White people have 13 dollars for every dollar held by black Americans

[RACJ]

He did not have to do anything. He had veto power. Nobody forced him to increase spending.
Reagan levels were still way too high.

Reagan did not see himself as a dictator, unlike Obama. But yes, spending was too high under Reagan. Reagan made deals b/c he wanted an intimidating defense to thwart the Soviets. If you don’t believe in the danger the Soviets posed, so be it.

 

[RACJ]

Very simple. Earning opportunities in the US are much greater than there were in Rome. If we had the Roman government we probably would be lucky to make $10k per year. Under our current system it is not difficult to make $100k per year. Even with a higher tax rate I would be on net much better off. For example, you mention a 52% tax rate, but almost nobody pays 52% of their income in taxes. There are many tax avoidance schemes that one can use to minimize their tax burden that were not there in Rome.

Cheek is talking TOTAL tax rate, although with all the hidden taxes and regs that individuals ultimately pay for, I think that 52% is a low-ball figure in some states. I am very happy for you that you are not living on the edge yourself, Cat. Many of us are. If you are ignoring the sheriff’s sales of homes in your neighborhood, you are probably the better for it psychologically. Rob :sad_yes:

 

[stinkcat_14]

Cheek is talking TOTAL tax rate, although with all the hidden taxes and regs that individuals ultimately pay for, I think that 52% is a low-ball figure in some states. I am very happy for you that you are not living on the edge yourself, Cat. Many of us are. If you are ignoring the sheriff’s sales of homes in your neighborhood, you are probably the better for it psychologically. Rob :sad_yes:

Total taxes from all sources represent around 17% of GDP. What evidence do you have for your claim that taxes take three times that?

taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205

 

[Ridgerunner]

Very simple. Earning opportunities in the US are much greater than there were in Rome. If we had the Roman government we probably would be lucky to make $10k per year.

This might be true, but might not. I recall seeing a show in which the bones of volcano victims in Pompeii and Hurculaneum were chemically examined. Also, the living accommodations. It appears the diets of the rich and the poor, even the slaves, were very much the same, as were the water sources, toxic exposures and sanitary facilities and so on. It also appeared slaves not infrequently became wealthy in the course of their lives.

I’m not pushing for a Roman form of government, but I think sometimes we assume a lot of things about lives in times past that really aren’t accurate.

 

[bisco1]

if we’re talking about people losing their homes since the great recession, it’s because they weren’t qualified to buy them in the first place. no down, no doc, it was a ridiculous bubble that had to burst.

 

[stinkcat_14]

if we’re talking about people losing their homes since the great recession, it’s because they weren’t qualified to buy them in the first place. no down, no doc, it was a ridiculous bubble that had to burst.

Banks were reckless and greedy.

 

[bisco1]

yup. and politicians. and wall street.

 

[Elena321]

Help them how?

All of the things you mention above affect Mexicans and Central Americans too, often more severely. And not just them. I know a man who emigrated from Albania into Macedonia (imagine how poor you have to be to want to move to Macedonia) The man acknowledged that if you worked all day in Macedonia you could earn enough just to eat. In Albania, you couldn’t.

He escaped from the then Jugoslavia at age 16 and washed dishes in Zurich until he could get enough money together to come to Chicago to wash dishes. Until he got here, he couldn’t speak English. His wife was chosen for him by his family in Macedonia and sent to Chicago, where they married. The two of them both washed dishes, then when they could speak enough English worked as waiter and waitress. They studied the business, saved their money and now own their own restaurant, which they bought on installments from a retiring restauranteur. Neither had any education beyond the first few grades.

Imagine living in a place until your teens where no matter how much you worked, you really couldn’t quite feed yourself. Pretty stressful I would say. Poor nutrition, definitely.

I personally think some cultures “run aground”, particularly if they are endlessly taught dependency and tribalism. If one reads about black urban culture even in the Depression, it wasn’t like it is now.

I have similar history as that man you mentioned so I understand.
The way "black " people could be helped is instead of just welfare instead taught how to better their lives.
Eg:movie directors could offer free movie directing courses in poor black areas for free.
That way they might build the skills and confidence that they can succeed and use their ideas to become a movie director.
As far as I’m aware,Hollywood movies are rarely by ethnic minorities-is that correct?

Also free classes to change passive mentalities and encourage self belief etc.
Some cultures have internal thinking issues that need challenging.
Like in Southern Europe,like you mentioned,many gypsies are often physically capable of work but they’ve never been taught the value and pride of Working so instead they be lazy/beg.

