Slapping the poor just for the hell o...

Slapping the poor just for the hell of it.......

Posted in the Joliet Forum

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Reality BITES

Lockport, IL

#1 Oct 2, 2013
The bluebirds of happiness are chirping away in our nation's treetops, for America is now in the fifth year of economic recovery, with stock prices at record highs, corporate profits soaring, and employment is even ticking upwards.

But wait, what's this? Down below the treetops, down at the grassroots, poverty persists and is spreading. Also, income disparity is worsening as middle-class workers are pushed into lower-wage jobs and poor people are pushed out entirely. Far from happiness, joblessness among our lowest-income families is now the worst on record, topping 21 percent.

The plight of the poor is so dramatic that even Republican leaders in the US House have noticed them and are reaching out with open hands unfortunately, not to help lift up the needy, but to slap them in the face. In a gratuitous act of callousness, the GOP slashed $4 billion-a-year out of the food stamp program, complaining that even though our economy is recovering, more and more people are getting food assistance.

Apparently these congress critters never even visit reality. Hello, boneheads the program has expanded only because all of the "recovery" benefits went to those at the top, leaving those at ground level reaching desperately for food stamps as a life preserver. In fact, the program lifted about 4 million Americans above the poverty level last year and kept millions more from sinking deeper into destitution. It's a safety net that's been working exactly in the way it's supposed to.

Yet, just for the hell of it, these laissez-fairyland Dickensians added insult to the injury their cuts would cause for millions of America's hard-hit people. They tacked on a provision to let the meanest of states force the needy families to submit to humiliating drug tests as the price of obtaining food for their families. And House members wonder why their approval rating is in the ditch!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#2 Oct 2, 2013
Sigh, never mind the fact the Senate hasn't passed a budget in what five years? Never mind the reason the stock market is at all time highs is the fact that interest rates are nearly zero. Never mind the fact the Federal Reserve is monetizing the debt. Never mind the abomination known as Affordable Health Care Act has all sorts of assumptions in to pay for it which given the Fed's and CBO's track record is not reassuring. Never mind that Congress got and exemption and subsidy of taxpayer money of nearly 75% to pay for their healthcare.

You think the food stamp program is working the way its suppose to? There are numerous examples of fraud and waste in those programs and why is the Federal Government involved in those programs anyway? Isn't that a matter for LOCAL charities and food pantries? To quote Benjamin Franklin "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." In other words give them a hand up not a hand out.

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Bewildered

United States

#3 Oct 3, 2013
EJCDad wrote:
Sigh, never mind the fact the Senate hasn't passed a budget in what five years? Never mind the reason the stock market is at all time highs is the fact that interest rates are nearly zero. Never mind the fact the Federal Reserve is monetizing the debt. Never mind the abomination known as Affordable Health Care Act has all sorts of assumptions in to pay for it which given the Fed's and CBO's track record is not reassuring. Never mind that Congress got and exemption and subsidy of taxpayer money of nearly 75% to pay for their healthcare.
You think the food stamp program is working the way its suppose to? There are numerous examples of fraud and waste in those programs and why is the Federal Government involved in those programs anyway? Isn't that a matter for LOCAL charities and food pantries? To quote Benjamin Franklin "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." In other words give them a hand up not a hand out.
To parse out a few of your points:

(1) Yes, one can find examples of fraud in the food stamp program. Just like every other governmental program in existence. I think the point here is that if the federal government needs to cut somewhere, perhaps programs that serve the poor shouldn't be first on the chopping block. Perhaps we should look at a tax code that allows the largest corporation in the world (IBM) to not pay income tax for two years in a row. Or perhaps we should look at how hedge fund managers are able to pay a lower effective tax rate than a fireman.

(2) Stock markets at all-time highs are partially due to low interest rates. Why are interest rates low? Because such a huge swath of the American public can't access credit due in large part to the financial meltdown in 2008. No credit for middle-class people means no spending in retail, manufacturing, homebuilding, etc. So, shareholders of corporations are feeling the benefits of our economic climate while middle- and lower-class workers are struggling.

(3) The Senate hasn't passed a budget in five years. First, that is b/c nothing can pass the Senate that doesn't have 60 votes in favor due to previously-unheard-of obstructionism by the current GOP. Even if they could pass a budget, it's not like it would be possible for either chamber to pass a budget that the other chamber would accept. Even if they did, it doesn't really matter b/c Congress doesn't have to follow it's own budget. Take a look at spending during the Bush years.

