MTA, Transit Workers Union Still In Negotiations After Contract Expires

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Maybe he should close all his properties overseas and bring employment back here...

He's already helped to keep jobs here before he was sworn in... Thousands of jobs will remain here. As for his business, he simply took advantage of LEGAL laws in this country. His political ideology has nothing to do with him as a businessman, but as president I see a Trump that will put America first for once.

[GojiMet86]

No he won't. He will put his family first. He talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.

[Union Tpke]

You can't just save a few hundred jobs by having the taxpayers pay for it through tax breaks. The Carrier deal was a sham. Trump himself said that he was against having a deal done this way.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

No he won't. He will put his family first. He talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.

More speculation....

You can't just save a few hundred jobs by having the taxpayers pay for it through tax breaks. The Carrier deal was a sham. Trump himself said that he was against having a deal done this way.

Trump saved THOUSANDS of jobs before taking office, jobs that would've been gone if Obama was still in office. Soft on China, soft on NAFTA... Finally a president putting America first.

[GojiMet86]

More speculation....

Trump saved THOUSANDS of jobs before taking office, jobs that would've been gone if Obama was still in office. Soft on China, soft on NAFTA... Finally a president putting America first.

 

First result in a google search:

 

http://www.alternet.org/economy/more-1600-factory-workers-are-being-fired-after-trump-said-hed-save-their-jobs-heres-what

 

 

INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana—Dragging on a cigarette as he sits in the hall of United Steelworkers Local 1999, Robert James says, “Trump stood on stage and lied about 1,100 jobs being saved at Carrier in Indianapolis.”

James, 57, is the local vice president and a forklift driver who’s worked for 18 years at the Indiana-based factory that manufactures furnaces for homes. In February 2016 Carrier told more than 2,000 workers at two factories in the Hoosier State they were going to be fired and production would shift to Monterrey, Mexico. After a video of the workers being fired went viral, Trump made Carrier a poster-child of offshoring during the presidential campaign. Following his victory, Trump turned the screws on Carrier to keep jobs in the United States.

That enabled Trump to sweep into Indianapolis on December 1 as a job-saving hero. He announced before a packed house of employees and news media that more than 1,100 jobs would stay in the Carrier plant.

But the numbers Trump announced don’t add up. When James and other union leaders met with the company right before Trump went on stage, they were told 730 union jobs would be saved at the Indianapolis plant―nearly 400 less than Trump announced. Trump was apparently including 350 engineering and administrative employees, but they were never leaving. That meant 550 workers would lose their jobs in Indianapolis as well as 738 workers at Huntington, which would shut down entirely...

 

 

 

That's not speculation. That's fact. And you can read the rest of the story at your own leisurely pleasure.

[Union Tpke]

More speculation....

Trump saved THOUSANDS of jobs before taking office, jobs that would've been gone if Obama was still in office. Soft on China, soft on NAFTA... Finally a president putting America first.

 

Of all the signatures on the forums, I have only ignored yours.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

First result in a google search:

 

http://www.alternet.org/economy/more-1600-factory-workers-are-being-fired-after-trump-said-hed-save-their-jobs-heres-what

 

 

 

 

 

That's not speculation. That's fact. And you can read the rest of the story at your own leisurely pleasure.

I'm not just talking about Carrier, so I stand by what I said.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Of all the signatures on the forums, I have only ignored yours.

First result in a google search:

 

http://www.alternet.org/economy/more-1600-factory-workers-are-being-fired-after-trump-said-hed-save-their-jobs-heres-what

 

 

 

 

 

That's not speculation. That's fact. And you can read the rest of the story at your own leisurely pleasure.

Since you have selective memory...

 

http://americanlookout.com/jpb-ford-motors-cancels-plant-in-mexico-will-invest-in-michigan-after-trump-lays-down-the-law/

[GojiMet86]

Since you have selective memory...

 

http://americanlookout.com/jpb-ford-motors-cancels-plant-in-mexico-will-invest-in-michigan-after-trump-lays-down-the-law/

 

So you're happy that he lied with his promise to save 1,100 jobs when in fact 550 workers in Indiannapolis and 738 workers at Huntington lose their jobs because what, he kept Ford in the US? Please defend to me why you're okay with those jobs being lost.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

So you're happy that he lied with his promise to save 1,100 jobs when in fact 550 workers in Indiannapolis and 738 workers at Huntington lose their jobs because what, he kept Ford in the US? Please defend to me why you're okay with those jobs being lost.

