrower is weak, very weak.....and it points again to this defense of the wealthy, which makes no sense from multiple aspects.


Aw Bull Hockey! Look, I am not excusing the nature of lenders to their culpability of the practices in creating the garbage that was sold to people as a way to get in their dreams. But, the responsibility lies with the person signing the dotted line. Unless ofcourse they were holding guns on people to sign.


People saw credit as a way to instant gratification, and when there is demand the market will create something to meet that demand. In the end we had people in houses getting loans with NO verification as to whether or not they could actually pay the note, and then leveraging themselves in that mortgage with 2nd and 3rd's to buy the toys to keep up with the Jones's. Even the stupidest person could see that this couldn't last, but when republicans tried to sound the alarms, and regulators were also testifying that this was unsustainable, and they were attacked by demo's in the house, crying and bitching about how repubs just wanted to take the American dream from minorities....Well, see now what you sowed?


j-mac
 
Little off topic but this just pisses me off.........

So sick of reading my friends sisters' (who is on unemployment, snap, cell-phone paid for, all-kids insurance, got the landlord to section 8 the house she rents, ect) facebook posts bragging about her new iphone, mac computer, huge flatscreen tv, the $28,000 tuition costs us taxpayers are paying for, her vacation, ect. Makes me sick how these "poor" people live better than me!

Another friend who got laid off over 1 1/2 yrs ago and has NEVER applied for a job. Now all of a sudden, she gets pregnant and needs to find a job....gets one in a week!
 
Aw Bull Hockey! Look, I am not excusing the nature of lenders to their culpability of the practices in creating the garbage that was sold to people as a way to get in their dreams. But, the responsibility lies with the person signing the dotted line. Unless ofcourse they were holding guns on people to sign.
You are lumping the fraudsters with those who acted in good faith together.

Both the lender and the borrower are signing on a loan, the control of the loan is with the lender. They decide if they will lend. They are suppose to check credit, earnings, the true value of the property they are lending for.....they even get to take out default insurance, and they still retain ownership of the property when it defaults. No one holds a gun to the lender.


People saw credit as a way to instant gratification, and when there is demand the market will create something to meet that demand. In the end we had people in houses getting loans with NO verification as to whether or not they could actually pay the note, and then leveraging themselves in that mortgage with 2nd and 3rd's to buy the toys to keep up with the Jones's. Even the stupidest person could see that this couldn't last, but when republicans tried to sound the alarms, and regulators were also testifying that this was unsustainable, and they were attacked by demo's in the house, crying and bitching about how repubs just wanted to take the American dream from minorities....Well, see now what you sowed?


j-mac
The lending fed the boom, money was in huge supply and was looking for good returns. The stock market was still in doldrums, so investors went for commodities and real estate ALL AROUND THE WORLD. Lenders like Countrywide were giving loans to anyone with a pulse, this was augmented and evident by the low interest rates. Even the Bush admin pushed for increased mortgage lending. It was people like Brooksley Born who warned Greenspan et al of the out of control derivative market that was funding the mortgage tranches. They, the lenders, the credit agencies...they all had the overview of the market to know things were out of control.....NOT the individual borrower. The individual borrower had no inclining of the size of it. Those regulators did nothing, just as they did nothing when the dotcom boom busted. Bush stripped the SEC to nothing, the FBI was not investigating mortgage fraud even when they had full knowledge of it.

Don't try to shift this blame to individual borrowers, don't try to shift blame to SNAP recipients, those dogs won't hunt.
 
Little off topic but this just pisses me off.........

So sick of reading my friends sisters' (who is on unemployment, snap, cell-phone paid for, all-kids insurance, got the landlord to section 8 the house she rents, ect) facebook posts bragging about her new iphone, mac computer, huge flatscreen tv, the $28,000 tuition costs us taxpayers are paying for, her vacation, ect. Makes me sick how these "poor" people live better than me!

Another friend who got laid off over 1 1/2 yrs ago and has NEVER applied for a job. Now all of a sudden, she gets pregnant and needs to find a job....gets one in a week!

But all that must not be true. For we have several people in this thread that have said again and again those people are poor AND there are NO jobs to be had.

Funny how reality differs from their claims so often eh?
 
Little off topic but this just pisses me off.........

So sick of reading my friends sisters' (who is on unemployment, snap, cell-phone paid for, all-kids insurance, got the landlord to section 8 the house she rents, ect) facebook posts bragging about her new iphone, mac computer, huge flatscreen tv, the $28,000 tuition costs us taxpayers are paying for, her vacation, ect. Makes me sick how these "poor" people live better than me!

