2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[jhu72]

Wow, this is great, what a treat. This morning we have a couple Fox Nation denizens whistling "Abschied der Gladiatoren" for us, while marching past the grave yard.

Catchy tune guys.

[frmanfan]

So how many actually work two jobs? Listening to the debates, it must be a lot.

But Bureau of Labor Statistics data show only a small minority of Americans work multiple jobs. That percentage has been around 5% of working Americans since 2010, though it was higher before then. Last month 7.6 million, or 4.9%, of the 155.5 million working Americans had multiple jobs.Jul 24, 2018

https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-every ... 1532474015

And just a reminder, Trump didn't bring all these issues to DC. They predated him by a long shot.

As an aside, I could root for Kamala, knowing how it would rankle ol' HRC if Kamala could do what the anointed one couldn't do.

[Andersen]

50% of this country is lazy and shiftless and expects the government to take care of them....That is why the unemployment rate is 50%

How about the millions that suddenly decided to become lazy and shiftless from 1929-1941?

[foreverlax]

So how many actually work two jobs? Listening to the debates, it must be a lot.

But Bureau of Labor Statistics data show only a small minority of Americans work multiple jobs. That percentage has been around 5% of working Americans since 2010, though it was higher before then. Last month 7.6 million, or 4.9%, of the 155.5 million working Americans had multiple jobs.Jul 24, 2018

https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-every ... 1532474015

And just a reminder, Trump didn't bring all these issues to DC. They predated him by a long shot.

As an aside, I could root for Kamala, knowing how it would rankle ol' HRC if Kamala could do what the anointed one couldn't do.

I would have bet that number was closer to 10%+....7.6 million is a lot of people.

[Typical Lax Dad]

So how many actually work two jobs? Listening to the debates, it must be a lot.

But Bureau of Labor Statistics data show only a small minority of Americans work multiple jobs. That percentage has been around 5% of working Americans since 2010, though it was higher before then. Last month 7.6 million, or 4.9%, of the 155.5 million working Americans had multiple jobs.Jul 24, 2018

https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-every ... 1532474015

And just a reminder, Trump didn't bring all these issues to DC. They predated him by a long shot.

As an aside, I could root for Kamala, knowing how it would rankle ol' HRC if Kamala could do what the anointed one couldn't do.

I would have bet that number was closer to 10%+....7.6 million is a lot of people.

People would be surprised at the number of people that show up at food pantries to pick up food before they go to work.....

[HooDat]

You don't think an private sector alternative to the FHA wouldn't have been found to accomodate all the new home buyers

No, I don't. Surely you understand that. It's why no one even TALKS about getting rid of FHA or Fannie or Freddie.

60% of loan originations last year were from some form or another of government program.


Picture this: what would happen to the value of your home if 30% of all home demand disappeared? That's what would happen if you got rid of these Federal home program. And that's why they'll never go away. The entire economy is built on homes. New construction. Bank loans. ReFi's. Using equity to buy dump. It's the ONLY asset the vast, vast majority of Americans hold.

afan - re-read what you wrote. the only way the demand for homes disappears is if people die. Now if you want to make the argument that home-ownership has been enabled by government subsidies - ok. But, it came at a cost - unreasonable inflation of home values. Too many people have treated their homes as an investment. And it has worked, because the government pumped up home values. In reality, the value of a home should change based on a combination of inflation, gdp growth and population growth, potentially offset by technological improvements that aren't maintained by the owners. Without the artificial leverage enabled by government support, it is easy to make the economic argument that people should be better off renting and taking that capital and investing it in a business or the market. The only reason that isn't the case is because of the government.

Other than an artificial sense of "pride" and "engagement" there is no real benefit to home-ownership.

What has really happened is the baby boomers have succeeded in voting themselves a huge net worth windfall by artificially inflating home values via government subsidies during the time of their peak home-owning years. 2008 isn't over. The bubble has been re-inflated by the government - in the coastal cities at least; while the homes in the cities and towns where the "elite" don't live, home values have been allowed to languish.