I have voted GOP more often than not in my life and I hope to see real conservative choices again someday. But, right now, the GOP has failed to provide any alternatives or policies that can provide any benefit to the majority of Americans. That is why they are increasingly finding themselves on the fringes. The ACA has a lot of problems and I would have loved if GOP lawmakers had gotten involved in negotiations when it was being drafted and proposed so that they could tell voters about how healthcare law could be fixed or improved. Instead, they remained on the sidelines and just Chicken Little'd the ACA as Communism (nevermind that it was based on a Republican plan first introduced in the '90s and eventually implemented by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts). When that didn't work, they tried to have it found unconstitutional. The most conservative Chief Justice in a century ruled that the ACA is constitutional. Then we had an election. We know how that turned out. Instead of being demagogues and fear-mongerers, why can't the GOP actually legislate and offer something productive to voters?

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Inquiring Mind

Lockport, IL

#4 Oct 3, 2013
Bewildered wrote:
<quoted text>
To parse out a few of your points:
(1) Yes, one can find examples of fraud in the food stamp program. Just like every other governmental program in existence. I think the point here is that if the federal government needs to cut somewhere, perhaps programs that serve the poor shouldn't be first on the chopping block. Perhaps we should look at a tax code that allows the largest corporation in the world (IBM) to not pay income tax for two years in a row. Or perhaps we should look at how hedge fund managers are able to pay a lower effective tax rate than a fireman.
(2) Stock markets at all-time highs are partially due to low interest rates. Why are interest rates low? Because such a huge swath of the American public can't access credit due in large part to the financial meltdown in 2008. No credit for middle-class people means no spending in retail, manufacturing, homebuilding, etc. So, shareholders of corporations are feeling the benefits of our economic climate while middle- and lower-class workers are struggling.
(3) The Senate hasn't passed a budget in five years. First, that is b/c nothing can pass the Senate that doesn't have 60 votes in favor due to previously-unheard-of obstructionism by the current GOP. Even if they could pass a budget, it's not like it would be possible for either chamber to pass a budget that the other chamber would accept. Even if they did, it doesn't really matter b/c Congress doesn't have to follow it's own budget. Take a look at spending during the Bush years.
I have voted GOP more often than not in my life and I hope to see real conservative choices again someday. But, right now, the GOP has failed to provide any alternatives or policies that can provide any benefit to the majority of Americans. That is why they are increasingly finding themselves on the fringes. The ACA has a lot of problems and I would have loved if GOP lawmakers had gotten involved in negotiations when it was being drafted and proposed so that they could tell voters about how healthcare law could be fixed or improved. Instead, they remained on the sidelines and just Chicken Little'd the ACA as Communism (nevermind that it was based on a Republican plan first introduced in the '90s and eventually implemented by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts). When that didn't work, they tried to have it found unconstitutional. The most conservative Chief Justice in a century ruled that the ACA is constitutional. Then we had an election. We know how that turned out. Instead of being demagogues and fear-mongerers, why can't the GOP actually legislate and offer something productive to voters?
Thank you, this post is POSITIVELY BRILLIANT! Why can't more republicans think like you? Something might actually get done in this country, and done fairly!
How quicky we forget

United States

#5 Oct 3, 2013
Bewildered wrote:
<quoted text>
To parse out a few of your points:
(1) Yes, one can find examples of fraud in the food stamp program. Just like every other governmental program in existence. I think the point here is that if the federal government needs to cut somewhere, perhaps programs that serve the poor shouldn't be first on the chopping block. Perhaps we should look at a tax code that allows the largest corporation in the world (IBM) to not pay income tax for two years in a row. Or perhaps we should look at how hedge fund managers are able to pay a lower effective tax rate than a fireman.
(2) Stock markets at all-time highs are partially due to low interest rates. Why are interest rates low? Because such a huge swath of the American public can't access credit due in large part to the financial meltdown in 2008. No credit for middle-class people means no spending in retail, manufacturing, homebuilding, etc. So, shareholders of corporations are feeling the benefits of our economic climate while middle- and lower-class workers are struggling.
(3) The Senate hasn't passed a budget in five years. First, that is b/c nothing can pass the Senate that doesn't have 60 votes in favor due to previously-unheard-of obstructionism by the current GOP. Even if they could pass a budget, it's not like it would be possible for either chamber to pass a budget that the other chamber would accept. Even if they did, it doesn't really matter b/c Congress doesn't have to follow it's own budget. Take a look at spending during the Bush years.
I have voted GOP more often than not in my life and I hope to see real conservative choices again someday. But, right now, the GOP has failed to provide any alternatives or policies that can provide any benefit to the majority of Americans. That is why they are increasingly finding themselves on the fringes. The ACA has a lot of problems and I would have loved if GOP lawmakers had gotten involved in negotiations when it was being drafted and proposed so that they could tell voters about how healthcare law could be fixed or improved. Instead, they remained on the sidelines and just Chicken Little'd the ACA as Communism (nevermind that it was based on a Republican plan first introduced in the '90s and eventually implemented by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts). When that didn't work, they tried to have it found unconstitutional. The most conservative Chief Justice in a century ruled that the ACA is constitutional. Then we had an election. We know how that turned out. Instead of being demagogues and fear-mongerers, why can't the GOP actually legislate and offer something productive to voters?
No budget in 5 years!!!! The "obstructionism"???? ? Did you forget who controlled BOTH HOUSES in the first two years of Obama's term? How the h*ll do you think Obamacare, OOPS I mean the affordable Health care act, passed without a single Republican vote? The democrats could have passed a budget in either of the first two years.

