Welfare.

[ElasticNinja]

Umm... what was exactly your point? That government destroys opportunity in the economy? Well, that would seem counter to your point.

No, that underregulation causes problems was my point

Umm... the US is the exact same way. I'm still unclear on how you expect us to have any more success than European nations.

EU has problem of vastly different regultary and legal systems, thats no excuse still

I think there needs to regulations on implementing regulations ;D

Some regulation is absolutely necessary, but there should not be unnecessary regulation. It prevents businesses from being innovative.

Of course, innovation must be encouraged (one of communisms stuctural flaws was not too)

Anyway my main regulation point is directed at banks and multinationals

 

[Member243850]

I would have expected that someone from South Africa would have a very deep understanding of how idiotic this system is

Hey shadowninty...

What are you saying here? I am not 100% sure.... sorry for my misunderstanding

Sorry to ask... i am little bit confused hehehehe lol i need to go back to school hahahaha

I don't mind be critized for what i said dude go ahead dude ... don't be ashamed of anything dude!

 

[Member243850]

Hmm there is alot of silence in here....

 

[savoxis]

Why can you people not understand that "life is what you make of it"?

Why should we have a system where 1human being = 1vote?
We shud have a system where 1 dollar = 1 vote or something simlilar...

I think those that work harder.... get what they deserve.... and those that do not work hard get what they deserve....and those that work harder shud have the most say....

You see the person / people that spend the most amount of money towards the government (also known as tax) should have the greatest say since it is their money that is being spent at the end of the day....

The rich have earned it and that is why they (the rich / wealthy) get angry...and very frustrated with the poor....

But yes i understand life is not easy.....but nobody said it was....

This system is inherently flawed. Not everyone with wealth worked for it, in fact most of the extremely wealthy are grandfathered in.
And the people who throw the most money at the government would be lobbyists and the very wealthy no Joe Average

 

[Member243850]

This system is inherently flawed. Not everyone with wealth worked for it, in fact most of the extremely wealthy are grandfathered in.
And the people who throw the most money at the government would be lobbyists and the very wealthy no Joe Average

Then where did their grandparents get the cash from? Did they not work for it too?
And did they not teach their children how to work hard aswell and Teach them everything they know and to earn a decent living?

Their children could have been anything they wanted to...they chose...they chose to learn "the tools of the trade" and grow in their wisdom...it takes a long time to learn these "tools" it doesn't sink in after a day...unless you believe Rome was a built in day that is.

Where do you get ur info from? The people that consume the most money are the "low Average Joe"....Why don't you think so?

Did you know 8% of the taxpayers in South Africa pay 51% of the tax in South Africa? So how did you come to that conclusion? We have a huge amount of bumbs on our system... sorry to say that is fact!

Did you know who Larry Ellison is by anychance? He is in the top 10 richest men in the world.... he was born in a very very poor "family" my friend... He doesn't even know who his father is to this day...


He is a self made man... No government gave him a "free lunch" my friend...

Larry Ellison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh ja i forgot something:

"Give a man a fish for a day......you feed him for a day....teach a man to fish and you feed him for a life time"

 

[byteware]

No, that underregulation causes problems was my point

Our current problems were caused by OVERregulation, just so you are aware. The Community Reinvestment Act regulations were rewritten during the Clinton Administration. Originally, it required that lending institutions offer their services in poor, and minority areas to prevent redlining certain neighborhoods. The rewritten regulations changed how it was determined whether a lending institution was in compliance. Before they had to only show that they offered their services. After the rewrite, they were required to show where they had actually made loans to people from those neighborhoods.

Banks didn't make subprime loans before because it wasn't good business. They don't do things by nature that could cause them to fail. But, they were required to start making loans that they would otherwise turn down. Once they started making these loans, they attempted to get them off their balance sheet by combining them with good loans and selling them on the securities markets. When the loans started going bad, wealth just up and vanished in an instant. The economy tanked.

EU has problem of vastly different regultary and legal systems, thats no excuse still

Do you honestly believe that WE are any different?

I think there needs to regulations on implementing regulations ;D

If only.

Of course, innovation must be encouraged (one of communisms stuctural flaws was not too)

But that's the inherent flaw to having too big of a government. It kills innovation, and it kills initiative.

Why would someone work harder to earn 5 more dollars, when 4 will be taken by the government? They have worked too hard for too little return.

Anyway my main regulation point is directed at banks and multinationals

So, businesses and multinationals should be allowed to innovate, but manufacturing shouldn't? Do we really want to give manufacturing centers ANOTHER reason to move overseas?

