Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Shaming the Bottom-Feeders

Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 7:59:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So, there are probably plenty of us who work ourselves half to death, pay a huge chunk of our hard-earned money to Uncle Sam, then still have to deal with the notion that there is a huge population of people who don't work and yet, receive all the necessities of life that we have to sweat and bleed for.

I realize that what irritates me most about this is not the money I lose, but rather, the fact that these people perpetuate that lifestyle and don't even seem to appreciate the fact that they are getting handouts. They seem to think that they "deserve" those things.

I want to hear opinions on the following proposal:

All sources of relief for non-taxpaying individuals (Free health care, places that accept food stamps, government housing, etc) should have constant reminders as to how much money they are taking from taxpayers, or how much they save by being on programs that place the burden on taxpayers. They should also be encouraged to send public messages of thanks to society whenever they punch in their food stamp benefits card, or thank taxpayers for the government funded housing they live in.

For those who truly appreciate it, they shouldn't have a problem with it. They should know in their hearts how much they benefit from this safety net and taxpayers at least deserve a "thank you".

For those who don't appreciate it, these things will hopefully inform them as to what their situation actually is. It'll serve as a wake-up call to be more appreciative and/or motivate them to do better.

Thoughts?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 8:52:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 7:59:42 PM, Kleptin wrote:
So, there are probably plenty of us who work ourselves half to death, pay a huge chunk of our hard-earned money to Uncle Sam, then still have to deal with the notion that there is a huge population of people who don't work and yet, receive all the necessities of life that we have to sweat and bleed for.

I realize that what irritates me most about this is not the money I lose, but rather, the fact that these people perpetuate that lifestyle and don't even seem to appreciate the fact that they are getting handouts. They seem to think that they "deserve" those things.

I want to hear opinions on the following proposal:

All sources of relief for non-taxpaying individuals (Free health care, places that accept food stamps, government housing, etc) should have constant reminders as to how much money they are taking from taxpayers, or how much they save by being on programs that place the burden on taxpayers. They should also be encouraged to send public messages of thanks to society whenever they punch in their food stamp benefits card, or thank taxpayers for the government funded housing they live in.

For those who truly appreciate it, they shouldn't have a problem with it. They should know in their hearts how much they benefit from this safety net and taxpayers at least deserve a "thank you".

For those who don't appreciate it, these things will hopefully inform them as to what their situation actually is. It'll serve as a wake-up call to be more appreciative and/or motivate them to do better.

Thoughts?

I don't think most socioeconomic problems are solved by "giving the poor a wake-up call."
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,335
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 10:41:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 8:52:33 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 5/3/2013 7:59:42 PM, Kleptin wrote:
So, there are probably plenty of us who work ourselves half to death, pay a huge chunk of our hard-earned money to Uncle Sam, then still have to deal with the notion that there is a huge population of people who don't work and yet, receive all the necessities of life that we have to sweat and bleed for.

I realize that what irritates me most about this is not the money I lose, but rather, the fact that these people perpetuate that lifestyle and don't even seem to appreciate the fact that they are getting handouts. They seem to think that they "deserve" those things.

I want to hear opinions on the following proposal:

All sources of relief for non-taxpaying individuals (Free health care, places that accept food stamps, government housing, etc) should have constant reminders as to how much money they are taking from taxpayers, or how much they save by being on programs that place the burden on taxpayers. They should also be encouraged to send public messages of thanks to society whenever they punch in their food stamp benefits card, or thank taxpayers for the government funded housing they live in.

For those who truly appreciate it, they shouldn't have a problem with it. They should know in their hearts how much they benefit from this safety net and taxpayers at least deserve a "thank you".

For those who don't appreciate it, these things will hopefully inform them as to what their situation actually is. It'll serve as a wake-up call to be more appreciative and/or motivate them to do better.

Thoughts?

I don't think most socioeconomic problems are solved by "giving the poor a wake-up call."

I agree. It is the taxpayers that really need the wakeup call.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2013 9:18:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 10:41:29 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/3/2013 8:52:33 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 5/3/2013 7:59:42 PM, Kleptin wrote:
So, there are probably plenty of us who work ourselves half to death, pay a huge chunk of our hard-earned money to Uncle Sam, then still have to deal with the notion that there is a huge population of people who don't work and yet, receive all the necessities of life that we have to sweat and bleed for.