[Typical Lax Dad]

You don't think an private sector alternative to the FHA wouldn't have been found to accomodate all the new home buyers

No, I don't. Surely you understand that. It's why no one even TALKS about getting rid of FHA or Fannie or Freddie.

60% of loan originations last year were from some form or another of government program.


Picture this: what would happen to the value of your home if 30% of all home demand disappeared? That's what would happen if you got rid of these Federal home program. And that's why they'll never go away. The entire economy is built on homes. New construction. Bank loans. ReFi's. Using equity to buy dump. It's the ONLY asset the vast, vast majority of Americans hold.

afan - re-read what you wrote. the only way the demand for homes disappears is if people die. Now if you want to make the argument that home-ownership has been enabled by government subsidies - ok. But, it came at a cost - unreasonable inflation of home values. Too many people have treated their homes as an investment. And it has worked, because the government pumped up home values. In reality, the value of a home should change based on a combination of inflation, gdp growth and population growth, potentially offset by technological improvements that aren't maintained by the owners. Without the artificial leverage enabled by government support, it is easy to make the economic argument that people should be better off renting and taking that capital and investing it in a business or the market. The only reason that isn't the case is because of the government.

Other than an artificial sense of "pride" and "engagement" there is no real benefit to home-ownership.

What has really happened is the baby boomers have succeeded in voting themselves a huge net worth windfall by artificially inflating home values via government subsidies during the time of their peak home-owning years. 2008 isn't over. The bubble has been re-inflated by the government - in the coastal cities at least; while the homes in the cities and towns where the "elite" don't live, home values have been allowed to languish.

Was it the government or was it Wall Street?

[HooDat]

Was it the government or was it Wall Street?

is there a difference?

But to directly answer your question - in spite of everything your politicians will tell you, it is the government. period, full stop.

Now of course Wall Street gets their "cut" through all the bonds they float and origination fees, etc... But is starts with government support of the loans, which artificially inflates the values.

The question is no longer: "what is a house worth"; the question became: "what can you afford to pay". The classic salesman gambit...


...the other place it shows up clearly is in higher education.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Was it the government or was it Wall Street?

is there a difference?

But to directly answer your question - in spite of everything your politicians will tell you, it is the government. period, full stop.

Now of course Wall Street gets their "cut" through all the bonds they float and origination fees, etc... But is starts with government support of the loans, which artificially inflates the values.

The question is no longer: "what is a house worth"; the question became: "what can you afford to pay". The classic salesman gambit...


...the other place it shows up clearly is in higher education.

Yes.

[6ftstick]

So how many actually work two jobs? Listening to the debates, it must be a lot.

But Bureau of Labor Statistics data show only a small minority of Americans work multiple jobs. That percentage has been around 5% of working Americans since 2010, though it was higher before then. Last month 7.6 million, or 4.9%, of the 155.5 million working Americans had multiple jobs.Jul 24, 2018

https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-every ... 1532474015

And just a reminder, Trump didn't bring all these issues to DC. They predated him by a long shot.

As an aside, I could root for Kamala, knowing how it would rankle ol' HRC if Kamala could do what the anointed one couldn't do.

I've had a side gig for 4 decades

Wouldn't have had it any other way

[Typical Lax Dad]

So how many actually work two jobs? Listening to the debates, it must be a lot.

But Bureau of Labor Statistics data show only a small minority of Americans work multiple jobs. That percentage has been around 5% of working Americans since 2010, though it was higher before then. Last month 7.6 million, or 4.9%, of the 155.5 million working Americans had multiple jobs.Jul 24, 2018

https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-every ... 1532474015

And just a reminder, Trump didn't bring all these issues to DC. They predated him by a long shot.

As an aside, I could root for Kamala, knowing how it would rankle ol' HRC if Kamala could do what the anointed one couldn't do.

