Actually, Hatz, on this one RTS is correct. The regulatory beuracracy at Housing and Urban Development changed the rules drastically to loosen the restrictions upon loans to low-income and minority applicants. Drastically. The numbers vary, but the default rate on both home loans and credit cards for applicants who would not have qualified prior to 1994 has been over 75%, compared to less than 30% of other applicants. I am sorry I don't have a link, but my office, which did a large amount of real estate work (that has been shrunk significantly) and commercial litigation, gets regular reports from the title insurers and other underwriters that reports this stuff. It was an ideologically driven regulatory scheme, and it torpedoes the ship.

 

So ACORN, Obama and others of like ilk FORCED all the banks to make these loans that practically bankrupted their companies.

 

I don't think that's exactly what you are saying Hearsay.

 

But RTS stated it like this: They (banks) were forced and threatened and bullied by the govt and people like Obama through organizations like ACORN to give loans to people that didn't qualify.

 

Are you both saying the exact same thing? That ACORN and Obama did this from 2006 to present and the government (controlled by the GOP from 2000 to 2006) did not.

 

I think it matters little but I go back to my supposition. RTS (who I do like despite this difference) made a simplistic, accusatory answer as to "why we are in this mess (see above). I disagree but am willing to be put straight by you. Look at the original statement by RTS, do you agree that is the cause? :idunno:

I would guess because they sell their loans.

 

Excellent guess. Hence the begining of the process that creates "toxic assets." Nothing to destroy business like investing in the sub prime market.:thumb:

I appreciate the compliment, but as most anyone can tell you I know little of personal finances. So it was a real micro and macro question.

 

Here is why I am a progressive - and this is not to nit pick, but currently we have a large concentration of wealth in this country in a relatively few hands. If it is not loosed from those hands who has money to spend. We all know that median family income has decreased since the 70s, so all of the spending we have been doing is debt spending and now we are worried because individuals can't get loans.

 

It is a real question, that I hope someone will show some real insight on, where does spending money come from, and how can it be generated in this economy?

 

I work in public education and the legislature says to raise for me this year - I am not complaining - but I certainly am not going to go out and spend much money either, if I don't spend I don't create a demand so producers don't produce, so where are we? Where does the money come from?

 

Are you saying that you are for wealth redistribution?

Talking points and arguing which side of the isle is to blame is not going to solve anything, and will make it worse as nothing will be getting done.

 

As RM stated, people who were financially ok and did not live above their means are losing their jobs too because of the problem. Then those people are losing their homes too as they have no jobs, or they found a newer job for a lot less money.

 

I know of a couple of people who are in this mess who were financially sound, then they lost jobs they had for decades. I also knew of two people who got a loan because the lender fudged the numbers a bit without them even knowing about it. They didn't do anything wrong, the lender did.

 

Then you have the whole mess with the stock market, people losing most of their live savings.

 

How much did the government give these big banks? Which was supposed to help them so they will continue to lend, they are turning down good loans now too, they just got bailed out and are sitting on their money.

 

How much do these stock brokers and exec's make in bonuses per year? I THOUGHT I heard it was around 40 billion? I will have to look that up to see if that is correct, but if that is even close, think of how much that would help out the situation.

 

We need people to spend, but within their means. When Bush (not blaming him) gave out the stimulus checks, he thought people would spend it, they did not, they either paid off a few bills or they saved it, as they were scared, and still scared. Even people who have expendable income are a bit worried and are not spending. Then you got people waiting, waiting to get a better deal on things.

 

Something needs to be done, and the hell with the talk. If you think it's bad here, just think how bad it is in other countries.

Are you saying that you are for wealth redistribution?

 

I won't say I am, but I am against exec's getting millions in bonuses when we are in this mess. I would like to see one, just one, say I don't deserve it, or I am taking this bonus and help out the situation.

I won't say I am, but I am against exec's getting millions in bonuses when we are in this mess. I would like to see one, just one, say I don't deserve it, or I am taking this bonus and help out the situation.