I realize that what irritates me most about this is not the money I lose, but rather, the fact that these people perpetuate that lifestyle and don't even seem to appreciate the fact that they are getting handouts. They seem to think that they "deserve" those things.

I want to hear opinions on the following proposal:

All sources of relief for non-taxpaying individuals (Free health care, places that accept food stamps, government housing, etc) should have constant reminders as to how much money they are taking from taxpayers, or how much they save by being on programs that place the burden on taxpayers. They should also be encouraged to send public messages of thanks to society whenever they punch in their food stamp benefits card, or thank taxpayers for the government funded housing they live in.

For those who truly appreciate it, they shouldn't have a problem with it. They should know in their hearts how much they benefit from this safety net and taxpayers at least deserve a "thank you".

For those who don't appreciate it, these things will hopefully inform them as to what their situation actually is. It'll serve as a wake-up call to be more appreciative and/or motivate them to do better.

Thoughts?

I don't think most socioeconomic problems are solved by "giving the poor a wake-up call."

I agree. It is the taxpayers that really need the wakeup call.

No no no, guys, it's not about solving the economic problem, it's about making taxpayers feel better by seeing that their money goes to people who appreciate it.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2013 5:38:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 7:59:42 PM, Kleptin wrote:
So, there are probably plenty of us who work ourselves half to death, pay a huge chunk of our hard-earned money to Uncle Sam, then still have to deal with the notion that there is a huge population of people who don't work and yet, receive all the necessities of life that we have to sweat and bleed for.

I realize that what irritates me most about this is not the money I lose, but rather, the fact that these people perpetuate that lifestyle and don't even seem to appreciate the fact that they are getting handouts. They seem to think that they "deserve" those things.

I want to hear opinions on the following proposal:

All sources of relief for non-taxpaying individuals (Free health care, places that accept food stamps, government housing, etc) should have constant reminders as to how much money they are taking from taxpayers, or how much they save by being on programs that place the burden on taxpayers. They should also be encouraged to send public messages of thanks to society whenever they punch in their food stamp benefits card, or thank taxpayers for the government funded housing they live in.

For those who truly appreciate it, they shouldn't have a problem with it. They should know in their hearts how much they benefit from this safety net and taxpayers at least deserve a "thank you".

For those who don't appreciate it, these things will hopefully inform them as to what their situation actually is. It'll serve as a wake-up call to be more appreciative and/or motivate them to do better.

Thoughts?

Most people don't want to be poor. There is too much shame already in being poor. There are probably plenty "lazy poor people" who would do the job of a "wealthy job creator" better, if they were lucky enough to get it. The minority of poor people are free loaders and system abusers, but most people want to improve themselves. This idea makes me imagine feudal lords demanding lowly peasants worship them for allowing them to eat food from their land.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2013 6:29:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Kleptin, the only place the discussion of entitlement sucking people will lead is you being marginalized as a person and having you character assassinated. It is the person who attempts to be self sufficient and play by the rules that is the evil in the world and the cause of all that ails the world. How can someone who contributes nothing to society be a problem to society? They aren't doing anything.

I'll start. You hate poor people. And since some of the poor people are minorities, you are also a racist.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2013 7:31:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We have just as much reason to shame the upper and middle class as the poor. Poor people did not tank the economy. Rich bankers did. Lets shame them. How about some middle class person who gets a job over a better candidate because he knows someone? The passed over candidate would do a better job and add output to society. Lets make sure that middle class guy knows how fvcking lucky he is.

Segments of all classes abuse the resources given to them? Why single out poor people?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,335
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 9:15:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/4/2013 7:31:00 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
We have just as much reason to shame the upper and middle class as the poor. Poor people did not tank the economy. Rich bankers did. Lets shame them. How about some middle class person who gets a job over a better candidate because he knows someone? The passed over candidate would do a better job and add output to society. Lets make sure that middle class guy knows how fvcking lucky he is.

Segments of all classes abuse the resources given to them? Why single out poor people?

kay, so poor people didn't take out loans they couldn't pay back. Rich people forced them.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 8:37:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 9:15:55 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/4/2013 7:31:00 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
We have just as much reason to shame the upper and middle class as the poor. Poor people did not tank the economy. Rich bankers did. Lets shame them. How about some middle class person who gets a job over a better candidate because he knows someone? The passed over candidate would do a better job and add output to society. Lets make sure that middle class guy knows how fvcking lucky he is.

