Poverty is a criminal offense in America OP/ED.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-12-2013, 10:40 AM
RE: Poverty is a criminal offense in America OP/ED.
(10-12-2013 10:35 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(10-12-2013 09:57 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I don't justify banker's bonuses or CEO's salaries. The comparison is only that a CEO should not make what an entry level worker in that same company makes. Nor should they make a percentage below 300%.

I worked in the regulation industry. Specifically, I worked for FINRA. I can tell you, unequivocally, that these bankers work 20 hour days. Not an exaggeration. They should be compensated accordingly.

Yes, there is profit hearing and bonuses as incentives. But the post here was that we view those who are poor differently. That a rich person gets caught with crack, they need help. A poor person gets caught with crack, they need to go to jail.

I agree there, but the OP then launches into a tirade about how, with the GDP being what it is, how we can even have poverty to begin with. It must be because those evil bankers, CEOs, and corporations must not be sharing enough. We need more, have to do more, then hand the rich the bill when it comes due.


I was also pointing out that the OP appears to vilify the rich. Its ironic to decry one vilification, only to make another.

Yeah because vulture capitalism is not the cause of most of our problems these days. The wealth gap is approaching the point that the rich will have to either agree that 1000% the average workers salary is too much and start giving some back or face armed rebellion. There is already a rent crisis in this country and there is a food crisis not too far off. Both are ridiculous and caused by people who give little or nothing back to the system they and their families have exploited for generations. The system as it is right now is untenable and the only solutions are either a drastic change in how wealth flows or the people on the bottom go out and redistribute the wealth themselves. It has happened before and will do so again if the conditions reach a crisis point.

Or we could just eat cake. Angel

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
10-12-2013, 11:48 AM (This post was last modified: 10-12-2013 11:55 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: Poverty is a criminal offense in America OP/ED.
(10-12-2013 10:35 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Yeah because vulture capitalism is not the cause of most of our problems these days. The wealth gap is approaching the point that the rich will have to either agree that 1000% the average workers salary is too much and start giving some back or face armed rebellion. There is already a rent crisis in this country and there is a food crisis not too far off. Both are ridiculous and caused by people who give little or nothing back to the system they and their families have exploited for generations. The system as it is right now is untenable and the only solutions are either a drastic change in how wealth flows or the people on the bottom go out and redistribute the wealth themselves. It has happened before and will do so again if the conditions reach a crisis point.

Agreed. To a point. I think its kinda funny how everyone bitches about something being unfair, except for when its unfair in their favor…then they shut up about it.

I'm not saying that there aren't instances where the rich got rich off the backs of the poor. But you cannot blame the crash of the economy on the greed of the rich. You just can't.

When the housing bubble burst, I shook my head at all the homeowners in foreclosure pointing their fingers at the bank because the bank wouldn't re-negotiate their loans and crying unfairness and that the bank was taking advantage of those poor poor people. You know what? The homeowner bears the responsibility for this as well. They signed on the dotted line. $500,000 for a house when you make $60,000. Thats reasonable. Somehow, someway, people got it into their heads that homeownership was their god-given right.

Yes. The bank should not have given the loan. They they weren't exactly forcing people to sign the terms either. Don't understand how a balloon mortgage works? Don't get one! Don't understand interest rate arms? Don't even read the contract? No problem. Just sign and here is the keys to the McMansion you have no way of affording. When you think to yourself, meh, I'll just default if I can't pay, that is fraud. And its not the bank committing that fraud. Its you, the poor homeowner.

I see people who got to live in $800,000 dollar houses while being employed as a school bus driver, completely complicit in defrauding the bank, and indirectly, society who now has to chip in to cover the default. You get upset because bankers and CEOs didn't do jail time? Yeah, neither did the homeowner for signing for a loan they couldn't afford.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as zero risk. It is not anyone's responsibility to save you from yourself. You should not buy what you cannot afford and then expect everyone else to pick up the tab when you default.

Here is how a bank works (very simplistically): You deposit money. The bank turns around and loans that money to Sally. Sally is charged an interest rate (say 5%) to have that loan. The bank pays you .5% and keeps the 4.5% as income to keep the lights on and the vaults locked. (Remember, people bitch when they have to pay ATM/Checking fees). Sally Defaults on her loan, but the bank must still give you your deposit back. Sally isn't out any money. You aren't out any money. The bank is out the money.

