But you can surf in a flood.

Agree with the headline. I'm sure plenty of boot-strappy Farkers who've never gotten any help from anyone, ever - they jumped out of their mom's uterus and went right to work - will tell us all how wrong it is.

Floods renew topsoil.

"The near-destruction of the global financial system" was caused by the government forcing banks to issue mortgages to deadbeats. TFA is leftist BS.

mike0023: "The near-destruction of the global financial system" was caused by the government forcing banks to issue mortgages to deadbeats.

[citation needed]

mike0023: "The near-destruction of the global financial system" was caused by the government forcing banks to issue mortgages to deadbeats. TFA is leftist BS.

Really? Hrmm......who was it that encouraged the "ownership society"?

How come people like you lie so much, so often, and so poorly?

DIAF

One is preventible and the other isn't.

mike0023: "The near-destruction of the global financial system" was caused by the government forcing banks to issue mortgages to deadbeats. TFA is leftist BS.

And so it has begun.

Yes, banks had to be forced into attempting to make massive profits. Our version of capitalism would never allow for businesses to be opportunistic, if only that stupid government would just stop getting in the way and forcing business to be evil. DAMN YOU GOVERNMENT!! DAMN YOU!

Apt analogy. The people who were smart and wealthy enough to have flood insurance (i.e., the banksters with huge lobbying armies on capital hill) are getting bailed out while everyone else (the peons) has to deal with rotting and soggy floorboards, total loss of all possessions, and no place to sleep.

mike0023: "The near-destruction of the global financial system" was caused by the government forcing banks to issue mortgages to deadbeats. TFA is leftist BS.

Yes of course. No conservative, ever, in the history of the world, had anything at all to do with the ruining of the national and world economies.

It was all somebody else's fault.

mike0023: "The near-destruction of the global financial system" was caused by the government forcing banks to issue mortgages to deadbeats. TFA is leftist BS.

*places hand on Chin* Really? Explain to me when and where this happened and what mechanism the government used to "force" banks to do that.

But keep in mind, thanks to my legal work, I've had to read the private E-mails from 2006-2008 of Hank Paulson and his immediate staff, and a significant part of those of the CEOs and senior executives of Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Countrywide, Morgan Stanley, Jp Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, to name just a few.

I want to speak to the more conservative minded and libertarian folks around here.

The employment situation in this country is a travesty. We are allowing functional, capable people to rot away in destitution. In the new world of global trade, our country's human capital is our biggest advantage and we are wasting it.

The situation is as much a market failure as it is a government failure. The crash was a nasty and long chain reaction. It can't be blamed on one single entity, whether public, private or household. The resulting stagnation has not been helped by government OR business. The former could do more to unwind some of the debt and accelerate the de-leveraging process that is so widespread. The latter could do more to shrink the skills gap they complain about and put some of their cash reserves back in motion.

This must be fixed and we have to stop yelling at each other to do it. I don't care what your ideas are, only that you accept the reality that we are losing an entire generation of people to the gutters of poverty and we have to fix it. More than that, we have to prioritize and avoid distraction issues that won't substantially improve the situation, like ending the Fed or even dragging bankers to the gallows.

\I know, both sides are bad, etc.
\\trying to extend an olive branch here
\\\trolls excluded

The article brings up an issue I have about mandatory insurance, which is if a person is homeless but living in a car they will only remain able to do so until the insurance runs out.

One more thing- a "100 year flood" does not occur every hundred years, a "100 year flood" is a flood that has a 1% chance of occurring each and every year.

Ham Sandvich: This must be fixed and we have to stop yelling at each other to do it. I don't care what your ideas are, only that you accept the reality that we are losing an entire generation of people to the gutters of poverty and we have to fix it. More than that, we have to prioritize and avoid distraction issues that won't substantially improve the situation, like ending the Fed or even dragging bankers to the gallows.

And your Lefty solution would be to give them handouts so that instead of having an incentive to find work they'll be unemployed and also dependent on the government forever and ever. Yeah that will work swell.

Magorn: mike0023: "The near-destruction of the global financial system" was caused by the government forcing banks to issue mortgages to deadbeats. TFA is leftist BS.

*places hand on Chin* Really? Explain to me when and where this happened and what mechanism the government used to "force" banks to do that.

No problem: Link

Ned Stark: Floods renew topsoil.

I agree. Its a great time to take stock of what works and what doesn't, then go fix it.

Damn, I read the first third of that and couldn't go any further. Regardless of who you think is to blame for the recent economic difficulties, it's a damn shame that we allow previously productive citizens to end up in such straits.