Another friend who got laid off over 1 1/2 yrs ago and has NEVER applied for a job. Now all of a sudden, she gets pregnant and needs to find a job....gets one in a week!
Report it.
If you don't, you are just part of the problem.
 
Ah, huge job losses and massive wealth deterioration...due to the biggest recession since '29....is caused by....poor personal money management.

Interesting position.

Absolutely.
No one twisted a lot of these folks arms and made them take multiple HELOCs out on their homes, nor did was anyone forced to buy more home than they could afford.
It was much more than banks behaving badly, it was Americans behaving badly with their money and credit.
 
Absolutely.
No one twisted a lot of these folks arms and made them take multiple HELOCs out on their homes, nor did was anyone forced to buy more home than they could afford.
It was much more than banks behaving badly, it was Americans behaving badly with their money and credit.
For the
period 2007-2009, borrowers were most frequently defaulting in the following order: credit cards, first
lien mortgage (prime and subprime), second lien home equity (HELOC & HELOAN), and auto loans.
Focusing on mortgage defaults, our results indicate that the default rate for first mortgages far
exceeded those of the second lien mortgages during the financial crisis.
http://www.philadelphiafed.org/research-and-data/publications/working-papers/2011/wp11-3.pdf

People were defaulting because of job loss primarily followed by strategic defaults due to wealth loss.
 
Last edited:
That definitely has a part to play for sure. Just because you are given a credit card with a $ limit, doesn't mean that you actually spend it. Just because you are offered that $500K house with no income verification, and a payment of interest only, doesn't mean that you actually sign the loan and take the house you know damned well you can NOT afford.

j-mac

That is true, but again, don't forgive those who oftered, who lied, who sought to make profit on the failure of others. Blame rarely lies in one place. And ask yourself one more question, if we don't use credit in a huge, over extending way, what happens to jobs? Will we really have more jobs if fewer are buying and more are saving? Or could it mean less jobs?
 
For the
period 2007-2009, borrowers were most frequently defaulting in the following order: credit cards, first
lien mortgage (prime and subprime), second lien home equity (HELOC & HELOAN), and auto loans.
Focusing on mortgage defaults, our results indicate that the default rate for first mortgages far
exceeded those of the second lien mortgages during the financial crisis.
http://www.philadelphiafed.org/research-and-data/publications/working-papers/2011/wp11-3.pdf

People were defaulting because of job loss primarily followed by strategic defaults due to wealth loss.

And they still should of made more rational financial decisions.
Wealth loss is not a justifiable reason to re neg on your mortgage agreement.

You're excusing the actions of these people, by saying they lost their jobs.
As if that were something new.
 
Wow -- 45 million of our 313 million people are on food stamps!

That's 14.38% -- closing in on twice the rate of the "official" unemployment figure .. and pretty much close to being equal with the unofficial unemployment rate.

These are good stats to present, as it helps to dispel the myth that we're "recovering".

As long as our jobs are still being off-shored, we'll still be doling out food stamps.
 
Wow -- 45 million of our 313 million people are on food stamps!

That's 14.38% -- closing in on twice the rate of the "official" unemployment figure .. and pretty much close to being equal with the unofficial unemployment rate.

These are good stats to present, as it helps to dispel the myth that we're "recovering".

As long as our jobs are still being off-shored, we'll still be doling out food stamps.

I really want to agree with you - but I don't think it would be enough to just employ people at a factory job.

For a small family (2 kids - mom/dad) Min wage is under $2K a month - around $12K a year. . . that's far less than the poverty level.

It's not so much a reflection of unemployment - it's a reflection of how little money people can make when they even do work full time: and how costly it is to live in a society every everything must be bought and paid for in large sums.
 
And they still should of made more rational financial decisions.
As I have said before, individual investors had little overview of the world-wide housing bubble, especially those buying 2002 thru 2004.
Wealth loss is not a justifiable reason to re neg on your mortgage agreement.
Huh? Investors default or take a loss on investments all the time, for some reason the same rules don't apply to home buyers. If an investment loses 50% of its value and has little chance of recovering for many years if ever, there is no financial reason to keep adding good money to bad.

You're excusing the actions of these people, by saying they lost their jobs.
As if that were something new.
Do you realize how that sounds, "just because they can't make their mortgage payment on an underwater investment due to job loss.... is no excuse".
 
Back
Top Bottom