Democrat COWARDS

[ariscus99 1]

Greedy millionaires and billionaries on wall street got $800 billion to bail them out and this is the best you can do? You can't refute the facts I have presented because you have nothing to back up your emotional rants about how it's the greedy middle class person who wants a second home that's the problem. Yeah, that's the problem.

And FYI - the number one cause of foreclosures is medical bills resulting from lack of insurance (possible due to losing their job) or insurance won't pay Not someone getting a flat screen tv. Just another right wing rant to deflect from the truth because the right wing can't handle the truth (they come out looking really bad).

Why are you trying to convince me that the bail out was unfair? I didn't want it. I would have much rather let them suffer the consequences of their actions. But nooo, they were "too big to fail" what a bunch of crap. They should have failed, because they DID fail. Letting them fall apart would have been a great example for us to put in the history books so we don't make the same mistakes again, which we will because we now the government will just bail us out of it. Who cares if we can afford and what we're doing to the economy of not only the nation but the whole world.

Here is an article written in January listing the top 4 reasons for foreclosures:

1. Economic Downturn – The decline of the economy can have a significant effect in employment. When companies downsize, a member or member of a particular family can lose their jobs. In effect, their buying power. Consequently, their ability to keep up with mortgage payments and other bills is also severely affected.2. Speculation –Another reason why a foreclosure defense lawyer Atlanta is hired is due to the fact that many real estate investors buy property based on speculation. They use the properties as rentals with the hopes that they can rake in heaps of cash later on. Foreclosure becomes inevitable when the investor lacks solid experience in managing these rental properties.

Because of the economy’s downturn its effect in the buying power of people, many renters lose the capacity to pay the required rent which consequently results to the owner’s inability to pay the mortgage on time.

3. Overspending –This is probably the most common reason why people end up hiring an Atlanta foreclosure defense attorney. Individuals who doesn’t have the skill to handle and manage their finances properly; people who have gambling problems and drug problems are more inclined to facing property foreclosures.

The solution to this problem is quite obvious—learn to manage your money effectively so you can keep up with your financial obligations and avoid further expenses that entails losing an investment or hiring a foreclosure defense lawyer Atlanta.

4. Family Crisis –Illnesses and death in the family can sneak up on us and leave us dumbfounded. If unprepared for events such as these, they can leave a gaping wound in our budget and could result to delayed or unpaid mortgage payments and other bills. Dealing with illnesses or eventual death and home eviction altogether is just not ideal.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

The point about the bailouts is that they played russian roulette with our money and then said to the government - if you don't bail us out then what little money the middle class has left will be wiped out - and it would have been. So we gave them our money to invest and they engaged in greedy practices, lost and then they asked for more of our money.

It doesn't matter if you agree with the bailout or not. What matters is that it took one week to get that money to bail them out. Very few questions asked. Almost zero accountability and here's your money. No thanks. Just bonuses for the crooks who gambled. And we collectively yawned.

Now compare that to the $785 billion in stimulus to the middle class that created or saved hundred of thousands if not a million jobs. Well, the tea party hypocrites sure have howled about that.

I will keep saying this over and over - the economic crisis was not caused by the middle class, working poor or the social security recipients or the unions. They are just too easy targets and easy to blame.

It wasn't cause by some guy who took out a second mortgage to buy a big screen tv or a single mom who has cable.

Does no one else but me see the hypocrisy of giving the likes of palin, limbaugh, beck, et all billions more in tax cuts and then cutting funding to public television and radio?

Show me the facts and statistics and proof that it was the middle class, the working poor or the senior citizens who caused this economic mess and show me where they are getting wealthier and more powerful which the rich are getting poorer and losing power.

If you can't do that - then please move on.

Isn't there a homeless person you can point in the direction of a dumpster?

[ariscus99 1]

Isn't there a homeless person you can point in the direction of a dumpster?

Classy, even for you. As I stated before, the point of that was not to say thats what people should have to do, but it's what one family chose to do in order to not take handouts from the government, because they were determined to make it on their own. If not everyone is willing to go to those extremes I understand. However if you choose to not try at all and immediately to turn suckle on the teet of government handouts, screw you.

[ariscus99 1]

Firsty of all no one held the banks hostages and forced them to make badloans. When we went to buy our first and second home we didn't knowwhat table or computations the banks used to calculate your eligibility for theloan. If we had chosen too expensive of a house, they would have toldus. And if the banks are making $1 million dollar loans to peopleearning $70,000 then they need to get out of the banking business because theyare stupid and creating risk for the rest of us. So, it is thebank's fault.

