Did the GOP just get sandbagged by the Dems on the shutdown

zymurgy said:
A 10, 15, or 30 year mortgage not backed must still adhere to Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac guidelines
Click to expand...
Not exactly true. Those with lower credit scores and higher risks are steered to government backed mortgages.
Banks are required to conform to banking regulations in order to not make risky loans. When those regulations are not enforced or reduced is when we end up with banking crises.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Not exactly true. Those with lower credit scores and higher risks are steered to government backed mortgages.
Banks are required to conform to banking regulations in order to not make risky loans. When those regulations are not enforced or reduced is when we end up with banking crises.
Click to expand...
all of this is missing the real point

even conventional loans by banks of 10-15-30 years were only made possible with new deal government intervention or "bailouts"

you would be insane to put your money in a bank that was giving out 30 year loans without your deposits being insured. They didn't exist in a free market

so this is still all made possible via "bailouts". in this case it isn't the bank being bailed out - they fold - but you are for setting your money in a bad system
 
Last edited:
zymurgy said:
all of this is missing the real point

even conventional loans by banks of 10-15-30 years were only made possible with new deal government intervention or "bailouts"

you would be insane to put your money in a bank that was giving out 30 year loans without your deposits being insured. They didn't exist in a free market

so this is still all made possible via "bailouts". in this case it isn't the bank being bailed out - they fold - but you are for setting your money in a bad system
Click to expand...
A bad system is one where ordinary people can buy a home? It's almost like you are demanding we go back to the gilded age.
 
zymurgy said:
the ones we are discussing do. this is about a proposal for a new 50 year loan - like the 30 year loan
Click to expand...

That is not correct - only about a third of home loans go through Freddie or Fannie.

I agree that after the 2008 fiasco both should have been shut down.
 
zymurgy said:
can "ordinary people" actually buy a home today?
Click to expand...
Millions do every year.

The goal of the Communists is to end private property for the middle class. Much of the plan is the use of propaganda, creating the illusion that a home is not attainable. California and New York have fucked the next generation - as Communist do - but in the other 48 states home ownership is absolutely attainable.
 
zymurgy said:
can "ordinary people" actually buy a home today?
Click to expand...
That isn't the fault of the banking system. It is because of house prices which is another problem entirely. The number of single family homes that have been purchased by private equity firms and other investment firms has reduced availability and driven up prices. Meanwhile wages have not kept up with inflation.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
That isn't the fault of the banking system. It is because of house prices which is another problem entirely. The number of single family homes that have been purchased by private equity firms and other investment firms has reduced availability and driven up prices. Meanwhile wages have not kept up with inflation.
Click to expand...
blaming property rights for high costs is asinine. a free market is the only way to actually determine value
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Then you are promoting a new gilded age where the majority of everything is owned by a few and everyone else has next to nothing.
Click to expand...
you don't own things simply to own them

value is based on what people are willing to give

crying about the way that prices are set is simply asinine.

pumping money into a system helps those politically connect - which sucks. it is the one of many flaws of the fiat system. but private property isn't the enemy.

I for sure would promote a new "gilded age" - as it pertains to individual wealth. Take home pay rose astronomically!
 
"The Gilded Age"

  • Between 1860 and 1900, real worker wages rose roughly 60%–90% depending on the sector.
  • Food prices fell because of mechanized agriculture.
  • Clothing and goods got dramatically cheaper.
  • People moved to cities because factory pay beat farm pay by a mile.
  • Economist Claudia Goldin and Robert Gordon have shown this repeatedly: industrialization produced the fastest gains in take-home pay in American history. Workers weren't tricked—they came because their lives improved.
  • Pre-industrial rural life was brutal and poverty-ridden
  • Child labor existed on farms long before factories.
  • Long work hours were normal; dawn to dusk was standard.
  • There was no safety net, no medical care, and bad harvests meant starvation.
  • Large families weren’t prosperity—they were labor necessity.

So, why the negative connotation?