Segments of all classes abuse the resources given to them? Why single out poor people?


kay, so poor people didn't take out loans they couldn't pay back. Rich people forced them.

With regards to the 2008 crisis, the blame goes to the banks/rich people. You can't blame an individual for taking a low interest loan. If a store gives away free merchandise and consequently goes bankrupt, would you blame consumers for the bankruptcy for accepting free merchandise?

The banks have expert risk management teams whose job it is guard against risk. There are also independent ratings agencies with the same job. It makes sense to blame the finance experts who failed at there job to assess the risk of loans.

In addition, most people could have paid back their loans, but the crisis caused more defaults as a result of the recession. Also, people could have sold their homes to pay back the loans but their homes dropped in values because of the crisis. Do you actually think the average consumer should have thought that the low interest loans may cause a recession, which will lower the value of my home and could cause me to lose my job? Fault clearly lies with the banks and ratings agencies.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 2:23:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 7:59:42 PM, Kleptin wrote:
So, there are probably plenty of us who work ourselves half to death, pay a huge chunk of our hard-earned money to Uncle Sam, then still have to deal with the notion that there is a huge population of people who don't work and yet, receive all the necessities of life that we have to sweat and bleed for.
...

Actual there is a lot of mobility in society. Young people start out making very little money and gradually build wealth over time. My thought is to establish a "government benefits account" for each person. Ordinary government services like police, fire, K-12 education, etc. are not charged to the account. The account keeps track of unemployment benefits, medicaid, higher education grants or subsidies, food stamps, ADC, and other welfare expenditures. The account does not limit what a person can get, it just keeps track of it. When and if a person gets above some income threshold, they are required to start paying off the account balance. If they never reach the income threshold, then they never pay anything back. If the person dies and has substantial assets, the government gets to tax that as part of the pay down.

I think this would help encourage self-reliance, and it would be fair to have people who can afford to repay. People who are in the lowest 20% of income are, ten years later, equally distributed among the five quintiles of income. It makes aid more like a loan.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,335
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 2:29:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 8:37:03 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/6/2013 9:15:55 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/4/2013 7:31:00 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
We have just as much reason to shame the upper and middle class as the poor. Poor people did not tank the economy. Rich bankers did. Lets shame them. How about some middle class person who gets a job over a better candidate because he knows someone? The passed over candidate would do a better job and add output to society. Lets make sure that middle class guy knows how fvcking lucky he is.

Segments of all classes abuse the resources given to them? Why single out poor people?


kay, so poor people didn't take out loans they couldn't pay back. Rich people forced them.

With regards to the 2008 crisis, the blame goes to the banks/rich people. You can't blame an individual for taking a low interest loan. If a store gives away free merchandise and consequently goes bankrupt, would you blame consumers for the bankruptcy for accepting free merchandise?

The banks have expert risk management teams whose job it is guard against risk. There are also independent ratings agencies with the same job. It makes sense to blame the finance experts who failed at there job to assess the risk of loans.

In addition, most people could have paid back their loans, but the crisis caused more defaults as a result of the recession. Also, people could have sold their homes to pay back the loans but their homes dropped in values because of the crisis. Do you actually think the average consumer should have thought that the low interest loans may cause a recession, which will lower the value of my home and could cause me to lose my job? Fault clearly lies with the banks and ratings agencies.

By that reasoning, I could invest in a random stock as a poor uneducated person and be guaranteed a 20 percent return because I can use the excuse that I am poor; therefore, I have absolutely zero responsibility for the risks I take when I purchase anything.

A society where it pays to be poor and ignorant is a doomed society.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,335
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 2:33:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
These banks would never have even thought to offer those loans if they were not heavily subsidized and guaranteed, and to a small part, coerced by the federal government.

The government has the wrong idea that poor people require guarantees to eliminate the risks of making poor spending choices.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 2:58:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 2:29:11 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/7/2013 8:37:03 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/6/2013 9:15:55 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/4/2013 7:31:00 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
We have just as much reason to shame the upper and middle class as the poor. Poor people did not tank the economy. Rich bankers did. Lets shame them. How about some middle class person who gets a job over a better candidate because he knows someone? The passed over candidate would do a better job and add output to society. Lets make sure that middle class guy knows how fvcking lucky he is.

Segments of all classes abuse the resources given to them? Why single out poor people?


kay, so poor people didn't take out loans they couldn't pay back. Rich people forced them.

