With the US Trapped in Depression, This Really is Starting to Feel Li

[Tom Wetmore]

Greed to me is when I want what belongs to others or what others have earned.

No, that would be to covet.

Greed is "an excessive desire to acquire or possess more than one needs or deserves."

[bonnie]

No, that would be to covet.

Greed is "an excessive desire to acquire or possess more than one needs or deserves."

You call it what you will.Fccool classifies those that make money in ways he does not approve of as "greedy". Maybe they just covet money.

Whatever,those that depend on the work of others for their livelihood are just as "greedy".

Greed is a desire to have more than one deserves. One does not deserve the work of others because of poverty.Even those on welfare have more than they absolutely need to survive "GREED"??

[fccool]

Bonnie,

Legal does not mean moral. Gay marriage is legal, and abortion is likewise legal... does not mean it's a moral thing to do. Would you support doctors getting our tax money for performing abortions? I don't think so

Just because it was legalized in 1913, it does not mean that banks should be given power to create money out of nothing. It's Unconstitutional and should be done away with. Other than that, they can EARN money in any way they want. I don't think they should MAKE it

[bonnie]

Bonnie,

Legal does not mean moral. Gay marriage is legal, and abortion is likewise legal... does not mean it's a moral thing to do. Would you support doctors getting our tax money for performing abortions? I don't think so

[phkrause]

Quote:

What money has been paid off? The countless homes in foreclosure certainly have not paid the money off. Nor are the banks getting rich on the foreclosure.Each one can go a year without payments.Many of them do not keep up the property.Homeowners don't pay for the insurance or the taxes. Then they have to try to sell the homes,many times for less than was loaned on the home.

That's why you fundamentally misunderstand mortgage-based derivatives

As soon as you sign that paper... your promise to pay is re-packaged as a derivatives based on the loan and sold to the highest bidder. The bank then is no longer responsible for the loan. This happens with majority of the mortgage-based securities. If you fail to pay off the mortgage, some obscure pension fund may loose some cash... your bank most likely won't. It merely serves as a middle man.

There's so much gambling going on as to whether people will pay or won't pay these mortgages back... it's amazing. There's something that is called the "failure insurance" that banks make their customers pay for many loans. If people don't pay, then banks get re-reimbursed by the insurance agencies that likewise gamble one these.

Quote:

If we would have had to take out a mortgage on our home the bank would be 53,000.00 in the red as that is the amount value has dropped, plus missed payments and interest.

Local banks and mortgage companies did not want to loan on many of these properties. If they turned down unworthy buyers they were taken to the woodshed by the federal government.

Non qualifying loans were used for a reason,the buyer did not qualify for the loan.

You of course mentioning the Community Reinvestment Act 1977

Well, I think you might be surprised to hear that:

1) Most sub-prime loans were made by banks and firms that were not subject to CRA.

2) The reason most banks were lending like no tomorrow is because of the instruments called financial mortage-based derivatives.

The banks were allowed to sell the mortgage promises to pay, and re-package these as commercial paper... like bonds or stocks.

It was then divided into trunches (or risk groups), and sold with highest dividends paid for the highest risk paper and etc.

It was a gamble based on greed. It had nothing to do with government "forcing" banks to lend. The banks will of course be pointing fingers in other direction, and avoid responsibility.

Again fccool you are right on

[phkrause]

All that you have posted has been in the media for quite sometime now....not sure why people still disbelieve. Might be the 'ostrich syndrome'!

:smilewink:

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

All that you have posted has been in the media for quite sometime now....not sure why people still disbelieve. Might be the 'ostrich syndrome'!

:smilewink:

Actually you have made a believer out of me. To think of all the work my husband and I did to be able to have the privilege of owning our own home.I just didn't understand it was my right. I didn't need a job,nor worry how I was going to make the payments.Blame those that passed a law in 1913. If I can't find a job to my liking and expectations,keep drawing unemployment paid for by those still foolish enough to work at whatever they can get.Pay for my college as I am poor.If I decide to have babies I needn't worry about feeding and clothing them. Sounds good to me.

What a lot of wasted hours working for what was my right to have for free.

[Tom Wetmore]

...Whatever,those that depend on the work of others for their livelihood are just as "greedy".

Greed is a desire to have more than one deserves. One does not deserve the work of others because of poverty.Even those on welfare have more than they absolutely need to survive "GREED"??

