It will be put in to the Medicare System to keep in from going bankrupt you will be paying high Medicare Cost by 2020
Look the Working Middle Class Wage Was to low to pay for health Care insurance in the first place.
For Obama was of the Middle Class And The Rich Class made the Middle Class People believe That they need a universal health insurance..
Because Rich Class are not And will not rise the rate of the Middle Class Wage To help cover the high Cost of Health insurance..
Mitt No not the entire United States of America. We have TWO Divided UNITED Governments in America One power is a Federal Republic consisting of 50 states And The other is United Native America Government
So you United Statesmen need to not buying crap from China And buy it made in United Native America
Who is we the people We The Divided ::: Not United For the income divide people's We The Rich People We The Middle People We The Poor People We The Prison People
Rich Needs no insurance Prisoner Needs no insurance Middle getting insurance And Poor have no insurance
Who pay for the Poor Health Care For all 100% of Us We the People that pays tax's Yes the Poor and Prisoner pay tax's too that the law..
Low-income People is not the Minority For it's the Rich in WASHINGTON That the Middle Class put in office
There's a world of hurt coming to China, Asia and probably ultimately here too. If you saw 60 Mins on Sunday, they had a story on real estate speculation in China. I was over there a couple years ago, and saw it for myself. They had construction crews working 24/7. I remember looking out the window at 3AM in Shanghai and seeing all the arc welding flashes, all the cement trucks arriving in a line, constructing building everywhere. But then when you look closer, it was obvious that so many of the finished buildings, especially condos, were totally empty. We went to a brand new mall in Bejing, full of everything from dept stores to high-end fashion stores. Only problem was that in the middle of the day, it was totally devoid of customers. I took pics basically showing the whole place was empty. It was obvious this was a disasterous bubble waiting to cave in. I kept thinking what this would do to the rest of the world economy, which 2 years ago was very shakey.
So, Leslie Stahl went there and did a story. She's one big dufus, but the story is accurate. My favorite, she sees new building after new building empty. She showed entire malls, with no tenents. Whole cities built that are empty. She points out that in the aftermath of communism investing in real estate was one of the few investments the Chinese people could easily make, and it's typical for them to own 6 or 10 properties purely for speculation. Then she keeps asking "Do you think this could be a bubble"? They have built entire cities of empty housing, where a condo costs 45 times a years salary. That would mean that in the USA, a family earning $75K would be looking at a house costing $3.3mil. Problem is, few people in China can afford that, so the houses are not occupied, it's just people shuffling paper, on the theory that prices can only go up.
The question she should have been asking is who owns all the paper on this disaster? I would not be surprised that it extends all over Asia. And you have to wonder what exposure Europe and even the USA will have to what's going to happen there. The amazing thing is that unlike the US housing bubble, what's going on in China is so obvious, anyone can see it. This is in the class of the Tulip mania in Holland in the 1600s, where people speculating convinced themselves that tulip bulbs were worth as much as a house.
It's looks like it's finally about to collapse and when it does, it's not going to be good for the world economy. Another curions aspect, Stahl says the govt is finally starting to act. Remember the China one child policy, she says? So, I'm thinking they've lifted that so that now people can have 3 children, maybe then they'll need more housing. No, not exactly. They now have a one real estate property policy. Unbelievable. Exactly what you don't need, because that's going to really kick the skids out from under this house of cards. Probably doesn't matter though. This is so bad that there is no way out.
If you get a chance to see the 60 mins story, it's one of those things everyone should see.
Yet oddly almost all your positions are 100% in line with the libs who not only have no problem with all the above, they have increased it and are clearly in favor of doing far more of it given the chance.
"Was able" is an interesting shift of liability. Who "enabled" people to buy houses way beyond their means? Who stopped placing sensible restrictions on who could get a mortgage? Banks were falling all over themselves to write zero down loans. They did it because they felt they had to stay competitive and because they knew they would sell off that mortgage (and its inherent risk of failure) within months to people that believed the market could only go up. Of course, the rating agencies were labeling these badly secured mortgages as AAA instruments, furthering the fraud. The mortgages were tightly bundled into inseparable units to further conceal the fraud.
Where does the true "due diligence" requirement of lending money rest? I believe it's with the banks who were handing out (depositor's - not even their own!) money. In many states, the borrowers are off the hook if they relinquish financial interest in the mortgaged property - a contractually agreed to event with no moral "good or badness" involved.