With regards to the 2008 crisis, the blame goes to the banks/rich people. You can't blame an individual for taking a low interest loan. If a store gives away free merchandise and consequently goes bankrupt, would you blame consumers for the bankruptcy for accepting free merchandise?

The banks have expert risk management teams whose job it is guard against risk. There are also independent ratings agencies with the same job. It makes sense to blame the finance experts who failed at there job to assess the risk of loans.

In addition, most people could have paid back their loans, but the crisis caused more defaults as a result of the recession. Also, people could have sold their homes to pay back the loans but their homes dropped in values because of the crisis. Do you actually think the average consumer should have thought that the low interest loans may cause a recession, which will lower the value of my home and could cause me to lose my job? Fault clearly lies with the banks and ratings agencies.

By that reasoning, I could invest in a random stock as a poor uneducated person and be guaranteed a 20 percent return because I can use the excuse that I am poor; therefore, I have absolutely zero responsibility for the risks I take when I purchase anything.

A society where it pays to be poor and ignorant is a doomed society.

No. A poor uneducated person cannot do that. Poor uneducated investors are not allowed to invest in hedge funds for that very reason. There are strict regulations for mutual funds to prevent risk for uneducated buyers.
If a financial institution is promising investors unrealistic returns to sell stocks, it s a borderline ponzu scheme and the financial institution can be held liable. So, your ridiculous interpretation of my reasoning is completely false.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,335
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 9:33:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 2:58:35 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
No. A poor uneducated person cannot do that. Poor uneducated investors are not allowed to invest in hedge funds for that very reason. There are strict regulations for mutual funds to prevent risk for uneducated buyers.
If a financial institution is promising investors unrealistic returns to sell stocks, it s a borderline ponzu scheme and the financial institution can be held liable. So, your ridiculous interpretation of my reasoning is completely false.

But a poor person can make a $300,000 investment on a piece of real estate. mmmkay. risk free... mmmkay.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 7:37:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 9:33:16 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/7/2013 2:58:35 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
No. A poor uneducated person cannot do that. Poor uneducated investors are not allowed to invest in hedge funds for that very reason. There are strict regulations for mutual funds to prevent risk for uneducated buyers.
If a financial institution is promising investors unrealistic returns to sell stocks, it s a borderline ponzu scheme and the financial institution can be held liable. So, your ridiculous interpretation of my reasoning is completely false.

But a poor person can make a $300,000 investment on a piece of real estate. mmmkay. risk free... mmmkay.

It is the banks job to screen for risk, so if someone is risky, they do not get a house. People cannot be poor to get a house, they have to have a good job ect. To get a loan. The reason the crisis happened was because poor people were allowed to get home loans. It makes more sense to have banks screan for risk than to ask poor people to screen themselves, would you not agree?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 11:33:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 7:37:17 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/7/2013 9:33:16 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/7/2013 2:58:35 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
No. A poor uneducated person cannot do that. Poor uneducated investors are not allowed to invest in hedge funds for that very reason. There are strict regulations for mutual funds to prevent risk for uneducated buyers.
If a financial institution is promising investors unrealistic returns to sell stocks, it s a borderline ponzu scheme and the financial institution can be held liable. So, your ridiculous interpretation of my reasoning is completely false.

But a poor person can make a $300,000 investment on a piece of real estate. mmmkay. risk free... mmmkay.

It is the banks job to screen for risk, so if someone is risky, they do not get a house. People cannot be poor to get a house, they have to have a good job ect. To get a loan. The reason the crisis happened was because poor people were allowed to get home loans. It makes more sense to have banks screan for risk than to ask poor people to screen themselves, would you not agree?

So would you say the Community Reinvestment act was largely responsible for the crisis.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 11:35:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, Pub.L. 95"128, title VIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. " 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods"

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 12:07:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 11:33:53 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/8/2013 7:37:17 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/7/2013 9:33:16 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/7/2013 2:58:35 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
No. A poor uneducated person cannot do that. Poor uneducated investors are not allowed to invest in hedge funds for that very reason. There are strict regulations for mutual funds to prevent risk for uneducated buyers.
If a financial institution is promising investors unrealistic returns to sell stocks, it s a borderline ponzu scheme and the financial institution can be held liable. So, your ridiculous interpretation of my reasoning is completely false.

