Prove it.
Instead of just saying that you are right, and everyone else is wrong, prove it.
Otherwise,you are just spouting your opinion.
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
%@#%@ the unions!
- Thread starter bigbadwulff
- Start date
- Status
Prove it.
Instead of just saying that you are right, and everyone else is wrong, prove it.
Otherwise,you are just spouting your opinion.
Tom:
Yes, there are many reasons to only work part time, but that doesn't change the correlation between more hours = more money.
So, again, according to your data, most, over half were voluntarily working part time.
Only 3.9 % of people with full time jobs are "working poor."
So, out of all the people involuntarily working part time only 24.4% were working poor... so even being stuck with a part time job, chances are you can still make ends meet. That doesn't seem so terrible.
I never made that assumption. Just pointing out the correlation between work and wage. Of course there are SOME that are lazy, some with bad luck... what are the percentages, I don't know.
Do you understand the limits of statistics? Your facts and real information point out correlations I've been saying. Ie. work hard get an education and chances are you'll do good in life. Pointing out X percent of people are poor doesn't negate that. Your data is actually confirming it.
Can you point to anything factually wrong that I've said? Statistics and data consistiantly shows, better education = better wage. More work hours = better income. More people working in a family and stable environment = better income.
Do you disagree with any of this?
Yes, there are many reasons to only work part time, but that doesn't change the correlation between more hours = more money.
So, again, according to your data, most, over half were voluntarily working part time.
Only 3.9 % of people with full time jobs are "working poor."
So, out of all the people involuntarily working part time only 24.4% were working poor... so even being stuck with a part time job, chances are you can still make ends meet. That doesn't seem so terrible.
I never made that assumption. Just pointing out the correlation between work and wage. Of course there are SOME that are lazy, some with bad luck... what are the percentages, I don't know.
Do you understand the limits of statistics? Your facts and real information point out correlations I've been saying. Ie. work hard get an education and chances are you'll do good in life. Pointing out X percent of people are poor doesn't negate that. Your data is actually confirming it.
Can you point to anything factually wrong that I've said? Statistics and data consistiantly shows, better education = better wage. More work hours = better income. More people working in a family and stable environment = better income.
Do you disagree with any of this?
JimmyRayBob
Android Enthusiast
You and I probably couldn't be further apart politically ... but dang if you're not right!!!
Whats the fun in that?
JimmyRayBob
Android Enthusiast
Personally I'd be banging my head into the wall right about now ...
I actually enjoy a good honest debate. Its when it devolves into "I'm right your wrong" that I give up.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
what?
hes centrist and your hard right
its not like your a facist and hes an agraian commie
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
A few facts:
1- Many of these real estate loans were no collateral, no proof of income loans. You basically walked in and got a mortgage loan. The loans were then sold to others, so many banks had nothing to loose.
2- Banks and lenders that did not like it were threatened if they did not lend to people that had absolutely no business buying a home. These pitiful, sad, poor people were tools for a democrat plan that was evil.
Get a clue, Tom . . . home ownership is reserved for those that can afford the home and ann that comes with home ownership. I am tired of supporting by force, the ignorant and poor that are either lazy or choose to remain uneducated and suck the public teat dry.
I know you will not go to this site, but Rush explains it in terms even you can understand. Again, this is likely a waste because you have set opinions with no hold on reality. You are right, we are wrong, and your reply to this post will likely leave you self-satisfied as you spin the facts into the Twilight Zone.
Try this, if you are willing:
Liberal Policies, Not Capitalism, Caused This Economic Condition
Liberal policies caused the real estate problem, not capitalism. Market economics were not to blame; ignoring sensible lending practices was.
Tom, you are sad and uninformed when it comes to making money, capitalism, what the rich do and do not do. I seriously doubt you will ever run a business because you have a chip on your shoulder that really makes me wonder how you get up in the AM and face this big, nasty, evil world. I pity you, as do many on this list, I'd imagine.