  • Not because the whole era was bad, but because Progressive-era writers framed it that way.
  • Muckrakers like Sinclair, Tarbell, and Steffens were campaigning for reform, emphasizing abuses to push legislation, writing for urban middle-class audiences who were shocked by industry conditions
  • They did not deny the prosperity— they just focused entirely on the worst parts to generate public pressure.
  • Journalistically, that makes sense. Historically, it's incomplete.
 
zymurgy said:
you don't own things simply to own them

value is based on what people are willing to give

crying about the way that prices are set is simply asinine.

pumping money into a system helps those politically connect - which sucks. it is the one of many flaws of the fiat system. but private property isn't the enemy.

I for sure would promote a new "gilded age" - as it pertains to individual wealth. Take home pay rose astronomically!
Click to expand...
You seem to think it's OK for almost everyone to live in poverty as long as their pay goes up a little while a select few own 90% of everything.
 
zymurgy said:
"The Gilded Age"

  • Between 1860 and 1900, real worker wages rose roughly 60%–90% depending on the sector.
  • Food prices fell because of mechanized agriculture.
  • Clothing and goods got dramatically cheaper.
  • People moved to cities because factory pay beat farm pay by a mile.
  • Economist Claudia Goldin and Robert Gordon have shown this repeatedly: industrialization produced the fastest gains in take-home pay in American history. Workers weren't tricked—they came because their lives improved.
  • Pre-industrial rural life was brutal and poverty-ridden
  • Child labor existed on farms long before factories.
  • Long work hours were normal; dawn to dusk was standard.
  • There was no safety net, no medical care, and bad harvests meant starvation.
  • Large families weren’t prosperity—they were labor necessity.

So, why the negative connotation?

  • Not because the whole era was bad, but because Progressive-era writers framed it that way.
  • Muckrakers like Sinclair, Tarbell, and Steffens were campaigning for reform, emphasizing abuses to push legislation, writing for urban middle-class audiences who were shocked by industry conditions
  • They did not deny the prosperity— they just focused entirely on the worst parts to generate public pressure.
  • Journalistically, that makes sense. Historically, it's incomplete.
Click to expand...
However, this increase did little to fix income and lifestyle disparities in the Gilded Age. In 1890, 11 million of the 12 million families living in the U.S. earned less than $1,200 per year (equivalent to just over $37,000 in 2025).6 The average wage for this group was significantly lower, at only $380 per year (equivalent to just under $12,000 in 2025). This was well below the poverty line at the time. Families who moved to cities in search of industrial jobs often lived in extreme poverty, crowding into tenement buildings and working at low-paying factory jobs.78
www.investopedia.com

The Gilded Age Explained: An Era of Wealth and Inequality

The Gilded Age was a time of rapid industrialization, economic growth, and prosperity for the wealthy. It was also a time of exploitation and extreme poverty for workers.
www.investopedia.com www.investopedia.com

Why would anyone think there was something wrong with people working 60 hours or more a week but still living in poverty?
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
You seem to think it's OK for almost everyone to live in poverty as long as their pay goes up a little while a select few own 90% of everything.
Click to expand...
global poverty is still very much a thing, but America is not a fair player in this regard. We exploit true impoverished nations to lie about the inflation of our run away system of greed and excess.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
However, this increase did little to fix income and lifestyle disparities in the Gilded Age. In 1890, 11 million of the 12 million families living in the U.S. earned less than $1,200 per year (equivalent to just over $37,000 in 2025).6 The average wage for this group was significantly lower, at only $380 per year (equivalent to just under $12,000 in 2025). This was well below the poverty line at the time. Families who moved to cities in search of industrial jobs often lived in extreme poverty, crowding into tenement buildings and working at low-paying factory jobs.78
www.investopedia.com

The Gilded Age Explained: An Era of Wealth and Inequality

The Gilded Age was a time of rapid industrialization, economic growth, and prosperity for the wealthy. It was also a time of exploitation and extreme poverty for workers.
www.investopedia.com www.investopedia.com

Why would anyone think there was something wrong with people working 60 hours or more a week but still living in poverty?
Click to expand...
my initial reply already explained how people were living better, not worse. so your reply is simply spinning in circles and ignoring the facts
 
zymurgy said:
global poverty is still very much a thing, but America is not a fair player in this regard. We exploit true impoverished nations to lie about the inflation of our run away system of greed and excess.
Click to expand...
I guess because global poverty exists you think we should bring poverty to the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top