3 ms·

>Deregulation of the financial industry lets risk-hungry banks take ever greater risks, causes the financial crisis, costs taxpayer money, causes high unemploym

by tsotha 13y ago

>Deregulation of the financial industry lets risk-hungry banks take ever greater risks, causes the financial crisis, costs taxpayer money, causes high unemployment, and leaves the rich back where they started before the crisis while the poor still suffer. Meh. The recession wasn't caused by a financial crisis. The recession and the financial crisis both had the same cause - a real estate bubble. And I don't see any indication wealthy people have come out ahead here except for a handful of people who managed to cash in during the bubble. But that's not a question of how the law is structured - that happens in every bubble. >Dismantling of welfare programs in order to cut costs in order to lower taxes on the rich stops critical services to the poor and keeps them trapped in poverty. That's an odd view of the situation. For one thing, services to the poor have been greatly expanded in recent years. Disability, SNAP, WIC... all that stuff has been expanded. Also, existing programs like Medicaid have maintained the same level of service even as costs spiral out of control. The only thing I can think of that's actually been cut is AFDC, if you consider a time limit on benefits to be a cut. And that's perfectly reasonable - it's supposed to be a net, not a hammock. Also, if you really wanted to trap people in poverty you couldn't do better than to hand them money for being poor. Lots of people are on benefits for a few years and then they pull themselves out of poverty. But there's a significant percentage who'll stay on benefits because that's the path of least resistance. > Tax liens sold to rich investors lets them practically steal homes (or get them at bargain prices) and evict the owners in order to flip them off what are sometimes ridiculously small amounts of debt compared to the home value owed by the not-well-off (but not ridiculously small compared to their financial situation). I'm not sure you understand how this works. When you have a lien against your house and you don't pay it, the lien holder can force the sale of the property. But the homeowner gets the money from the sale after the lien has been satisfied. Nobody's getting screwed here. People who end up with no money 1) didn't pay their taxes and 2) don't have any equity in the house. If you didn't have a system where the city/county could take your house for back taxes nobody would pay taxes.

afterburner 13y ago
The housing bubble was in part caused by crazy incentives in the financial industry to make as many loans as possible and sell that debt back and forth. The ability to do this and make ever larger bets which meant any downturn at all in housing would be catastrophic was allowed by deregulation. Welfare programs haven't expanded in the last few years, they've simply been more needed. When more people are out of work, more people need welfare, but that doesn't mean the programs have become more far reaching. And besides, why on earth do you think I'm only talking about the last few years? Lobbies on the right are constantly pushing for "dismantling the mommy state", and it has everything to do with wanting lower taxes. Which is an example of the rich getting laws passed that screw over the poor, which you seemed incredulous about. I don't think you understand what being trapped in poverty really means. If people are choosing to stay on benefits, it's usually because working 60 hours a week to barely tread water doesn't seem to appealing to them. Social mobility in the US is among the lowest in the developed world. Tax liens: for the most part it's not corrupt, but I was referring to this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349476 So far you're not really disproving my point, just arguing other aspects of your ideology.
- tsotha 13y ago
  >The housing bubble was in part caused by crazy incentives in the financial industry to make as many loans as possible and sell that debt back and forth. The ability to do this and make ever larger bets which meant any downturn at all in housing would be catastrophic was allowed by deregulation. Those "crazy incentives" were put in place by well-meaning people who confused middle class signifiers with causative behavior. In other words, people who thought home ownership was a way into the middle class instead of what it is - a middle class luxury. >Welfare programs haven't expanded in the last few years, they've simply been more needed. Not true. Before Obama took office you could be on food stamps three months in a three year period. Now the only limit is your income. Even bigger is Medicaid, which consumes ever greater portions of state budgets on a per-capita basis. >I don't think you understand what being trapped in poverty really means. If people are choosing to stay on benefits, it's usually because working 60 hours a week to barely tread water doesn't seem to appealing to them. That's exactly my point. Of course nobody wants to work hard. But if you don't take an entry level job you'll never have a job that makes you comfortable. Thus my comment about social programs trapping people in poverty. >Tax liens: for the most part it's not corrupt, but I was referring to this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349476 I understood what you were referring to. The article is written to inflame passions in people who don't understand the process. If you read through the HN thread you'll see half the people who read the article think the lien holder pockets the entire amount from property sales. >So far you're not really disproving my point, just arguing other aspects of your ideology. No, I'm disproving your point, but you're ideological blinkers prevent you from reassessing your position.
  - afterburner 13y ago
    My position that the rich (and their corporations) have more influence on law-making than the poor, and that this can disadvantage the poor? I think it's hilarious you find this controversial; it has been the case throughout human history in all systems of government. Pretending this doesn't happen really doesn't help except in order to encourage complacency on the part of the poor. I still don't think you understand what being trapped in poverty means. Even taking that entry-level job, assuming you can get it in the first place, often doesn't raise the person much higher. Been trapped in poverty often means you don't have the background, education, opportunity, or even awareness to go after that job in the first place. Tax lien thing: the article never mentioned what happened to the money from the sale of the house, other than that it was sold by the investor, so I hardly think it was a matter of political blindness on the part of the readers. Furthermore, the man was eveicted from his lifetime home over a $150 dollar bill, and forced to pay $5000 instead, no to mention either lose the house or lose out on selling the house under more favourable conditions to a buyer willing to pay more, depending on what is in fact true. Discussion on that article seems to indicate he did indeed lose the equity, and that this is a problem in Washington D.C. due to how the law is worded there. This example proves my point either way.