The beauty of our system is that the congress is closer to the people than the Senate. A whole state elects a senator, a district elects a congressman. So, I elected my congressman to stop Obamacare. So did a bunch of other districts. That is why the congress isn't worried and the senators are.

Why is it that Obama can hand out exemptions like halloween candy if "Obamacare is the law of the land", as Pelosi and Reid say?

As far as credit, do you want to go back to the Clinton / Frank mentality and give people mortgages even though they don't qualify? That practice is part of the reason why the economy tanked in the first place.

But everyone will be OK now that Obamacare is kicking in and everyone is working their 29.5 hours a week.
farrel

Lemont, IL

#6 Oct 3, 2013
Bewildered wrote:
<quoted text>To parse out a few of your points:

(1) Yes, one can find examples of fraud in the food stamp program. Just like every other governmental program in existence. I think the point here is that if the federal government needs to cut somewhere, perhaps programs that serve the poor shouldn't be first on the chopping block. Perhaps we should look at a tax code that allows the largest corporation in the world (IBM) to not pay income tax for two years in a row. Or perhaps we should look at how hedge fund managers are able to pay a lower effective tax rate than a fireman.

(2) Stock markets at all-time highs are partially due to low interest rates. Why are interest rates low? Because such a huge swath of the American public can't access credit due in large part to the financial meltdown in 2008. No credit for middle-class people means no spending in retail, manufacturing, homebuilding, etc. So, shareholders of corporations are feeling the benefits of our economic climate while middle- and lower-class workers are struggling.

(3) The Senate hasn't passed a budget in five years. First, that is b/c nothing can pass the Senate that doesn't have 60 votes in favor due to previously-unheard-of obstructionism by the current GOP. Even if they could pass a budget, it's not like it would be possible for either chamber to pass a budget that the other chamber would accept. Even if they did, it doesn't really matter b/c Congress doesn't have to follow it's own budget. Take a look at spending during the Bush years.

I have voted GOP more often than not in my life and I hope to see real conservative choices again someday. But, right now, the GOP has failed to provide any alternatives or policies that can provide any benefit to the majority of Americans. That is why they are increasingly finding themselves on the fringes. The ACA has a lot of problems and I would have loved if GOP lawmakers had gotten involved in negotiations when it was being drafted and proposed so that they could tell voters about how healthcare law could be fixed or improved. Instead, they remained on the sidelines and just Chicken Little'd the ACA as Communism (nevermind that it was based on a Republican plan first introduced in the '90s and eventually implemented by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts). When that didn't work, they tried to have it found unconstitutional. The most conservative Chief Justice in a century ruled that the ACA is constitutional. Then we had an election. We know how that turned out. Instead of being demagogues and fear-mongerers, why can't the GOP actually legislate and offer something productive to voters?
I'm sorry but you are way off stating republicans voluntarily stayed on the sidelines during the drafting of the ACA. They were left on the sidelines by the Democrats.

I clearly remember the State of The Union speech where Obama said he was open to ideas from the GOP but that they hadn't proposed any and the gallery was full of GOP members frantically waving their proposals, which were written paper, out in the air. Obama just talked right over it as if it weren't happening.

Democrats spent those first two years ignoring the GOP and the result was the Tea Party movement. After the 2010 elections when Boehner became Speaker, the White House had to find his phone number because they didn't have it ( never having called him once) even though he was Minority leader for two years.

The democrats ran Washington just like they run Chicago and Illinois - like they were the only ones with opinions that mattered. Because of their arrogance we have the most divided country since
the civil war.

Then during the 2012 election Obama made the arrogant statement that the GOP was standing on the side of the road drinking slurpies we the Democrates did the hard work. Lets be clear - the GOP was put on the sidelines by Obama and handed slurpies. So to rewrite history and say the "chicken littled" ACA is false
Bewildered

