Inequality in America - How we arrived where we are / whats your opinion?

[45-70.gov]

can  some one tell  me  how equality  and fre choice are compatable

[Empty Quiver]

And that's the whole point. 40 years ago there were around 50 news services. Today there are maybe 6. Enforcement of antitrust laws would have stopped that. It would also have stopped Chevron from buying the company that has the patents for cheap, reliable batteries for electric cars--- the only ones that can compete economically with gas engines. (They still won't let anybody produce those batteries in anything larger than a "C" cell.) Further enforcement of environmental laws would make coal companies restore mountaintops to their original height when the coal was stripped out--- wind power companies, who install windmills on mountaintops because of stronger winds, have lower outputs when those mountains are scalped off by several hundred feet--- and, it's on public land! I keep saying that THIS is not capitalism. You cannot have the Money running things in capitalism...

In larger than C cell they pack enough energy to become very dangerous. The military used those D cell sized and had serious problems and quit. there is good safety reasons why Lithium Ion tech is pretty much limited to AA and smaller. Witness the new Boeing Dreamliner battery problems if you can't see the problem potentials.


As to the liberal definition. Co-opting a name or phrase does not change the realities does it? By your own observations it would seem so. Your basic argument is indefensible, as a reaction you have begun to argue the meaning of "is", by diverting the question you have certainly not won your argument typical "liberal" [size=78%] [/size]tactics. Are you getting some sort of high volume discount on these strawmen?

Is Chevron not an energy company? Why would they not want to invest in the next energy?  AT&T was most certainly a telegraph concern before becoming a telephone company. How is it that I have a telephone? How is it that Caterpillar allowed the rubber tracks be developed? Why on earth did they put them on a tractor? They had been using the iron tracks for decades. Now they have rubber tracks on any number of brands of tractors. Would it be proper for the investors in Chevron to lose all of their hard earned retirement money because they would not roll with the changes?

Fairness... what makes you qualified to determine fairness? Your ideas of fairness are no more valid than mine... if we want to be fair about it. What is fair about you deciding to give away my treasure simply because you would give yours away? Be a good example and others will follow, you will not need to drive them before you with a club.

[SHOOTALL]

can  some one tell  me  how equality  and fre choice are compatable

they can't if they tried they would shoot themselves in the foot.

[powderman]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberal

 
Really a liberal dict. ? Try Webster's     

There's no such thing.

 
Sure there is. It's just not finished yet.
 
 
http://liberaldictionary.com/

 
SHAGGY. Thanks for the link, I'll chk it from time to time. Right so far though. POWDERMAN.

[mcwoodduck]

liberal [ˈlɪbərəl ˈlɪbrəl]
adj
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) relating to or having social and political views that favour progress and reform
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) relating to or having policies or views advocating individual freedom
3. giving and generous in temperament or behaviour
4. tolerant of other people
5. abundant; lavish a liberal helping of cream
6. not strict; free a liberal translation
7. (Social Science / Education) of or relating to an education that aims to develop general cultural interests and intellectual ability
n
(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a person who has liberal ideas or opinions
[from Latin līberālis of freedom, from līber free]
liberally  adv
liberalness  n


"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality." George Washington

This was written by a liberal.
If it was written by any one with a brain it would simply say.
Liberal- Deluisional person that thinks he or she can go against the laws of economics, physics, and human nature.
Progressive - is some one that progresses the communist line and trys to eliminate freedoms and capitalism so all people can become slaves to an over class that they think they will be part of.
And when Washington was alive a liberal was what we now call a conservitive.  Nice try though.

[mcwoodduck]

And that's the whole point. 40 years ago there were around 50 news services. Today there are maybe 6. Enforcement of antitrust laws would have stopped that. It would also have stopped Chevron from buying the company that has the patents for cheap, reliable batteries for electric cars--- the only ones that can compete economically with gas engines. (They still won't let anybody produce those batteries in anything larger than a "C" cell.) Further enforcement of environmental laws would make coal companies restore mountaintops to their original height when the coal was stripped out--- wind power companies, who install windmills on mountaintops because of stronger winds, have lower outputs when those mountains are scalped off by several hundred feet--- and, it's on public land! I keep saying that THIS is not capitalism. You cannot have the Money running things in capitalism...