Bob
Bob:
I'm of the opinion LOTS of people are to blame for the housing bubble and financial collapse, not just government.
Yes, government pushed to get more people, that were larger risks, into homes. But private banks and lending institutions, were complicit as well. It was a failure on all levels. Citizens, taking loans they can't afford. Banks pushing loans they knew people couldn't afford, and government pushing to loosen government backed lending standards.
I'm of the opinion LOTS of people are to blame for the housing bubble and financial collapse, not just government.
Yes, government pushed to get more people, that were larger risks, into homes. But private banks and lending institutions, were complicit as well. It was a failure on all levels. Citizens, taking loans they can't afford. Banks pushing loans they knew people couldn't afford, and government pushing to loosen government backed lending standards.
Tom Ace
Well-Known Member
Our current budget deficit is $1.4 trillion. If you want to talk about the possible $1.5 trillion deficit that's coming, we can do that, but it's really not an important distinction. Also, our total federal debt is $14.1 trillion. That's not a budget deficit; it's a debt. So, no, I was not wrong by a factor of 10. If I had meant the federal debt, I would have said the federal debt. I meant the budget deficit, which is what I said.
Good, then let's go from there. So, we agree that the solution to our problem includes the following things:
Having the economy rebound
Cutting spending in several areas
Raising taxes
Now, where do we disagree? And let's go from there.
Again, I said deficit, not debt. Our budget deficit is $1.4 trillion, and rounding up $200 billion is 15% of that. Using the debt number is a little misleading.
Sure, but no one is proposing taking $5,000 away from someone making $10,000. This is why specifics are key. What we're talking about is taking more out of the personal income of rich people, some of whom are business owners. We're talking about taking $350,000 instead of $280,000 out of $1 million.
I've used a whole lot of data and evidence to support my points. What have you used?
Ours is not the most stable economy on the planet, or else we wouldn't be in the huge hole we're in. It's inevitable we have recessions, but with a more stable economy we wouldn't have anything close to what we've had recently.
Our poor people don't live better than most. A person living on the streets isn't really any better off than someone living in the streets of Uganda.
The problem is assuming the only people who are in bad positions are those who have made poor decisions. That's not the case.
You're missing my point. Everyone makes the same amount, that means every person makes the same amount of money at every job and has the same amount of money. There is no mechanism for getting a raise. There is no way to get more money. Working more hours and investing wisely aren't options.
Try understanding things first. If the gini indicates that every person has the same amount of money, economic mobility is not an option. As long as there is some difference in people's wealth levels, there is room for mobility.
Please at least attempt to understand what I'm saying. I explained again above. Give it another shot.
You missed the whole point. You claim that if you work hard and go to school, you'll move up. That's not true.
But to respond to your point here, if you work hard and go to school, you should be guaranteed at least a decent standard of living. That's not even true. I'd love it if we had a meritocracy, but there's a lot more to getting ahead than just hard work and education.
That's fine. It won't be the first time you disagree with reality. Just do 5 minutes of research on the poor and lower classes in this country.
As has been clearly shown above, it will make a significant difference in balancing the budget. Anything that decreases the deficit by 15% makes a significant difference.
See, this is part of the problem, too. People seem to think this is more common than it is, and many times that's because they are someone or know someone who has worked their way out of poverty. Yes, it happens, but it's still not as common as it should be. I won't speak for your wife, but I know someone else who worked his way out of poverty when he was a kid, and he thinks if he did it, everyone else should be able to do it. That's a faulty assumption.
Of course this also gets into different issues than taxes. Reducing poverty is more than just taxes. There are a lot of factors in it, and there are a lot of things to be done that don't involve just raising some people's taxes. But overall, it's not going to be easy in a country as separated as we are into rich and poor.
No, they are mischaracterizations. If I have to say "That's not what I said or implied", that means it's a mischaracterization. The fact that you continually use them tells me you don't actually understand what I'm saying.