Thethousands of mortgage defaults and foreclosures in the "subprime"housing market (i.e., mortgage holders with poor credit ratings) is the directresult of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make badloans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans tolow-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call"communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purelyeconomic criteria.

Theoriginal lobbyists for the CRA were the hardcore leftists who supported theCarter administration and were often rewarded for their support with governmentgrants and programs like the CRA that they benefited from. These includedvarious "neighborhood organizations," as they like to callthemselves, such as "ACORN" (Association of Community Organizationsfor Reform Now). These organizations claim that over $1 trillion in CRA loanshave been made, although no one seems to know the magnitude with muchcertainty. A U.S. Senate Banking Committee staffer told me about ten years agothat at least $100 billion in such loans had been made in the first twentyyears of the Act. So-called "communitygroups" like ACORN benefit themselves from theCRA through a process that sounds like legalized extortion. The CRA is enforcedby four federal government bureaucracies: the Fed, the Comptroller of theCurrency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit InsuranceCorporation. The law is set up so that any bank merger, branch expansion, ornew branch creation can be postponed or prohibited by any of these fourbureaucracies if a CRA "protest" is issued by a "communitygroup." This can cost banks great sums of money, and the "communitygroups" understand this perfectly well. It is their leverage. They usethis leverage to get the banks to give them millions of dollars as well as promising to make acertain amount of bad loans in their communities. A mannamed Bruce Marks became quite notorious during the last decade for pressuringbanks to earmark literally billions of dollars to his organization, the"Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America." He once boasted tothe New York Times that he had "won" loancommitments totaling $3.8billion fromBank of America, First Union Corporation, and the Fleet Financial Group. Andthat is just one "community group" operating in one city — Boston.

Bankshave been placed in a Catch 22 situation by the CRA: If they comply, they knowthey will have to suffer from more loan defaults. If they don't comply, theyface financial penalties and, worse yet, their business plans for mergers,branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by CRA protesters, which can cost alarge corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars. Like mostbusinesses, they have largely buckled under and have surrendered to theirbureaucratic masters.

Consequently,banks in every community in America have been forced to hold a portfolio of badloans, euphemistically referred to as "subprime" loans. In order tocompensate themselves for the added risk of extending these loans, many lendershave increased the lending fees associated with mortgage loans. This is simplyan indirect way of doing what banks always do — and what they must do to remainsolvent: charging effectively higher rates of interest on riskier loans.

Butthis is discriminatory!, complained the "community organizations."Thus, if one browses the ACORN web site, one can read of their boasts of having"predatory lending laws" passed in numerous states which outlaw suchfees, prohibiting banks from protecting themselves from the added risk involvedin making forced loans to "subprime" borrowers.

These are price control laws, and price controls alwayscause shortages. Normally, banks would respond to such laws by extending fewerriskier loans. But in this case the banks areforced tocontinue making the marginal loans by their bureaucratic masters at the Fed andthe other three federal bureaucracies mentioned above. So-called predatorylending laws therefore force the banks to "eat" the losses. This isundoubtedly a contributing factor to the bankruptcy of dozens of mortgagelenders over the past year.

Thenof course there is the issue of the Fed's monetary policy having created thehousing bubble, characterized by a spectacular escalation of real estate valuesin every American city over the past decade or so. This created a furtherproblem for the financial institutions that are victimized by the CRA. They areforced to make a certain amount of bad loans, but because of the Fed-createdexplosion in housing prices, many thousands of subprime borrowers no longerqualified, by a long stretch, for conventional mortgages based on theirincomes.

Theonly way these borrowers could qualify for their mortgage loans (even ignoringtheir bad credit ratings) was to take out adjustable rate mortgages, some ofwhich had astonishingly low first-year rates in the 3 percent range, andsometimes lower. This is what has largely fueled the subprime mortgage meltdown— the inability of thousands of subprime borrowers to afford their mortgagesnow that their rates have adjusted upward. Thus, the combination of the Fed'senforcement of the CRA (with the help of political pressure groups like ACORN)and its post 9/11 monetary policy in general are the reasons for the burstingreal estate bubble and the "subprime" mortgage meltdown.