Since the moral aspect has now been brought up, there is much more to greed than has been suggested thus far. What I gave you before was the simple dictionary definition. Although a good start, that is but a thin shadow of what the Bible has to say about it. Greed was at the heart of the sin of Sodom. (Ezekiel 16:49) Jesus was very much to the point of what it meant to be attached to our stuff. As to need, he even said we should not worry about that either. For those who had great success, he said, "Share it." He condemned those not generous or that horded their wealth. He put the rich young ruler to the test on this point. And like that young man, most of us would fail that test too. We are greedy, making sure we have more than enough for ourselves and being unwilling to part with it, thinking we deserve it because we earned it. Being unwilling to part with our stuff and being unwilling to share with the poor is greed from a moral perspective, as I understand it.

[bonnie]

Since the moral aspect has now been brought up, there is much more to greed than has been suggested thus far. What I gave you before was the simple dictionary definition. Although a good start, that is but a thin shadow of what the Bible has to say about it. Greed was at the heart of the sin of Sodom. (Ezekiel 16:49) Jesus was very much to the point of what it meant to be attched to our stuff. As to need, he even said we should not worry about that either. For those who had great success, he said, "Share it." He condemned those not generous or that horded their wealth. He put the rich young ruler to the test on this point. And like that young man most of us would fail that test too. We are greedy making sure we have more than enough for ourselves and being unwilling to part with it thinking we deserve it because we earned it. Being unwilling to part with our stuff and being unwilling to share with the poor is greed from a moral perspective, as I understand it.

What we as Christians are to do with our means is between God and the christian.It is not up to others to determine "John Doe has more than he needs and God says, so we will redistribute his wealth"

Nor did God remove personal responsibility from anyone. For me,God takes a dim view of "If it wasn't for that law they passed I would not be in the financial straights I am in,God it really isn't my fault"

It is a duel responsibility,both for those that have more and those that have less. My failure to do as a christian should do does not absolve any that has less because of reckless behavior.

[phkrause]

Since the moral aspect has now been brought up, there is much more to greed than has been suggested thus far. What I gave you before was the simple dictionary definition. Although a good start, that is but a thin shadow of what the Bible has to say about it. Greed was at the heart of the sin of Sodom. (Ezekiel 16:49) Jesus was very much to the point of what it meant to be attched to our stuff. As to need, he even said we should not worry about that either. For those who had great success, he said, "Share it." He condemned those not generous or that horded their wealth. He put the rich young ruler to the test on this point. And like that young man most of us would fail that test too. We are greedy making sure we have more than enough for ourselves and being unwilling to part with it thinking we deserve it because we earned it. Being unwilling to part with our stuff and being unwilling to share with the poor is greed from a moral perspective, as I understand it.

This is also why God instituted the Jubilee cycle, so that there would not be the very wealthy or the very poor! Which is happening here in the USA. See Leviticus 25 and the SDA Bible Dictionary pg. 625

Just imagine if the Jews had actually done what God instituted, we would've had an example of what God wanted the Jews to be.

[bonnie]

This is also why God instituted the Jubilee cycle, so that there would not be the very wealthy or the very poor! Which is happening here in the USA. See Leviticus 25 and the SDA Bible Dictionary pg. 625

Just imagine if the Jews had actually done what God instituted, we would've had an example of what God wanted the Jews to be.

I wonder if that was so those that refused to work year after year could share in the rewards of those that did work hard?

Regardless, that is not what we are dealing with. Nor do I find anywhere in the bible that there are those that are to live of the generosity and hard work of others as a means of support without effort on their part

[fccool]

Bonnie,

You are assuming that because there are people who abuse the system, then ALL of the people who benefit from them are lazy and greedy... those who do absolutely nothing and still get paid. Based on your reasoning that most of the people who are collecting unemployment are not doing it because they are out of job, and because they can't find one currently... but because they are lazy and greedy? That's not a judgment I'm willing to cast.

The OT tithing system was instituted by God to take care of poor (lazy people according to your way of thinking), foreigners (those darn Mexican immigrants), and widows (those single mothers sitting on their butts doing nothing).

Just because people abuse the good aspects of the system, should we throw the baby out with the water?

Now, concerning my reference to 1913 law, you once again misunderstand my intentions. It's not to blame some distant law for all of our misfortunes, but to show you that our economic system is currently set up in a way that benefits the people who work around the money creation industry. Money should be created and managed by governments. Money is a public property, because money is A SOCIAL CONTRACT. IT'S NOT PRIVATE PROPERTY TO BE CREATED OUT OF NOTHING AND LEND OUT TO US THE PEOPLE. I don't understand what is it about this statement that makes you so defensive?