 

[byteware]

This system is inherently flawed. Not everyone with wealth worked for it, in fact most of the extremely wealthy are grandfathered in.
And the people who throw the most money at the government would be lobbyists and the very wealthy no Joe Average

However, you do agree that someone at some point worked hard to accumulate that wealth... right?

Do you think that if your father works his fingers to the bone to amass wealth that he should not be allowed to pass that wealth on to his children?

Should the government be allowed to just take it because the children didn't earn it?

How many generations removed should the government be allowed to take your father's hard earned money?




------------------------------------------------------

Just FYI, I believe lobbying should be illegal.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Hey shadowninty...

What are you saying here? I am not 100% sure.... sorry for my misunderstanding

Sorry to ask... i am little bit confused hehehehe lol i need to go back to school hahahaha

I don't mind be critized for what i said dude go ahead dude ... don't be ashamed of anything dude!

APARTHEID

SLAVERY

PERSECUTION

Thats why


I was gonna write sth like this as well:

This system is inherently flawed. Not everyone with wealth worked for it, in fact most of the extremely wealthy are grandfathered in.
And the people who throw the most money at the government would be lobbyists and the very wealthy no Joe Average

 

[Member243850]

APARTHEID

SLAVERY

PERSECUTION

Thats why


I was gonna write sth like this as well:

Thanx dude like i said i have no hard feelings.... you 100% right... as South Africans we have been through alot in the past...you are right.... but we are living in the present...not the past... and the ANC is plum loco. Aperthied is loooong gone we have no more slavery.... they are thieves...we are living in the now....and they have done fug all for anyone...

South African Arms Deal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thabo Mbeki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AIDS denialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read about "South Africa" for aids denialism

I have a million other reads but can't find them right now...

I don't mean to be aggressive it's just that you don't live here... you don't know what it's like to be HATED for being white i am sorry dude... i know you are only 14,.... you still have a lot to learn.....but you are very clever for a 14 year old dude

Sorry i din't mean to hurt you

Keep well dude

EDIT

You know a fug load for a 14 year old!!

Well done u will be great someday i am sure

 

[ElasticNinja]

Thanx dude like i said i have no hard feelings.... you 100% right... as South Africans we have been through alot in the past...you are right.... but we are living in the present...not the past... and the ANC is plum loco. Aperthied is loooong gone we have no more slavery.... they are thieves...we are living in the now....and they have done fug all for anyone...

South African Arms Deal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thabo Mbeki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AIDS denialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read about "South Africa" for aids denialism

I have a million other reads but can't find them right now...

I don't mean to be aggressive it's just that you don't live here... you don't know what it's like to be HATED for being white i am sorry dude

Yup I know about your crazy government and
Mbeki's anti-AIDS shower

Its just that you cant change half a century of keeping people down in 15 years, and poorly educated poor people will usually have a large porportion end up as criminals.

I'm sorry dude, but unfortunately you will have to live with your ancestors mistakes
Its gonna be the same with AGW :'(


Its terrible the way SA is gone, all the optimism has left, armed gaurds for housing estates, and I know its tough for you.

I guess you have just got to try your best

 

[Member243850]

Yup I know about your crazy government and
Mbeki's anti-AIDS shower

Its just that you cant change half a century of keeping people down in 15 years, and poorly educated poor people will usually have a large porportion end up as criminals.

I'm sorry dude, but unfortunately you will have to live with your ancestors mistakes
Its gonna be the same with AGW :'(


Its terrible the way SA is gone, all the optimism has left, armed gaurds for housing estates, and I know its tough for you.

I guess you have just got to try your best

Wow ... you have read it just like it is!!!!!

100% on target dude!

Sh#t you are like a genius!!

I was only a young boy when apartheid / apartness came down... i was only 6 years old sadly.....i had nothing .... nothing to do with it.... now i am punished by everyone everyday for something i did not do....i was never involved in any of it!!!!!

I now hate South Africa and what it has become!!!!!

I wish for a peaceful world more than money....power and fame!!!

ALL I WANT IS PEACE!!!!!!

I hope someday humanity will learn to learn from it's mistakes...

I wish we cud all be friends

Damn you are very clever never forget that dude!

EDIT

Thanx sooo much dude this measn alot to me buddy! You have no idea how much your comments mean to me

Regards

Stinky Stinky

 

[Member243850]

I think we shud get back to the main topic thought..... i am sorry for going atangent ...

 

[Baggy]

Social Security and Medicare together are twice our defense spending. And they are still growing considerably. With the Baby Boomers all moving into retirement, those two entitlements would bankrupt this country even if we cut out all defense spending whatsoever.

Facts... they are critical to any discussion.