Don'texpect to read about this in the "mainstream media," however, whichgenerally views groups like ACORN as heroic champions of the poor, laws likethe CRA as anti-discrimination laws, and places all of the blame for the subprimemortgage meltdown on greedy capitalists, especially mortgage brokers.Encouraged by such reporting, the odious Senator Charles Schumer of New Yorkhas promised federal legislation that will reign in these miscreants, while theBush administration is proposing an indirect bank bailout by having the FederalHousing Administration cover many of the bad "subprime" loans. Thiswill create what economists call a "moral hazard" by encouraging evenmore bad loans to be extended in the future. Every banker in America will beglad to extend loans (at high rates of interest) to the most uncreditworthyborrowers if he thinks there is no possibility of default with the FHAeffectively guaranteeing the loan.

If someone loses their job, there ought to be some program that they canpay a certain amount each month on their mortgage until they get back on theirfeet and are able to repay the loan in full. The bank doesn't haveto foreclose (which they don't want) - the people get to stay in their homesand everyone wins.

And then the incentiveto work hard is what? If you know you aren't going to lose anything if you loseyour job, why worry about it. Eh, I'll find a job eventually.

Your whole "personal responsibility" arguement that is thecornerstone of those on the right who have jobs, homes and healthcare (and withyou and your spouse - union perks) and is just smoke and mirrors todeflect from the real problem.

Negative. The whole "personalresponsibility" argument, is based on what that stands for and represents. Iwas just watching America Live with Megyn Kelly and she had some left wing guyon who was on the same premise as you that it's all the banks fault, but hefinally acted like an adult and said someof the blame is on the bank, but the majority has to be with the person whotook out the loan they couldn't afford. And as I've stated before, if I had thechoice of not being in my union, I would, as would many of my coworkers. But ifI choose to opt out guess what? The union still take $92 a month from me. How ridiculousis that?

Show me where the middle class or working poor aren't pulling theirweight. I have provided statistics to show how productivity is up.

Show me where the middle class have gotten richer and the richpoorer. I have shown you statistics that prove the opposite.

I'm all for the poor andmiddle class getting richer, but why must the rich get poorer? Can you explainthat to me?

Show me where the current economic crisis was caused by middle classgreed, enrichment, laziness or the fault of the working poor or senior citizensgetting social security. I have shown you statistics that show itwas from Wall Street greed and bush's failed economic policies.

Well quite simply if wedidn't have SS we would have 32% of our annual budget freed up to use, whichplays into the phase out of SS being a good idea.

Show me where the power of the middle class has been enhanced in termsof wealth or political clout. The last bastion of power to level theplaying fields - the unions - is being assaulted in a concerted effort from theright (part of their larger, sinister agenda)

Why, in these timeswould their power or political clout have been enhanced? Times are bad, notgood. Things don't usually enhance during bad times. Unfortunately youtypically need money to make money, so the wealthy don't usually lose a wholelot, which is why many strive to get there. Again why should the "playing field"be level? Why shouldn't some have more than others? Those who work harderdeserve more. If you want everyone to be equal, try some communist country, butthat's not how it works in a capitalist one. If it were easy to get rich,everyone would be, and it would mean nothing. It shouldn't, however beimpossible to get rich, which because of our capitalist nation it's not. It canbe done with hard work, determination, and sometimes a little bit of luck.

Because of thecurrent recession there are more people hurting financially that are gettingunemployment, food stamps and other entitlements that they paid for when theywere working - but show me where, outside of the current recession, that thisis the biggest cause of our economic problems - or even within this recession.

Entitlements make up themajority of our national budget, so one could deduce that if they wereeliminated or restricted, that we would then have much more money to spend.

You can't give tax cuts (costing billions) - that aren't paid for- tomillionaires and billionaries - and then say we have a budget problem - andtherefore we need to cut subsidies to Planned Parenthood, or home heating oil,etc..

We just threw billions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthiest americans thatdidn't need it. They aren't creating jobs - they are just gettingricher. And they've been getting richer because they are taking fromthe middle class by asking for lower wages or shipping jobs overseas or anynumber of things to get richer.

Of course they ship jobsoverseas, America has(thanks to unions) largely priced itself out ofmanufacturing of goods. Why pay an American worker $20 an hour and have thembitch and moan all day long about it and only want more from you, when you canpay someone in another country $3 or $4 an hour and they are just thankful tohave a job. Companies are in the business of making money, not supporting youor me. If I own a business and I pay you $15 an hour to do your job and youcome to me and demand $25 and tell me you won't work for any less, I'll fireyou, because guess what there is 100 people in line behind you who would loveto have that job.

How about if all the Wall Street crooks give up their bonuses for oneyear and donate that money to the struggling states to be used for education,police, fire and government services? It only took the bushadministration one week - ONE FREAKING WEEK - to come up with $800 billion tobail out the crooks on Wall Street - so I think it's time they gave somethingback. THAT'S WHERE REAL PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY STARTS - WITH THEONES WHO F***ED UP.