But a poor person can make a $300,000 investment on a piece of real estate. mmmkay. risk free... mmmkay.

It is the banks job to screen for risk, so if someone is risky, they do not get a house. People cannot be poor to get a house, they have to have a good job ect. To get a loan. The reason the crisis happened was because poor people were allowed to get home loans. It makes more sense to have banks screan for risk than to ask poor people to screen themselves, would you not agree?

So would you say the Community Reinvestment act was largely responsible for the crisis.

"The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution."


No. It may have played a small part, but the main cause was securitization of mortgages and not assessing risk properly. Financial institutions were allowed to make high risk loans. Then say the loans were safe and sell them off to others, so the loan maker is not liable for the loan. Banks would lend to anyone then sell the loan so they were not responsible for default. Banks did not have to make risky loans to meet these requirements of the investment act. And if they did, there would be less loans made if they were held responsible for the loans they made.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 1:52:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 12:07:02 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/8/2013 11:33:53 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/8/2013 7:37:17 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/7/2013 9:33:16 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/7/2013 2:58:35 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
No. A poor uneducated person cannot do that. Poor uneducated investors are not allowed to invest in hedge funds for that very reason. There are strict regulations for mutual funds to prevent risk for uneducated buyers.
If a financial institution is promising investors unrealistic returns to sell stocks, it s a borderline ponzu scheme and the financial institution can be held liable. So, your ridiculous interpretation of my reasoning is completely false.

But a poor person can make a $300,000 investment on a piece of real estate. mmmkay. risk free... mmmkay.

It is the banks job to screen for risk, so if someone is risky, they do not get a house. People cannot be poor to get a house, they have to have a good job ect. To get a loan. The reason the crisis happened was because poor people were allowed to get home loans. It makes more sense to have banks screan for risk than to ask poor people to screen themselves, would you not agree?

So would you say the Community Reinvestment act was largely responsible for the crisis.

"The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution."


No. It may have played a small part, but the main cause was securitization of mortgages and not assessing risk properly. Financial institutions were allowed to make high risk loans. Then say the loans were safe and sell them off to others, so the loan maker is not liable for the loan. Banks would lend to anyone then sell the loan so they were not responsible for default. Banks did not have to make risky loans to meet these requirements of the investment act. And if they did, there would be less loans made if they were held responsible for the loans they made.

Are you denying that the community reinvestment act didn't play a role in causing banks to lend to low-income housing. If the low-income housing didn't default on their loans, the housing crisis never would've happened.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 3:27:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 1:52:31 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/8/2013 12:07:02 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/8/2013 11:33:53 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/8/2013 7:37:17 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/7/2013 9:33:16 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/7/2013 2:58:35 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
No. A poor uneducated person cannot do that. Poor uneducated investors are not allowed to invest in hedge funds for that very reason. There are strict regulations for mutual funds to prevent risk for uneducated buyers.
If a financial institution is promising investors unrealistic returns to sell stocks, it s a borderline ponzu scheme and the financial institution can be held liable. So, your ridiculous interpretation of my reasoning is completely false.

But a poor person can make a $300,000 investment on a piece of real estate. mmmkay. risk free... mmmkay.

It is the banks job to screen for risk, so if someone is risky, they do not get a house. People cannot be poor to get a house, they have to have a good job ect. To get a loan. The reason the crisis happened was because poor people were allowed to get home loans. It makes more sense to have banks screan for risk than to ask poor people to screen themselves, would you not agree?

So would you say the Community Reinvestment act was largely responsible for the crisis.

"The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution."


No. It may have played a small part, but the main cause was securitization of mortgages and not assessing risk properly. Financial institutions were allowed to make high risk loans. Then say the loans were safe and sell them off to others, so the loan maker is not liable for the loan. Banks would lend to anyone then sell the loan so they were not responsible for default. Banks did not have to make risky loans to meet these requirements of the investment act. And if they did, there would be less loans made if they were held responsible for the loans they made.

Are you denying that the community reinvestment act didn't play a role in causing banks to lend to low-income housing. If the low-income housing didn't default on their loans, the housing crisis never would've happened.

"Putting together these facts provides a striking result: Only 6 percent of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. This result undermines the assertion by critics of the potential for a substantial role for the CRA in the subprime crisis. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov...