2009 Defense Spending - 23 % of budget
2009 Social Security - 20% of budget
2009 M/M - 19% of budget

23% going by your uncited facts, its not that I don't believe you but facts need citation (or at the least a link).

The numbers I got were 44.4% for 09. that number is from costs of past wars 13.5% and cost of current wars 30.9%. Spend 19.7% for healthcare and 11.8 for responses to poverty. This is only the budget proposal for 09
Budget Chart: President Bush's FY 09 Budget Proposal - FCNL Issues

more food for thought
Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: The FY 2009 Pentagon Spending Request - Discretionary

proposal for this year
Defense.gov News Release: DoD Releases Fiscal 2010 Budget Proposal

To put US spending in some perspective
it accounts for:
46.5% of the world’s total military spending
7 times more than China
13 more than Russia
73 more times than Iran
World Military Spending ? Global Issues

 

[savoxis]

Scary

 

[ElasticNinja]

Those figures

Glad I dont live there :/

 

[byteware]

23% going by your uncited facts, its not that I don't believe you but facts need citation (or at the least a link).

The numbers I got were 44.4% for 09. that number is from costs of past wars 13.5% and cost of current wars 30.9%. Spend 19.7% for healthcare and 11.8 for responses to poverty. This is only the budget proposal for 09
Budget Chart: President Bush's FY 09 Budget Proposal - FCNL Issues

more food for thought
Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: The FY 2009 Pentagon Spending Request - Discretionary

proposal for this year
Defense.gov News Release: DoD Releases Fiscal 2010 Budget Proposal

To put US spending in some perspective
it accounts for:
46.5% of the world’s total military spending
7 times more than China
13 more than Russia
73 more times than Iran
World Military Spending ? Global Issues

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/tables.pdf

This the information for 2009, that is included in the 2011 budget proposal.

782 billion for defense.

678 billion for Social Security

676 billion for Medicare/Medicaid

FYI, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are NOT discretionary spending. So, they aren't included on the graph you showed above.

Projected future costs... 2019:

993 Billion for defense.

1133 Billion for Social Security

1339 Billion for Medicare/Medicaid

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Just a side note, when you compare the US's military spending with other countries around the world...

Which countries deployed their military to help Haiti?

Which countries deployed their military to help Pakistan?

Which countries deployed their military to help Myanmar?

If the rest of the world would get off their butts and help out once in awhile, then OUR defense spending wouldn't be QUITE so high.

However, I don't expect that to happen any time soon, so don't expect our spending to go down any time soon.

 

[aximtreo]

Taxing solution:

For everyone that makes over $25,000 per year pays a flat percentage; i.e. 8%. No deductions, no claims; no nothing. A flat rate percentage. Now that means that the person making $25,001 will pay $0.08 in taxes. Someone who makes 1,000,000 will pay $80,000 in taxes. Now I ask you, who benefits society and government and social needs more? Remember, no deductions, no excuses; flat rate tax.

Secondly, can anyone explain to me how we have 3 generations of people on welfare? What we have now is a system gone mad. I have no simple solution but I would sure be interested in what others would offer as potential solutioons.

 

[copestag]

Taxing solution:

For everyone that makes over $25,000 per year pays a flat percentage; i.e. 8%. No deductions, no claims; no nothing. A flat rate percentage. Now that means that the person making $25,001 will pay $0.08 in taxes. Someone who makes 1,000,000 will pay $80,000 in taxes. Now I ask you, who benefits society and government and social needs more? Remember, no deductions, no excuses; flat rate tax.

Secondly, can anyone explain to me how we have 3 generations of people on welfare? What we have now is a system gone mad. I have no simple solution but I would sure be interested in what others would offer as potential solutioons.

I have always believed in fair taxation through a Flat Tax..... everyone should pay their share....... and any difference in % is plain and simple discrimination stemming from class envy.....

however here is the problem with a Flat Tax and the reason it will never happen........... lets use your suggested %.... and mind you these numbers would vary with a different % .......... but using 8% as the flat tax.....

currently a married couple filing jointly who have 2 children has to earn over $60K before they ever pay a single penny.. and at $60K its just that.. a single penny.......this is using standard deductions........ the amount is much higher if you can take advantage of other credits or itemize and get other deductions.....the $60K is based on standard deductions that every married couple with 2 kids gets as a minimum period...........

now if that same couple with 2 kids had a Flat Tax of 8% they would pay $4800..........

now tell me exactly which politician that youve ever heard of is going to tell the American people ......... the majority of which hover around the $60K mark as a couple....... that instead of not paying any taxes..... they will now have a tax burden of nearly $5K?

the problem isnt a matter of fairness.....not a matter of fiscal advantage........ not even a matter of common sense....... the problem is the majority dont pay any taxes whatsoever....... and no politician is going to throw away his career for the sake of whats right and Fair

 

[AndyLL]

I absolutely hate having to give you information that you should already know.