OK, but that's not what you asked for before. I don't think an extra 10% from the top 1% would be fair if it didn't affect the debt or income equality. But since it would affect those things (assuming Washington starts spending money wisely, which is a stretch), I think it would be fair. That's because they'd be doing their part at that point.
The problem is that you don't understand my argument. I didn't say or imply (see, there's that phrase again) that raising taxes on the rich is going to magically make incomes equal. I said raising taxes is part of the solution, not the whole thing. Again, please stick to things I've actually said.
A good standard would be some other countries like Canada, Denmark and Sweden. They have good wealth equality, good economies and economic mobility.
If it's based on merit, it's fair. But even beyond that, if no one is living in poverty and most people have a good standard of living, there's nothing wrong with wealth inequality to a degree.
Tom Ace
Well-Known Member
Here's a history of banking deregulation. It's a simple, short one, but there are plenty of others with more detail. All you have to do is google it.
I'm asking for your words. What in there was more regulation, and what part of it led to the housing bubble? Anyone can copy and paste. I'm asking you to explain your copy-and-paste.
Why isn't there a facepalm smiley here? Whether or not you refuse to acknowledge it, I did explain it to you there.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
Many, many banks were forced into making these kinds of loans. Things like threats of being accused of discrimination and redlining were primary reasons these bad, BAD loans were made. That and being covered when the loan goes south.
No bank would lend a hundred and fifty grand to a minimum wage earner to purchase a home without a down payment or other source of income. And these kinds of people have no business owing a home.
During the height of these programs, this was routine. These loans were largely known to be bad because they required nothing from the borrower. No income to support the loan, no down payment required, and no proof of income whatsoever. Loans were rapidly offered and hordes of fools took advantage of these "great" deals.
These loans were made to people that had no business getting a home loan. And owning a home must be earned; it is in no way a right as many thought. Like Barney Frank, for instance.
However, you are to correct in one regard; there was to some extent and in some cases, blame enough for all. Some lenders loved it. They could make bad loans and the paper would be bought by other concerns. And if I do not really care about anything but money and I am told if I lend money, the loan will be bought, sure... I'll make the loan.
These loans were absolutely bad and I lay the blame at the feet of a mere handful of people that looked at this as a social program for poor people with absolutely no way to pay the loans back.
It was bad, bad business all around. Just do not blame banks in general. Blame some banks and lending institutions.
Bob
Tom Ace
Well-Known Member
Where? As I've said, working hard and getting an education certainly give you an advantage, but they don't guarantee anything. If you work hard and get an education, you can do well in life, and more often than not, you do. I'm not looking for that to be the case half of the time or 75% of the time, though.
Tom Ace
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Thank you for using that fact. That's the main fact we need. Many banks sold loans to people they knew wouldn't pay them back, and then they were repackaged and sold to others and bet on. This way the people giving out the loan make a quick buck at others' expense. This is what caused the meltdown, and this has nothing to do with the government forcing the banks to do anything. It has to do with the banks using this scheme to make some quick money.
Yeeeahhh, no.
Yes, I get it. You are an person who believes ridiculous things like poor people are lazy and are sucking people. I get it that you are willfully ignorant about reality. I get it that you like to believe these myths you've been fed by people like Rush because they make you feel better about yourself, and they give you an enemy to demonize. You don't have to prove it to me anymore.
Seriously, where is the facepalm smiley? Please don't ever use Rush as a source.
Yes, I've heard these claims before. It's nothing new. No one is saying Freddie and Fannie didn't play any role in things. What we're trying to tell you is that they weren't the cause of it, and neither were "liberal policies". These banks weren't forced to sell these loans. They did it because in doing it, they were able to make some quick money.
As for the rest of your ridiculous nonsense here, I'm sure it makes you feel better to think those things, but I prefer reality myself. But hey, don't let me stop you from living in your own little world. Good luck to you.