by tsotha 13y ago

afterburner 13y ago

The housing bubble was in part caused by crazy incentives in the financial industry to make as many loans as possible and sell that debt back and forth. The ability to do this and make ever larger bets which meant any downturn at all in housing would be catastrophic was allowed by deregulation. Welfare programs haven't expanded in the last few years, they've simply been more needed. When more people are out of work, more people need welfare, but that doesn't mean the programs have become more far reaching. And besides, why on earth do you think I'm only talking about the last few years? Lobbies on the right are constantly pushing for "dismantling the mommy state", and it has everything to do with wanting lower taxes. Which is an example of the rich getting laws passed that screw over the poor, which you seemed incredulous about. I don't think you understand what being trapped in poverty really means. If people are choosing to stay on benefits, it's usually because working 60 hours a week to barely tread water doesn't seem to appealing to them. Social mobility in the US is among the lowest in the developed world. Tax liens: for the most part it's not corrupt, but I was referring to this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349476 So far you're not really disproving my point, just arguing other aspects of your ideology.

tsotha 13y ago
>The housing bubble was in part caused by crazy incentives in the financial industry to make as many loans as possible and sell that debt back and forth. The ability to do this and make ever larger bets which meant any downturn at all in housing would be catastrophic was allowed by deregulation. Those "crazy incentives" were put in place by well-meaning people who confused middle class signifiers with causative behavior. In other words, people who thought home ownership was a way into the middle class instead of what it is - a middle class luxury. >Welfare programs haven't expanded in the last few years, they've simply been more needed. Not true. Before Obama took office you could be on food stamps three months in a three year period. Now the only limit is your income. Even bigger is Medicaid, which consumes ever greater portions of state budgets on a per-capita basis. >I don't think you understand what being trapped in poverty really means. If people are choosing to stay on benefits, it's usually because working 60 hours a week to barely tread water doesn't seem to appealing to them. That's exactly my point. Of course nobody wants to work hard. But if you don't take an entry level job you'll never have a job that makes you comfortable. Thus my comment about social programs trapping people in poverty. >Tax liens: for the most part it's not corrupt, but I was referring to this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349476 I understood what you were referring to. The article is written to inflame passions in people who don't understand the process. If you read through the HN thread you'll see half the people who read the article think the lien holder pockets the entire amount from property sales. >So far you're not really disproving my point, just arguing other aspects of your ideology. No, I'm disproving your point, but you're ideological blinkers prevent you from reassessing your position.
- afterburner 13y ago
  My position that the rich (and their corporations) have more influence on law-making than the poor, and that this can disadvantage the poor? I think it's hilarious you find this controversial; it has been the case throughout human history in all systems of government. Pretending this doesn't happen really doesn't help except in order to encourage complacency on the part of the poor. I still don't think you understand what being trapped in poverty means. Even taking that entry-level job, assuming you can get it in the first place, often doesn't raise the person much higher. Been trapped in poverty often means you don't have the background, education, opportunity, or even awareness to go after that job in the first place. Tax lien thing: the article never mentioned what happened to the money from the sale of the house, other than that it was sold by the investor, so I hardly think it was a matter of political blindness on the part of the readers. Furthermore, the man was eveicted from his lifetime home over a $150 dollar bill, and forced to pay $5000 instead, no to mention either lose the house or lose out on selling the house under more favourable conditions to a buyer willing to pay more, depending on what is in fact true. Discussion on that article seems to indicate he did indeed lose the equity, and that this is a problem in Washington D.C. due to how the law is worded there. This example proves my point either way.