 

I understand your feeling on executive bonuses within failing companies. I just would never allow myself to believe that this country should embark on a policy that begins with the idea wealth should be taken from someone who has accumulated it and given to someone else. Of course, we already have policies that match those ideals.

Are you saying that you are for wealth redistribution?

 

I am for a system that allows wealth to be distributed more evenly. However that might occur.

 

In 2007 the top 10% of earners brought home 50% of the wages. Emmanuel Saez - Cal Berkely

 

http://www.savingtoinvest.com/2008/10/americas-income-and-wealth-inequality.html

 

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated. As of 2004, the top 1% of households owned 34.3% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional and small business stratum) had 50.3%, which means that just 20% of the people control 85% of the nation’s wealth, leaving only 15% for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth less the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had a 42.2% share of the overall

 

wealth.http://www.examiner.com/x-13259-Atlanta-Mortgage-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Distribution-of-wealth-and-power-in-the-US

I am for a system that allows wealth to be distributed more evenly. However that might occur.

 

In 2007 the top 10% of earners brought home 50% of the wages. Emmanuel Saez - Cal Berkely

 

http://www.savingtoinvest.com/2008/10/americas-income-and-wealth-inequality.html

 

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated. As of 2004, the top 1% of households owned 34.3% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional and small business stratum) had 50.3%, which means that just 20% of the people control 85% of the nation’s wealth, leaving only 15% for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth less the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had a 42.2% share of the overall

 

wealth.http://www.examiner.com/x-13259-Atlanta-Mortgage-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Distribution-of-wealth-and-power-in-the-US

 

Without the motivation and possibility for people to move themselves in that category, where is the motivation for innovation provided in our economy. Otherwise, why should I become great or do great things if I can't be financially rewarded for it.

Without the motivation and possibility for people to move themselves in that category, where is the motivation for innovation provided in our economy. Otherwise, why should I become great or do great things if I can't be financially rewarded for it.

That's the part that just won't sink in with those that are in love with wealth redistribution...

Without the motivation and possibility for people to move themselves in that category, where is the motivation for innovation provided in our economy. Otherwise, why should I become great or do great things if I can't be financially rewarded for it.

 

If you look at the numbers, people are not moving up. The wealth is being controlled by a small few. I am all for a system that allows people to move up, but ours apparently is not. More and more wealth is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. The system that you describe is not in effect in the United States.

Without the motivation and possibility for people to move themselves in that category, where is the motivation for innovation provided in our economy. Otherwise, why should I become great or do great things if I can't be financially rewarded for it.

Maybe just maybe for the pure satisfaction of creating something new and Innovative . Otherwise 1 Timothy 6:10 .

Maybe just maybe for the pure satisfaction of creating something new and Innovative . Otherwise 1 Timothy 6:10 .

 

Might work in theory, but just does not in practice. Although I wish the world were more that way, but it just is not.

If you look at the numbers, people are not moving up. The wealth is being controlled by a small few. I am all for a system that allows people to move up, but ours apparently is not. More and more wealth is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. The system that you describe is not in effect in the United States.

 

Its certainly not the top one percent, but I had a family member go from working for someone else his entire life to starting a business in this horrible economy where his income has climbed to four or five times what he used to make. It takes initiative and risk.

Its certainly not the top one percent, but I had a family member go from working for someone else his entire life to starting a business in this horrible economy where his income has climbed to four or five times what he used to make. It takes initiative and risk.

 

Anecdotal, single story evidence is not the norm. I know people who lived to be 104 and smoked all of their life, that does not mean that smoking is not bad for you. For every single story you give me, I can give you 10 of people losing their jobs and their former bosses getting pay raises.

 

Our system presently does not reward labor and hard work.

Anecdotal, single story evidence is not the norm. I know people who lived to be 104 and smoked all of their life, that does not mean that smoking is not bad for you. For every single story you give me, I can give you 10 of people losing their jobs and their former bosses getting pay raises.

 

Our system presently does not reward labor and hard work.

 

If you are talking about the type of labor job where you are an easily replacable employee, I will agree with you.