Tom Ace
Well-Known Member
I'm wondering whether you have anything other than Rush's word on this.
They would, if they could make money off of it. And since that's exactly what happened, I guess it kind of makes sense, huh?
JimmyRayBob
Android Enthusiast
I've been called a lot of things, but i'm only "hard right" on economic issues. social issues i am much more centrist (for example, i oppose the death penalty).
As for Dark Jedi - i guess i see him as left of center, although i'll admit i haven't spent too much time here in Politics and Current Affairs. Saying we couldn't be further apart was hyperbole - this thread just keeps going and going and going - and nothing changes
heck, i was part of it yesterdayAll in good fun!!
Tom, I'll try and make this quick and to the point.
I disagree. If you mandate tomorrow every job pays $20,000 a year, you have income equality. But, I can still take another job, (unless you pass a law saying you can only have one job) or I can invest it and earn 5% return while another guy spends all his money (unless you outlaw private investment.)
working more hours, second jobs, investments etc ARE options, unless you alter the the entire economic landscape. Just making incomes equal across the board doesn't do that. Income equality and mobility are not linked like you say, unless you alter other mechanisms.
No, work hard go to school, you greatly increase your chances of having a good life. All the data you point to agrees with that.
So, if I go to school and work hard, but spend all my money on crack the government should guarantee I still have a good life? Is there any personal responsibly required in your utopia?
You posted the data yourself! I'm just giving you my anecdotal evidence of what I've seen.
Of the children born in the lower income quintile, 42% stay there while 42% move into the second and middle quintile. Do you think 100% should move out of the bottom quintile? Do you think EVERYONE is hard working? Do you deny lazy people exist? Do you think its theoretically possible to eliminate poverty all together? Is everyone in the bottom income bracket hard working educated, but just can't catch a break? I'm not saying their all lazy deadbeats, but their not all hard working people with bad luck either.
BINGO... the tax rate has nothing to do with income inequality. There is not some magic income bracket that if enacted would then equalize everyone's income.
hmmm...
You implied and even used that word, that if everyone was paying their fair share of taxes, we would have wealth equality.
Your creating a linkage where it doesn't exist. You think wealth isn't distributed evenly, that must mean the rich don't pay their fair share. Your implying income equality is somehow linked to the tax rate... its not.
What you tax a doctor has zero effect on the income of a janitor.
No one living in poverty? Really? Do you believe, that given the opportunity, everyone would take a job and work hard, thus eliminating poverty?
I disagree. If you mandate tomorrow every job pays $20,000 a year, you have income equality. But, I can still take another job, (unless you pass a law saying you can only have one job) or I can invest it and earn 5% return while another guy spends all his money (unless you outlaw private investment.)
working more hours, second jobs, investments etc ARE options, unless you alter the the entire economic landscape. Just making incomes equal across the board doesn't do that. Income equality and mobility are not linked like you say, unless you alter other mechanisms.
No, work hard go to school, you greatly increase your chances of having a good life. All the data you point to agrees with that.
So, if I go to school and work hard, but spend all my money on crack the government should guarantee I still have a good life? Is there any personal responsibly required in your utopia?
You posted the data yourself! I'm just giving you my anecdotal evidence of what I've seen.
Of the children born in the lower income quintile, 42% stay there while 42% move into the second and middle quintile. Do you think 100% should move out of the bottom quintile? Do you think EVERYONE is hard working? Do you deny lazy people exist? Do you think its theoretically possible to eliminate poverty all together? Is everyone in the bottom income bracket hard working educated, but just can't catch a break? I'm not saying their all lazy deadbeats, but their not all hard working people with bad luck either.
BINGO... the tax rate has nothing to do with income inequality. There is not some magic income bracket that if enacted would then equalize everyone's income.
hmmm...
You implied and even used that word, that if everyone was paying their fair share of taxes, we would have wealth equality.
