Charity

[reba]

Drew i will see if i can find some stuff written...


While i am looking think about it...... Why would a bank big business want to make a loan knowing they would not be paid back. They way i read what you say you would generally say banks are greedy. What is greedy about a loan in which you are not expecting a pay back?

 

[reba]

Traditionally, lenders have required that home buyers be able to make a down payment of at least 20 percent of a home’s purchase price to get a home loan or mortgage. Mortgage lenders, however, will grant home loans to qualifying home buyers with a down payment of as little as 3 to 5 percent of the purchase price if the mortgage is insured.


Mortgages backed by the government are insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or guaranteed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) or the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Housing Service (USDA-RHS).
The minimum effective down payment FHA requires is less than 3 percent. For single-family homes, there is a limit on the loan amount that varies according to geographic area.


The above is a tiny piece of info i got from the USA gov site the insurer is the USA tax payer

 

[reba]

this snippet is not facts just some one who agrees

A New York Times article from Sept. 1999 states that Fannie Mae had been under increasing pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low- and moderate-income people and that the corporation loosened its lending requirements to comply.

Read more: Guess again who's to blame for U.S. mortgage meltdown Guess again who's to blame for U.S. mortgage meltdown

simple FACTS are not an easy find the government/business cover up with flowery words
​

 

[Drew]

While i am looking think about it...... Why would a bank big business want to make a loan knowing they would not be paid back.

As I believe I stated in my post, I believe the banks "sold" the debt to other people, thereby transferring risk to those other people.

 

[Pizzaguy]

Reba,

WHO was not aware of the sillyness? They were approving loans left and right - even under Bush, I remember the bragging of the "historically high rate of home ownership" in the USA. Problem was, this ownership was built on a faulty foundation: The faulty foundation consisted of home owners who barely qualified, or DID NOT qualify.

There was a family on my street here in Griffin who had bought a new home under a zero down program. I remember talking to the lady - they never mowed the lawn the entire time they lived there, said they could not afford to mow the lawn! I think they lasted in the home maybe 3 years. My neighbor had mowed their lawn for them free several times. He told me that they packed up one day and left, they'd got several months behind in the mortgage and moved to Atlanta and rented an apartment.

Fact is, they were NOT screening applicants like banks normally would. This was due to pressure from the political left (and to some degree, the right as well - both sides wanted to be able to brad about "doing good for the downtrodden and poor").

Once these homes started to be defaulted on, it drove down home values - and here we are today - only because of federal interference in the housing market.

 

[Pizzaguy]

Why would a bank big business want to make a loan knowing they would not be paid back. They way i read what you say you would generally say banks are greedy. What is greedy about a loan in which you are not expecting a pay back?

He's right there, Reba. It's a twisted mess - but mortgage brokers would make a loan under federal guidelines (sometimes where "other considerations" were used instead of a good credit score) that they could tell would likely not be paid back - but again, the mortgage would be sold to a large bank anyway.

The large banks were complying with Federal guidelines that were CRAZY, but in some ways, they had little else they could do.

The mortgage broker got their commission - they never lost a penny.
The large banks, to some extent, deserved to be bailed out -they made bad loans, sure, but they did so under duress from the Feds.

 

[reba]

Guess it just all depends on how we wish to see things. I say government stay out. I see the need for some regulation. But i see todays gov as over the top causing problems because they are buying votes to keep them selfs in power.

And if we follow the line of they sold .. they sold ...they sold....it will end up back at the gov and the tax payer footing the bill. bailouts


My simple mind lumps, banks mortgage lenders FHA Fanny etc all together.

 

[Pizzaguy]

Reba!

 

[Free]

If government "got out of the way" and allowed free enterprise to proceed entirely unfettered, the rich would get richer, the environment would be raped, and the poor and the weak would be the victims.

I suggest that history shows that corporations need to be legally restrained - if they are not, they will often do whatever it takes to make a profit.

Think BP, and the gulf spill, just as one example.

Or the disastrous effect of deregulating the banks, allowing them to make irresponsible loans and selling this risky debt off to others, knowing full well what they were doing. The result: the crash of 2008.