So since 5 of the 6 take orders and n talking points from a political party why can we not have only two?  Fox and CNN nad eliminate all of the newspapers?  You should be happy about this as we can eliminate abut 10 millionaires and billionaires in the news media. 

[351 power]

45-70, if i can attempt a response i would say that the more equal we are the more freedom we have. as equality is skewed then my freedom or your freedom is limited. so that means our choices are limited. remember that old cowboy saying that God made man but sam colt made them equal. if you deny someone a firearm or a vote say, you have made them unequal and limted their freedom. those are very clear, black and white examples. most of the aspects of life that limit our equality/freedom/choices are more gray area issues like education, health care, personal safety, income opportunities, and tons more.

[ChungDoQuan]

And that's the whole point. 40 years ago there were around 50 news services. Today there are maybe 6. Enforcement of antitrust laws would have stopped that. It would also have stopped Chevron from buying the company that has the patents for cheap, reliable batteries for electric cars--- the only ones that can compete economically with gas engines. (They still won't let anybody produce those batteries in anything larger than a "C" cell.) Further enforcement of environmental laws would make coal companies restore mountaintops to their original height when the coal was stripped out--- wind power companies, who install windmills on mountaintops because of stronger winds, have lower outputs when those mountains are scalped off by several hundred feet--- and, it's on public land! I keep saying that THIS is not capitalism. You cannot have the Money running things in capitalism...

In larger than C cell they pack enough energy to become very dangerous. The military used those D cell sized and had serious problems and quit. there is good safety reasons why Lithium Ion tech is pretty much limited to AA and smaller. Witness the new Boeing Dreamliner battery problems if you can't see the problem potentials.


As to the liberal definition. Co-opting a name or phrase does not change the realities does it? By your own observations it would seem so. Your basic argument is indefensible, as a reaction you have begun to argue the meaning of "is", by diverting the question you have certainly not won your argument typical "liberal" tactics. Are you getting some sort of high volume discount on these strawmen?

Is Chevron not an energy company? Why would they not want to invest in the next energy?  AT&T was most certainly a telegraph concern before becoming a telephone company. How is it that I have a telephone? How is it that Caterpillar allowed the rubber tracks be developed? Why on earth did they put them on a tractor? They had been using the iron tracks for decades. Now they have rubber tracks on any number of brands of tractors. Would it be proper for the investors in Chevron to lose all of their hard earned retirement money because they would not roll with the changes?

Fairness... what makes you qualified to determine fairness? Your ideas of fairness are no more valid than mine... if we want to be fair about it. What is fair about you deciding to give away my treasure simply because you would give yours away? Be a good example and others will follow, you will not need to drive them before you with a club.

The battery patents Chevron bought were NiMH, not Lithium Ion. The whole reason Chevron bought that company was to STOP production of those batteries--- they have fare fewer problems than Lithium, cost 1/10th as much to make, and are recyclable. Investors necessarily RISK the money they invested. Familiar with the housing bubble? The banks WANTED to make high risk mortgages, because they got to charge more interest. That was no problem, except it risked the BANKS' money. Instead, they lobbied for deregulation, which allowed them to make those high risk loans AND guarantee them through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--- in other words, they passed the risk on to the taxpayers. End result? Banks get bailed out; you and me get the bill. If this is your definition of "fair" you better stay out of the business world--- unless you're a banker, I guess.

[magooch]

And you know what else; those awful greedy bankers forced them poor stupid home-buyers to come in and sign on the bottom line.  It's always someone else's fault.