Excuse me, but who was president then that had any real sway? The jobs were lost on Obama's watch. Trump got involved BEFORE he was even president. Put the blame where it should rest.

[Around the Horn]

Excuse me, but who was president then that had any real sway? The jobs were lost on Obama's watch. Trump got involved BEFORE he was even president. Put the blame where it should rest.

Those workers were fired as part of the deal Trump brokered. If the deal never happened, they would most likely still be working at their respective factories...

[GojiMet86]

Excuse me, but who was president then that had any real sway? The jobs were lost on Obama's watch. Trump got involved BEFORE he was even president. Put the blame where it should rest.

 

But Obama isn't President anymore! Why did Trump LIE?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Those workers were fired as part of the deal Trump brokered. If the deal never happened, they would most likely still be working at their respective factories...

  That's funny because Obama basically gave up on Carrier before Trump became involved.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/02/obama-manufacturing-jobs-outsourced-mexico-arent-coming-back/

 

If it was up to Obama ALL of those jobs would be gone.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

But Obama isn't President anymore! Why did Trump LIE?

Obama WAS president when Carrier said it was moving ALL of those jobs overseas. Trump worked to save jobs BEFORE he was president. He didn't lie since he had no obligation to do anything, since that deal was reached BEFORE he was even president, just like the deal with Ford. Just face it. Obama didn't give a damn about manufacturing and the numbers prove that. We've lost TONS of manufacturing jobs under Obama's watch. To quote Obama:

 

“The days when you just being willing to work hard and you can now walk into a plant and suddenly there’s going to be a job for you for 30 years or 40 years, that’s just not going to be there for our kids,” Obama said.

 

So much for giving a damn about American workers...

 

Source: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/02/obama-manufacturing-jobs-outsourced-mexico-arent-coming-back/

[GojiMet86]

Obama WAS president when Carrier said it was moving ALL of those jobs overseas. Trump worked to save jobs BEFORE he was president. He didn't lie since he had no obligation to do anything, since that deal was reached BEFORE he was even president, just like the deal with Ford. Just face it. Obama didn't give a damn about manufacturing and the numbers prove that. We've lost TONS of manufacturing jobs under Obama's watch. To quote Obama:

 

“The days when you just being willing to work hard and you can now walk into a plant and suddenly there’s going to be a job for you for 30 years or 40 years, that’s just not going to be there for our kids,” Obama said.

 

So much for giving a damn about American workers...

 

Source: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/02/obama-manufacturing-jobs-outsourced-mexico-arent-coming-back/

 

 

I don't give a rat's ass about Obama. He is gone.

 

 

 

Why did Trump LIE? He lied. Trump CLEARLY and EXPLICITLY said 1,100 jobs would be saved. Only 730 of those are the blue-collar workers you "care" about. Nearly 350 administrative and engineering jobs that were never at risk of leaving. Trump included those to puff up his numbers. At the end of the day, almost 1,600 people will lose their jobs!  How do you explain THAT?

 

And you read Breitbart? Lol, clearly you're not very intelligent.

[Around the Horn]

Yeah. Breitbart is not a site you want to be citing to prove a point in an intellectual discussion...

[GojiMet86]

Yeah. Breitbart is not a site you want to be citing to prove a point in an intellectual discussion...

 

Can't believe it's a "legit" new source now...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Can't believe it's a "legit" new source now...

  

Yeah. Breitbart is not a site you want to be citing to prove a point in an intellectual discussion...

  

I don't give a rat's ass about Obama. He is gone.

 

 

 

Why did Trump LIE? He lied. Trump CLEARLY and EXPLICITLY said 1,100 jobs would be saved. Only 730 of those are the blue-collar workers you "care" about. Nearly 350 administrative and engineering jobs that were never at risk of leaving. Trump included those to puff up his numbers. At the end of the day, almost 1,600 people will lose their jobs!  How do you explain THAT?

 

And you read Breitbart? Lol, clearly you're not very intelligent.

I'm sure you don't care even though HE was president when Carrier announced that it was moving ALL of those jobs overseas.

