Same Party, Different House
https://fanlax.com/forum/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-every ... 1532474015But 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
How about the millions that suddenly decided to become lazy and shiftless from 1929-1941?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%
I would have bet that number was closer to 10%+....7.6 million is a lot of people.frmanfan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:45 am So how many actually work two jobs? Listening to the debates, it must be a lot.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-every ... 1532474015But 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
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.
People would be surprised at the number of people that show up at food pantries to pick up food before they go to work.....foreverlax wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:58 amI would have bet that number was closer to 10%+....7.6 million is a lot of people.frmanfan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:45 am So how many actually work two jobs? Listening to the debates, it must be a lot.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-every ... 1532474015But 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
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.
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.a fan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:43 amNo, 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.
Was it the government or was it Wall Street?HooDat wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 11:51 amafan - 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.a fan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:43 amNo, 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.
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.
is there a difference?
Yes.HooDat wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 12:01 pmis 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.
I've had a side gig for 4 decadesfrmanfan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:45 am So how many actually work two jobs? Listening to the debates, it must be a lot.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-every ... 1532474015But 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
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.
By choice or out of necessity?6ftstick wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 12:27 pmI've had a side gig for 4 decadesfrmanfan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:45 am So how many actually work two jobs? Listening to the debates, it must be a lot.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-every ... 1532474015But 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
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.
Wouldn't have had it any other way
Understood and thank you for the reply.foreverlax wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:28 amGreat question, serious answer.youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:53 amSerious 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.
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%.
You mean my “imagination”frmanfan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 12:57 pm 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/
That was her entree with Willie Brown.
Willie Brown or Willie Dynamite?old salt wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 1:56 pmThat was her entree with Willie Brown.
So was the housing bubble -- all the bogus loans, underwater home owners, foreclosures & loss of equity.a fan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:43 amNo, 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.
Thank ya DaddyTypical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 2:01 pmWillie Brown or Willie Dynamite?old salt wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 1:56 pmThat was her entree with Willie Brown.