• 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!

The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

Jasper, there is no way to honestly characterize the banks situation as low risk and high returns. High risk and high losses are the truth of the matter. Why do you think Obama is trying to twist their arms to liwer lending standards AGAIN? Hint: Because the banks don't WANT more high risk, low return loans. If it was the party you make it out to be, they'd be doing it without any arm twisting.

I agree, but the players somehow managed to pin AAA ratings on dog crap loans paying high returns, and that was possible because they could "insure" the losses on that dog crap with unregulated derivatives (simplified of course).

And we were I thought talking about the debt bubble and collapse, and now you need to make it partisan, so are bringing Obama into it. If there's a proposal by Obama to lower lending standards again, I'll probably agree it's a bad idea. But I looked briefly and didn't see anything new. Can you be specific?
 
Every time you hear a politician demanding that mortgage standards be lowered to make it easier for deadbeats to borrow money, you are hearing the proof that banks don't think bad risks are good business and that the government will twist their arms to make them do bad business.
 
or MAYBE it's that Obama is not a progressive (in the real economic sense) but is simply another in the long line of authoritarian pro-corporate politicians who simply has a progressive social agenda.

you hit the nail right on the head. Many of us thought we were getting FDR II and instead we got recycled Jimmy Carter.

I just wish Obama was the real radical liberal who actually earned the hatred of the right instead of just their knee jerk resentment based on precious little.
 
Every time you hear a politician demanding that mortgage standards be lowered to make it easier for deadbeats to borrow money, you are hearing the proof that banks don't think bad risks are good business and that the government will twist their arms to make them do bad business.

The government may set minimum standards, but it doesn't force any banks to make loans that they don't want to.
 
you hit the nail right on the head. Many of us thought we were getting FDR II and instead we got recycled Jimmy Carter.

I just wish Obama was the real radical liberal who actually earned the hatred of the right instead of just their knee jerk resentment based on precious little.

If we ever elected an extremist (from any extreme), we would quickly learn that our current politicians are all quite moderate, regardless of party affiliation.
 
I agree, but the players somehow managed to pin AAA ratings on dog crap loans paying high returns, and that was possible because they could "insure" the losses on that dog crap with unregulated derivatives (simplified of course).

And we were I thought talking about the debt bubble and collapse, and now you need to make it partisan, so are bringing Obama into it. If there's a proposal by Obama to lower lending standards again, I'll probably agree it's a bad idea. But I looked briefly and didn't see anything new. Can you be specific?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43768290
 

Got anything post 2011?

BTW, you can look really hard but you won't find me shedding any tears for BoA being mistreated by the bad government... Here's a story http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/b...another-bank-bailout.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Huh, that's nice, the NY Fed intervenes on BoA case to let them off the hook for a few billion in losses on bad loans they sold to AIG. Gosh, who bailed out AIG? We did! It's a nice laundry device because every dollar through AIG, and even dollars that never got to AIG but which we're ultimately on the hook for, is a direct bailout of AIG's customers, like BoA.

Here's another one Bank of America getting extra $20B in bailout funds - ABC News

Gosh, so sad, come running to taxpayers for a $45 BILLION aid package, then whine that some tiny little strings that require trivial loans to the disadvantaged are attached. Shame on Obama.

Where's my world's smallest violin?
 
Where am I up in arms that someone has more money than me? LOL Don't make up random ****, ludin, that's bad form.

(Oh and it is available to him, he just needs to earn less money. He can weigh the risks and benefits, and if it's so easy and great as you guys say, then he can choose to live below the poverty line and apply for some federal benefits).

this folks is liberal logic at it's finest.

nope not making stuff up at all. if liberals spent less time ranting about the 1% and more time working and doing stuff then they would be in the 1% as well.
 
For ****'s sake, Fletch... they are the ones who are indirectly governing. :roll: You think they donate gobs of cash and offer posh post-political career jobs cuz they're charitable?

So in other words, you cant come up with a single way that the rich pose a threat to you. Got it.
 
this folks is liberal logic at it's finest.

nope not making stuff up at all. if liberals spent less time ranting about the 1% and more time working and doing stuff then they would be in the 1% as well.

No they wouldn't, that would require insane luck, the 1% have the system gamed. The top 80 richest individuals in the world already own more than the poorest three billion! How does anybody jump that gap with a bit of hard work?
 
Federal income tax accounts for about half of all taxes brought in.

You're forgetting sales tax, excise taxes, property taxes, etc.

I don't have the link right now, but the numbers clearly show that, yes, the wealthy DO pay more total taxes than the rest....but it's far, far LESS of a percentage of total earnings.