 

We can argue about what source is reputable, but there really isn't anything controversial about what was reported, hence why I'm fine using the source. I can say the same about CNN and the NY Times. Trump has been in office for one full day and part of a day, and as usual the blind liberals are out with their pitchforks. What a surprise. After eight years of mediocracy, I can be patient with our new commander in chief. Get back to me when you have some real news to report.

[GojiMet86]

    I'm sure you don't care even though HE was president when Carrier announced that it was moving ALL of those jobs overseas.

 

We can argue about what source is reputable, but there really isn't anything controversial about what was reported, hence why I'm fine using the source. I can say the same about CNN and the NY Times. Trump has been in office for one full day and part of a day, and as usual the blind liberals are out with their pitchforks. What a surprise. After eight years of mediocracy, I can be patient with our new commander in chief. Get back to me when you have some real news to report.

 

Stop evading these simple questions, bro. Why did Trump lie? Why did he conflate the numbers on that specific 1,100 job announcement? Just answer them.

[MHV9218]

More speculation....

Trump saved THOUSANDS of jobs before taking office, jobs that would've been gone if Obama was still in office. Soft on China, soft on NAFTA... Finally a president putting America first.

 

This is not how the economy works! Even if you take Trump at his word, which I will do for your sake, that deal is meaningless in any actual sense of our country. 

 

I read your article, from your bubble, you can read the article from my bubble: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/opinion/the-age-of-fake-policy.html?_r=0

 

Some key points: 

 

 

On Thursday, at a rough estimate, 75,000 Americans were laid off or fired by their employers. Some of those workers will find good new jobs, but many will end up earning less, and some will remain unemployed for months or years. 

 

If that sounds terrible to you, and you’re asking what economic catastrophe just happened, the answer is, none. In fact, I’m just assuming that Thursday was a normal day in the job market.

 

 

Real policy, in a nation as big and rich as America, involves large sums of money and affects broad swaths of the economy. Repealing the Affordable Care Act, which would snatch away hundreds of billions in insurance subsidies to low- and middle-income families and cause around 30 million people to lose coverage, would certainly qualify.

 

Consider, by contrast, the story that dominated several news cycles a few weeks ago: Donald Trump’s intervention to stop Carrier from moving jobs to Mexico. Some reports say that 800 U.S. jobs were saved; others suggest that the company will simply replace workers with machines. But even accepting the most positive spin, for every worker whose job was saved in that deal, around a hundred others lost their jobs the same day. 

 

In other words, it may have sounded as if Mr. Trump was doing something substantive by intervening with Carrier, but he wasn’t. This was fake policy — a show intended to impress the rubes, not to achieve real results.

 

Real policy was Trump removing the subsidy that allowed middle-class citizens cheaper mortgages on his first day of office. That's something that matters, that affects people. Individual pieces of policy like Carrier, even if you believe his numbers, do not.

[SubwayGuy]

POLITICIANS DON'T CREATE JOBS OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR.

 

When people realize this, then we can actually as a nation have an intelligent discussion about this.

 

The only people who create jobs in the private sector are

ENTREPRENEURS

BUSINESS PARTNERS

and CORPORATE EXECUTIVES.

 

One more time:

The only people who create jobs in the private sector are

ENTREPRENEURS

BUSINESS PARTNERS

and CORPORATE EXECUTIVES.

 

Government's role is not to create jobs but to defensively use policy to discourage the aforementioned people from playing the US like a fool against another country in a "rat race to the bottom" that ultimately only benefits themselves but destroys working and middle class living by creating wage compression with the poor.

 

Note I said "discourage" not "encourage" - because by providing tax incentives, the taxpayers are effectively SUBSIDIZING THE PROFIT of corporations to keep jobs here, which is ultimately a zero sum game. Keep tax revenue here, spend tax revenue to do so = zero sum.

 

The economic model failed with all this financial engineering and the fact most people are too stupid to understand real economics, instead of this BS peddled by idiots for the last several decades. There are certain basic tenets to economics that most people don't even understand:

 

#1- An economy is only fair when every social class has equal access to the means of production.

Even as bad as sharecropping was (largely due to "fast ones" pulled by landowners), at least this was somewhat true. Now, more than ever, it isn't. Even farming is big business now. The middle class, working class, and working poor don't really have access to any means of production because they have been replaced by people overseas or machines. This effectively leaves the US middle class, working class, and working poor with no leverage in the setting of domestic policy.