[ChungDoQuan]

Actually, they sold those loans to anybody they could dupe into signing the contract. Sure, the people who took the loans were taking on more than they could pay, but the banks knew that, too. Of course, the banks had nothing to lose...

[mcwoodduck]

And you know what else; those awful greedy bankers forced them poor stupid home-buyers to come in and sign on the bottom line.  It's always someone else's fault.

.
Yep, its called predatory banking vis-a-vis debt culture and a form of bonded slavery...the stuff and makings of revolutions actually.
.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
Scoot and CDQ....now how would like to conduct a business relationship with people that don't believe in fairness, equality_ _or even have a concept in their minds what fairness and equality actually is....??   Now you know why America and its brand of Capitalism is in the trouble it is....!  Its the zeitgeist.....
.
I'm still waiting for one of the so-called conservatives to post a link from any noted economist or expert that inequality and unfairness promotes a healthy and vibrant economy, and is the cornerstone of Capitalism..
.

.
..TM7

How is it preditroy banking if you sign a loan for a $500,000 house, knowing that the payments will be $3,700 a month and you make $5000 a month.  But the house becomes worth $350,000 because of government intervention in creating a bubble that burst and you deside that you are paying too much for the house?
If I bought a car/ truck from you for $20,000 and a year later I find out that a dealership will only give me $12,000 for It shouldn't you give me back the $8,000  under your same logic?

[45-70.gov]

DUCK...you just don't know your ''victimology''


people  shouldn't be able to  make such choices to get that loan

[ChungDoQuan]

Do y'all mean to tell me you believe the DOW went over 14,000 LEGITIMATELY? The "profits" Wall Street are making are only as high as they are due to those corporations' tax dodges and tax funded insurance plans, like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc. They are literally selling you your own money, and charging you a percentage. You watch your retirement fund numbers climb, thinking you're ok. Then, either the market takes a dive, and you get 1/2, or the market stays up, and you end up paying higher taxes, negating the pseudo gains you thought you had anyway. You can not let the money run a capitalist economy--- it's the ultimate conflict of interest.

[mcwoodduck]

Do y'all mean to tell me you believe the DOW went over 14,000 LEGITIMATELY? The "profits" Wall Street are making are only as high as they are due to those corporations' tax dodges and tax funded insurance plans, like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc. They are literally selling you your own money, and charging you a percentage. You watch your retirement fund numbers climb, thinking you're ok. Then, either the market takes a dive, and you get 1/2, or the market stays up, and you end up paying higher taxes, negating the pseudo gains you thought you had anyway. You can not let the money run a capitalist economy--- it's the ultimate conflict of interest.

NO I agree there were shanagans in the banking.  It came from a Liberal House member that wrote a banking law that said the banks HAD TO give people that can not afford the loan payments but since the law made them they came up with Interest only so people could qualify.
So with that same house above that is $500,000 in instead of making $5,000 a month to beable to make the 3700 payment htye were making loans to people making only 3200 a month so they set up loans that allowed them to pay $1,200 in the interest of the $500,000 with no money down and if the house had gone up the people could have put $ in their pocket after paying loans, if they got a raise or a new job and made the $5,000 a month they could then start paying toward the principal.  and as long as the house was going up in value they were willing to pay the interest only, as soon as the house was not worth the $500,000 they owed they then walked away leaving the bank on the hook for the 100's of thousands they "lost" on hte house.  Then again if they stayed in the house for 20 years paying the interest only for the first 5 years and then a conventional 30 year loan after that they would have a house 2/3rds paid for and would have an asset that as we all know houseing markets turn around as the population grows and people want houses. 