I believe their also should be support/incentives to help poor people,regardless of color etc,to have high earning jobs in the long run not always low paying jobs (takeaway,supermarket etc)

 

[RGCheek]

Very simple. Earning opportunities in the US are much greater than there were in Rome. If we had the Roman government we probably would be lucky to make $10k per year. Under our current system it is not difficult to make $100k per year. Even with a higher tax rate I would be on net much better off. For example, you mention a 52% tax rate, but almost nobody pays 52% of their income in taxes. There are many tax avoidance schemes that one can use to minimize their tax burden that were not there in Rome.

Actually the Romans did not make US dollars, they used actual silver and gold coinage.

That in and of itself meant they were wealthier because their money was real money, not bank credit notes.

And in those times the Romans could get land cheap across the empire as it was far from fully settled. Once you had the land you could farm it, ranch it or just retire and enjoy the view and grow vegies.

The only real wealth that Rome loses to us today is in the medical arena, and we all die eventually anyway, so who cares?

I would rather live 60 years on my own ranch in Roman Spain than 100 years in debt slavery compelled to punch a clock or lose everything I have which is the ‘economic freedom’ that most Americans live in.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Hate to puncture your idyllic Roman fantasy. They had taxes, property taxes and pensions in Rome. They had usury. The “republic” really had an oligarchic class that exploited the people and the government bureaucracies. Should not be surprising it evolved to become an empire. They also had numerous financial crises that often affected the entire Empire. The Roman Empire’s final collapse happened when taxes became so onerous that the tax base disappeared and the empire imploded. The collapse was so drastic that the city of Rome went from about 1.6m population in the year 400 to about 200k in the year 600 and it took until the 19th century to get back to 1.6m. Think about that.

 

[RGCheek]

Hate to puncture your idyllic Roman fantasy. They had taxes, property taxes and pensions in Rome. They had usury. The “republic” really had an oligarchic class that exploited the people and the government bureaucracies. Should not be surprising it evolved to become an empire. They also had numerous financial crises that often affected the entire Empire. The Roman Empire’s final collapse happened when taxes became so onerous that the tax base disappeared and the empire imploded. The collapse was so drastic that the city of Rome went from about 1.6m population in the year 400 to about 200k in the year 600 and it took until the 19th century to get back to 1.6m. Think about that.

The Roman civilization lasted from about 700 BC to the late 1400’s AD, over 2,000 years. The period you refer to was maybe 200 years in the West and those taxes still did not reach 50% as ours are at.

The average Roman had more personal freedom even under the Caesars than we have today.

I know the Truth hurts, but pretending different doesn’t change a thing.

 

[RACJ]

Banks were reckless and greedy.

Banks were “reckless and greedy” b/c they knew that their bad loans would be bought up by Fannie and Freddie, and they would end up up smelling like roses. Charlatans like Obama actually sued banks to FORCE them to loan money to unqualified people. Yes, there were some banks that tried to act responsibly, but the courts branded their sane policies as “racist”.

 

[RACJ]

if we’re talking about people losing their homes since the great recession, it’s because they weren’t qualified to buy them in the first place. no down, no doc, it was a ridiculous bubble that had to burst.

In some cases, since government forced banks to grant them their unqualified loans, they made the rational decision to “buy” the home, pay money which was cheaper than renting in many instances, play out the string and declare bankruptcy at the end of it all.
The ones I feel badly for, aside from the fleeced taxpayers in these cases, are those people on fixed incomes who have lived in family homesteads since they were born, and have been evicted thanks to greedy pols raising property taxes beyond their abilities to pay. It’s a page right out of the Communist Manifesto, this idea that people never truly own their own homes! Rob

 

[RACJ]

Total taxes from all sources represent around 17% of GDP. What evidence do you have for your claim that taxes take three times that?

taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205

You possibly believe that unemployment is 5.8% as well, Cat? uch:

 

[bisco1]

In some cases, since government forced banks to grant them their unqualified loans, they made the rational decision to “buy” the home, pay money which was cheaper than renting in many instances, play out the string and declare bankruptcy at the end of it all.
The ones I feel badly for, aside from the fleeced taxpayers in these cases, are those people on fixed incomes who have lived in family homesteads since they were born, and have been evicted thanks to greedy pols raising property taxes beyond their abilities to pay. It’s a page right out of the Communist Manifesto, this idea that people never truly own their own homes! Rob

i agree with you on property taxes, they should be based on income so this won’t happen. at least wait until the property changes hands before the bloodletting begins.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Actually the Romans did not make US dollars, they used actual silver and gold coinage.

That in and of itself meant they were wealthier because their money was real money, not bank credit notes.