/Didn't make it to the quote
//Too dusty in here

Shaggy_C: Ham Sandvich: This must be fixed and we have to stop yelling at each other to do it. I don't care what your ideas are, only that you accept the reality that we are losing an entire generation of people to the gutters of poverty and we have to fix it. More than that, we have to prioritize and avoid distraction issues that won't substantially improve the situation, like ending the Fed or even dragging bankers to the gallows.

And your Lefty solution would be to give them handouts so that instead of having an incentive to find work they'll be unemployed and also dependent on the government forever and ever. Yeah that will work swell.

You's trollin

Ham Sandvich: We are allowing functional, capable people to rot away in destitution.

Surely not! If they were functional and capable, they'd be rich. The destitute deserve it. So sayeth the Invisible Hand.

mike0023: No problem: Link

You might want to read the whole article you linked.

mike0023: Magorn: mike0023: "The near-destruction of the global financial system" was caused by the government forcing banks to issue mortgages to deadbeats. TFA is leftist BS.

*places hand on Chin* Really? Explain to me when and where this happened and what mechanism the government used to "force" banks to do that.

No problem: Link

I don't think that means what you think that means. If you had actually read the article you link to, you would notice it has exactly zero relevance to the your point.

Shaggy_C: Ham Sandvich: This must be fixed and we have to stop yelling at each other to do it. I don't care what your ideas are, only that you accept the reality that we are losing an entire generation of people to the gutters of poverty and we have to fix it. More than that, we have to prioritize and avoid distraction issues that won't substantially improve the situation, like ending the Fed or even dragging bankers to the gallows.

And your Lefty solution would be to give them handouts so that instead of having an incentive to find work they'll be unemployed and also dependent on the government forever and ever. Yeah that will work swell.

When you give them help they don't have to take it from you. You are paying for it one way or another. You can either pay to feed, clothe and house them in a prison or you can pay to feed, clothe and house them and encourage non violent / society benefiting behavior. I choose the later as in the end it is cheaper and promotes a better society.

mike0023: Magorn: mike0023: "The near-destruction of the global financial system" was caused by the government forcing banks to issue mortgages to deadbeats. TFA is leftist BS.

*places hand on Chin* Really? Explain to me when and where this happened and what mechanism the government used to "force" banks to do that.

No problem: Link

The link you provided proves (at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned) that you are full of shiat.

Quote:

"The Act mandates that all banking institutions that receive Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insurance be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the bank offers credit (in a manner consistent with safe and sound operation as per Section 802(b) and Section 804(1)) in all communities in which they are chartered to do business.[3] The law does not list specific criteria for evaluating the performance of financial institutions. Rather, it directs that the evaluation process should accommodate the situation and context of each individual institution. Federal regulations dictate agency conduct in evaluating a bank's compliance in five performance areas, comprising twelve assessment factors. This examination culminates in a rating and a written report that becomes part of the supervisory record for that bank.[8]"

Ambitwistor: mike0023: No problem: Link

You might want to read the whole article you linked.

Well, if Paul Krugman says it isn't true... Talk about leftist BS!

The stupiest thing about this country's "safety net" is because of the punitive impulses of conservatives and their deep and abiding fear that someone somewhere might be "getting over" to any degree, we make rules for eligibility that pretty much ensure you will be trapped in the cycle of dependancy, because they don't hlp you on your way down, only after you've absolute bottom and have a much harder climb.

Case in point, My wife, at one point in her life was a struggling single mom with a decent job, enrolled part time in college, with some minor savings, and a beat up old car. She was the first person in her family to make it even that far.

Her car dies, and she goes to replace it so she can continue to go to school and work. Unfortunately she didn't know much about cars and her then boyfirend knew a lot less than he claimed. So the car she bought at an autho-auction that wiped out her savings literally got her home and then never started again. A mechanic told her it would take about $1000 to get operational again. Money she simply didn't have. Despite asking all sorts of gov't and private charities, no one would give her or even loan her the money to fix the car. With no way to get to work, she lost her job, had to drop out of college, lost her apt, etc

NOW the State was more than happy to help. First they gave her a Sec 8 apartment (which was in an apartment complex miles away from any municipal bus line, grorcery store, or place of employment). They also put her on food stamps and did the temporary cash assistance thing (all tolled probably close to $1,000/mo in aid), but they did insist that she get rid of the car, because it was an asset and would make her ineligible for all this "help" which basically ensured that she could never afford to try to get back on her feet.


