(02-13-2016 04:17 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 11:56 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 11:55 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  There is a problem when 20 people own half the country's wealth.

Yes, widespread envy.

Come on. I don't agree with Sanders' politics, for example, but most libertarians have a problem with this unnatural inequality too. It's crony capitalism, in cahoots with a corrupt government. A free market will result in some rising above others, yes, but not to this degree unless there is widespread corruption.

These guys aren't libertarians, they're corporatists. They think they are libertarian but they just aren't.

(02-13-2016 03:52 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  And you know that the Community Reinvestment Act passed by Clinton basically mandated that banks throw out their underwriting rules and make loans they wouldn't have made before or else they wouldn't get their banking charter renewed. Everybody made money for a while, but the minority families who benefitted at first got burned the worst. And blame it on W. instead of Bill and the Democrats (not that both didn't have a hand in it).

Ok, what about the flippers? The banks were lending money to anybody. How stupid is that?

The banks had no choice. They HAD to lend money to anybody. The regulators were forcing them to. That was the problem.

One point of correction. It wasn't the CRA itself that forced this. It was the rules issued by the bank regulators pursuant to CRA, and more importantly the manner in which those regulators enforced those rules in the field. Obviously, no CRA, no problem, but technically it was the regs and not CRA itself that caused the problem. This is just one more problem with letting unelected and unacceptable bureaucrats make the rules.

(02-13-2016 04:17 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 11:56 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 11:55 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  There is a problem when 20 people own half the country's wealth.

Yes, widespread envy.

Come on. I don't agree with Sanders' politics, for example, but most libertarians have a problem with this unnatural inequality too. It's crony capitalism, in cahoots with a corrupt government. A free market will result in some rising above others, yes, but not to this degree unless there is widespread corruption.

The problem with Sanders is that his "solution" (tax the "rich") will make the problem worse, not better. The more you try to tax the "rich," the more they are going to respond by moving investment outside the scope of your taxation. It's already happening now. And that means that the most profitable activities go offshore, and with them go the highest-paying jobs. And there goes our middle class.

Making rich people poorer is effective demagogue politics, but making poor people richer is better for the country and the economy and those poor people. But Bernie's not into that. He's just preying on greed and envy, the cornerstones of leftist politics.

(02-13-2016 03:52 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:28 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 12:55 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 12:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  A LOT of people would be a LOT better off with better personal financial decisions. Home finance probably should be a mandatory high school course.

Personal finance should be a required course. People should know they can't afford a $200K house making $20K/year. One would think that was common sense but apparently not.

And the bankers should not have allowed it. Instead they wrote these bad loans..took their cut and then sold them to Fanny and Freddy. We know who got fcked eventually. YOU and I.

And you know that the Community Reinvestment Act passed by Clinton basically mandated that banks throw out their underwriting rules and make loans they wouldn't have made before or else they wouldn't get their banking charter renewed. Everybody made money for a while, but the minority families who benefitted at first got burned the worst. And blame it on W. instead of Bill and the Democrats (not that both didn't have a hand in it).

Ok, what about the flippers? The banks were lending money to anybody. How stupid is that?

Yes, that was ignorant. However, those accepting the money were ignorant as well. Lots of blame to go around for the last crises.

(02-12-2016 11:12 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Trump v Sanders 2016 will be good for America.

The problem with that is one of those toolbags would be president.

(02-13-2016 04:17 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 11:56 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 11:55 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  There is a problem when 20 people own half the country's wealth.

Yes, widespread envy.

Come on. I don't agree with Sanders' politics, for example, but most libertarians have a problem with this unnatural inequality too. It's crony capitalism, in cahoots with a corrupt government. A free market will result in some rising above others, yes, but not to this degree unless there is widespread corruption.

So you are saying that Bill Gates, the inventor of Windows, could only have become extremely wealthy because there is "widespread corruption" and "crony capitalism"? I'm sorry, but I totally disagree.

(02-13-2016 04:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 04:17 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 11:56 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 11:55 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  There is a problem when 20 people own half the country's wealth.

Yes, widespread envy.

Come on. I don't agree with Sanders' politics, for example, but most libertarians have a problem with this unnatural inequality too. It's crony capitalism, in cahoots with a corrupt government. A free market will result in some rising above others, yes, but not to this degree unless there is widespread corruption.

The problem with Sanders is that his "solution" (tax the "rich") will make the problem worse, not better. The more you try to tax the "rich," the more they are going to respond by moving investment outside the scope of your taxation. It's already happening now. And that means that the most profitable activities go offshore, and with them go the highest-paying jobs. And there goes our middle class.

Making rich people poorer is effective demagogue politics, but making poor people richer is better for the country and the economy and those poor people. But Bernie's not into that. He's just preying on greed and envy, the cornerstones of leftist politics.

I'm not disagreeing with any of this. I'm disagreeing that the only problem when 20 people own half the assets is "widespread envy".

http://www.wsj.com/article_email/donald-...MzYxMzMwWj

Long article, but talks about the topic in this thread:

"What does this ideology—Huntington called it the “American creed”—consist of? Its three core values may be summarized as egalitarianism, liberty and individualism. From these flow other familiar aspects of the national creed that observers have long identified: equality before the law, equality of opportunity, freedom of speech and association, self-reliance, limited government, free-market economics, decentralized and devolved political authority.

.
As recently as 1960, the creed was our national consensus."

Later on the author exposes his northeast biases that don't apply to "flyover country" where "redneck" doesn't have only negative connotations. But he goes into single moms, non-working dads and an emergence of social classes.

(02-13-2016 09:06 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 03:52 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:28 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 12:55 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Personal finance should be a required course. People should know they can't afford a $200K house making $20K/year. One would think that was common sense but apparently not.

And the bankers should not have allowed it. Instead they wrote these bad loans..took their cut and then sold them to Fanny and Freddy. We know who got fcked eventually. YOU and I.

And you know that the Community Reinvestment Act passed by Clinton basically mandated that banks throw out their underwriting rules and make loans they wouldn't have made before or else they wouldn't get their banking charter renewed. Everybody made money for a while, but the minority families who benefitted at first got burned the worst. And blame it on W. instead of Bill and the Democrats (not that both didn't have a hand in it).

Ok, what about the flippers? The banks were lending money to anybody. How stupid is that?

Yes, that was ignorant. However, those accepting the money were ignorant as well. Lots of blame to go around for the last crises.

There are a lot of people with "million dollar" ideas. They just need someone to back them. These loans weren't all made in housing. I got the ability to take out nearly $2 million in loans with stated income.

(02-13-2016 10:20 AM)PlainTiger Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 04:17 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 11:56 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 11:55 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  There is a problem when 20 people own half the country's wealth.

Yes, widespread envy.

Come on. I don't agree with Sanders' politics, for example, but most libertarians have a problem with this unnatural inequality too. It's crony capitalism, in cahoots with a corrupt government. A free market will result in some rising above others, yes, but not to this degree unless there is widespread corruption.

So you are saying that Bill Gates, the inventor of Windows, could only have become extremely wealthy because there is "widespread corruption" and "crony capitalism"? I'm sorry, but I totally disagree.

No but being one of those 20 people that own half the country he wields incredible influence through corrupt government on all of our lives.

(02-12-2016 03:01 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 11:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If Bernie were somehow to win, I would expect all out capital flight. Everybody who can get out will do so as fast as possible. I have several tax lawyer friends who have been working on multiple client engagements to find the most tax-efficient ways for various companies to get the hell out in a hurry. And for the record, this includes some democrats who don't have the political axe to grind--tax lawyers tend to be disproportionately Jewish, and Jewish people tend to lean left on social issues.

Good for my wife then if he wins because she is a legal secretary in the tax division of one of Houston's largest law firms. But I'm not sure I'd agree with your statement on their ethnicity. Yes, her division has a few Jewish lawyers, but most are WASP types that I can see. Maybe that's the Houston office though and they're the exception.
The funny thing about Bernie's 1/2 of 1 percent rant that he uses everywhere is that many of those elite billionaires are Democrats. I'm thinking about some of the computer magnates like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Ballmer, etc. The other thing about many of them is they're very generous with their money for various charities, so I don't think it's fair to constantly rail on the richest of the rich. Not all are the Koch brothers.

I said disproportionately. If Jewish people make up 2% of our population and 10% of our tax lawyers, that's disproportionate. And in my experience the percentage of tax lawyers is higher than 10%. It just happens that a couple of the most liberal ones I know are Jewish and have been working extensively on how to get out most efficiently under the tax laws, which I find ironic. The comment was meant more to explain how I knew two liberal tax lawyers (since most of the tax lawyers I know are very conservative).

I don't get the railing on the Kochs, either. They are very generous with their money, maybe more so than many others.

(02-15-2016 05:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 03:01 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 11:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If Bernie were somehow to win, I would expect all out capital flight. Everybody who can get out will do so as fast as possible. I have several tax lawyer friends who have been working on multiple client engagements to find the most tax-efficient ways for various companies to get the hell out in a hurry. And for the record, this includes some democrats who don't have the political axe to grind--tax lawyers tend to be disproportionately Jewish, and Jewish people tend to lean left on social issues.

Good for my wife then if he wins because she is a legal secretary in the tax division of one of Houston's largest law firms. But I'm not sure I'd agree with your statement on their ethnicity. Yes, her division has a few Jewish lawyers, but most are WASP types that I can see. Maybe that's the Houston office though and they're the exception.
The funny thing about Bernie's 1/2 of 1 percent rant that he uses everywhere is that many of those elite billionaires are Democrats. I'm thinking about some of the computer magnates like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Ballmer, etc. The other thing about many of them is they're very generous with their money for various charities, so I don't think it's fair to constantly rail on the richest of the rich. Not all are the Koch brothers.

I said disproportionately. If Jewish people make up 2% of our population and 10% of our tax lawyers, that's disproportionate. And in my experience the percentage of tax lawyers is higher than 10%. It just happens that a couple of the most liberal ones I know are Jewish and have been working extensively on how to get out most efficiently under the tax laws.

I don't get the railing on the Kochs, either. They are very generous with their money, maybe more so than many others.

The term "Republicans" likely has Everything to do with it. All of the railing though comes from the Left. Go Figure !

(02-15-2016 08:35 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(02-15-2016 05:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 03:01 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 11:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If Bernie were somehow to win, I would expect all out capital flight. Everybody who can get out will do so as fast as possible. I have several tax lawyer friends who have been working on multiple client engagements to find the most tax-efficient ways for various companies to get the hell out in a hurry. And for the record, this includes some democrats who don't have the political axe to grind--tax lawyers tend to be disproportionately Jewish, and Jewish people tend to lean left on social issues.

Good for my wife then if he wins because she is a legal secretary in the tax division of one of Houston's largest law firms. But I'm not sure I'd agree with your statement on their ethnicity. Yes, her division has a few Jewish lawyers, but most are WASP types that I can see. Maybe that's the Houston office though and they're the exception.
The funny thing about Bernie's 1/2 of 1 percent rant that he uses everywhere is that many of those elite billionaires are Democrats. I'm thinking about some of the computer magnates like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Ballmer, etc. The other thing about many of them is they're very generous with their money for various charities, so I don't think it's fair to constantly rail on the richest of the rich. Not all are the Koch brothers.

I said disproportionately. If Jewish people make up 2% of our population and 10% of our tax lawyers, that's disproportionate. And in my experience the percentage of tax lawyers is higher than 10%. It just happens that a couple of the most liberal ones I know are Jewish and have been working extensively on how to get out most efficiently under the tax laws.

I don't get the railing on the Kochs, either. They are very generous with their money, maybe more so than many others.

The term "Republicans" likely has Everything to do with it. All of the railing though comes from the Left. Go Figure !

Fort Bend just is a typical liberal who has no problem with billionaires who support his position as being good and ones who are conservative are bad. It demonstrates the lack of depth in their intellectual abilities to fairly and impartially analyze political and social issues. That is, they are blinded by their ideology, gently mixed with their ignorance.

Quote: If Jewish people make up 2% of our population and 10% of our tax lawyers, that's disproportionate

why is that disproportionate? If they're the ones that went through the process to be the tax lawyers and nobody else did, or nobody else wants to work with that field... so be it.

Let's just make sure that everyone has their "assigned' duties in the world with no opportunity to work in a field they want to work in?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...gress.html

Back to the original topic, a good piece by Joel Kotkin.


Class is back. Arguably, for the first time since the New Deal, class is the dominant political issue. Virtually every candidate has tried appealing to class concerns, particularly those in the stressed middle and lower income groups. But the clear beneficiaries have been Trump on the right and Sanders on the left.


Class has risen to prominence as the prospects for middle and working class Americans have declined. Even amidst a recovery, most Americans remain pessimistic about their future prospects, and, even more seriously, doubt a bright future (PDF) for the next generation. Most show little confidence in the federal government, although many look for succor from that very source.
....

(02-15-2016 10:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...gress.html

Back to the original topic, a good piece by Joel Kotkin.


Class is back. Arguably, for the first time since the New Deal, class is the dominant political issue. Virtually every candidate has tried appealing to class concerns, particularly those in the stressed middle and lower income groups. But the clear beneficiaries have been Trump on the right and Sanders on the left.


Class has risen to prominence as the prospects for middle and working class Americans have declined. Even amidst a recovery, most Americans remain pessimistic about their future prospects, and, even more seriously, doubt a bright future (PDF) for the next generation. Most show little confidence in the federal government, although many look for succor from that very source.
....

Damn, I'm in the precariat, sort of. I have a home, some retirement, but I'm in an industry which is struggling financially to the nth degree.

Interesting writeup, by the way.

In communities I covered over past 20 years as small-time news hack, most of the top paying jobs were and remain in local government. With exception of sheriff, tax commissioner and a few judges, etc., all were appointed -- hired by elected officials. School superintendent, county administrator, city managers, police and fire chiefs and so on. All that I can recall with exception of the public safety ones are six-figure jobs, as are some assistant superintendent, head football coach and principal jobs, etc.
What's more, school systems and county governments are not only the best paying, they're also among the largest employers in terms of numbers -- especially school systems.

There's also some well-paid federal 'civil service' jobs in the area, thanks to Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield. And the military pay scale isn't too bad.