The CRA did not cause the crisis. The majority of faulty loans were not made to those covered by CRA. Only 6% according to the study I posted. Further, it says in the CRA as I posted earlier, that banks are not to lend to risky borrowers. So, no, the CRA did not cause the crisis.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 4:18:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 3:27:42 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/8/2013 1:52:31 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/8/2013 12:07:02 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/8/2013 11:33:53 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/8/2013 7:37:17 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/7/2013 9:33:16 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/7/2013 2:58:35 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
No. A poor uneducated person cannot do that. Poor uneducated investors are not allowed to invest in hedge funds for that very reason. There are strict regulations for mutual funds to prevent risk for uneducated buyers.
If a financial institution is promising investors unrealistic returns to sell stocks, it s a borderline ponzu scheme and the financial institution can be held liable. So, your ridiculous interpretation of my reasoning is completely false.

But a poor person can make a $300,000 investment on a piece of real estate. mmmkay. risk free... mmmkay.

It is the banks job to screen for risk, so if someone is risky, they do not get a house. People cannot be poor to get a house, they have to have a good job ect. To get a loan. The reason the crisis happened was because poor people were allowed to get home loans. It makes more sense to have banks screan for risk than to ask poor people to screen themselves, would you not agree?

So would you say the Community Reinvestment act was largely responsible for the crisis.

"The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution."


No. It may have played a small part, but the main cause was securitization of mortgages and not assessing risk properly. Financial institutions were allowed to make high risk loans. Then say the loans were safe and sell them off to others, so the loan maker is not liable for the loan. Banks would lend to anyone then sell the loan so they were not responsible for default. Banks did not have to make risky loans to meet these requirements of the investment act. And if they did, there would be less loans made if they were held responsible for the loans they made.

Are you denying that the community reinvestment act didn't play a role in causing banks to lend to low-income housing. If the low-income housing didn't default on their loans, the housing crisis never would've happened.

"Putting together these facts provides a striking result: Only 6 percent of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. This result undermines the assertion by critics of the potential for a substantial role for the CRA in the subprime crisis. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov...

The CRA did not cause the crisis. The majority of faulty loans were not made to those covered by CRA. Only 6% according to the study I posted. Further, it says in the CRA as I posted earlier, that banks are not to lend to risky borrowers. So, no, the CRA did not cause the crisis.

Alright, that doesn't say anything about the default rate, only that they were high-priced loans. Answer the question, instead of providing a red herring.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 4:32:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 4:18:49 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/8/2013 3:27:42 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/8/2013 1:52:31 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/8/2013 12:07:02 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/8/2013 11:33:53 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/8/2013 7:37:17 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/7/2013 9:33:16 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/7/2013 2:58:35 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
No. A poor uneducated person cannot do that. Poor uneducated investors are not allowed to invest in hedge funds for that very reason. There are strict regulations for mutual funds to prevent risk for uneducated buyers.
If a financial institution is promising investors unrealistic returns to sell stocks, it s a borderline ponzu scheme and the financial institution can be held liable. So, your ridiculous interpretation of my reasoning is completely false.

But a poor person can make a $300,000 investment on a piece of real estate. mmmkay. risk free... mmmkay.

It is the banks job to screen for risk, so if someone is risky, they do not get a house. People cannot be poor to get a house, they have to have a good job ect. To get a loan. The reason the crisis happened was because poor people were allowed to get home loans. It makes more sense to have banks screan for risk than to ask poor people to screen themselves, would you not agree?

So would you say the Community Reinvestment act was largely responsible for the crisis.

"The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution."


No. It may have played a small part, but the main cause was securitization of mortgages and not assessing risk properly. Financial institutions were allowed to make high risk loans. Then say the loans were safe and sell them off to others, so the loan maker is not liable for the loan. Banks would lend to anyone then sell the loan so they were not responsible for default. Banks did not have to make risky loans to meet these requirements of the investment act. And if they did, there would be less loans made if they were held responsible for the loans they made.

Are you denying that the community reinvestment act didn't play a role in causing banks to lend to low-income housing. If the low-income housing didn't default on their loans, the housing crisis never would've happened.

"Putting together these facts provides a striking result: Only 6 percent of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. This result undermines the assertion by critics of the potential for a substantial role for the CRA in the subprime crisis. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov...

The CRA did not cause the crisis. The majority of faulty loans were not made to those covered by CRA. Only 6% according to the study I posted. Further, it says in the CRA as I posted earlier, that banks are not to lend to risky borrowers. So, no, the CRA did not cause the crisis.