I've had a side gig for 4 decades

Wouldn't have had it any other way

By choice or out of necessity?

[6ftstick]

Choice

[Typical Lax Dad]

Choice

I imagine most people with two jobs aren’t that fortunate. It’s good that you found something interesting that you enjoy doing.

[frmanfan]

TLD, do a little research and back up your statement. Choice or necessity? I would be curious to know if that data is out there.

The press loved her, but here is on educator that is not so enthralled.

https://educationrealist.wordpress.com/ ... g-blunder/

[youthathletics]

You really don't understand how much money has been given to the .01%....still waiting for the golden shower to trickle down.policies that in the 20th century alone killed over 100 million ppl world wide.

Serious question, why does being wealthy (in the .01%) bother you, it does not bother me. And to be honest, history has proven neither side really does anything for the poor. The best we can hope for is higher employment....a rising tide(jobs) lifts all boats(each of us).

It just seems like the politicians have pitted us against each other, and many have fallen for it.

Great question, serious answer.

History has proven that neither side has been "successful" dealing with the poor....although we certainly have spent a lot of money trying. Agreed that jobs that pay a living wage are key and go hand in hand with education and good/affordable health insurance. How many jobs should someone have to work to put food on their table and a roof over their head?

I was raised with a wooden spoon in my mouth by a bronze star, hourly wage earner, G.E.D. father and a school teacher. Solidly middle class - one week vacation at the beach annually.

Professionally, I deal with people and their money. As someone who feeds at that trough, over the years, I have gained a high level of cynicism regarding the .01%...for various reasons.

IMO, this group, and those that serve them, are running the world to suit them....I am really sick of the amount of control that power and money can buy.

Trump's administration - policies and people, i.e. the swamp, is the personification of what is worst about capitalism, corruption, self-dealing - all for more money and more power....at the expense of the remaining 90%.

Understood and thank you for the reply.

I too grew up with a wooden spoon, military father who then worked at Georgetown U and a midnight shift at Cafritz Hospital (S.E. DC) emergency room on weekends just to keep us afloat. So I learned to be a minimalist, be thankful for what you have, and not get caught up in money or things.

[Typical Lax Dad]

TLD, do a little research and back up your statement. Choice or necessity? I would be curious to know if that data is out there.

The press loved her, but here is on educator that is not so enthralled.

https://educationrealist.wordpress.com/ ... g-blunder/

You mean my “imagination”

[old salt]

After tonight's hit job, how can Uncle Joe ever trust Kamala to be his running mate ?
...if they were elected, she'd Underwood him in year 1.

She is ruining her chance to be his mammy!

That was her entree with Willie Brown.

[Typical Lax Dad]

After tonight's hit job, how can Uncle Joe ever trust Kamala to be his running mate ?
...if they were elected, she'd Underwood him in year 1.

She is ruining her chance to be his mammy!

That was her entree with Willie Brown.

Willie Brown or Willie Dynamite?

[old salt]

You don't think an private sector alternative to the FHA wouldn't have been found to accomodate all the new home buyers

No, I don't. Surely you understand that. It's why no one even TALKS about getting rid of FHA or Fannie or Freddie.

60% of loan originations last year were from some form or another of government program.

Picture this: what would happen to the value of your home if 30% of all home demand disappeared? That's what would happen if you got rid of these Federal home program. And that's why they'll never go away. The entire economy is built on homes. New construction. Bank loans. ReFi's. Using equity to buy dump. It's the ONLY asset the vast, vast majority of Americans hold.

So was the housing bubble -- all the bogus loans, underwater home owners, foreclosures & loss of equity.

[old salt]

After tonight's hit job, how can Uncle Joe ever trust Kamala to be his running mate ?
...if they were elected, she'd Underwood him in year 1.

She is ruining her chance to be his mammy!

That was her entree with Willie Brown.

Willie Brown or Willie Dynamite?

Thank ya Daddy