Shortly after I started dating her, I gave her my beat up 10-year old Corolla (I was living in Chicago without it because a parking space for it was an extra $150/mo in rent) You'd have thought I handed her a check for a million bucks. That stupid car I took for granted was her ticket back to work, back to school, and back to self-respect

Yeah but all people that don't work are just lazy and liberal lefties against corporations making a profit, everyone knows that...

People having money creates demand. Demand creates jobs. Give people without money some money and you create jobs. This is basic stuff.

Alternately, you can man individual workers less productive so it takes more of them to cover demand with a shoorter/fewer hours work week or such.

Doing both would help a lot.

mike0023: Well, if Paul Krugman says it isn't true... Talk about leftist BS!

You might want to read the WHOLE article, not just turn your brain off when you see the words "Paul Krugman".

Shaggy_C: Apt analogy. The people who were smart and wealthy enough to have flood insurance (i.e., the banksters with huge lobbying armies on capital hill) are getting bailed out while everyone else (the peons) has to deal with rotting and soggy floorboards, total loss of all possessions, and no place to sleep.

Most flood insurance policies cost less than $1,000/year and according to the NFIP, the average cost is $600/year (about $50/month - not chump change, but anyone with a house should be able to afford that).

Plus, you know, you only need it if you live in a 100-year floodplain (some mortgage underwriters want you to get it anyway). It's hardly a privilege of the wealthy.

Who's making them immune from consequence, and why?

mike0023: Ambitwistor: mike0023: No problem: Link

You might want to read the whole article you linked.

Well, if Paul Krugman says it isn't true... Talk about leftist BS!

So, the fact the law had nothing whatsoever to do with the subject you are claiming it does should be ignored, as it doesn't support you position. We should focus instead entirely on the idea that among the large field of experts from all veiwpoints also observing this simple fact, that one of those people was a person whose views you don't like, so therefore it is now a partisan issue and should be accepted or rejected based on that. Therefore Palin is now automatically president, too I suppose.
Damn you are gullible.

I only got one question: How's all this hopey--changey stuff workin' out for ya?

Ham Sandvich: This must be fixed and we have to stop yelling at each other to do it. I don't care what your ideas are, only that you accept the reality that we are losing an entire generation of people to the gutters of poverty and we have to fix it. More than that, we have to prioritize and avoid distraction issues that won't substantially improve the situation, like ending the Fed or even dragging bankers to the gallows.

I completely agree (although the gallows idea is pretty damn tempting). It seems to me the first thing to do is to understand human nature. You just can't have a system set up that encourages bankers to profit - risk-free - by betting other people's money on their own clients' devastation. It's immoral and it will be abused 100% of the time, because that is what people will do.

You also can't have a system where the same group of cronies sit on each other's corporate boards AND sit on their own regulatory agencies, lobbying groups, and govt advisory panes in a friendly revolving-door shell-game of corruption.

Well, one is manmade and one is natural. They both turn bad because people seem to ignore warning signs and refuse to do their part in mitigating the risk.

Before I fall that low I'll jump off something. It's a nice, high-lethality method, but the boot-strappers will still biatch about the costs of cleanup.

To take this to a religious side...did Jesus say cloth the naked and feed the poor. I guess Jesus is a socialist too...No wait he said let the rich keep as much of their money as possible...I just remembered.

FTFA: Within two years of the crash, sales had dropped by 50 percent and the value of her land had fallen by more than that... She had to shut the nursery down and sell everything she could to avoid foreclosure: "I was practically giving stuff away just to try to make some money. Started selling everything that wasn't permanent. I was going to sell the doors, the windows, the gates if I could, but they told me I couldn't."

"They" told you you couldn't sell property that belonged to you? I assume the "they" she's referring to here is the lender that foreclosed on her. Well, fark that... if I'm ever in that situation, I'm selling doors, windows, the furnace & pool heater, etc., and I'm destroying anything I leave behind: cut electrical cables, yank out pipes in the basement, etc. You may be able to evict me from my home, but you won't like what you get out of the deal.

mike0023: Magorn: mike0023: "The near-destruction of the global financial system" was caused by the government forcing banks to issue mortgages to deadbeats. TFA is leftist BS.

*places hand on Chin* Really? Explain to me when and where this happened and what mechanism the government used to "force" banks to do that.

No problem: Link

Oh so you're an idiot. One who has never bothered to learn facts but just parrots talking points. Gotcha

here's the problem with your otherwise brlliant economic analysis:

CRA mortgages outperformed sub-primes in terms of re-payment and had no impact on the economic crisis


There has been much public discussion concerning whether CRA may have contributed to the current financial and economic crisis. This discussion has focused on the connectionbetween CRA-related home mortgage lending to low- and moderate-income borrowers and whatsome allege to be a disproportionate representation in failing loans.