Alright, that doesn't say anything about the default rate, only that they were high-priced loans. Answer the question, instead of providing a red herring.

"An overall comparison revealed that the rates for all subprime and alt-A loans delinquent 90 days or more is high regardless of neighborhood income.8 This result casts further doubt on the view that the CRA could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis."

All loans were risky, not just low income loans. I do not see why they are to blame?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 5:48:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 4:32:45 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/8/2013 4:18:49 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/8/2013 3:27:42 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/8/2013 1:52:31 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/8/2013 12:07:02 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/8/2013 11:33:53 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/8/2013 7:37:17 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/7/2013 9:33:16 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/7/2013 2:58:35 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
No. A poor uneducated person cannot do that. Poor uneducated investors are not allowed to invest in hedge funds for that very reason. There are strict regulations for mutual funds to prevent risk for uneducated buyers.
If a financial institution is promising investors unrealistic returns to sell stocks, it s a borderline ponzu scheme and the financial institution can be held liable. So, your ridiculous interpretation of my reasoning is completely false.

But a poor person can make a $300,000 investment on a piece of real estate. mmmkay. risk free... mmmkay.

It is the banks job to screen for risk, so if someone is risky, they do not get a house. People cannot be poor to get a house, they have to have a good job ect. To get a loan. The reason the crisis happened was because poor people were allowed to get home loans. It makes more sense to have banks screan for risk than to ask poor people to screen themselves, would you not agree?

So would you say the Community Reinvestment act was largely responsible for the crisis.

"The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution."


No. It may have played a small part, but the main cause was securitization of mortgages and not assessing risk properly. Financial institutions were allowed to make high risk loans. Then say the loans were safe and sell them off to others, so the loan maker is not liable for the loan. Banks would lend to anyone then sell the loan so they were not responsible for default. Banks did not have to make risky loans to meet these requirements of the investment act. And if they did, there would be less loans made if they were held responsible for the loans they made.

Are you denying that the community reinvestment act didn't play a role in causing banks to lend to low-income housing. If the low-income housing didn't default on their loans, the housing crisis never would've happened.

"Putting together these facts provides a striking result: Only 6 percent of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. This result undermines the assertion by critics of the potential for a substantial role for the CRA in the subprime crisis. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov...

The CRA did not cause the crisis. The majority of faulty loans were not made to those covered by CRA. Only 6% according to the study I posted. Further, it says in the CRA as I posted earlier, that banks are not to lend to risky borrowers. So, no, the CRA did not cause the crisis.

Alright, that doesn't say anything about the default rate, only that they were high-priced loans. Answer the question, instead of providing a red herring.

"An overall comparison revealed that the rates for all subprime and alt-A loans delinquent 90 days or more is high regardless of neighborhood income.8 This result casts further doubt on the view that the CRA could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis."

All loans were risky, not just low income loans. I do not see why they are to blame?

What matters is what the default rate was, and whether the interest rate was large enough to justify such a high default rating. If low-income houses are causing most of the defaults, then the CRA is to blame. I don't see how that doesn't make any sense.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
1Percenter
Posts: 782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 2:55:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 2:23:02 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 5/3/2013 7:59:42 PM, Kleptin wrote:
So, there are probably plenty of us who work ourselves half to death, pay a huge chunk of our hard-earned money to Uncle Sam, then still have to deal with the notion that there is a huge population of people who don't work and yet, receive all the necessities of life that we have to sweat and bleed for.
...

Actual there is a lot of mobility in society. Young people start out making very little money and gradually build wealth over time. My thought is to establish a "government benefits account" for each person. Ordinary government services like police, fire, K-12 education, etc. are not charged to the account. The account keeps track of unemployment benefits, medicaid, higher education grants or subsidies, food stamps, ADC, and other welfare expenditures. The account does not limit what a person can get, it just keeps track of it. When and if a person gets above some income threshold, they are required to start paying off the account balance. If they never reach the income threshold, then they never pay anything back. If the person dies and has substantial assets, the government gets to tax that as part of the pay down.

