Obama is the politician of defining Human Nature.

No, it was predatory lenders who forced poor home purchasers to sign the loan contracts, telling them after signing they could then read the contract to see what it contained. Oh, maybe I was thinking of the Health care bill signed by the House members. Never mind.

 

Not really, it was packaging these sub-prime mortgages and selling them to wealthy people and corporations, like other banks and investment firms. That's what I mean about investing their money in their money. As a group, the wealthy corporations made the mortgage loans, their money; packaged the loans and sold them to each other, for their own money. These types of exchanges create no jobs, no infrastructure and do nothing but make the rich richer and amass more money toward the top of the economic heap, which means less to go around down here.

Then, when it came crashing down, we all suffer, except the rich. They still get richer putting back together what they broke.

.

 

Rich people sure are different.....

 

It's much more complex than what you've stated, and you've not touched on the many reasons these loans were being made, why they were being packaged and sold, or the numerous government agencies and non-government agencies who had a part in creating what was doomed to become a financial nightmare.

I worked in the loan department of a bank many years ago, and I don't think any bankers would have come up with this type of lending on their own, without much government prodding and insistence or possible threats.

 

Sounds good on paper, but this is not how it works in reality. While the rich are getting richer, the job market is shrinking, the middle class is shrinking and the poor class is growing.

Arms, legs, functioning cognition, opportunity. Would you suggest we cull these people from the herd by starvation and death by curable disease?

Nature will cull the population of those who are not allowed to be productive and work for a living.

Right..... The rich eat caviar while the poor who collect it eat tree bark and put mud on their infections.

All of the above by our votes.

Given the circumstances, the effort was not too badly carried out. There were so many agencies and private groups it was mass confusion.

Equally with the robbing of the poor by the rich, which is much more prevalent.

Justice is an illusion.

 

Sorry, I was trying to give a simplified explanation. There was an entire industry behind this, but the government was not the motivator, the motivation was plain old greed; and the biggest part of the profits went to the very wealthy. It just came out that the people who were making huge profits selling these packages were betting they would fail.

I could go on for a long time about how the banks and other industries and corporations milk the poor and middle class. Corporate America is out of control.

.

 

If we're going to talk about reality, have you a solution that might be seen as fair and acceptable to all, rich, middle class and poor? If you eliminate the rich who will buy the most expensive products, yachts, automobiles, to name but a couple that provide jobs for many of those you call poor or middle class?

Isn't this getting a little wild? Arms and legs provided by the government? Functioning cognition? Thought desired by the government? Opportunity? Just allowing people to be free to pursue opportunity without government impediment would go a long way towards allowing many people to achieve success. And government can not and should not be given the authority to guarantee success.

I'm sure there's some underlying meaning hidden in that, perhaps you might make it more clear?

Do they really? I think you often go a little too far beyond the facts in trying to make a point.

Then might the biggest problem be who is providing us with the candidates we have to vote for? How often do we see a politician who is elected by a landslide, or who campaigns in a way that brings people together? Aren't most elections won by separating in a way that results in little more than simple majority to accomplish a win?

The UN budget was increased from $611 million to $732 million with $486 million going to salaries and other perks. And in addition there was other wasteful spending, so how much did the Haitians benefit in comparison to those who were so compassionately providing them aid and assistance?

Any factual examples of a rich person robbing a poor person? Or are you just claiming that it should be against the law for an individual or individuals to profit from employing people who are paid wages lower than you think they should be paid?

It would seem more to be elusive in that we can not seem to find agreement on how it should be defined or meted out.

 

Can you point out the facts that first began the process of giving out loans to people who in many if not most cases were easy to see being risky in terms of repaying those loans? Perhaps Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac come to mind? Acorn housing? Of course you can produce a theory that the financial institutions in the beginning initiated a plan to create unsafe loans, sell them off and use the recaptured principle to create even more of the same type loans. I don't think any evidence supporting this exists, while you might look at the government, government agencies (HUD), and Senators Dodd and Frank among others, including some Republicans, and even some NGO's who all had a part in what resulted in a massive financial collapse.

Go ahead, enlighten us as to how banks, other industries, and corporations milk the poor and middle classes. Corporate America has no control other than what the Federal government allows them, and even then it is the politicians who benefit most.

 

People as ill informed as Jack Flash should be ignored. Do the world a favor, turn him off.

 

Please, inform us, all ears.

 

Would you care for a debate on any particular topic. I read your other posts and you seem to have a well-rounded knowledge of world affairs.

.

 

...al that might be true, but the actual cause still seems to me when those mortgages were not paid. Those types of mortgages were available for a while, and all were happy...then the housing market seems to have collapsed That forced interest rates up and the cost of those mortgages.

...I guess we all might be right.

 

That's right, there is some truth to be found everywhere. You might give this some thought, "The rich put their money to work, while the poor work for their money."

Human nature? It depends on the individual human, some are more difficult to satisfy than others, some can never be satisfied, and some are quite easily satisfied. All I will say is that not everyone can become wealthy, but at the same time most anyone can become wealthy. Personally, I prefer nothing more than to satisfy my needs, which are not very great, and when government acts in ways that cause inflation, or devaluation of the currency, it requires me to continually have to adapt unnecessarily. Markets are self correcting when left alone, and it's almost pointless to say more as everyone has a different view on the subject, most often looking for some "one" to place blame on. The problem is societal, and nearly everyone has some blame to bear, myself included.
Perhaps everyone doesn't have a right to a home, or at least not one they can not financially afford. I gave mine away, and rented for the last 15 or so years I lived in the states, and the home I now live in was bought for cash, so I have no monthly payments other than electric, and telephone. No debts at all, and that's how I've lived my life, within my means. The best financial advice I ever received was "Each time you receive a paycheck, pay yourself something first", meaning put aside a portion of what you earn, next pay all your bills, and whatever is left is to live on until the next paycheck.

 

Why do dumb shits like Jack Flash monopolize these pages and drive all intelligent people to other topics? Any answers?

 

There are no limits to the number of posts within a topic, you can say anything you want, at any time; nobody's stopping you.

I'm willing to entertain a debate with you as to why you think I'm a "dumb shit;" if you think you can make a good argument, bring it on (in case you don't get my subtle meaning, this is a challenge).

You sound like a "Tea Bagger," all insult and no substance.



.