Agreed. The main problem is that corporations such as banks and insurance companies are businesses. As such, they exist solely for the purpose of making a profit. They look out for the "best interest" of their customers as long as they can benefit from it.

One need only consider how much money banks were/are making with whatever amount of government involvement. Should the government completely let corporations have their way, things would be significantly worse, not better.

 

[Drew]

No, I'm not mistaken. I have advanced degrees in business and economics, and thirty years of owning and operating businesses.

This sounds like an "appeal to authority" - not the best of arguments.

I've never bled anyone. In fact I've created jobs and provided products people are willing to buy. They don't take a job in my company nor buy my company products unless they decide it's to their benefit.
If you don't like Exxon, don't buy their gas. If you don't like Microsoft don't buy their software. It isn't their responsibility, nor mine, to make your life comfortable for free.

I suggest that things are not this simple. It is true that no one forces some peasant in a third-world nation to work in a sweatshop. But, to the extent that corporations do indeed take advantage of the desperation of some of the workers, they do effectively exploit them. So, for example, they might squeeze unrealistically high hours of labour at low pay from someone, with the threat of dismissal hanging over that worker's head if they do not comply.

So there certainly are scenarios where corporations do indeed take advantage of their workers.

No one is suggesting that corporations do not create jobs and do good things. I am just suggesting that their primary concern is profits, and sometimes the corporation tosses aside morality in the pursuit of profits.

And you were silent on the Enron example - do you not agree that this was a case of corporate "big-wigs" behaving irresponsibly with the money of the workers?

I think it's more likely that you'll do nothing except to continue griping and demanding the government force others to do what you can't and won't do yourself.

As many here do, you turn from responsible discussion of the issues and try to demonize those who do not share your position.

 

[reba]

Profit is not a bad thing. I know of no one who works for nothing. Is the degree of profit the greed? Or profit alone?

 

[Mike]

I'm editing out personal comments as they are posted. Please don't make anymore work for me! Don't make this personal. Please stick to the issues. :yes

 

[jasoncran]

isnt lying and cheating sinful humans that run business and or govt? if the govt is corrupt then who shall check the business if they too are corrupt and bribe the govt?

i am not saying all do all the time.

"american culture is a turd, shine a turd and its still a turd." we christians erroeunsoly think the free market or govt will heal the american nation. neither will God will if men will repent. i am not saying we shouldnt vote but look at western society in america where it is compared to the 80s then the 60s then the 40's we know where we come from and in general(again some things did change for the better) for the worse.

 

[Drew]

Profit is not a bad thing. I know of no one who works for nothing. Is the degree of profit the greed? Or profit alone?

Of course profit is not a bad thing. But it certainly is the case that sometimes the pursuit of profit results in moral crimes. Not always, but sometimes.

 

[Mike]

Of course profit is not a bad thing. But it certainly is the case that sometimes the pursuit of profit results in moral crimes. Not always, but sometimes.

Take a look at BP's 3-year stock tracker, and take it as an example of what happens when they do.

BP: BP PLC Stock Quote

A truly free market uses the corrective action of lost market support to punish abusers. Allow them to make their own mistakes and ruin their business if they abuse the trust of the public.

What about the abuse of government run programs? They don't have anyone to be accountable to. You could stretch it and say voters can speak their mind, but the government couldn't give a rip about all the abuses of trust. It all just gets swept under the rug if it ever comes out from under the rug to begin with.

Give me a privately held or publicly traded company over a government run program any day! Unfettered by government and allowed to offer a competitive product at a competitive price, all the better!

 

[Drew]

A truly free market uses the corrective action of lost market support to punish abusers. Allow them to make their own mistakes and ruin their business if they abuse the trust of the public.

This does not always work. Suppose that company A is abusing its workers in Thailand - having them work in a sweatshop. The public here in North America may never even hear of this and will not "punish the abuser". Or even if they do hear of it, people may not care and will buy the products of company A anyway.