... In addition, these studies indicate that CRA related loans appear to perform better than subprime loans generally. For example, single-family CRA-related mortgages offered in conjunction with NeighborWorks organizations were found to perform on par with standard conventional mortgages.2 Foreclosure rates within the NeighborWorks network were just 0.21 percent in the second quarter of 2008, 3 compared to 4.26 percent of subprime loans and 0.61 percent for conventional conforming mortgages.4

...
"data reflect that the subprime loans made by banking institutions or their affiliates in their CRA assessment areas remained a marginal segment of the overall market." 9

Additional reports by FRB economists comport with these findings that only a small percentage of higher priced loans were originated by CRA-regulated lenders to either lower income borrowers or in neighborhoods in bank CRA assessment areas.10 Similarly, they have concluded that banks purchased only a small percentage of higher-priced, CRA-eligible loans originated by independent mortgage companies.11

...
Our research finds that after controlling for loan vintage,
origination date, borrower, credit, and loan characteristics, the estimated cumulative default rate for a comparable group of subprime borrowers was about 3.5 times higher than that experienced for borrowers in our CRA portfolio. In outperforming other types of mortgage investments, CRA portfolios may have served as a stabilizing factor for many covered institution."



COnsider youself educated. Go and repeat your misinformed derp no more.

Greedy Bankers killed our economy not poor brown people

A live body and a dead body contain the same number of particles. Structurally, there's no discernible difference. Life and death are unquantifiable abstracts. Why should I be concerned?




What, me worry?

Jesus, this FTFA:

Janis Adkins hadn't been back in Santa Barbara long before she needed to apply for government assistance. She had never asked for aid before. At the California Department of Social Services, she filled out the form for emergency food stamps.

"I didn't wear my best clothes, but I wore a light blouse and jeans, and I guess I was just a little too dressed up," she recalls. "Because the woman just looked at me and said, 'Are you in a crisis? Your application says you're in a crisis.' I said, 'I'm living in a van and I don't have a job. I have a little bit of money, but it's going to go fast.' The woman said, 'You have $500. You're not in a crisis if you have $500.' She said anything more than $50 was too much."

If Adkins had filled her tank with gas, done her laundry, eaten a meal, and paid her car insurance and phone bills, it would have used up half of everything she had. But emergency food stamps, she was told, are not for imminent emergencies; they're for emergencies already in progress. You can't get them if you can make it through the next week - you have to be down to the last few meals you can afford.

"The money's for my phone, it's for gas, it's for my bills," Adkins said.

"Why are you in a crisis," the woman asked, "when you have a phone bill?"

"I need the phone so I can get a job. You can't look for a job without a phone."

"Why do you have bills?" the woman asked. "I thought you didn't have a place to live."

"I live in my van," Adkins said. "I have insurance."

"You have a 2007 van," the woman said. "I think you need to sell that."

"Please, I need a break," Adkins said. "I need some help. I need to take a shower."

"Why didn't you have a shower?"

"I live in a van."

The woman told Adkins to come back when she really needed help.

-------------------

Is farking horrible. I didn't know that it was that goddam bad, that living in your car wasn't rock bottom to the social services people. I always figured it was. I guess if you still have a pot left to piss in, you're living high on the hog and don't need any help at all.

How horrible it must be to have that job, telling homeless people they're not bad off enough yet. Horrible if you're a decent person. I bet there are some people here who would love the opportunity to tell the woman living in her van that she has too much stuff to qualify for food stamps.

O beautiful, for spacious skies ...

Oh, just as an aside---I've heard bunches of talking heads on the news repeat the comment that a lot of people in their 40s and 50s who are unemployed (sometimes even their late 30s!) will never have jobs again.

Okay, I realize I'm not always mentally "all there"---but part of the trouble with getting medicated and treated so you get saner is that you tend to start seeing the insanity of the "sane" people around you.

You guys do realize that blithely accepting the idea that large numbers of people who are in their prime of life and reasonably healthy won't be able to find any work for the rest of their lives, living out a normal lifespan----you do realize that that's psychotically insane, right?

Unless, of course, your thesis is that the United States is in the midst of a catastrophic collapse from which it cannot recover---in which case the "no recovery" option could have all kinds of bad of badness perpetually getting worse and worse. And, well, civilizations do decline and fall and collapse and end. I suppose "we're in the middle of an apocalypse"---uh, no, I still think that qualifies as psychotically insane, given the available evidence. The world economy is troubled, yes. Apocalyptic? Not buying it.