Wouldn't this discourage social mobility? If someone has racked up substantial welfare debt, then it could be cheaper to remain in their threshold and keep reiveing benefits, as opposed moving up and losing the benefits and then suddenyly have start to repay them.
I think this would help encourage self-reliance, and it would be fair to have people who can afford to repay. People who are in the lowest 20% of income are, ten years later, equally distributed among the five quintiles of income. It makes aid more like a loan.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 3:01:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/4/2013 7:31:00 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
We have just as much reason to shame the upper and middle class as the poor. Poor people did not tank the economy.

Yes they did, they took out loans with poor credit so they could live about their means and live in fairy land for a few years, then when time came to pay back their loans they didn't have a cent to give to the banks.

Rich bankers did. Lets shame them. How about some middle class person who gets a job over a better candidate because he knows someone?

That's an unchangeable reality of life, bottom feeders holding down the majority of hard working middle class citizens is a reality that can be changed if we stop being so philanthropistic.

The passed over candidate would do a better job and add output to society. Lets make sure that middle class guy knows how fvcking lucky he is.

He's not 'lucky', having charisma to get those connections and knowing the right people to talk to is also a skill.

Segments of all classes abuse the resources given to them? Why single out poor people?

People they are the only people who truly get resources 'given' to them (well, this is for the poor that collect welfare anyways, not the working poor). Everyone else, even the working poor, at least make some half hearted attempt to be independent from government aid that is really tax payer aid.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 3:04:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 8:37:03 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/6/2013 9:15:55 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/4/2013 7:31:00 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
We have just as much reason to shame the upper and middle class as the poor. Poor people did not tank the economy. Rich bankers did. Lets shame them. How about some middle class person who gets a job over a better candidate because he knows someone? The passed over candidate would do a better job and add output to society. Lets make sure that middle class guy knows how fvcking lucky he is.

Segments of all classes abuse the resources given to them? Why single out poor people?


kay, so poor people didn't take out loans they couldn't pay back. Rich people forced them.

With regards to the 2008 crisis, the blame goes to the banks/rich people. You can't blame an individual for taking a low interest loan. If a store gives away free merchandise and consequently goes bankrupt, would you blame consumers for the bankruptcy for accepting free merchandise?

This is different, if some idiot signed off on a low interest, no credit check loan without reading the contract, that is his fault, not mine for giving him the money.

The banks have expert risk management teams whose job it is guard against risk. There are also independent ratings agencies with the same job. It makes sense to blame the finance experts who failed at there job to assess the risk of loans.

The banks ran on speculation, due to the government making absurd statements like "everyone should own a home" (Bill Clinton)

In addition, most people could have paid back their loans, but the crisis caused more defaults as a result of the recession.

Ah, but what caused the defaults? The people who didn't pay back their loans possibly?

Also, people could have sold their homes to pay back the loans but their homes dropped in values because of the crisis.

Read above

Do you actually think the average consumer should have thought that the low interest loans may cause a recession, which will lower the value of my home and could cause me to lose my job? Fault clearly lies with the banks and ratings agencies.

No it doesn't, the only ways to truly know what the economy is like are through the stock market, GDP and what the government says, all were doing alright when people were taking money they couldn't pay back. The bank assumes good economy=Good opportunity for them to give out loans.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 3:06:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 3:01:30 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/4/2013 7:31:00 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
We have just as much reason to shame the upper and middle class as the poor. Poor people did not tank the economy.

Yes they did, they took out loans with poor credit so they could live about their means and live in fairy land for a few years, then when time came to pay back their loans they didn't have a cent to give to the banks.



Rich bankers did. Lets shame them. How about some middle class person who gets a job over a better candidate because he knows someone?

That's an unchangeable reality of life, bottom feeders holding down the majority of hard working middle class citizens is a reality that can be changed if we stop being so philanthropistic.


The passed over candidate would do a better job and add output to society. Lets make sure that middle class guy knows how fvcking lucky he is.

He's not 'lucky', having charisma to get those connections and knowing the right people to talk to is also a skill.

Segments of all classes abuse the resources given to them? Why single out poor people?

Because they are the only people who truly get resources 'given' to them (well, this is for the poor that collect welfare anyways, not the working poor). Everyone else, even the working poor, at least make some half hearted attempt to be independent from government aid that is really tax payer aid.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 3:49:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The whole point of an 'entitlement' is that gratitude is inappropriate, they are entitled to this and that, so it wasn't a gift, but rather something inherently due them.

I'd settle for just calling it welfair again, and not an entitlement. Oh and make them go to city hall, stand in line and get their ill gotten gains that way.