[45-70.gov]

i  am just amased
some one borrows  money then REFUSES to uphold their contract
steals  from the bank and walks away from the home


and  the THEIF  IS THE VICTIM


no wonder the economy  is falling apart....who would loan money at all?


oh yes  money is hard to borrow

[ChungDoQuan]

Do y'all mean to tell me you believe the DOW went over 14,000 LEGITIMATELY? The "profits" Wall Street are making are only as high as they are due to those corporations' tax dodges and tax funded insurance plans, like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc. They are literally selling you your own money, and charging you a percentage. You watch your retirement fund numbers climb, thinking you're ok. Then, either the market takes a dive, and you get 1/2, or the market stays up, and you end up paying higher taxes, negating the pseudo gains you thought you had anyway. You can not let the money run a capitalist economy--- it's the ultimate conflict of interest.

NO I agree there were shanagans in the banking.  It came from a Liberal House member that wrote a banking law that said the banks HAD TO give people that can not afford the loan payments but since the law made them they came up with Interest only so people could qualify.
So with that same house above that is $500,000 in instead of making $5,000 a month to beable to make the 3700 payment htye were making loans to people making only 3200 a month so they set up loans that allowed them to pay $1,200 in the interest of the $500,000 with no money down and if the house had gone up the people could have put $ in their pocket after paying loans, if they got a raise or a new job and made the $5,000 a month they could then start paying toward the principal.  and as long as the house was going up in value they were willing to pay the interest only, as soon as the house was not worth the $500,000 they owed they then walked away leaving the bank on the hook for the 100's of thousands they "lost" on hte house.  Then again if they stayed in the house for 20 years paying the interest only for the first 5 years and then a conventional 30 year loan after that they would have a house 2/3rds paid for and would have an asset that as we all know houseing markets turn around as the population grows and people want houses.

NO US BANK has ever been forced by law to make a loan to anyone. NONE! There is no such law. If there is, cite that law. There IS a law, pushed through by the right, that ALLOWED the banks to make such loans and still have them guaranteed by federal programs (taxpayers.)

Talk about repeating a lie so often people believe it!

[45-70.gov]

so  your saying the parasites stole from the tax payers  not the banks


your not disputing.....''borrowing''  and  not returning  is theft???


meaning  they are thieves  not victims if they walked away from the home/loan

[ChungDoQuan]

You don't think the bank got the properties back? You don't think they'll sell those properties again? I'd say they got a fair amount of rent in the meantime, and that was the plan all along.

[SHOOTALL]

Do y'all mean to tell me you believe the DOW went over 14,000 LEGITIMATELY? The "profits" Wall Street are making are only as high as they are due to those corporations' tax dodges and tax funded insurance plans, like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc. They are literally selling you your own money, and charging you a percentage. You watch your retirement fund numbers climb, thinking you're ok. Then, either the market takes a dive, and you get 1/2, or the market stays up, and you end up paying higher taxes, negating the pseudo gains you thought you had anyway. You can not let the money run a capitalist economy--- it's the ultimate conflict of interest.

NO I agree there were shanagans in the banking.  It came from a Liberal House member that wrote a banking law that said the banks HAD TO give people that can not afford the loan payments but since the law made them they came up with Interest only so people could qualify.
So with that same house above that is $500,000 in instead of making $5,000 a month to beable to make the 3700 payment htye were making loans to people making only 3200 a month so they set up loans that allowed them to pay $1,200 in the interest of the $500,000 with no money down and if the house had gone up the people could have put $ in their pocket after paying loans, if they got a raise or a new job and made the $5,000 a month they could then start paying toward the principal.  and as long as the house was going up in value they were willing to pay the interest only, as soon as the house was not worth the $500,000 they owed they then walked away leaving the bank on the hook for the 100's of thousands they "lost" on hte house.  Then again if they stayed in the house for 20 years paying the interest only for the first 5 years and then a conventional 30 year loan after that they would have a house 2/3rds paid for and would have an asset that as we all know houseing markets turn around as the population grows and people want houses.

NO US BANK has ever been forced by law to make a loan to anyone. NONE! There is no such law. If there is, cite that law. There IS a law, pushed through by the right, that ALLOWED the banks to make such loans and still have them guaranteed by federal programs (taxpayers.)

Talk about repeating a lie so often people believe it!