Like it or not, people protest walmart - but that doesn't stop them from creating a market for which Walmart can capitalize. No. Not even a little bit. The Small mom and pop electronic store pays their employees more than minimum. How do they get rewarded for doing the right thing? They go out of business. Why? Because you want the cheapest price…you don't want to pay the increase in prices it would take by taking your business elsewhere and make walmart change their tune. If everyone stopped shopping at walmart, they would get the message.

Its ironic that people want to blame the retailer or market for existing out of one side of their mouth, but the market/retailer wouldn't exist if it weren't for those same jackasses in the first place. Spend. Spend. Spend.

Each and every one of us is to blame for the housing bubble bursting, and the stock market crashing. Its not all the banks fault, the regulators fault, the bankers fault, or even the consumer's fault.

Economists warned that this was coming. Stop over leveraging yourself, they said. The market cannot continue to rise, it will come down, they said. But no one listened…they were too busy watching American Idol and reading their gossip magazines to give a shit about what was coming.

I know I sound unsympathetic. And downright bitchy. I'm just tired of everyone thinking that their situation is someone else's fault and someone else's responsibility to get them out of it.

Don't spend more than you make. There is no reason for you to expect to make minimum wage and still live in Beverly Hills. Move out of the city where the cost of living is far more in line with what you are making. And don't tell me that some people are stuck, that they have no choice. They always have a choice. If immigrants could leave their belongings and come over to the US with $10 in their pocket to make a better life for themselves, well, dammit, then you can too. No one ever said it would be easy, or that the choices you have to make won't be hard…but you do have them.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
10-12-2013, 11:53 AM
RE: Poverty is a criminal offense in America OP/ED.
(10-12-2013 11:48 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(10-12-2013 10:35 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Yeah because vulture capitalism is not the cause of most of our problems these days. The wealth gap is approaching the point that the rich will have to either agree that 1000% the average workers salary is too much and start giving some back or face armed rebellion. There is already a rent crisis in this country and there is a food crisis not too far off. Both are ridiculous and caused by people who give little or nothing back to the system they and their families have exploited for generations. The system as it is right now is untenable and the only solutions are either a drastic change in how wealth flows or the people on the bottom go out and redistribute the wealth themselves. It has happened before and will do so again if the conditions reach a crisis point.

Agreed. To a point. I think its kinda funny how everyone bitches about something being unfair, except for when its unfair in their favor…then they shut up about it.

I'm not saying that there aren't instances where the rich got rich off the backs of the poor. But you cannot blame the crash of the economy on the greed of the rich. You just can't.

When the housing bubble burst, I shook my head at all the homeowners in foreclosure pointing their fingers at the bank because the bank wouldn't re-negotiate their loans and crying unfairness and that the bank was taking advantage of those poor poor people. You know what? The homeowner bears the responsibility for this as well. They signed on the dotted line. $500,000 for a house when you make $60,000. Thats reasonable. Somehow, someway, people got it into their heads that homeownership was their god-given right.

Yes. The bank should not have given the loan. They they weren't exactly forcing people to sign the terms either. Don't understand how a balloon mortgage works? Don't get one! Don't understand interest rate arms? Don't even read the contract? No problem. Just sign and here is the keys to the McMansion you have no way of affording.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as zero risk. It is not anyone's responsibility to save you from yourself. You should not buy what you cannot afford and then expect everyone else to pick up the tab when you default.

Here is how a bank works (very simplistically): You deposit money. The bank turns around and loans that money to Sally. Sally is charged an interest rate (say 5%) to have that loan. The bank pays you .5% and keeps the 4.5% as income to keep the lights on and the vaults locked. (Remember, people bitch when they have to pay ATM/Checking fees). Sally Defaults on her loan, but the bank must still give you your deposit back. Sally isn't out any money. You aren't out any money. The bank is out the money.

Like it or not, people protest walmart - but that doesn't stop them from creating a market for which Walmart can capitalize. No. Not even a little bit. Why? Because you want the cheapest price…you don't want to pay the increase in prices it would take by taking your business elsewhere and make walmart change their tune. If everyone stopped shopping at walmart, they would get the message.

Its ironic that people want to blame the retailer or market for existing out of one side of their mouth, but the market/retailer wouldn't exist if it weren't for those same jackasses in the first place. Spend. Spend. Spend.