There wasn't an army of evil natured borrowers conspiring to rip off the poor big dumb generous banks. Banks were all too happy to give anyone a loan because if and when it soured, it would be on somebody else's books and they would have captured huge fees from both the buyer of the house and the buyer of the mortgage-backed security. These were huge banks that some allege were *forced* by fear of the Feds (ha! - try greed) to write loans requiring no cash up front to people unqualified to get them. When enough zero down loans soured and the market became saturated with repossessions, the bottom fell out and the financial dominos began to topple.
Good lenders don't write zero down loans because of the increased risk. You may have noticed that the "zero down" car loans are back. Not much was learned from the 2008 meltdown. )-"
Several things contributed to the runaway real estate market, but securitization was the engine driving most of the trouble. Banks were packaging and selling those loans in the equivalent of sealed barrels. The rating agencies swore that those bundled mortgages were AAA prime investments (they weren't!) and they helped fuel the hunger for what turned out to be a lot of junk debt.
Banks could afford to write risky loans because they held that risk for a very short time. In their frenzy to cash in on the real estate spec frenzy they went from requiring 20% down payments, having verified jobs, tangible income and assets to simply checking for a pulse. Who's to blame for that decision? The people who lined up for "free" money or the idiots that were giving it away?
There's been a big (fraudulent) push to lay the crisis at the feet of borrowers who signed up for zero down loans. "Zero down loans" = "no skin in the game" = "very bad idea." It always worried me that the supposedly more financial astute conservatives were unable or unwilling to acknowledge that zero down home loans in the midst of a spec frenzy were a very bad idea on the part of the banks. All they did was to fuel the speculative market and that eventually got us to the 2008 crash.
The Fed's easy money policy had a lot to do with it, too. Economic numbers look great - for a while - when money's so cheap you can borrow it for almost any cockamamie reason. But eventually, the piper must be paid.
Was there ever a true 0% interest car loan? In the case of a house, the proceeds go to the owner and the bank is on the hook. In the case of a car loan, they are shifting money internally so it is easy to offer a minus % loan on paper. I'm pretty sure they are not taking a bath on the new car sale.
I'm paying $11,000/yr. And just for comparison, we have a 7% sales tax,
One thing is 1000% predictable, and I've seen this over & over: Anyone who uses the term "lib" is not worth dialoging with (excuse ending sentence w ith preposition-- but if it was good enough for Churchill...!)
but in the last kerfuffle, the bank wasn't on the hook. they either loaned other banks money to the buyer in the form of a mortgage they serviced, or they bundled tens/hundreds of mortgages and sold them as AAA securities
The federal government. Fannie&Freddie are 100% to blame.
Why not? They were being guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US government.
When there is no risk attached, why not? It's what *YOU* wanted.
Wrong. The army of evil saw there was no risk. The banks had no risk. You lefties wanted to take it for all of us, thieves included.
You really are an idiot. I've been able to buy cars "zero down" for the last forty years; less than zero, really, because they folded in the sales tax (106% loans).
No, the leftists in the federal government, dummy!
More leftist nonsense. There is still some freedom left in this country, despite what you libs have done. You're able to jump off a cliff with a hang glider, or even without one, if you want to. You're able to go 30 miles out into the Alaskan wilderness in winter in shorts and a tee shirt. That you're enabled to do things doesn't mean it's OK to do them.
Who stopped placing sensible
For sure some of it was fraud. Some of it was monkey see, monkey do. Housing had always gone up and the corrections for a very long time had been modest. A lot of people from individuals to banks, rating agencies, regulators were lured into complacency.
The
Now there I disagree. Mortgages have to be bundled to make them marketable. An institution buying them wants to buy $20 mil or $100 mil worth of mortgages. They don't want to buy one or two on grannies farm.
It starts with the lender and yes, most of it belongs there. But it also extends to the institutions that rated the bundled mortgages and to the buyers of those bundled securities. Also throw in the appraisers.
I'd like to see some examples of that, ie where a borrower is off the hook by state law by just walking away.
But as to the no moral good or badness involved, that is precisely what you libs want. It's precisely where you're taking the country.
An army no, but there were plenty of people out there that figured heads I win, tails the bank loses and I don't care.