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT RE-DESTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT TAKING FROM THE RICH AND GIVING IT TO THE POOR. I'm talking about getting back the control of money from banks to the people.

[Bravus]

And a third vote. I'm sure I've said it before, but IMO it's our responsibility to give, and the responsibility of those who receive to use it appropriately. The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. He loans some of it to us for a while, but if we grip it too tightly...

[John317]

Kinda glad I live in the socialist paradise that is Australia. Our economy is motoring along.

Are you saying this facetiously?

Is Australia really socialist? In what sense?

Here's the wikipedia:

Quote:

The economy of Australia is a developed, modern market economy with a GDP of approximately $1 trillion USD. In 2009, it was the 13th largest national economy by nominal GDP and the 18th largest measured by PPP adjusted GDP, representing about 1.7% of the World economy. Australia was also ranked the 21st largest importer and 23rd largest exporter.

What is a market economy?

Quote:

A market economy is economy based on the power of division of labor in which the prices of goods and services are determined in a free price system set by supply and demand.

Do you have a mixed economy?

Quote:

Where government intervention exists, the market is a mixed economy.

On the American economy, from wikipedia:

Quote:

The economy of the United States is the largest national economy in the world. Its nominal GDP was estimated to be $14.2 trillion in 2009, which is about three times the size of Japan. In purchasing power parity terms, it is larger than the economy of the People's Republic of China....The United States is the world's largest trading nation.

Quote:

In 180 years the United States grew to a huge, integrated, industrialized economy that still makes up over a quarter of the world economy. The main causes were a large unified market, a supportive political-legal system, vast areas of highly productive farmlands, vast natural resources (especially timber, coal and oil), a cultural landscape that valued entrepreneurialism, a commitment to investing in material and human capital, and at times a willingness to exploit labor. In addition, the U.S. was able to utilize these resources due to a unique set of institutions designed to encourage utilization and extraction. As a result, the U.S.'s GDP per capita converged on that of the U.K., as well as other nations that it previously trailed economically. The economy has maintained high wages, attracting immigrants by the millions from all over the world.

[bonnie]

And a third vote. I'm sure I've said it before, but IMO it's our responsibility to give, and the responsibility of those who receive to use it appropriately. The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. He loans some of it to us for a while, but if we grip it too tightly...

I have not disputed that.

[bonnie]

You are assuming that because there are people who abuse the system, then ALL of the people who benefit from them are lazy and greedy... those who do absolutely nothing and still get paid. Based on your reasoning that most of the people who are collecting unemployment are not doing it because they are out of job, and because they can't find one currently... but because they are lazy and greedy? That's not a judgment I'm willing to cast.

[John317]

What we as Christians are to do with our means is between God and the christian.It is not up to others to determine "John Doe has more than he needs and God says, so we will redistribute his wealth"

Nor did God remove personal responsibility from anyone.

I agree that it isn't the responsibility or the right of the government to take money from American citizens for the purpose of giving it to someone else. That was never what our government was designed to do. Most Americans today are still opposed to government redistribation of wealth. If anyone else did it, it would be considered a crime.

All people do have a moral responsibility to give to the poor, but it's wrong to compel people to do it, and God wants people free to make that choice, and not be forced into doing it by governments.

[Bravus]

I was being slightly facetious with the 'Australia as socialist paradise' comment, but we do have socialised healthcare and a very comprehensive social safety net with old age pensions and unemployment and disability payments directly paid by the government. Extensive public school and university system and so on, all working well. These are all things that some hear would decry as socialist and claim should all be privatised.

[John317]

Back in the early 1970s, I seriously considered immigrating to Australia.

When it comes to socialism, Americans generally see it differently than do the people of England, Canada and Australia. Our political and economic experience as a people is completely different. Americans see socialism as a challenge to indivdual freedom, which is more important by far than anything the government can provide. They like government to interfere in people's private lives as little possible. The problem with government is that for everything they give you, they expect to be able to tell you how to live and what to say or do.

But I've noticed a difference between Americans who were born here and those who came from other countries. Those who came from a different country don't understand our past history and they also don't love the country the same. In fact, some don't love the country at all, and they'll sometimes tell you so. It's kinda like the difference between how someone feels about a house when they're renting as opposed to the feelings of someone who's spent his whole life in a house his great-granddaddy built.