You really need to get out more ! HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF AN AUDIT ? HAVE YOU EVER HAD ONE ? WHEN BANKS DON"T PLAY ALONG WITH GOVT. THEY GET AUDITED OVER AND OVER AND OVER ! It can cost large banks millions . Some arguments should only be entered into if people have a grip on reality .

[Conan The Librarian]

The Community Reinvestment Act comes to mind. It was, as usual, several things. The CRA and the regulatory framework set by Fannie and Freddie combined to create incentives to lend to people who couldn't afford it. There was political pressure on the banks to make riskier loans and they had incentives to enjoy higher interest rates for the riskier loans. The goal was to get minority families into houses. The banks could easily dispose of mortgages, so the usual calculation of risk was discarded. It also created an ethic of greed in that banks could charge higher rates for riskier loans, so it was quite profitable before the bubble burst.
 
In hindsight, it appears that the blame is on the government. They tried an experiment in the correlation of home ownership to good citizenship and increased personal wealth. It didn't work. Now we're paying.
 
GW Bush was one of the big advocates of selling houses to people who couldn't afford them. So was Carter and Clinton. Presumably Obama is too, judging by recent decisions.
 
So "forced" is not correct. Just as you aren't forced to pay taxes. There are incentives for paying them and penalties for not paying them.
 

[45-70.gov]

You don't think the bank got the properties back? You don't think they'll sell those properties again? I'd say they got a fair amount of rent in the meantime, and that was the plan all along.

what was the AGREEMENT'??
did  a bank ever take a home  back  when the ''AGREED'' payments were  made

[45-70.gov]

how  can you  demand every thing  is equal


yet  one man is intitled to a loan   and it is a fair deal
yet another man  is denied the loan  because  no one beleaves in him??


equality  is an  impossible drean  and i see  NO  point  in pursueing equality

[351 power]

i saw some investigative reports about banks selling loans to other banks. each new bank had new requirements or even called the loans in. home owners were then obliged to refinance or default. i can't remember all the variables but many home owners had their mortgages sold to other banks, even out of state banks, multiple times during their original mortgage terms.
these examples aren't even about "equality", they are about criminal banking methods and financially undermining the economy

[45-70.gov]

i saw some investigative reports about banks selling loans to other banks. each new bank had new requirements or even called the loans in. home owners were then obliged to refinance or default. i can't remember all the variables but many home owners had their mortgages sold to other banks, even out of state banks, multiple times during their original mortgage terms.
these examples aren't even about "equality", they are about criminal banking methods and financially undermining the economy

i think the tems  of the contract  are intact  no matter who  buys that loan contract


if  not  then this is another subject

[nw_hunter]

You don't think the bank got the properties back? You don't think they'll sell those properties again? I'd say they got a fair amount of rent in the meantime, and that was the plan all along.

what was the AGREEMENT'??
did  a bank ever take a home  back  when the ''AGREED'' payments were  made

Yes they have and do
I can give you the URL if you want it

When the economy crashed and his business slowed down, Wells Fargo offered to modify Steve Bailey’s loan to lower his payments. After making a series of trial payments, Wells Fargo notified Steve that his modification was on the way.
A few days later he received a letter stating that his modification had been denied. The Wells Fargo representative he spoke with reassured him that they had made a mistake and that he should keep making the payments, which he did for seven months.
Steve then started to receive foreclosure notices. Again, the bank representative assured him that the notices had been sent in error.
Then Steve checked his credit. Wells Fargo had reported him delinquent on his mortgage for the last six months. The reduced payments that Steve had agreed to pay for the previous months had been put into a separate trust by Wells Fargo, and they had not gone towards his mortgage.
Steve took the case to court but lost despite mountains of evidence in his favor. He lost his home and his business. Other homeowners have found themselves trapped in loan modification hell for years…

[scootrd]

It's interesting you cited a Wells Fargo example. Exact same story happened to my secretary almost verbatim to what you described of the other person. And Drum roll ......................................... yep you guessed it.