 

#2- The only way to create wealth is to extract natural resources. The concept is simple and best explained with an example:

 

If we live in a two person society that assigns value to the dollar, and I have $5, and you have nothing, the net worth of the society is $5.

 

If you go into a field and dig out a piece of granite that we both agree is worth $1, now you have $1 and I have $5 in net worth = total net worth of our little society of $6.

 

If you sell me that piece of rock by marking it up for $2, congratulations you made a profit. Now I have $3 and a $1 rock, and you have $2. Total net worth of our society is still $6. This is where America has gone wrong. America assumes that by marking up the price to me you've created wealth. Especially because most goods sold here are non-durable and begin to depreciate the moment you open the packaging.

 

Therefore...When you outsource, and run a trade deficit, you exchange your already created wealth to a foreign country in exchange for the wealth they have created by extracting natural resources. And this is why it's so problematic that all these components for hi tech must be imported from Asia.

 

And of course, no amount of trying to control inflation, adjust the value of the currency, will correct this. Numbers can be what they want to tell you. Who cares if inflation is "only 1.5%" if when you go to the grocery store the same gallon of milk that used to be $2 is now $5? And if your pay didn't grow to match that, then your standard of living is falling behind, regardless of what the statistics are made to say.

 

Politicians in both major political parties have ignored this very real problem for hundreds of millions of Americans because the plutocrat unions of super PAC's and partisan "foundations" have paid them to look the other way, or to look at corporate profits, rather than happiness or social mobility, as the measure of success by our society.

 

It will not change until people wake up, and it's not going to change as long as people think that 1 person sitting in a figurehead office that people only get to "pick" from pre-determined alternatives once every 4 years, is the person that can change it.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Stop evading these simple questions, bro. Why did Trump lie? Why did he conflate the numbers on that specific 1,100 job announcement? Just answer them.

Perhaps I could if I understood what you were trying to say.  Do you mean inflate or conflate? Either way, I'm not in his head so you would have to ask him.  All I know is there wouldn't be any jobs to save if it was up to Obama.

 

This is not how the economy works! Even if you take Trump at his word, which I will do for your sake, that deal is meaningless in any actual sense of our country. 

 

I read your article, from your bubble, you can read the article from my bubble: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/opinion/the-age-of-fake-policy.html?_r=0

 

Some key points: 

 

 

 

Real policy was Trump removing the subsidy that allowed middle-class citizens cheaper mortgages on his first day of office. That's something that matters, that affects people. Individual pieces of policy like Carrier, even if you believe his numbers, do not.

Removing or suspending?  Not exactly the same thing, but nice try.  He decided to suspend it until his administration can examine everything carefully.  The Obama administration rammed through several things before he left office, and I see no point in going along with what the previous administration did when people want change.  Additionally, we should not be propping up borrowers who pose a risk because of poor credit, so I agree with such a decision. Such a program needs to make sense for American taxpayers and not become a cash cow.  If you can't afford a home, then you rent until you have enough saved. Simple as that.  

 

POLITICIANS DON'T CREATE JOBS OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR.

 

When people realize this, then we can actually as a nation have an intelligent discussion about this.

 

The only people who create jobs in the private sector are

ENTREPRENEURS

BUSINESS PARTNERS

and CORPORATE EXECUTIVES.

 

One more time:

The only people who create jobs in the private sector are

ENTREPRENEURS

BUSINESS PARTNERS

and CORPORATE EXECUTIVES.

 

Government's role is not to create jobs but to defensively use policy to discourage the aforementioned people from playing the US like a fool against another country in a "rat race to the bottom" that ultimately only benefits themselves but destroys working and middle class living by creating wage compression with the poor.

 

Note I said "discourage" not "encourage" - because by providing tax incentives, the taxpayers are effectively SUBSIDIZING THE PROFIT of corporations to keep jobs here, which is ultimately a zero sum game. Keep tax revenue here, spend tax revenue to do so = zero sum.

 

The economic model failed with all this financial engineering and the fact most people are too stupid to understand real economics, instead of this BS peddled by idiots for the last several decades. There are certain basic tenets to economics that most people don't even understand:

 

#1- An economy is only fair when every social class has equal access to the means of production.

Even as bad as sharecropping was (largely due to "fast ones" pulled by landowners), at least this was somewhat true. Now, more than ever, it isn't. Even farming is big business now. The middle class, working class, and working poor don't really have access to any means of production because they have been replaced by people overseas or machines. This effectively leaves the US middle class, working class, and working poor with no leverage in the setting of domestic policy.