Shaggy_C: Apt analogy. The people who were smart and wealthy enough to have flood insurance (i.e., the banksters with huge lobbying armies on capital hill) are getting bailed out while everyone else (the peons) has to deal with rotting and soggy floorboards, total loss of all possessions, and no place to sleep.

Since a large % of houses aren't owned outright but are under some form of bank-backed mortgage, which ultimately means it's MY money (as depositor or as taxpayer) that gets lost completely when the flood hits and the house is destroyed, I have ZERO problem with mandatory flood insurance. I'd be better with simply not allowing construction in flood-prone zones, but second to that is forcing flood insurance.

As far as debt is concerned, the sooner enough of the lenders realize they aren't getting all their money back, the sooner this shiat storm will begin to fade. More haircuts or the market won't stabilize anytime soon.

Banks don't even have to be charitable or ethical about it. They're losing money on foreclosures, unoccupied houses, and underwater properties. Cut a deal with ex-homeowners. Take a bit off the principal, lower the interest rate and let the homeowner back in on conditions. If they keep paying on time, chop the principal again until its at least realistically close to the market value. Banks get some more revenue, some unlucky chump gets another shot to make ends meet and the economy shakes off a little more uncertainty.

mike0023: Link

Show us the part where it forced banks to give people more money than they could pay back.

Spoiler: That part doesn't exist. Facilitating home ownership does not mean making people take more than they could pay back.

Ham Sandvich: As far as debt is concerned, the sooner enough of the lenders realize they aren't getting all their money back, the sooner this shiat storm will begin to fade. More haircuts or the market won't stabilize anytime soon.

Banks don't even have to be charitable or ethical about it. They're losing money on foreclosures, unoccupied houses, and underwater properties. Cut a deal with ex-homeowners. Take a bit off the principal, lower the interest rate and let the homeowner back in on conditions. If they keep paying on time, chop the principal again until its at least realistically close to the market value. Banks get some more revenue, some unlucky chump gets another shot to make ends meet and the economy shakes off a little more uncertainty.

Can I borrow your rose-colored glasses?

/sarcasm off

That would be nice. But banks are still 'banking' on getting 100% of their money back. Somehow, someway they will get it back. A very sad situation. Not sure how they think we will get out of it if they don't also 'sacrifice'

Odd she has a cell phone bill. In 2011 the US Gov't handed out 1.6 Billion dollars worth of free cell phones with paid service for a year.

For many who got the phone, it was their second phone.

/she's doing it wrong

Charlie Chingas: Ham Sandvich: As far as debt is concerned, the sooner enough of the lenders realize they aren't getting all their money back, the sooner this shiat storm will begin to fade. More haircuts or the market won't stabilize anytime soon.

Banks don't even have to be charitable or ethical about it. They're losing money on foreclosures, unoccupied houses, and underwater properties. Cut a deal with ex-homeowners. Take a bit off the principal, lower the interest rate and let the homeowner back in on conditions. If they keep paying on time, chop the principal again until its at least realistically close to the market value. Banks get some more revenue, some unlucky chump gets another shot to make ends meet and the economy shakes off a little more uncertainty.

Can I borrow your rose-colored glasses?

/sarcasm off

That would be nice. But banks are still 'banking' on getting 100% of their money back. Somehow, someway they will get it back. A very sad situation. Not sure how they think we will get out of it if they don't also 'sacrifice'

Its pipe dream, I know. Either the lenders cut a deal with the debtors or no one is getting their money back. That was just one example of how it could start without a collapse or government intervention.

CliChe Guevara: mike0023: "The near-destruction of the global financial system" was caused by the government forcing banks to issue mortgages to deadbeats.

[citation needed]

Look at all the foreclosed homes

So let me understand this. Say the bank loaned you money on your word that you would repay them. You offer them the title to the house as collateral in case you did not keep your word. They give you the money. You buy the house with the money. Now you don't want to keep your word and repay the money they gave you. And on top of that you are doing to destroy the collateral?

There are some sub-humans on Fark. Or maybe it's just the putrid stink of entitlement.


Barricaded Gunman:
"They" told you you couldn't sell property that belonged to you? I assume the "they" she's referring to here is the lender that foreclosed on her. Well, fark that... if I'm ever in that situation, I'm selling doors, windows, the furnace & pool heater, etc., and I'm destroying anything I leave behind: cut electrical cables, yank out pipes in the basement, etc. You may be able to evict me from my home, but you won't like what you get out of the deal.

Divide and conquer.

Fools.

Off to worship Mammon.