In other words, everyone else SACRIFICES more of their total earnings to pay their tax bill than the wealthy.


BFD-the wealthy receive THE LEAST value for each tax dollar they pay. The wealthy pay more actual dollars and get NOTHING extra in return

You all forget about that all the time
 
Got anything post 2011?

BTW, you can look really hard but you won't find me shedding any tears for BoA being mistreated by the bad government... Here's a story http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/b...another-bank-bailout.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Huh, that's nice, the NY Fed intervenes on BoA case to let them off the hook for a few billion in losses on bad loans they sold to AIG. Gosh, who bailed out AIG? We did! It's a nice laundry device because every dollar through AIG, and even dollars that never got to AIG but which we're ultimately on the hook for, is a direct bailout of AIG's customers, like BoA.

Here's another one Bank of America getting extra $20B in bailout funds - ABC News

Gosh, so sad, come running to taxpayers for a $45 BILLION aid package, then whine that some tiny little strings that require trivial loans to the disadvantaged are attached. Shame on Obama.

Where's my world's smallest violin?

Loans with interest aren't handouts. You act like the government isn't profiting off this. Hell, the government is charging the banks a higher rate of interest on those loans than the banks charged for the mortgages they got stuck with. Why don't liberals know that handouts and loans are different because loans must be paid back? If everyone understood that loans must be repaid, we might not have had a financial crisis due to all the deadbeats shrugging their shoulders instead of fulfilling their obligations.
 
No they wouldn't, that would require insane luck, the 1% have the system gamed. The top 80 richest individuals in the world already own more than the poorest three billion! How does anybody jump that gap with a bit of hard work?

the same way they did.
save and invest, save and invest. it has nothing to do with luck.

I look to double my salary over the next 5 years or so. it won't have anything to do with luck but being good at what I do.
I have been to places with real wage gap. America is nothing.
 
Got anything post 2011?

BTW, you can look really hard but you won't find me shedding any tears for BoA being mistreated by the bad government... Here's a story http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/b...another-bank-bailout.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Huh, that's nice, the NY Fed intervenes on BoA case to let them off the hook for a few billion in losses on bad loans they sold to AIG. Gosh, who bailed out AIG? We did! It's a nice laundry device because every dollar through AIG, and even dollars that never got to AIG but which we're ultimately on the hook for, is a direct bailout of AIG's customers, like BoA.

Here's another one Bank of America getting extra $20B in bailout funds - ABC News

Gosh, so sad, come running to taxpayers for a $45 BILLION aid package, then whine that some tiny little strings that require trivial loans to the disadvantaged are attached. Shame on Obama.

Where's my world's smallest violin?

yea but it was those same lower standards that caused the whole banking mess to begin with.
if you can't afford a house then you can't afford a house.

rent or get a condo until you can.
 
The actual strawman is in liberals posing that we are saying that the poor on welfare have it good....It's ridiculous...And you came out with the usual meme 'well, they should try it', And I called you on it, now you are running from your own words....hilarious....

On a more serious note though, that IS what you and other libs believe...That the wealthy don't deserve their wealth, and that they should give most of it up so that it can be re distributed to the poor....If you want my take, I think that there should be a flat tax of say 15% across the board from the lowest, to the highest, and no cap on income, and no loophole deductions. That way it really would be FAIR!

J-mac, it's useless talking to you because you just make up **** that other people say. Every post is a giant straw man.

Learn how to debate. It's annoying. And I never said "try it".
 
The mortgage defaults were absolutely the cause. When the housing prices crashed, millions of people walked away from their mortgages and stuck the banks with their losses. It was so much so fast that even the biggest financial institutions reeled from the losses. The sub-prime mortgage orgy set it up. The homeowners walking out on their mortgages en masse triggered it. And the credit default swaps sent the shock waves through every corner of the globe and the financial markets.

Right, but it was the massive institutions realizing that they were on the wrong side of these trades and getting crushed by margin calls that set off the biggest chain of events.

How many of these banks go down if they are not all overstocked on these bad securities?
 
this folks is liberal logic at it's finest.

nope not making stuff up at all. if liberals spent less time ranting about the 1% and more time working and doing stuff then they would be in the 1% as well.

That's not liberal logic... it's the truth. There is no attribute other than his income keeping him from qualifying for those programs.

There are a lot of programs that I don't use that I understand need to be funded. I don't bitch about it, because I'm not childish.
 