[fccool]

Quote:

Those that spend years being supported by others should be stopped

Unemployment is not something that "undeserving people get"... even if it's for extensive periods of time. Unemployment terms are not unlimited.

Unemployment is a form of social insurance that people pay into and get coverage in case of an "accident". I don't think it would be fair to describe the beneficiaries of the insurance as someone who should not be benefiting from it. Every employer pays 6% unemployment tax, that in term supports people who they let go.

If you really consider the costs involved, eventually the employees pay this tax in form of reduced salaries, so it's an indirect tax on those who can potentially benefit from it.

There ARE CONDITIONS to collecting unemployment in US. You gave to constantly file for it, and you have to apply for a certain number of jobs to keep it. It takes a lot longer to get hired in US, depending on your qualifications. I know a chemist who was let go and could not find another position for a long time. He tried to apply for work at gas-stations, but these generally are not interested in temp-overqualified labor.

If was jobless and was given opportunity to and time look for a better quality of job, I would do it rather than settling for a dead-end near-minimum wage job that can barely get me through a mortgage payment.

The average unemployment payment in US is $293/week. We pay half that much on food and gas per week.

In US, the real unemployment levels are about 17%... that's nearly 1-5 people unemployed. I know that to be true. My wife and I quit out jobs to start our own business for that reason. Employment will only get you so far, and much of the money is wasted as overhead that employers have to pay to the Government. It is because of these issues that we don't hire employers, but only hire contract workers to work for us when we are overloaded.

Having employees more demanding than having children :)

[Tom Wetmore]

It is long past the deadline for a Jubilee!

[bonnie]

Unemployment is not something that "undeserving people get"... even if it's for extensive periods of time. Unemployment terms are not unlimited.

[fccool]

Quote:

Difference in attitudes. I don't believe I have a right to have other taxpayers support me whille I search for the perfect job.

Bonnie, but that's the entire idea behind insurance. These people don't get it "for free". They pay for it and they are entitled to benefits. I would understand an argument against illegal immigrants getting unemployment benefits (which they can't unless with fraudulent SS#). This is not the case.

Social contract is such that requires employers to do that for the benefit of ordering people around. I can and do avoid this by working from home and hiring contractors instead, but I can't set my terms for these people as I would for my employees. Employees are entitled to certain benefits, because they submit themselves full-time, and sometimes at fraction of the benefit that they provide for their employers. Would you consider "sick leave" to be unjust too? How about paid Federal holidays? People who pay into the insurance should have the benefit of using it to its full potential. If your car wrecks, and your insurance company covers only enough for you to get back on the road and drive it... I can guarantee you would be up in arms.

If such is the case, then I'd like to cut out half of the military spending, because I know of some military personnel who set their own working time (3 hrs a day) and play computer games to kill the rest of the time... and then boast about it. Does it mean that we should not support military all-together? The same goes for any social workers, or government or church officials?

[bonnie]

Quote:

Bonnie, but that's the entire idea behind insurance. These people don't get it "for free". They pay for it and they are entitled to benefits. I would understand an argument against illegal immigrants getting unemployment benefits (which they can't unless with fraudulent SS#). This is not the case.

I believe the reason for it not being extended this last go around was "it was not paid for" meaning it is coming from the federal coffers(taxpayers) Illegal immigrants just need a anchor baby and all is well on the US taxpayer

Quote:

Social contract is such that requires employers to do that for the benefit of ordering people around. I can and do avoid this by working from home and hiring contractors instead, but I can't set my terms for these people as I would for my employees

Self employment is great if you are prepared that you and your wife are paid last and your sub-contractors come first. Sometimes when you get around to yours it isn't there.

[fccool]

Bonnie,

You have ignored/dismissed my point about the car wreckage. When you get a car wrecked, the insurance covers it in full. When you get sick, if you pay for decent insurance, it will cover the extensive times in hospital + loss of working hours (mine does). THAT'S WHAT UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE IS !!!! IT COVERS UNEMPLOYMENT. I don't understand what part of the insurance you seem to miss here ?

I'm not advocating welfare here, where people who are capable of working are encouraged to stay poor. We are discussing UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE. People pay into it, and they receive benefits based on what they paid into it. People who earn more, end up paying more indirectly as a "pay cut" that is accounted for by the business owners when offering certain salary.

Please, stop pushing the case that these people don't deserve what they are getting. They are collecting insurance restitution. They are not collecting "free money". You can argue that the federal government should not mandate and extend the State level unemployment rules, but this is not what we are talking about here.