Quit blaming the hard working people of this country - starting with the easytargets - for the crimes of the rich. It's time thewealthy started acting responsible.

It's time EVERYONEstarted acting responsibly. Starting with living within your means, that goesnot only for people but for governments especially, local, city, state, and thetrainwreck money spending national government we have.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Classy, even for you. As I stated before, the point of that was not to say thats what people should have to do, but it's what one family chose to do in order to not take handouts from the government, because they were determined to make it on their own. If not everyone is willing to go to those extremes I understand. However if you choose to not try at all and immediately to turn suckle on the teet of government handouts, screw you.

Nice try - with the backpedaling and all. But you can't put the toothpaste back in the extremist tube now. Even pattygreen didn't try to backpedal on her extremist positions.

I don't receive any government handouts. Never did. But your're the one sucking on the teet of the union perks while bashing them. So screw you.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

And then the incentiveto work hard is what? If you know you aren't going to lose anything if you loseyour job, why worry about it. Eh, I'll find a job eventually.

So, you're saying that if a person loses his job it's because they didn't work hard enough? Are you sure you aren't Glenn Beck? Where is your chalkboard? More looney logic from you - you are becoming increasingly discredible, if that is possible.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Negative. The whole "personalresponsibility" argument, is based on what that stands for and represents. Iwas just watching America Live with Megyn Kelly and she had some left wing guyon who was on the same premise as you that it's all the banks fault, but hefinally acted like an adult and said someof the blame is on the bank, but the majority has to be with the person whotook out the loan they couldn't afford. And as I've stated before, if I had thechoice of not being in my union, I would, as would many of my coworkers. But ifI choose to opt out guess what? The union still take $92 a month from me. How ridiculousis that?

I don't think people should take out mortgages that they can't afford. But I still think it is the bank's job to oversee that process. But again, people taking out mortgages they couldn't afford is not the number one reason we are in the economic mess we are in. I have present compelling evidence as to why we are, who has gained (gotten richer in money and power), who has lost and who is at fault and who isn't .

You still haven't offered any evidence to the contrary that the people who are getting blamed by the right wing for the mess we're in and on whose backs they want to cut spending and balance budgets are really the ones at fault.

As far as unions, I would be a big supporter of allowing people to opt out of unions and all the wages, benefits, and working conditions they gain through the collective bargaining process and be free agents to negotiate their own. Why don't you bring this up at your next union meeting - you and all the others who you claim are like minded - then get back to me on how that went.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I'm all for the poor andmiddle class getting richer, but why must the rich get poorer? Can you explainthat to me?

Ah, because there is only a finite amount of money - and the rich got richer by taking it from the working poor and middle class by way of undeserved tax cuts, loopholes, offshore accounts, low capital gains and estate taxes, etc...

It's time for them to pay their fair share. Do you know that at one time the rich paid upward of 90% tax and guess what - they were still rich and did very well. No one is proposing that - just a 3% increase and Boehner needs CPR.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Well quite simply if wedidn't have SS we would have 32% of our annual budget freed up to use, whichplays into the phase out of SS being a good idea.

We pay into SS with the promise that we will receive it when the time comes. SS is not the problem and there are tweaks to make it better, but SS did not cause this problem and if we just taxed the rich at the rate they used to be taxed - the deficit would almost be totally reduced.

[ariscus99 1]

Nice try - with the backpedaling and all. But you can't put the toothpaste back in the extremist tube now. Even pattygreen didn't try to backpedal on her extremist positions.

I don't receive any government handouts. Never did. But your're the one sucking on the teet of the union perks while bashing them. So screw you.

I'm not backpedalling on anything, I was very clear about what I meant, you feel free to spin it in your mind in whatever way you need to to make yourself feel good. "You" was meant as a generality, not you specifically. The world doesn't actually revolve around you, get over yourself, your acting like a sixteen year old girl. And my union, as I've said wont allow me not to be a part of it.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Why, in these timeswould their power or political clout have been enhanced? Times are bad, notgood. Things don't usually enhance during bad times. Unfortunately youtypically need money to make money, so the wealthy don't usually lose a wholelot, which is why many strive to get there. Again why should the "playing field"be level? Why shouldn't some have more than others? Those who work harderdeserve more. If you want everyone to be equal, try some communist country, butthat's not how it works in a capitalist one. If it were easy to get rich,everyone would be, and it would mean nothing. It shouldn't, however beimpossible to get rich, which because of our capitalist nation it's not. It canbe done with hard work, determination, and sometimes a little bit of luck.