The economy was roaring along during the Clinton years. By the end of the Clinton Administration the economy was diving into recession.

Bush brought that economy out of recession WITH the tax cuts.

Your charts clearly show this.

The other option is that the day Bush took office, taxes were cut, and spending skyrocketed, and the economy started to tank? The spending and tax cuts didn't change until late in his first year in office.

Really...

Clinton YtoY change in private GDP starting in 1993:
8.9, 13.6, 3.1, 8.8, 12.4, 10.0, 8.8, 6.8

Bush YtoY change in private GDP starting in 2001:
-7.0, -1.4, 3.6, 10.0, 5.5, 2.7, -3.1, -9.5, -22.6

9/11... not Clinton was the main reason for the initial drop in personal GDP.

It recovered by 2004... but then you had a huge decline. Hard to blame Clinton for that.

Community Reinvestment Act

There were no monetary penilties for not having a high enough rating. In one case it prevented a merger.

Acticle about it.... it has links to raw numbers and testomony:

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis - BusinessWeek

Some highlights:

Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations

Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley

Finally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law’s reach since the day it took office. The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, a period when subprime loans performed quite well.

Better targets for blame in government circles might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated, the SEC’s puzzling 2004 decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital and that same agency’s failure to oversee those brokerage firms in subsequent years as many gorged on subprime debt.

​

Years of Sub Prime Loans
I linked to the wrong chart.

Here is a federal reserve paper on sub-prime loans (2008)

http://www.stlouisfed.org/banking/pdf/SPA/SPA_2007_05.pdf

Some highlights:

The subprime mortgage crisis of 2007 was characterized by an unusually large fraction of subprime mort-gages originated in 2006 and 2007 being delinquent or in foreclosure only months later.​

At every mortgage loan age, loans originated in 2006 and 2007 show a much higher delinquency rate than loans originated in earlier years at the same ages.​

In the first block of Table 1 we see that the annual number of originated loans increased by a factor four between 2001 and 2006. The average loan size almost doubled over those five years.​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Page 9 has a chart of the number of SP loans by year. 2005 had 5 times more then 2000.

Also... in general 60-70% of loans were refinances.​

The FICO scores in 2003-2007 where 20 points higher then in 2000.​

The CRA had little to nothing to do with the sub-prime crisis​

 

[Baggy]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/tables.pdf

This the information for 2009, that is included in the 2011 budget proposal.

782 billion for defense.

678 billion for Social Security

676 billion for Medicare/Medicaid

FYI, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are NOT discretionary spending. So, they aren't included on the graph you showed above.

Projected future costs... 2019:

993 Billion for defense.

1133 Billion for Social Security

1339 Billion for Medicare/Medicaid

I had taken 'responses to poverty' and 'Healthcare' to include the two
Right it doesn't include Social Security and Medicare (although it does include parts of Medicare) their reason for it is:

//FCNL’s analysis looks at the federal funds budget. This is the overall budget, including discretionary, entitlement, and mandatory spending, supported by general revenues, including income taxes and estate and gift taxes. Because the FCNL analysis aims to illustrate how our income dollars are spent, it does not include trust funds, such as Social Security and Medicare, which have their own dedicated revenues.

Here’s how that makes a difference: When president’s proposal says that only 21% of the budget goes to the military, it includes Social Security and Medicare in his definition of the budget. Because this analysis starts with a bigger pie (called the “unified budget&#8221, the military appears as a relatively smaller slice, and social spending looks larger.

Conversely, some national organizations look only at “discretionary spending” – the part of federal spending that Congress handles through appropriations bills. In this case, they’re starting with a smaller budget pie than FCNL, so military spending appears to be a bigger slice.

But Congress has control over entitlement or “mandatory” spending as well as discretionary spending. Changes can be (and often are) made in the budgets for entitlement programs – they’re just made through a different congressional process. Whether discretionary or entitlement spending, the money still comes out of your income tax dollars. //
FCNL Budget Analysis: It's How You Slice the Pie - FCNL Issues

I could also add many reports only report on current military spending, the data I gave still points to the cost of the military and is looking to increase, and that isn't taking into account any wars America get into in the future.
As you do like to invade a country or two.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Just a side note, when you compare the US's military spending with other countries around the world...

Which countries deployed their military to help Haiti?

Which countries deployed their military to help Pakistan?