United States

#7 Oct 3, 2013
How quicky we forget wrote:
<quoted text>
No budget in 5 years!!!! The "obstructionism"???? ? Did you forget who controlled BOTH HOUSES in the first two years of Obama's term? How the h*ll do you think Obamacare, OOPS I mean the affordable Health care act, passed without a single Republican vote? The democrats could have passed a budget in either of the first two years.
.....
Let me just say that I am no Democrat. I considered myself a Republican up until a few years ago. So, I don't feel any need to defend failures on the part of past Democratic legislators; however, I think it's important to get our facts right. Otherwise we're all just cheerleaders for our side blindly agreeing with whatever our preferred party is doing and denouncing what the other party is doing.
OK, now allow me to parse out a few of your points:
(1) You state that Democrats failed to pass a budget when they held both chambers of Congress in 2009 and 2010. Congress did pass a budget in 2009. No budget was passed in 2010 as conservative Democrats would not back all of Obama's proposals and no agreement was reached. Since then, Congress has been divided and seen record-low amounts of legislation passed, let alone a budget. I personally place more blame on the GOP as they clearly and admittedly chose to not engage with Democrats as they believed that would help them in the 2012 elections. They essentially were fine with not governing or negotiating if it meant they might get more votes in the future.
(2) You ask if I want to go back to the "Clinton/Frank mentality and give people mortgages even if they don't qualify". I'm not sure what this has to do with any of my earlier points, but I'm happy to address it. Under Clinton (who I never voted for or supported), HUD and FHA regulations were relaxed considerably as it was believed that home ownership should be attainable for all working-class Americans. New programs were introduced which did not require the normal 20% down payment and banks got greedy and sloppy and failed to verify income and asset claims from mortgage applicants. We know what happened there.
Let's not forget, though, that those same policies were followed during the Bush administration and, in fact, banking regulations were relaxed even more. One of those regulations had previously prevented banks from combining their investment and commercial arms into one entity. When that rule was lifted, we saw Chase, BofA, Goldman Sachs, Merill Lynch, and the others grow exponentially. We know how that turned out.
There were howls when the banks were bailed out (by Bush). However, it was argued that those bailouts had to happen otherwise our entire financial sector would collapse on itself since these banks were so big and had reach into every aspect of the economy. I would suggest that the collapse was due in large part to the bad mortgages (which you can blame on Clinton if you want); but those banks would not have had to be bailed out if they weren't so big (which you should blame on Bush).
(3) You state that people in many districts elected their Congressman for the specific purpose of abolishing Obamacare. Hey, that's what elections are for. Remember, though, that GOP was able to gerrymander their Congressional districts so well that GOP House candidates received more than a million fewer votes than Democratic candidates, yet the GOP holds 33 more seats. So, a majority of the people voted for Obama and a majority of the people voted for Democratic congressmen.
This is why the GOP is disingenuous in pretending that they have some mandate to shut everything down with no end game or possibility of winning this showdown. It's hostage-taking political terrorism that is only resorted to by a party that has no other ideas or message.
Bewildered

United States

#8 Oct 3, 2013
How quicky we forget wrote:
<quoted text>
No budget in 5 years!!!! The "obstructionism"???? ? Did you forget who controlled BOTH HOUSES in the first two years of Obama's term? How the h*ll do you think Obamacare, OOPS I mean the affordable Health care act, passed without a single Republican vote? The democrats could have passed a budget in either of the first two years.
......
Let me just say that I am no Democrat. I considered myself a Republican up until a few years ago. So, I don't feel any need to defend failures on the part of Democratic legislators five years ago; however, I think it's important to get our facts right. Otherwise we're all just cheerleaders for our side blindly agreeing with whatever our preferred party is doing and denouncing what the other party is doing.
OK, now allow me to parse out a few of your points:
(1) You state that Democrats failed to pass a budget when they held both chambers of Congress in 2009 and 2010. Congress did pass a budget in 2009.
No budget was passed in 2010 as conservative Democrats would not back all of Obama's proposals and no agreement was reached. Since then, Congress has been divided and seen record-low amounts of legislation has passed, let alone a budget. This is a failure of Congress and I do not defend it. I personally place more blame on the GOP as they clearly and admittedly chose to not engage with Democrats as they believed that would help them in the 2012 elections. They essentially were fine with not governing or negotiating if it meant they might get more votes in the future.
(2) You ask if I want to go back to the "Clinton/Frank mentality and give people mortgages even if they don't qualify". I'm not sure what this has to do with any of my earlier points, but I'm happy to address it. Under Clinton (who I never voted for or supported), HUD and FHA regulations were relaxed considerably as it was believed that home ownership should be attainable for all working-class Americans. New programs were introduced which did not require the normal 20% down payment and banks often found themselves failing to verify income and asset claims from mortgage applicants. We know what happened with that.
Let's not forget, though, that those same policies were followed during the Bush administration and, in fact, banking regulations were relaxed even more. One of those regulations had previously prevented banks from combining their investment and commercial arms into one entity. When that rule was lifted, we saw Chase, BofA, Goldman Sachs, Merill Lynch, and the others grow exponentially. We know how that turned out.
There were howls when the banks were bailed out (by Bush). However, it was argued that those bail outs had to happen otherwise our entire financial sector would collapse on itself since these banks were so big and had reach into every aspect of the economy. I would suggest that the collapse was due in a large part to the bad mortgages (which you can blame on Clinton if you want); but those banks would not have had to be bailed out if they weren't so big (which you should blame on Bush).
(3) You state that people in many districts elected their Congressman for the specific purpose of abolishing Obamacare. I have no problem with that, that's what elections are for. Remember, though, that GOPs were able to gerrymander their Congressional districts so well that GOP House candidates received more than a million fewer votes than Democratic candidates, yet the GOP holds a 33 seat majority. So, a majority of the people voted for Obama and a majority of the people voted for Democratic congressmen. The rules are quirky and the GOP was able to use them to their advantage and I have no problem with that.
I have a problem with pretending that they have some mandate to shut everything down with no end game or possibility of winning this showdown. It's hostage-taking political terrorism that is only resorted to by a party that has no other ideas or message.
Bewildered