Your creating a linkage where it doesn't exist. You think wealth isn't distributed evenly, that must mean the rich don't pay their fair share. Your implying income equality is somehow linked to the tax rate... its not.
What you tax a doctor has zero effect on the income of a janitor.
No one living in poverty? Really? Do you believe, that given the opportunity, everyone would take a job and work hard, thus eliminating poverty?
Then your aiming for a utopia that will never exist. And here we have to chalk it up to difference of opinion. You can manipulate data on paper all day long, but a society and economy isn't a bank account that can be administrated on paper. You can try all day long, for the magic tax rate or income ratio or this or that, and you will never get the utopia were everyone moves out of poverty, but you will most likely destroy your economy in the process.
Utopia's don't exist. Communism tried what your proposing, taking from each according to what they could afford, and giving to each according to what they needed. They collapsed. Their economy couldn't sustain itself. It might sound nice, you might even be able to work it all out with models and statistics on paper, but it will never work in real life, because human nature can't be reliably modeled, the human condition can not be captured with statistics and numbers. they are useful when applied correctly, but a dream where there are no poor people, where everyone works hard and does whats expected of them just won't happen.
Here's something called an inference, the site you posted had nothing to do with the question I posed, and you didn't answer the question I posed, so you either A) Don't understand the question (which I find doubtful, since you seem to have decent reading comprehension), or B) you find yourself unable to answer the question.
I ask you again. Which laws, or regulations would have prevented subprime loans 15-20 years ago?
Why would I give you my own words, when I posted the very regulations that were added?
Did you not understand them? Do you need them put into laymen's terms? I am more than willing to help with either of those, but you seem to be avoiding the regulations VERY VERY hard.
So, you don't understand the word mischaracterization... why didn't you say so?
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
And when you decry my use of Rush Limbaugh as a source, you might try explaining why the things he says are in error or out and out lies.
Fact is Rush is accurate and I defy you to claim otherwise. The link I provided is factual and again, prove he lied. Better men than you have tried and failed, I'll tell you that.
I'll wait
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXGhvoekY44
OK, so what ya got?
Bob
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
banks here actively pressurised the government for 100%+ mortgages
I can't understand that the US could've been so different that it was the other way around.
I can't understand that the US could've been so different that it was the other way around.
I wouldn't call Rush a lier, but he ignores many nuances and details, in the name of a strengthening his argument and creating an entertaining and high rated show.
Tom Ace
Well-Known Member
This isn't hard, unless you have trouble reading a few paragraphs in a row. Read the link provided, and you'll have your answer.
OK, what regulations were added?
Yes, clearly I'm the one who doesn't understand it.
I understand your need to stay in your bubble, though. I'll be here in reality, if you want to take a trip outside of it.
Tom Ace
Well-Known Member
I do so love the tactics here. I provide explanation after explanation, and you guys just blatantly ignore them and ask for explanations. In my previous post, I explained why you and Rush are incorrect, along with saying that using anything Rush says is silly.
I don't really feel like explaining this to you again. If you want the explanation, refer to my last post to you. But the fact that you believe Rush never lies and that's where you get your opinions certainly explains how far gone you are. It really is sad that anyone takes him or his cohorts seriously.
Tom Ace
Well-Known Member
This is a very good point, although I would go as far as calling him a liar, too. But you're right that the main problem is that all he's trying to do is sell his product. That means more than anything he's interested in telling people what they want to hear. Part of that is not making things too complicated. His base wants easy, simple answers for everything, and they want a villain. The villain they're looking for is democrats/liberals. So, if he can tell them that they are to blame for something, it helps his ratings. Also, if he can give a simple, easy-to-understand explanation (avoiding any details that might give detailed and therefore more accurate picture), it also helps his ratings.
Rush and other right-wingers aren't the only ones guilty of this. It happens on the left too, but not nearly as much and not nearly as misleadingly as Rush and Beck do it.
- Status