 

#2- The only way to create wealth is to extract natural resources. The concept is simple and best explained with an example:

 

If we live in a two person society that assigns value to the dollar, and I have $5, and you have nothing, the net worth of the society is $5.

 

If you go into a field and dig out a piece of granite that we both agree is worth $1, now you have $1 and I have $5 in net worth = total net worth of our little society of $6.

 

If you sell me that piece of rock by marking it up for $2, congratulations you made a profit. Now I have $3 and a $1 rock, and you have $2. Total net worth of our society is still $6. This is where America has gone wrong. America assumes that by marking up the price to me you've created wealth. Especially because most goods sold here are non-durable and begin to depreciate the moment you open the packaging.

 

Therefore...When you outsource, and run a trade deficit, you exchange your already created wealth to a foreign country in exchange for the wealth they have created by extracting natural resources. And this is why it's so problematic that all these components for hi tech must be imported from Asia.

 

And of course, no amount of trying to control inflation, adjust the value of the currency, will correct this. Numbers can be what they want to tell you. Who cares if inflation is "only 1.5%" if when you go to the grocery store the same gallon of milk that used to be $2 is now $5? And if your pay didn't grow to match that, then your standard of living is falling behind, regardless of what the statistics are made to say.

 

Politicians in both major political parties have ignored this very real problem for hundreds of millions of Americans because the plutocrat unions of super PAC's and partisan "foundations" have paid them to look the other way, or to look at corporate profits, rather than happiness or social mobility, as the measure of success by our society.

 

It will not change until people wake up, and it's not going to change as long as people think that 1 person sitting in a figurehead office that people only get to "pick" from pre-determined alternatives once every 4 years, is the person that can change it.

Of course they don't, but they can create more business friendly environments to facilitate such a process.

[SubwayGuy]

Real policy was Trump removing the subsidy that allowed middle-class citizens cheaper mortgages on his first day of office. That's something that matters, that affects people. Individual pieces of policy like Carrier, even if you believe his numbers, do not.

In fairness, removing the subsidy wasn't a bad idea. It was a subsidy that might save the average homebuyer who qualified through FHA (which means as little as 3% down on a house) about $400 a year in mortgage insurance (different than house insurance).

 

If you look at how things are poised to go, we are setting up for a repeat of the 2008 crisis.

-Experts want to raise interest rates. This will allow banks to make more loans, and to loan to riskier people.

-This also means anyone with an adjustable rate mortgage will have their rates increase.

-It also means future homebuyers will have significantly higher payments than if they'd bought their house during the previous 3 years.

-All of this increases the likelihood of defaults, which, honestly, $400 a year is not going to be the reason someone does or does not default on their mortgage.

 

Also,

 

-It means fewer people will qualify for FHA loans, which isn't a bad thing. 3% is not a lot to put down on a house, and it can create a default even where the homeowner is living in the house and making all payments. This happened in 2008, people didn't understand it then, didn't bother to learn about it, and otherwise content to be stupid. To understand it, you need to understand how mortgage banking works.

 

When you get a mortgage, the bank wants to be the senior creditor. What that means, is the bank MUST be #1 in the payment hierarchy. So if you get a court judgment you don't pay and it results in a lien on your home, the bank will direct you to pay it off immediately.

 

Why? Simple.

 

The bank wants you to bear 100% of the financial burden of obtaining the mortgage. They want YOU to take all the risk. Once you understand this concept, the rest is easy. Read through this longer winded example to understand why, and educate yourself if you ever plan on owning real estate:

 

So, if you buy a house for $200,000, and you put 3% down ($6,000), the bank wants you to bear all the risk for paying the house off. And if you can't, the bank wants their full mortgage amount back immediately. So if you default on the first payment, the house is theoretically worth $200,000...the bank will force you to sell it, the bank recoups the full mortgage amount of $194,000, and you get whatever's left. So if the house only sells for $198,000...the bank recoups the full 194K, and you get 4K.

 

The point of getting an appraisal of the home before the sale is to ensure that the bank mortgage does not exceed the value of the home. Because in that scenario, even if the bank kept 100% of the sale, they wouldn't get their investment back. A bank won't make a loan greater than the value of the home.