United States

#9 Oct 3, 2013
farrel wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry but you are way off stating republicans voluntarily stayed on the sidelines during the drafting of the ACA. They were left on the sidelines by the Democrats.
I clearly remember the State of The Union speech where Obama said he was open to ideas from the GOP but that they hadn't proposed any and the gallery was full of GOP members frantically waving their proposals, which were written paper, out in the air. Obama just talked right over it as if it weren't happening.
Democrats spent those first two years ignoring the GOP and the result was the Tea Party movement. After the 2010 elections when Boehner became Speaker, the White House had to find his phone number because they didn't have it ( never having called him once) even though he was Minority leader for two years.
The democrats ran Washington just like they run Chicago and Illinois - like they were the only ones with opinions that mattered. Because of their arrogance we have the most divided country since
the civil war.
Then during the 2012 election Obama made the arrogant statement that the GOP was standing on the side of the road drinking slurpies we the Democrates did the hard work. Lets be clear - the GOP was put on the sidelines by Obama and handed slurpies. So to rewrite history and say the "chicken littled" ACA is false
If one GOP congressman presented a viable alternative to the ACA, I never saw it. Please share a link or some other evidence to that point. I think the ACA is a boondoggle that will take a long time to get right (just like SS and Medicare did). It could have been better if sensible conservative lawmakers were giving input. The GOP still has no alternative plan. If they did, they could have run on that in 2012 but all they wanted to do is repeal. That's a perfectly acceptable political goal; but if the majority of voters agree that there needs to be reform and the Dems offer a plan while the GOP only denounces it while offering no other alternative, what are voters going to do?
Politically speaking, the GOP backed themselves in a corner and can't figure out how to get out of it. They said Obama was the most extreme socialist/communist to ever be President (that would be FDR or LBJ). They said he is a 'failed President'. Then there was an election. And they lost. But their base believes the rhetoric, so they can't be seen negotiating with the failed communist b/c that would legitimize him. It's stupid politics and does nothing but undermine their ability to solve problems and govern.
Barry Goldwater

Lockport, IL

#10 Oct 3, 2013
Are we still wasting our time talking political party? There is no difference. Their bills are paid by the same people. Let's face it. If New York and Washington were removed from the map tonight America's recovery would begin. How long do you people have to be exploited before you identify the enemy?
Abc

United States

#11 Oct 3, 2013
Bewildered wrote:
<quoted text>
If one GOP congressman presented a viable alternative to the ACA, I never saw it. Please share a link or some other evidence to that point. I think the ACA is a boondoggle that will take a long time to get right (just like SS and Medicare did). It could have been better if sensible conservative lawmakers were giving input. The GOP still has no alternative plan. If they did, they could have run on that in 2012 but all they wanted to do is repeal. That's a perfectly acceptable political goal; but if the majority of voters agree that there needs to be reform and the Dems offer a plan while the GOP only denounces it while offering no other alternative, what are voters going to do?
Politically speaking, the GOP backed themselves in a corner and can't figure out how to get out of it. They said Obama was the most extreme socialist/communist to ever be President (that would be FDR or LBJ). They said he is a 'failed President'. Then there was an election. And they lost. But their base believes the rhetoric, so they can't be seen negotiating with the failed communist b/c that would legitimize him. It's stupid politics and does nothing but undermine their ability to solve problems and govern.
Wait.....,,.you think SS and Medicare were done right? Those are 2 of the programs bankrupting this country.
I don't care to argue political parties because I think they're both terrible. I just want socially moderate, fiscally conservative and ethical representation. Unfortunately that doesn't exist beyond the local level anymore (partially because you have to be type cast into a party)
BeheadTHEBankste rs