And in those times the Romans could get land cheap across the empire as it was far from fully settled. Once you had the land you could farm it, ranch it or just retire and enjoy the view and grow vegies.

The only real wealth that Rome loses to us today is in the medical arena, and we all die eventually anyway, so who cares?

I would rather live 60 years on my own ranch in Roman Spain than 100 years in debt slavery compelled to punch a clock or lose everything I have which is the ‘economic freedom’ that most Americans live in.

Conditions in the empire varied a lot from time to time.

There were times in which the coinage was severely debased by alloying with non-precious metals. There were times when coinage was then reformed.

There were times in which the population was low and there were times when it was high. France, for instance, probably didn’t regain the population level it had under the empire until at least the 19th Century. There were times when barbarian tribes were invited into the empire to settle empty lands and there were times when invasion was thwarted by heavy populations and strong military almost everywhere.

There were times when land was inexpensive, and times when it was beyond the means of normal people. There were times when it was simply given to veterans by the government, and there were times when it wasn’t.

There were times of debt crisis when small landowners not only had to sell or, through foreclosure, otherwise lose their land to wealthier people but sell themselves and their children as well. At least you’ll not have to do that.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Banks were “reckless and greedy” b/c they knew that their bad loans would be bought up by Fannie and Freddie, and they would end up up smelling like roses.

Actually, if the fault lies with Fannie and Freddie, how come banks were not prudent in making jumbo loans either?

Charlatans like Obama actually sued banks to FORCE them to loan money to unqualified people.

What percent of loans did banks make because they were “forced”? I am sure you have the data.

Yes, there were some banks that tried to act responsibly, but the courts branded their sane policies as “racist”.

Can you give some names of the responsible banks?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Actually the Romans did not make US dollars, they used actual silver and gold coinage.

That in and of itself meant they were wealthier because their money was real money, not bank credit notes.

Just who is it that determines what “real money” is? The only authority for what real money is, are consumers and business by their determining what they will and will not accept for payment. Dollars therefore are real money because they are widely acceptable for payment. The idea that dollars aren’t real money is just a figment of people’s imaginations.

And in those times the Romans could get land cheap across the empire as it was far from fully settled. Once you had the land you could farm it, ranch it or just retire and enjoy the view and grow vegies.

I would have to see the data to be convinced.

The only real wealth that Rome loses to us today is in the medical arena, and we all die eventually anyway, so who cares?

We also have a better and more varied diet, better entertainment options, indoor plumbing, bigger houses, better transportation system, among other things.

I would rather live 60 years on my own ranch in Roman Spain than 100 years in debt slavery compelled to punch a clock or lose everything I have which is the ‘economic freedom’ that most Americans live in.

That is your opinion, but nothing other than that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Actually, if the fault lies with Fannie and Freddie, how come banks were not prudent in making jumbo loans either?

What percent of loans did banks make because they were “forced”? I am sure you have the data.

Can you give some names of the responsible banks?

I can’t answer the first two (which were not asked of me anyway) but I can certainly at least give two examples for the third. USB, UMB.

They’re not the only ones, but they’re illustrative of something. Both have their own “securitization” departments. That department makes the home loans and the bank sells securities based on them. Because the bank’s subsidiary remains responsible for paying dividends on the securities, it makes good loans to begin with. I believe Arvest Bank does the same. Likely there are many like that.

But it’s true that lots of banks (and mortgage companies) sold loans without recourse to FNMA and FHLMC. Lots of them were junk. Lots of bad loans are being made and sold to FNMA and FHLMC right now. Lots are going to GNMA, but they’re government insured. It’s troubling to realize that most FHA and VA loans are for more than 100% of the purchase price. Soooooo, I would say that if one can buy “Ginnies” based on new packages at a discount, one will probably end up a winner as the forclosures occur.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I can’t answer the first two (which were not asked of me anyway) but I can certainly at least give two examples for the third. USB, UMB.

They’re not the only ones, but they’re illustrative of something. Both have their own “securitization” departments. That department makes the home loans and the bank sells securities based on them. Because the bank’s subsidiary remains responsible for paying dividends on the securities, it makes good loans to begin with. I believe Arvest Bank does the same. Likely there are many like that.

But it’s true that lots of banks (and mortgage companies) sold loans without recourse to FNMA and FHLMC. Lots of them were junk. Lots of bad loans are being made and sold to FNMA and FHLMC right now. Lots are going to GNMA, but they’re government insured. It’s troubling to realize that most FHA and VA loans are for more than 100% of the purchase price. Soooooo, I would say that if one can buy “Ginnies” based on new packages at a discount, one will probably end up a winner as the forclosures occur.

So were these banks forced to make bad loans?