Entirely free and unfettered capitalism is a recipe for disaster - the sad legacy of history shows that corporations cannot be trusted to behave in a moral fashion. It is entirely appropriate for government to appropriately constrain what corporations are allowed to do in pursuit of profits.

 

[Drew]

What about the abuse of government run programs? They don't have anyone to be accountable to. You could stretch it and say voters can speak their mind, but the government couldn't give a rip about all the abuses of trust. It all just gets swept under the rug if it ever comes out from under the rug to begin with.

Fair enough, but I trust you do not believe that corporations "give a rip about abuses of trust" anymore than do governments. I politely suggest that corporations will often engage in hurtful and unethical practices in pursuit of profits.

But governments, also, should be subject to the rule of law.

 

[childeye]

Take a look at BP's 3-year stock tracker, and take it as an example of what happens when they do.

BP: BP PLC Stock Quote

A truly free market uses the corrective action of lost market support to punish abusers. Allow them to make their own mistakes and ruin their business if they abuse the trust of the public.

What about the abuse of government run programs? They don't have anyone to be accountable to. You could stretch it and say voters can speak their mind, but the government couldn't give a rip about all the abuses of trust. It all just gets swept under the rug if it ever comes out from under the rug to begin with.

Give me a privately held or publicly traded company over a government run program any day! Unfettered by government and allowed to offer a competitive product at a competitive price, all the better!

Well there you have it. The great illusion of Capitalism. The reason why there was a bailout is because all that stock is worthless, do people get that? When market share becomes exhausted by global corporate conglomerates, it then must become a plutocracy. Everybody bow down before the Golden Calf. Send your children to war for the oil, pharmaceutical, and chemical companies under the banner of the Red, white and blue. Never mind the simple folk whose lands we ravage. Pave the roads with flesh and blood, and salute and shed tears for the great cause of our freedom. Everyone shout for joy, the blind are singing their favorite hypocritical tune, "elect me, I'll destroy your government for you".

 

[childeye]

Profit is not a bad thing. I know of no one who works for nothing. Is the degree of profit the greed? Or profit alone?

Many people work for nothing. They in good faith work all of their lives for a reasonable amount so that in good conscience they did not hand to someone else the crap end of the stick. They put away a little each year hoping to not be a burden when they get older and can no longer work. When this time comes, what they saved does not have the value it had when it was earned and they find they worked for nothing. This is thievery through monetary manipulation.

Who your image of god is defines your terms. There was a man who worked hard all his life and ate very little, and of that, the least desirable did he eat. Then there was a man who hardly worked at all and got to eat from all of the best, and of that, all he wanted and could possibly consume. Who did God say was the most profitable for the community?

And God took me high on a cloud. And he showed me down on earth a small skinny boy searching in the hot sun through a heap of trash . And behold the boy jumped for joy finding a crust of bread and began praising God with all his heart. And at the same time on earth, he showed me a man walking out of an office building wearing a fine suit. And as he approached his car, I saw it was a brand new red Porsche. And he stopped, and upon examination he found a small scratch in the perfect finish. He then immediately began cursing God and shaking his fist at his misfortune. And God said to me, now which one do you think is rich?

Your image of god defines your terms. No offense was intended towards anyone.

 

[Mike]

Childeye, being pro-capitalism doesn't necessarily mean you covet the golden calf, just as being indigent doesn't mean you're necessarily pious. I believe it comes down to the heart, and relative to others, virtually anyone can be called "rich" or be told they chase the money. Anytime someone feels they are living on the bare essentials, someone else with less can say they aren't.

Probably off topic, though.

Capitalism provides for the freedom to pursue what someone feels led to do, and that does not always mean they are in it to get rich. Certain industries are easy targets, but if you go after some, where do you stop. With restrictions, growth is hindered. When growth is hindered, people tend to lose jobs. Deepest respect here for small business owners who risk much, don't have that safety net and create jobs. As you move up, finances get bigger, but business is still business.

Business big and small donate to charity. No, it's probably not out of the goodness of their hearts but out of the social pressure that the free market creates. Either way, they do contribute and put money in the pockets of their employees who also donate when they have the means. Careful with that hand that employs you.