Lockport, IL

#14 Oct 4, 2013
Bewildered wrote:
<quoted text>
(2) You ask if I want to go back to the "Clinton/Frank mentality and give people mortgages even if they don't qualify". I'm not sure what this has to do with any of my earlier points, but I'm happy to address it. Under Clinton (who I never voted for or supported), HUD and FHA regulations were relaxed considerably as it was believed that home ownership should be attainable for all working-class Americans. New programs were introduced which did not require the normal 20% down payment and banks got greedy and sloppy and failed to verify income and asset claims from mortgage applicants. We know what happened there.
Let's not forget, though, that those same policies were followed during the Bush administration and, in fact, banking regulations were relaxed even more. One of those regulations had previously prevented banks from combining their investment and commercial arms into one entity. When that rule was lifted, we saw Chase, BofA, Goldman Sachs, Merill Lynch, and the others grow exponentially. We know how that turned out.
There were howls when the banks were bailed out (by Bush). However, it was argued that those bailouts had to happen otherwise our entire financial sector would collapse on itself since these banks were so big and had reach into every aspect of the economy. I would suggest that the collapse was due in large part to the bad mortgages (which you can blame on Clinton if you want); but those banks would not have had to be bailed out if they weren't so big (which you should blame on Bush).
Don't you just love the rhetoric that the whole economic collapse and bursting of the housing bubble is all the fault of the stupid greedy homeowner?? I do not understand why so many people just COMPLETELY bypass the whole culpability of the bankster/mortgage industry "professionals". When a person goes to buy a home, you have to fill out paperwork with your facts, attach DOCUMENTATION showing your earnings and debts and then you have to pay fees to at least six different bankster figures along the way to "yay" or "Nay" your mortgage loan.

Why do we have to pay these bankster people to do all these steps in this process? Number one, because it's a requirement of the mortgage/bankster industry in order to even get that loan, but also because they "KNOW BETTER"....they are supposedly the "experts" in their field, the "professionals"..... so WHY IN THE HELL did these so-called "professionals" allow these mortgage loans to be passed through eachother then accepted in the first place?? Why was it not possible for ANY of those six people along the way to go "Whoa, this person doesn't make enough to afford this home, this should NOT be approved!!"?? ISN'T THAT WHAT THEY ARE PAID TO DO, by the homeowner AND their bankster bosses -- to check facts, verify, and DETERMINE IF YOU QUALIFY FOR THIS LOAN?? All the way up that chain in the mortgage application process were all these bankster "professionals" just whistling while they work, sliding every single application through to the next bankster professional, all the way up to the head bankster to YAY the application and approve it. HOW IS IT THAT NOT ONE OF THOSE highly paid, expert PROFESSIONALS IS CULPABLE????

Another thing, don't tell me that the whole bankster/mortgage industry didn't see that collapse/bubble coming well before-hand! You know damn well that they have the highest paid analyzer-predictor-type "professionals" that watch out or warn for this kind of thing....they ALL KNEW it was coming and instead of stopping it or doing something about it, they just continued on because they KNEW "we're too big to fail" and their good buddy/partner-in-crime Bush will help 'em all out.

To add insult to injury, they come to our government in their Armani suits and private jets to request that handout (OUR tax money), then turn around and divvy it up amongst their top banksters as bonus' for the "job well done".

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#17 Oct 4, 2013
Bewildered wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know that we disagree too much on this, so I won't belabor the point; but your link to the GOP website strengthens my contention that the GOP has not come up with any alternative to Obamacare, despite their pledge to "Repeal and Replace". The link states that "In Progress" was instructions to committees to come up with some ideas. This was in 2011.
They have big headlines that speak of "Repeal" or "Replacement" but no actual proposals or ideas to back up those words. So, the GOP appears to acknowledge that there should be some sort of health care reform, but they do not present any real suggestions as to what that should look like.
If Medicaid or Medicare were to be repealed, we would have either (1) sick and poor people dying in the streets or (2) emergency health costs for those people covered by hospitals with the costs then transferred to those who can afford care. I completely agree with the idea that people should take personal responsibility for their own lives and should have insurance; but the fact is that this will never happen for some people, whether because they are disabled, unlucky, or lazy. So, do we allow those people to die in the streets? If you are ok with that, then cut Medicaid/Medicare. If you're not, then give me a plan.
Unrelatedly, I laugh at the point on the GOPs website of "Enact Medical Liability Reform". This is another play by the GOP to help special interests at the expense of everyone else - doctors' medical malpractice rates are not any lower in states which have caps on malpractice damage awards. However, if you are hurt by a sloppy doctor, you may not receive anything close to the amount of damages you have suffered at the hands of a sloppy doctor if your state caps those awards. So, the only entity that does better in those states are insurance companies. One wonders how anyone could vote against insurance companies making higher profits.
You asked for the link on the GOP's plan for replacement, I provided the link, I never said we disagree that the GOP is in shambles on this point. I pointed out that it is not the role of the Federal Government to provide health care as intended by the founders. Franklin Pierce's veto of the 1854 bill entitled An act making a grant of public lands to the several States for the benefit of indigent insane persons, explains this point succinctly and when Roberts wrote his opinion on Obamacare he should have used this precedence to rule on the law.