Each and every one of us is to blame for the housing bubble bursting, and the stock market crashing. Its not all the banks fault, the regulators fault, the bankers fault, or even the consumer's fault.

Economists warned that this was coming. Stop over leveraging yourself, they said. The market cannot continue to rise, it will come down, they said. But no one listened…they were too busy watching American Idol and reading their gossip magazines to give a shit about what was coming.

I know I sound unsympathetic. And downright bitchy. I'm just tired of everyone thinking that their situation is someone else's fault and someone else's responsibility to get them out of it.

Don't spend more than you make. There is no reason for you to expect to make minimum wage and still live in Beverly Hills. Move out of the city where the cost of living is far more in line with what you are making. And don't tell me that some people are stuck, that they have no choice. They always have a choice. If immigrants could leave their belongings and come over to the US with $10 in their pocket to make a better life for themselves, well, dammit, then you can too. No one ever said it would be easy, or that the choices you have to make won't be hard…but you do have them.

BS the house problem was the least of the issues that cause this crash it was the elimination of Glass-Steagall and the sub-prime insurance scams the investors were running. Yes the loosening of regulations on homeownership did have unintended consequences but the irresponsible way the investors treated those "assets" is what caused the majority of the problem.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 11:59 AM
RE: Poverty is a criminal offense in America OP/ED.
(10-12-2013 11:53 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(10-12-2013 11:48 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Agreed. To a point. I think its kinda funny how everyone bitches about something being unfair, except for when its unfair in their favor…then they shut up about it.

I'm not saying that there aren't instances where the rich got rich off the backs of the poor. But you cannot blame the crash of the economy on the greed of the rich. You just can't.

When the housing bubble burst, I shook my head at all the homeowners in foreclosure pointing their fingers at the bank because the bank wouldn't re-negotiate their loans and crying unfairness and that the bank was taking advantage of those poor poor people. You know what? The homeowner bears the responsibility for this as well. They signed on the dotted line. $500,000 for a house when you make $60,000. Thats reasonable. Somehow, someway, people got it into their heads that homeownership was their god-given right.

Yes. The bank should not have given the loan. They they weren't exactly forcing people to sign the terms either. Don't understand how a balloon mortgage works? Don't get one! Don't understand interest rate arms? Don't even read the contract? No problem. Just sign and here is the keys to the McMansion you have no way of affording.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as zero risk. It is not anyone's responsibility to save you from yourself. You should not buy what you cannot afford and then expect everyone else to pick up the tab when you default.

Here is how a bank works (very simplistically): You deposit money. The bank turns around and loans that money to Sally. Sally is charged an interest rate (say 5%) to have that loan. The bank pays you .5% and keeps the 4.5% as income to keep the lights on and the vaults locked. (Remember, people bitch when they have to pay ATM/Checking fees). Sally Defaults on her loan, but the bank must still give you your deposit back. Sally isn't out any money. You aren't out any money. The bank is out the money.

Like it or not, people protest walmart - but that doesn't stop them from creating a market for which Walmart can capitalize. No. Not even a little bit. Why? Because you want the cheapest price…you don't want to pay the increase in prices it would take by taking your business elsewhere and make walmart change their tune. If everyone stopped shopping at walmart, they would get the message.

Its ironic that people want to blame the retailer or market for existing out of one side of their mouth, but the market/retailer wouldn't exist if it weren't for those same jackasses in the first place. Spend. Spend. Spend.

Each and every one of us is to blame for the housing bubble bursting, and the stock market crashing. Its not all the banks fault, the regulators fault, the bankers fault, or even the consumer's fault.

Economists warned that this was coming. Stop over leveraging yourself, they said. The market cannot continue to rise, it will come down, they said. But no one listened…they were too busy watching American Idol and reading their gossip magazines to give a shit about what was coming.

I know I sound unsympathetic. And downright bitchy. I'm just tired of everyone thinking that their situation is someone else's fault and someone else's responsibility to get them out of it.

Don't spend more than you make. There is no reason for you to expect to make minimum wage and still live in Beverly Hills. Move out of the city where the cost of living is far more in line with what you are making. And don't tell me that some people are stuck, that they have no choice. They always have a choice. If immigrants could leave their belongings and come over to the US with $10 in their pocket to make a better life for themselves, well, dammit, then you can too. No one ever said it would be easy, or that the choices you have to make won't be hard…but you do have them.