Which countries deployed their military to help Myanmar?

If the rest of the world would get off their butts and help out once in awhile, then OUR defense spending wouldn't be QUITE so high.

However, I don't expect that to happen any time soon, so don't expect our spending to go down any time soon.

Well the costs of your empire (in denial) and market imperialism is starting to bite. Next you'll be telling me this 'reluctant superpower' only involves itself for selfless reasons. Lets you embrace the fantasy that your global dominance is all for the noble sacrifice of worldwide human liberation.

In fact just the other day someone told me the Iraq 2003 invasion was cos of Saddams 'gassing his own people' what he seemed to forget or not know is that during the Iran-Iraq war the US continued to support Saddam even after he gassed people in north Kurdistan. Not to mention US sanctions/ bombing campaigns killing near one million Iraqi.

 

[ElasticNinja]

In fact just the other day someone told me the Iraq 2003 invasion was cos of Saddams 'gassing his own people' what he seemed to forget or not know is that during the Iran-Iraq war the US continued to support Saddam even after he gassed people in north Kurdistan. Not to mention US sanctions/ bombing campaigns killing near one million Iraqi.

Yup
Not to mention US (w/ support of UK) indirectly assinated Iran's only democratically elected leader (he wanted a greater share of oil profits for Iran - how dare he!) and replaced him with the other dictator guy

Also in 2003/4 Saddam was planning to reprice oil in Euros as EU was biggest customer (shame on us BTW) which have had quite large impacts for the dollar

 

[byteware]

Really...

Clinton YtoY change in private GDP starting in 1993:
8.9, 13.6, 3.1, 8.8, 12.4, 10.0, 8.8, 6.8

Bush YtoY change in private GDP starting in 2001:
-7.0, -1.4, 3.6, 10.0, 5.5, 2.7, -3.1, -9.5, -22.6

9/11... not Clinton was the main reason for the initial drop in personal GDP.

9/11 happened at the END of the year. We were already moving into recession at the end of Clinton's Presidency.

The Global recession actually started in Europe in 2000, and moved to the US in 2001.

This is established fact, not something you can just decide you don't want to believe in.

It recovered by 2004... but then you had a huge decline. Hard to blame Clinton for that.

Why? Because the effects of one's decisions have an expiration date? If they don't materialize within a certain amount of time, then it's someone else's fault?

Community Reinvestment Act

There were no monetary penilties for not having a high enough rating. In one case it prevented a merger.

I stand corrected. There were no monetary penalties. There were however, operational ones. There were things you couldn't do. For instance, you couldn't open a new bank office. You couldn't expand. You couldn't put in an ATM that accepted deposits.

Here's the actual text of the law. Read it for yourself.

FDIC Law, Regulations, Related Acts - Consumer Protection

Some highlights:

Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations​

Yes, once subprime loans started being made, many many unscrupulous businesses started up to take advantage of the extremely HIGH interest rates that these loans paid. That was not how it started.

Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley

Something you failed to note... there was NO difference in foreclosure rates between regulated and unregulated subprime loans.

Banks that had subprime loans had the same foreclosure rate as those businesses that were not regulated.

Emre Ergungor of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that there was no statistical difference in foreclosure rates between regulated and less-regulated banks, although a local bank presence resulted in fewer foreclosuresFinally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law​

 

[byteware]

I had taken 'responses to poverty' and 'Healthcare' to include the two
Right it doesn't include Social Security and Medicare (although it does include parts of Medicare) their reason for it is:

//FCNL

 

[byteware]

Yup
Not to mention US (w/ support of UK) indirectly assinated Iran's only democratically elected leader (he wanted a greater share of oil profits for Iran - how dare he!) and replaced him with the other dictator guy

Care to inform us WHO the US is supposed to have assassinated?

Mossadeq was imprisoned, and we were not involved in the coup against the Shah when Khomeini took control. So, who exactly did we assassinate?

Also in 2003/4 Saddam was planning to reprice oil in Euros as EU was biggest customer (shame on us BTW) which have had quite large impacts for the dollar

That was done in 2000. It wasn't being considered in 2003/4, It had already been done.

 

[ElasticNinja]

@byteware, EU is by far worlds largest donator of aid in the world

While obviously Portugal, Spain, France & UK had large empires, the first two lost theirs before 1900, the latter actually were nice to theirs from 1900 onward (not excusing past behaviour) and improved economies, education etc, until independenisingthem after WWII

Nowadays most of the unfair trade is caused by US (not excusing WEU countries, eg France's uranium explotation of Niger) yet ye do little to fix it, in some cases making it worse *cough* dollar bananas *cough*