The culprit was Wells Fargo.

Her outcome was much better though.

Company employees rallied behind her and they all chipped in by cashing in their vacation time and donating the proceeds for her to obtain a lawyer. She eventually was refinanced but not without the lawyer , persistant arm bending , and ultimately the threat of court action. Her case even made local headlines up here in New England at the time.

[mcwoodduck]

i saw some investigative reports about banks selling loans to other banks. each new bank had new requirements or even called the loans in. home owners were then obliged to refinance or default. i can't remember all the variables but many home owners had their mortgages sold to other banks, even out of state banks, multiple times during their original mortgage terms.
these examples aren't even about "equality", they are about criminal banking methods and financially undermining the economy

I saw a similar report, and the one lady was yelling an hollering that the evil bank was taking her house.
She had put $1,200 or some small amount down or for closing costs and she honestly thought the house was a gift from the bank and that she did not need to pay.  The original bank sold the loan after not getting paid for 6 months and the next bank sold it at a discount after owning it for a year and sold it to a third bank that did not get paid for almost another year before it forclosed on the property.  All three banks tried to reason with her and to explain that they are the owners of the loan and the house and that she needed to pay then for the house.
So the lady lived in the house for over 2.5 years with out paying a single payment and then when she was being evicted she called the local community organizer that then called out the media and everyone showed up as the sheriffs department pad locked her door and a huge crowd yelled and hollered about the evil banks.
Now on the other side of this som banks sold the loans and the owners were not notified as nstill made payments to the old bank that were not passed on to the new bank and forclosure was started but most often cleared up before the owners we evicted. 

[scootrd]

Not just Wells Fargo though , they were all in cahoots. A friend I have in the mortgage business told me these folks were making monies off of 300.00  - 600.00 program filing fees alone I believe he exaggerated a bit but do know as long as qualified HAMP institutions met minimum Fed requirements for program enrollments to stay in good graces they were making profits hand of fist just off process fees , then note resales and then ultimately denials.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/02/09/portrait-of-hamp-failure-the-mother-of-all-hamp-nightmares/

To get a full grasp of the scam read through all the 10 parts of the series


excerpt -

Justian was immediately approved for a trial modification from Chase, which was supposed to last three months.  And then:
 

2.5 months into the trial period I was informed by Chase that they transferred my file that they serviced (my loan is owned by Fannie Mae) to IBM Lender Business Professional Services and that my 3rd monthly trial period pmt had to be paid to them, which I did.  I have since been contacted by IBM LBPS via a note taped to my door that I was in default and that I had to re-apply for HAMP with them.  Everything I had going with Chase, they said, was of no consequence.  I called the HAMP Hotline and was told that any file that was sold or transferred had to start all over again.  That’s the rule. When I noted that my file could be transferred every 2.5 mos. and it wasn’t fair, they said, “well, that’s business, don’t expect them to be fair.”

Why, if only there was a government agency who could try to force some fairness on the process!  This endless loop of selling the loan to extend the trial process is nothing new; Justian has heard from others who had their Chase loans sold to IBM LBPS and had to restart their modifications. This is despite assurances at the time of the sale that any transfers would not change mortgage terms and conditions. 

[351 power]

there is alot of decay in the financial part of the economy. and in large corporations in general because they are managed as entities without moral.

[ChungDoQuan]

I hate Wells Fargo. Back when I banked with them, I had direct deposit. After my deposit went in, they would only let me use $300 maximum for 3 days, even though the funds had transferred. I finally got so mad I switched to a credit union. (Credit unions, being under strict regulation, and owned by their customers, do not fail unless they lose those customers.) Wells Fargo now has a history of abusing its customers.


http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/20/news/companies/wells_fargo_fined/index.htm
http://agbeat.com/economic-news/mortgage/wells-fargo-fined-3-1-million-for-mortgage-abuse-of-a-single-borrower/