Plan for medicare and medicaid? There used to be a thing in this country called charity hospitals. Benjamin Franklin started the first one with help from the LOCAL community and LOCAL government. The two working in conjunction to provide for a local communities poor. This system is somewhat in play today, Stroger Hospital/ Cook County is a prime example. This relationship between charity hospital and government started its downward spiral with the passage of medicare and medicaid. Wilbur Mills and the AMA in 1964 even warned that these two programs would lead to socialized medicine.
So what is my plan? First wean the American public from these plans by expanding HSA's Then offer those over 40 to age 50 the option of staying with medicare or medicaid but with significant reductions in coverage. Those over the age of 50 would see no changes. Those under the age of 40 or between 40 and 50 would receive tax credits equal to the amount of taxes taken from their first tax return until the time the legislation goes into effect. Those credits would have to be put into a qualified HSA. IF you chose chose not to sign up for an HSA you lose the credit. Next expand the insurance pool by offering insurance across state lines. You can do it with auto insurance why not health?

Poor and cannot afford the insurance? Charity Hospitals are the answer.

Barry Goldwater

Lockport, IL

#18 Oct 5, 2013
The answer is for care to be refused without insurance. That forces you to be responsible or die. The government now pays for failing life practices to continue. Failure is now a option. Republican and Democrats alike have made this happen. All government spending allows for theft and paybacks. Both parties fund themselves first and then start their phony battles which are carried out on 24/7 infomercials that are sold as Fox news and MSNBC. You fools that still argue political party are the problem. Your elections are over at the primary round.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#19 Oct 5, 2013
Barry Goldwater wrote:
The answer is for care to be refused without insurance. That forces you to be responsible or die. The government now pays for failing life practices to continue. Failure is now a option. Republican and Democrats alike have made this happen. All government spending allows for theft and paybacks. Both parties fund themselves first and then start their phony battles which are carried out on 24/7 infomercials that are sold as Fox news and MSNBC. You fools that still argue political party are the problem. Your elections are over at the primary round.
True to an extent. Yes lifestyle choices are the biggest reason for health issues aside from genetics. No one forces you to to start smoking, no one forces you to drink, and no one forces you to walk into the a fast food restaurant five times a week. However, sometimes life throws curve balls and an individual finds them self in an untenable position. This is where help up as Benjamin Franklin stated is what's needed. That help should come from charities or the church, not from the Federal Government. Those that clamor for a safety net from the Federal Government are those who most likely have not taken the appropriate steps to prepare for life's emergencies. Harsh? Yes, but life is harsh and I am tired of having my hard earned income redistributed to people that are able to provide for themselves but chose to blame others for their misfortunes.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#20 Oct 5, 2013
BeheadTHEBanksters wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you just love the rhetoric that the whole economic collapse and bursting of the housing bubble is all the fault of the stupid greedy homeowner?? I do not understand why so many people just COMPLETELY bypass the whole culpability of the bankster/mortgage industry "professionals". When a person goes to buy a home, you have to fill out paperwork with your facts, attach DOCUMENTATION showing your earnings and debts and then you have to pay fees to at least six different bankster figures along the way to "yay" or "Nay" your mortgage loan.
Why do we have to pay these bankster people to do all these steps in this process? Number one, because it's a requirement of the mortgage/bankster industry in order to even get that loan, but also because they "KNOW BETTER"....they are supposedly the "experts" in their field, the "professionals"..... so WHY IN THE HELL did these so-called "professionals" allow these mortgage loans to be passed through eachother then accepted in the first place?? Why was it not possible for ANY of those six people along the way to go "Whoa, this person doesn't make enough to afford this home, this should NOT be approved!!"?? ISN'T THAT WHAT THEY ARE PAID TO DO, by the homeowner AND their bankster bosses -- to check facts, verify, and DETERMINE IF YOU QUALIFY FOR THIS LOAN?? All the way up that chain in the mortgage application process were all these bankster "professionals" just whistling while they work, sliding every single application through to the next bankster professional, all the way up to the head bankster to YAY the application and approve it. HOW IS IT THAT NOT ONE OF THOSE highly paid, expert PROFESSIONALS IS CULPABLE????
Another thing, don't tell me that the whole bankster/mortgage industry didn't see that collapse/bubble coming well before-hand! You know damn well that they have the highest paid analyzer-predictor-type "professionals" that watch out or warn for this kind of thing....they ALL KNEW it was coming and instead of stopping it or doing something about it, they just continued on because they KNEW "we're too big to fail" and their good buddy/partner-in-crime Bush will help 'em all out.
To add insult to injury, they come to our government in their Armani suits and private jets to request that handout (OUR tax money), then turn around and divvy it up amongst their top banksters as bonus' for the "job well done".
Please do not try and lay the blame about the housing market crash all at the feet of the bankers. There is plenty and I mean plenty of blame to go around. From Jimmy Carter the CRA, Bill Clinton and the 1995 signing of the bill that made credit default swaps legal again to the repeal of Glass Steagall and the homeowners who either did not plan their finances appropriately or did not read the fine print on their mortgage applications. Quite simply there was greed ALL around not just the "evil bankers".