BS the house problem was the least of the issues that cause this crash it was the elimination of Glass-Steagall and the sub-prime insurance scams the investors were running. Yes the loosening of regulations on homeownership did have unintended consequences but the irresponsible way the investors treated those "assets" is what caused the majority of the problem.

Not entirely, but mostly true. The investment banks over leveraged the risk. when everyone defaulted, AIG and other insurance companies couldn't manage the payout. Pooled risk works except for when EVERYONE realizes that risk all at once.

This is the fault of the investment banks, who bundled the mortgages into asset backed securities and sold off that risk to someone else.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
10-12-2013, 10:40 PM (This post was last modified: 10-12-2013 10:43 PM by Brian37.)
RE: Poverty is a criminal offense in America OP/ED.
Quote:Not entirely, but mostly true. The investment banks over leveraged the risk. when everyone defaulted, AIG and other insurance companies couldn't manage the payout. Pooled risk works except for when EVERYONE realizes that risk all at once.

When an individual does it it is called a Ponzy scheme. When Vegas does it they legally rig the odds so that enough people win but they still make a profit.

How is "investment" any less of a risk in the "promise" or a bet of a blackjack table?

Crashes occur in economics when the market offers the same promise of a ponzy scheme and the same risk of a casino. Our problem is that we allow them to blame us, like a god blames his creation for the game he rigged.

Our current economy isn't built on building or trust. It is built on stage illusion and hollow promise.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Brian37's post
15-12-2013, 10:44 PM
RE: Poverty is a criminal offense in America OP/ED.
(10-12-2013 10:40 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  
Quote:Not entirely, but mostly true. The investment banks over leveraged the risk. when everyone defaulted, AIG and other insurance companies couldn't manage the payout. Pooled risk works except for when EVERYONE realizes that risk all at once.

When an individual does it it is called a Ponzy scheme. When Vegas does it they legally rig the odds so that enough people win but they still make a profit.

How is "investment" any less of a risk in the "promise" or a bet of a blackjack table?

Crashes occur in economics when the market offers the same promise of a ponzy scheme and the same risk of a casino. Our problem is that we allow them to blame us, like a god blames his creation for the game he rigged.

Our current economy isn't built on building or trust. It is built on stage illusion and hollow promise.

i would not go that far, but I remember when there was a big push to privatize Social Security. Everyone was for it, the conservative and libertarian pundits were all for it, they spend every day talking it up. after-all the stock-market was taking off,..every-other day seemed to be a record day. when the marker crashed,....people were breathing a sigh of realeaf they did not privatize Social security.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2013, 12:55 AM
RE: Poverty is a criminal offense in America OP/ED.
(15-12-2013 10:44 PM)shallwechat71 Wrote:  i would not go that far, but I remember when there was a big push to privatize Social Security. Everyone was for it, the conservative and libertarian pundits were all for it, they spend every day talking it up. after-all the stock-market was taking off,..every-other day seemed to be a record day. when the marker crashed,....people were breathing a sigh of realeaf they did not privatize Social security.

I disagree. Sure, the stock market has been volatile ever since the .com burst. And if you get in at a high point and try to get out a few years later, you could lose your shirt. But, retirement is a very long term investment. You usually start paying into social security at age 20, and don't get to collect for 45 years. So, even with all the volatility and the major downturn, if you look at the past 45 years, everybody would be MUCH better off to have had private social security. My Mom, for example, is now 65, and has worked full-time her whole life, paying in 14% of her income into SS. When I did the math, if she invested conservatively, say in blue chip stocks, she'd have a couple million in the bank now. Instead that money went to SS and she gets $1,100/month, which is impossible, of course. But if she works part time to supplement the SS, then she loses some of the SS. So it's a no-win situation and she's still dependent on my siblings and I to support her, and after 45 years of paying into SS, she has almost nothing to show for it. As I recall, the SS trust fund's rate of return is less than the rate of inflation largely because the Federal government robs the SS trust fund to pay for wars and other stupid stuff, and repays the loan with only a percent or two of interest. If Americans had the option of opting out of SS, I think it'd be foolish not to.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2013, 04:09 PM
RE: Poverty is a criminal offense in America OP/ED.
(16-12-2013 12:55 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-12-2013 10:44 PM)shallwechat71 Wrote:  i would not go that far, but I remember when there was a big push to privatize Social Security. Everyone was for it, the conservative and libertarian pundits were all for it, they spend every day talking it up. after-all the stock-market was taking off,..every-other day seemed to be a record day. when the marker crashed,....people were breathing a sigh of realeaf they did not privatize Social security.