In the Gilded Age those who made money made it off the sweat and blood of their workers in the coal mines, shipyards, steel mills, railroads, etc.. They lived in the big houses on the hill, the workers in shantys by the rivers and shopped in the company stores. (I owed my soul to the company store ...as the song goes). Then the workers wanted their share of the pie (wealth) and better working conditions and they rose up and went on strike and were beaten or shot and died for better conditions.

Thus the middle class was formed and it helped build America - the greatest economic story in history. There should be a level playing field so that everyone has the same opportunities. If the owners have all the rights and money and power, well, then that can never happen for the workers. That isn't communism that's fairness.

And you operate under the illusion that all one has to do is work hard and they can get rich. Well, most of today's rich got that way from investments not hard work. Who was that old geezer on the news before the mid terms who said "I got rich the old fashioned way - I inherited it". So true.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Entitlements make up themajority of our national budget, so one could deduce that if they wereeliminated or restricted, that we would then have much more money to spend.

People pay into unemployment, SS and medicare. And are taxed on all of these. And where would you like to spend all this money that you took from the middle class, working poor and senior citizens? These people put this money back into the economy - they spend it and help stimulate it. If you took 32% of the money out there out of our economy what impact do you think it would have? It would be devastating. What a ridiculous idea, among your many.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I'm not backpedalling on anything, I was very clear about what I meant, you feel free to spin it in your mind in whatever way you need to to make yourself feel good. "You" was meant as a generality, not you specifically. The world doesn't actually revolve around you, get over yourself, your acting like a sixteen year old girl. And my union, as I've said wont allow me not to be a part of it.

Where did I ever say that I thought the "you" was directed at me personally? Nowhere. I knew what you meant and when you saw my reply you backpedaled because you saw how ridiculous and insane your post was.

You said it - you backpedaled - now don't blame me for the consequences of what you said. I, and everyone else who read your post, knew what you meant.

As I said, ask you union about whether you can opt out at the next meeting. If not, then find another non-union line of work since you find it so distasteful. In the private sector, of course. I hear Walmart's hiring. Hell, they even have those commericals on tv about how you can rise up the ladder there to all kinds off cushy positions in managment.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Of course they ship jobsoverseas, America has(thanks to unions) largely priced itself out ofmanufacturing of goods. Why pay an American worker $20 an hour and have thembitch and moan all day long about it and only want more from you, when you canpay someone in another country $3 or $4 an hour and they are just thankful tohave a job. Companies are in the business of making money, not supporting youor me. If I own a business and I pay you $15 an hour to do your job and youcome to me and demand $25 and tell me you won't work for any less, I'll fireyou, because guess what there is 100 people in line behind you who would loveto have that job

So, in order to keep jobs here everyone - union and non union - have to work for $3-4/hour. Why wouldn't all employers ship jobs overseas if they are paying anything more than this? I mean even non-union jobs pay more than $3-4/hour. Oh, I know it's hard to start a business overseas. Well, apparently not that hard.

Slam these corporations with big taxes on jobs shipped overseas and then see how many they ship. And reward them for jobs they create here.

And with unions it's called BARGAINING which means its a give and take from both sides. Not demands from either side alone.

[ariscus99 1]

And then the incentiveto work hard is what? If you know you aren't going to lose anything if you loseyour job, why worry about it. Eh, I'll find a job eventually.

So, you're saying that if a person loses his job it's because they didn't work hard enough? Are you sure you aren't Glenn Beck? Where is your chalkboard? More looney logic from you - you are becoming increasingly discredible, if that is possible.

Are you saying that a lack of hard work does not lead to job loss? In your field we all know it doesn't, once you reach tenure as a teacher you can do nothing, have failing students, fail your tests, rape your students, you name it (again, I'm not saying YOU personally did these things okay, focus on that while you read so your next post doesn't say that I called you a rapist because I know if I didn't make that clear you would) and you can't be fire. New York has upwards of 700 teachers getting paid to surf the internet and play scrabble because they can't be fired, thanks unions!

So in part, yes I'm saying if people lose there jobs it sometimes has to do with them not working hard. If I had to layoff ten people who do you think I'm going to choose from my 50 employees, the hardest workers? The ones who show up every morning 10 minutes early with a smile on their face? Or the one who whines and complains and I catch sitting around all doing nothing? Of course some people's job loss was beyond their control. But not all of them.