Barry Goldwater

Lockport, IL

#21 Oct 6, 2013
So basically we are back to the realization that the nanny state allows destructive behavior to grow until it consumes entire generations. As much as I beat on both political parties it is the concept that government can ever really help individual citizens without weakening them in the long haul. Look at Englewood in Chicago. That social setting would have never reached the boiling drug battle it presents now without that influx of government checks. That money is what pays for the drugs sales the violence is all about. Eliminate the money coming in and there is no drug business. On another level expected Social Security has allowed many middle class types do zero planning for retirement. They are on the same delusional path of the folks in Englewood that they will be taken care of. Anyone that has relied on government promises such as Veterans, American Indians ,the Elderly are destined for poverty and misery.
Bewildered

United States

#22 Oct 7, 2013
Barry Goldwater wrote:
So basically we are back to the realization that the nanny state allows destructive behavior to grow until it consumes entire generations. As much as I beat on both political parties it is the concept that government can ever really help individual citizens without weakening them in the long haul. Look at Englewood in Chicago. That social setting would have never reached the boiling drug battle it presents now without that influx of government checks. That money is what pays for the drugs sales the violence is all about. Eliminate the money coming in and there is no drug business. On another level expected Social Security has allowed many middle class types do zero planning for retirement. They are on the same delusional path of the folks in Englewood that they will be taken care of. Anyone that has relied on government promises such as Veterans, American Indians ,the Elderly are destined for poverty and misery.
You're certainly not alone with that opinion that we need an Ayn Rand-type solution to people living off government programs. The problem, I think, though, should first be addressed through cutting corporate welfare programs which benefit special interests and big businesses. Subsidies to oil companies, agricultural conglomerates, and hedgefund managers create the same issues as food stamps and welfare in that it makes people dependent on a government program to the extent that they plan their lives (or budgets) around it until they think of it as a permanent right instead of a temporary gift.

The amount of your tax dollars that go to Englewood (or other similar neighborhoods) is nothing compared to the amount that ends up in the pockets of corporate executives, Wall Street investors, and Defense Department contractors (who are designing and selling weapons systems that no one in the military wants). We could cut out a huge chunk of the federal budget and deficit without raising taxes. That seems conservative to me.

It's a lot easier to come after the poor or minorities, though, because they don't have lobbyists or powerful friends who can spin public opinion on their behalf. I'm all for finding waste and fraud and prosecuting anyone who takes advantage of the system, but I'd rather see cutting efforts spent in areas that could actually make a dent in the federal budget and wouldn't result in disabled people sleeping in homeless shelters.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
barry

Joliet, IL

#23 Oct 7, 2013
Not the cost in Englewood. It is the concept that desroys. Want to see some real waste? Go through Ohio. It has been such a political hotbead for electoral votes. They have high speed rail, more defense contracts per capita than California. Abrahams tanks parked in the California desert and they are still building them in Ohio.
lockporter

Chicago, IL

#24 Oct 7, 2013
BeheadTHEBanksters wrote:
<quoted text>
. HOW IS IT THAT NOT ONE OF THOSE highly paid, expert PROFESSIONALS IS CULPABLE????
Another thing, don't tell me that the whole bankster/mortgage industry didn't see that collapse/bubble coming well before-hand! You know damn well that they have the highest paid analyzer-predictor-type "professionals" that watch out or warn for this kind of thing....they ALL KNEW it was coming and instead of stopping it or doing something about it, they just continued on because they KNEW "we're too big to fail" and their good buddy/partner-in-crime
You need to read investigative reporter Greg Palast and his research into the mortgage and debt-loan vultures. Here's his latest post about Paul "the Vulture" Singer. Friends in high places - GOP and DEM - keep their friends happy and their campaign contributions coming.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Joliet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Come on Trump! Do what you promised!! Make Amer... 1 min MPMMB 46
"Socialism Has Never Worked" 4 min MPMMB 41
Had High Hopes for Sharky 18 min MPMMB 15
NFL Kneelers 1 hr Mike Weber 121
Lock Her Up !! 1 hr Sharkzilla 7
LW West closing 3 hr Winning 104
Boycott the NFL 6 hr Gone Fishin 2

Joliet Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Joliet Mortgages