I disagree. Sure, the stock market has been volatile ever since the .com burst. And if you get in at a high point and try to get out a few years later, you could lose your shirt. But, retirement is a very long term investment. You usually start paying into social security at age 20, and don't get to collect for 45 years. So, even with all the volatility and the major downturn, if you look at the past 45 years, everybody would be MUCH better off to have had private social security. My Mom, for example, is now 65, and has worked full-time her whole life, paying in 14% of her income into SS. When I did the math, if she invested conservatively, say in blue chip stocks, she'd have a couple million in the bank now. Instead that money went to SS and she gets $1,100/month, which is impossible, of course. But if she works part time to supplement the SS, then she loses some of the SS. So it's a no-win situation and she's still dependent on my siblings and I to support her, and after 45 years of paying into SS, she has almost nothing to show for it. As I recall, the SS trust fund's rate of return is less than the rate of inflation largely because the Federal government robs the SS trust fund to pay for wars and other stupid stuff, and repays the loan with only a percent or two of interest. If Americans had the option of opting out of SS, I think it'd be foolish not to.

sure, many can outperform SS when the market is hot. But little is given to those who retire when the stock-market is is in the gutter. When people saw their retirement investments crash with the market, their thoughts on placing all of SS on the stock-market soured. Many people retired their long term investments during the crash, and were lucky to have SS to make up the difference. Many were lucky to retire during the market boom. You mention one common SS fix, stop robbing the trust fund. Maybe just hope not to retire during the next crash or down slope .

many municipality pensions, union pensions, mutual funds, company retirement plans are still hurting from the past crash. The only ones who did good were the people who were able to sail through the crash and clean up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 10:33 AM
RE: Poverty is a criminal offense in America OP/ED.
(17-12-2013 04:09 PM)shallwechat71 Wrote:  sure, many can outperform SS when the market is hot. But little is given to those who retire when the stock-market is is in the gutter.

Even with the crash, the DJOI has returned an average of 9.6% annual return on investment for the past 20 years vs. an effective negative return on SS since it's less than inflation.

So, let's assume you had private SS and turned 65 and retired at the worst possible time in the .com crash in 2003. You STILL would be light years ahead of where you are with SS.

When people say their retirements were wiped out, they're comparing it to where it was at the peak of the bubble, when the ROI was insanely high. But if you look at a 45 year period of a typical worker, you can never find any time in history where the worker would not be much, much, much better off with private SS. Seriously, come up with one 'start year' when the worker enters the market, and one 'retirement year' where the worker would not be better off on private SS.

(17-12-2013 04:09 PM)shallwechat71 Wrote:  You mention one common SS fix, stop robbing the trust fund. Maybe just hope not to retire during the next crash or down slope .

This is the problem with having the government run SS. What if a private retirement did what the government did, namely rob their customers' retirement accounts and give themselves interest free loans and use their customers' retirements on outrageous spending binges? All those people would be locked in jail for fraud, just like Bernie Madhoff. But, because the thieves in question work for the government, they are immune from prosecution and completely unaccountable.

So, even IF there was some law mandating payments be made to a common SS trust fund, that trust fund should, imo, be an entirely independent entity, accountable and transparent to the people. Making it a part of the same Federal government that spends $6 trillion fighting a war in Iraq is dumb because it's too tempting for them to use the SS trust fund for their spending.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2013, 12:25 AM
RE: Poverty is a criminal offense in America OP/ED.
its not just the government cuts and runs. in every company bankruptcy processing, the worker retirement funds go up in smoke. as the United Airlines bankruptcy.

Not every person will be light years ahead. I believe the purpose of SS was be sure their is money for ones retirement years even for those who cant afford to fund those years, even if it hobbles the system. Those with the extra income can make the investment. Those with no extra income will be hard pressed to be convinced. I know in your world, those with no extra income are just cut out. I do know when people who have limited means read the mutual fund disclosures, the first word off of the mouths is I don't have X,000 dollars. followed by a general distrust of stockbrokers or firms.

an independent entity that oversees, removing the SS tax cap of 300,000 a year on all forms of income, and stop using the SS trust fund to fund other stuff would go along way shoring up the fund.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: