Ground Zero For Your Wallet

[jobs1stb4polarbear]

CBS ‘60 Minutes’ shines spotlight on the states’ budget and pension crises.........before Wisconsin



State Budgets: Day of Reckoning.....


www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7166293n

....it's long, but you'll enjoy it...... and the best part, its not Fox News....for those retards whose blood boils for Fox...

[bo862]

One of the states failed to contribute their share to the pension funds 13 out of 17 years. Sounds like what they did to Social Security. Underfund it, or better yet pillage the money, then claim they just do not have enough to pay for it. They claim this crisis is because of worker benefits. This is false; the financial crisis caused a loss of income for states because of a 10% unemployment rate. These politicians are trying to make it look like the people are the problem instead of on Wall Street, where the problem began. Even when the fault does not belong on the people, unions have agreed to share in concessions.

This video shows where they put the blame, and where they are going to make up their losses, nothing more.


Being that the banking industry is mostly responsible for this crisis, how many concessions have they agreed to? What about their CEO’s, have they agreed to any? What about all of the bank executives that received bonuses because they had it signed in a contract with their employers? Do you have an excuse why the banks should not bear some of the costs, especially since all of the banks that survived are now profitable?

[jobs1stb4polarbear]

whoa...slow down bo862....please get it right of whose's to blame here for the financial meltdown...

The Senate and House are investigating the Banks and Wall Street for causing this recession but they should be investigating themselves.......Every Congress and every President since James Earl Carter, who signed the original Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977, bear responsibility for this recession. The act was a government intrusion in private sector banking where it had no right to be. It also involved two government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...... which, when created, were stated to be independent of the government but which had to be bailed out as total losses.

.....In the sixties, leftist agitators and a few academics claimed that the banks were red-lining black neighborhoods, i.e., they were not making proportionately as many loans to households in those neighborhoods as they were in white neighborhoods. Indeed, fewer loans per inhabitant were being made in such neighborhoods.......But the conclusion that this evidenced racial discrimination was spurious. Fewer loans are made to poorer households than richer regardless of the location of their residence. Unfortunately, then as now...... a higher percentage of black households were poor. If the federal government wanted poor households who were unable to qualify for mortgages to own houses, all it needed to do was to guarantee them as they did with FHA and GI bill mortgages. No new bureaucracy needed to be created.

.....The CRA( Community Reinvestment Act) gave leftist groups ...... ACORN(have you heard of them?), the NY Agency for Community Affairs (NYACA), which shared staff and space with ACORN.... the Union Neighborhood Assistance Corporation (NACA), and others -- the power to "blackmail" the banks. As a result, those leftist groups became powerful and rich beyond their wildest dreams with infusions of billions of dollars, including not only funds derived from the banks but from the government itself. Pres. Obama,(remember, he's a lawyer) before he began his political career, appeared as counsel for ACORN in a suit in Chicago against Citibank that alleged racial discrimination in its lending policies. The parties settled with ACORN getting appointed as an agent of the bank. A jury’s award of millions of dollars from a major bank in a case in California alleging racial discrimination......demonstrated to the banks that resistance to their "blackmail" would prove more costly than cooperating with the blackmailers......and rest is history...(you do your research)

....That has always been the lefts achilles heel....when they think they are doing good(good intentions), they end up fucking everybody....

Look I'm going of the path here....bottom line....this is about tax money or lack of it!

Before the bank bailout, I did not give a shit...how much bank CEOs made, fuck for that matter any CEO.

.....BUT once my tax dollars started bailing bank,companies, etc....you bet your ass I care what CEOs make....salary,bonuses,etc.....(its our money!)



.....and as I said many,many times before.....goverment employees....get their money from us....so if I see them crying about giving some of their salary/benifits back....because we are broke....well, fuck them! (ITS OUR MONEY!)


.....and people say tax the rich...well rich californians and rich Illinoinians are leaving their state to become rich Hoosiers and rich kentuckians........so who would be left to pay the bills now....


......i can not stress this enough to you guys....WE ARE BROKE!

[bo862]

To sum that up, the fault lies with the left-wingers back in the 60’s and 70’s. I can agree, the stage was setup by lawmakers and whatever special interest groups that encouraged it. Because banks were encouraged, (permitted/required whatever) to make loans to minorities and the poor, that does not explain why they pushed these ARMs and Interest Only loans as if they were great deals.

Here is my reasoning; first, a large majority of people filing bankruptcy in the past few years had one of these high-risk loans (according to the media). Second, up until 2009 I received constant offers from probably every bank and credit card company with offers of these loans for no collateral, no credit checks just a signature. Just sign here and I could have 0% interest for 24 months on anything from $20,000, up to over $100,000 on some offers.

At the time, we were a middle class family, and not a minority. Why would they push these to people that did not need them, and that they knew would not be able to pay them back? It is simple, bigger profits.

They were aware of the crash because around 2004 there were some big changes made to the bankruptcy system that made it a little tougher for individuals to make out as well. Also, a recent report shows they knew about it.

Read it here if you care
www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/business/economy/26inquiry.html?_r=1&hp

Blaming special interest groups is like blaming investors that invest in porn companies for rapes. While they may contribute to the overall situation, they are not the ones doing the raping. These groups did not commit the acts themselves; they just set the stage for bankers.

To make it even better the Republicans are now demanding that the regular citizens (the rape victims in this financial scam) are the ones that need to cover the bill.

[bo862]

That is an over simplification, but that is how I see the bottom line.

[jobs1stb4polarbear]

Look everything was a domino effect....you started on domino #5(blaming banks for the crisis).... I simple brought you to the bigining of who's and whats at fault.......Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 and the lawmakers(pussies) who were presured to pass it(thats is domino #2).................yes I made that domino#2.... why? because consumer stupidity is and always will be domino #1....whether they are buying shit they cant afford(arm loans) to electing fucking retards to spend our tax dollars....

we can go back and forth for days so lets get back to our wallets.....4 ways to spend money....

1. You spend your own money on yourself - You shop in a supermarket, for example. You clearly have a strong incentive both to economize and to get as much value as you can for each dollar you do spend.

2. You spend your own money on someone else - You shop for Christmas or birthday presents. You have the same incentive to economize as in the first case but not the same incentive to get full value for your money, at least as judged by the tastes of the recipient. You will, of course, want to get something the recipient will like—provided that it also makes the right impression and does not take too much time and effort. (If, indeed, your main objective were to enable the recipient to get as much value as possible per dollar, you would give him cash

3. You spend someone else's money on yourself (your employers for ex.)- lunching on an expense account, for instance. You have no strong incentive to keep down the cost of the lunch, but you do have a strong incentive to get your money's worth.

4. You spend someone else's money on someone else - You are paying for someone else's lunch out of an expense account. You have little incentive either to economize or to try to get your guest the lunch that he will value most highly. However, if you are having lunch with him, so that the lunch is a mixture of case 3 and case 4, you do have a strong incentive to satisfy your own tastes at the sacrifice of his, if necessary.

......again WE ARE BROKE and can no longer afford number #4(we keep spendeing we will go to number #3)......Please dont come back with.....we need roads, police, teachers, pubilc Unions(yes I said it "unions" ooohh scary)....blah,blah,blah......ofcoarse we do.....but we can no longer afford to spend that kind of money right now!.... China will eventually run out of money too, lol