Huge fees? I wouldn't call them huge. They were the typical normal profits that lenders get from such transactions.
These were huge banks that some
You do if the CRA and regulators say by law you have to make them. Now, I'm not saying that was the sole reason for the problems, but it was clearly one of the reasons.
You
Nothing wrong with that. And these mortgages have been packaged and bought for decades. What do you think Fannie and Freddie, both created by the fed govt have been doing?
The
It wasn't anything new specific to these loans. Most banks haven't been holding on to the mortgages they wrote for a long time. And lenders are not limited to banks.
Both. Because it wasn't free money that was being given away. People were buying houses and agreeing to make the mortgage payments.
I don't know who the astute conservatives are that are refusing to acknowledge that zero down loans are a risky idea. I agree they helped fuel the speculative trouble.
And the Fed has gotten almost zero of the blame. I've said that here a long time. That the Fed deserves a lot of the blame. The low interest rates were justified in terms of performance of the overall economy and inflation. I think it was you who was just trying to blame Bush for having a terrible job creation record. While I don't agree that it was terrible, (unemployment was at 4.6%), you can't have it both ways. What do you think would have happened to jobs if the FED raised interest rates?
But at the same time the FED has buildings full on analysts that are tracking all kinds of economic statistics. They had to have known how real estate had doubled or more in price in many major markets in a short time. That is a classic sign of trouble brewing. They could have sounded an alarm, gone to bank regulators to see what the risk was, etc. No sign they did anything. Neither did any of the fed or state bank regulators either.
Same thing the FED did with the stock market bubble in 1999 -2000. Even a fool could see what was happening, but besides Greenspans mentioning "irrational exuberance", they did nothing. And there they had a direct too, the margin reqt for buying stocks, which they could have raised.
Who exactly is complaining about homeowner's living beyond their means causing the crisis and not also assigning blame to all the other players? I've said many times here that there is a long list of people who are responsible, not just the homeowners who bought houses they couldn't afford.
I see, so then explain the stock market bubble under Clinton with his higher income tax rates. I suppose that is Bush's fault too.
And ignore the fact that the US govt has heavily subsidized housing for a long time. Subsidized it under with huge support by both Democrats and Republicans. As I pointed out before, earn $150,000 in a job, hand over 30% of it. Start a small business, earn $150,000, hand over 30% of it. But buy a house on zero down, live in it for 3 years or at least claim you did, sell it for a $150K profit and voila!, it's tax free. And along the way, you can deduct all the mortgage interest and the real estate taxes from your income. Then you're surprised when people do what the govt is incentivizing them to do?
Seems the ultra-rich didn't go out and create jobs with that
Oh please. Bush gave tax cuts to almost everyone paying taxes. For the lower income, many wound up paying no income tax at all. You make it sound like the ultra-rich took that tax cut and used it all, most of it, a lot of it, to buy junk mortgages. There is no evidence of that at all. Those mortgage securities were sold mostly to institutions and all over the world. But it's typical lib lunacy to try to ascribe everything bad that happens to people being allowed to keep a little more of their own money.
In the long run that "tax cut" money actually
There you go again. If you're lib feet smell, you'd try to blame that on the Bush tax cuts too.
When someone's
And there you have it folks. The classic lib lunacy and outright lie. That it's a zero sum game. That if one person is getting ahead, then it's because someone else is falling behind and they are screwing them.
The Bush tax cuts didn't make the middle class poorer, the middle class got tax cuts!
Try taking a course in economics.
Great idea. We'll just tax our way to prosperity! Another lib classic!
I get a kick out of people thinking that either Congress or the regulators will be able to solve the problem. They (especially Congress) made it all possible.
I hear what you're saying but it does make sense to insure everyone and at least somewhat level the playing field. As it is, middle class suckers like us are footing the bill for almost everyone else. I was just billed all most $1k for a yearly physical. Fortunately I got the insurance, (almost worthless despite the cost) to pay most of it, but still, the charges were bordering on insanity. If I hadn't fought the insurance company for every charge I would have had to pay the bill myself. I'm sure many do.
I'm at3100 sf, $370K, $3000 a year in taxes. If I moved to a neighboring city and had a similar house my taxes would drop to $2000 a year. I think what I'm paying is ridiculously high.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.