Loans with interest aren't handouts. You act like the government isn't profiting off this. Hell, the government is charging the banks a higher rate of interest on those loans than the banks charged for the mortgages they got stuck with. Why don't liberals know that handouts and loans are different because loans must be paid back? If everyone understood that loans must be repaid, we might not have had a financial crisis due to all the deadbeats shrugging their shoulders instead of fulfilling their obligations.

If they weren't handouts, why did they need to run to the government and not get a nice $45 Billion loan on the "free market?" Why'd they need the Fed to bail them out of their litigation with AIG?

I really don't understand why a so-called conservative is defending crony capitalism and bailouts of private industry by their government lackeys. It's pretty stunning, really. And then to shift the blame for the BANK failures to borrowers is also quite something. Last I heard, one of the first rules of lending is to not lend to deadbeats. Instead, these guys were BEGGING deadbeats to take their money, and so they did. You'd make a good CEO of a bank. "It's someone else's fault - please pay me $10 million!"
 
Right, but it was the massive institutions realizing that they were on the wrong side of these trades and getting crushed by margin calls that set off the biggest chain of events.

How many of these banks go down if they are not all overstocked on these bad securities?

I don't think you understand what really happened. The bad "securities" were homes they couldn't sell for enough to cover the defaults. And AIG insured them and those swaps were all over the world. If AIG was allowed to go bankrupt, the swaps would have become worth exactly zero and then the damage is global and unrecoverable. Loan AIG and other institutions enough to cover their obligations and the crash doesn't hit the whole world (and pensions and retirement plans for everyone). And the thing is.... All those financial instruments made sense and would never have been a problem in any normal circumstances.

But circumstances weren't normal. People bought into the idea that a home will only go up in value and so they bought whatever they could at any price asked and felt all fat and happy. The market overheated and housing prices dropped and now they're not so happy and figure that since they paid more than the house is worth, they just walk, take the credit hit and stick the banks (and ultimately, all the rest of us) with the losses. THAT was the basis of the crash.
 
BFD-the wealthy receive THE LEAST value for each tax dollar they pay. The wealthy pay more actual dollars and get NOTHING extra in return

You all forget about that all the time

Get nothing in return. Goodness, where do you make this stuff up? GE gets nothing from a massive military protecting $billions in investments overseas? Wow, that's surprising! They get nothing in return from stable currency, a banking system that didn't collapse and take out their massive leveraged positions in leasing? They get nothing from the $billions in government contracts? Social stability? Roads, ports, airports? An education system that trains their workers for free? GE never goes to court? Transfer payments don't make their refrigerators affordable to more customers?
 
If they weren't handouts, why did they need to run to the government and not get a nice $45 Billion loan on the "free market?" Why'd they need the Fed to bail them out of their litigation with AIG?

I really don't understand why a so-called conservative is defending crony capitalism and bailouts of private industry by their government lackeys. It's pretty stunning, really. And then to shift the blame for the BANK failures to borrowers is also quite something. Last I heard, one of the first rules of lending is to not lend to deadbeats. Instead, these guys were BEGGING deadbeats to take their money, and so they did. You'd make a good CEO of a bank. "It's someone else's fault - please pay me $10 million!"

You really don't know the difference between a loan and a handout. That explains a lot.
 
The banks should have been allowed to fail. They made bad choices in loaning past the secured values. The principle of it would keep it from occurring again.

Gamblers should not be given back their losses.

As for a loan to banks? How many never repaid it?
 
Get nothing in return. Goodness, where do you make this stuff up? GE gets nothing from a massive military protecting $billions in investments overseas?

Wow. You really do think the purpose of the military is to be global corporate security guards. That explains a lot.
 
The banks should have been allowed to fail. They made bad choices in loaning past the secured values. The principle of it would keep it from occurring again.

Gamblers should not be given back their losses.

As for a loan to banks? How many never repaid it?

I tend to agree. I do believe things would have been much, MUCH worse if we hadn't bailed out AIG and a few of the other big players. But maybe we needed to feel the pain a little more. As it stands, I'm not sure we learned a damn thing. I know a lot of people on this thread certainly didn't , anyway.
 
Get nothing in return. Goodness, where do you make this stuff up? GE gets nothing from a massive military protecting $billions in investments overseas? Wow, that's surprising! They get nothing in return from stable currency, a banking system that didn't collapse and take out their massive leveraged positions in leasing? They get nothing from the $billions in government contracts? Social stability? Roads, ports, airports? An education system that trains their workers for free? GE never goes to court? Transfer payments don't make their refrigerators affordable to more customers?

you DISHONESTLY quoted what I said

i said I GET NOTHING EXTRA in return for all those tax dollars forced out of them
 
Back
Top Bottom