 

But home values are fluid, and can change. So suppose the real estate market tanks. The person buys the $200,000 house with 3% down ($6,000), makes their first payment, which reduces the principal of the mortgage by $200 (the rest of the payment is interest). So now the bank holds a loan from the homeowner worth $193,800. But suddenly the real estate market tanks, so the home is only worth $180,000. Now, if the house theoretically sold at that exact moment for only $180,000, the bank loses $13,800 it can never hope to get back, and the homebuyer loses everything (including the home). This is what it means when a mortgage is "underwater." If the bank gets wind of this change in the value of the property, it can force the homeowner to come up with the $13,800 to protect the bank, even though the homeowner has been making payments up to this point. The irony of this is that the homebuyer might actually be totally fine with making the scheduled mortgage payments, but just doesn't have $13,800 sitting around to cover the bank's "hypothetical" loss. If the bank decides that real estate is dying in the area, and further decline in property value is possible, the bank can choose to force a short sale (foreclosure) of the home AKA the homeowner, who obtained a mortgage legally, would be forced to sell their home that they are current with payments on, because the bank is worried about a potential loss.

 

Let me repeat that again. If the bank decides that real estate is dying in the area, and further decline in property value is possible, the bank can choose to force a short sale (foreclosure) of the home AKA the homeowner, who obtained a mortgage legally, would be forced to sell their home that they are current with payments on, because the bank is worried about a potential loss and thinks it may become worse.

 

The irony of this is that foreclosures (short sales) of property further drive down prices in an area since foreclosed properties generally sell for less, which cause large scale foreclosures in an area, which is what happened in 2008. So it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

So in the event a short sale is forced, and the house sells for $180,000, the bank would lose their $13,800 as we discussed earlier. However, mortgage insurance is here to save the day. Because the home was purchased through FHA, mortgage insurance is required. The homeowner must pay for this periodically. When the house sells for $180,000, mortgage insurance will give the bank their $13,800 to make them "whole". The mortgage insurance company will base insurance premiums on the fact that they too, want to make a profit, so they are hoping this scenario never materializes, you happily live your life in your new home, and pay the cost of the home down without incident until you own it. In which case they collect your premiums, pocket them, and never pay out anything.

 

The "program" that Trump cut was to cause the US government to subsidize the cost of premiums for mortgage insurance, making more people eligible to buy homes than would have been otherwise. But at a benefit of around $400 a year for the average homebuyer, it wouldn't really or TRULY help them with the costs of homeownership, and it wouldn't really be a factor in whether or not someone defaults or not. A home is never forced into a short sale because of a few dollars or one or two late or missed payments (honestly, short sales are a headache for the bank too)....but a homeowner will have to act quickly to catch up or a short sale could be on the horizon.

 

Banks always get greedy with loans and keep pushing for returns until they make riskier and riskier loans and ultimately cause a recession, so this actually serves to delay that somewhat. Why? Simple. Wall Street doesn't just want growth, it wants exponential growth. It's not enough to say, we grew by 5% last year, we grew by 4% this year. That's great news, we're growing...instead the narrative is "we're not growing as fast as we used to, we slowed down" which is why there is always this insane push for profits that leads banks to make risky moves. And we're not even talking about mortgage backed securities and other derivatives that magnify credit default events and make banks (still) systemic risks to the economy...this is just talking about FHA and the role of mortgage insurance in a single home purchase, and banks' willingness to extend credit to riskier credit profiles in the name of growth.

 

Personally, I don't think FHA should require anything less than 5% down on a house anyway. 3% is too little to insulate against losses, and this ultimately would protect the homeowner because as 2008 showed, a bank could make bad loans and the homeowner will always be the one on the hook.

[GojiMet86]

Perhaps I could if I understood what you were trying to say.  Do you mean inflate or conflate? Either way, I'm not in his head so you would have to ask him.  All I know is there wouldn't be any jobs to save if it was up to Obama.

 

 

You clearly know what I meant. Why did he inflate the numbers? Why didn't he talk about the other jobs lost?

 

Defend that.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

You clearly know what I meant. Why did he inflate the numbers? Why didn't he talk about the other jobs lost?

 

Defend that.

For the last time, you'd have to ask him.  I'm not part of his administration nor am I inside his head.  The people whose jobs he saved surely don't care.  They can continue to provide for their families, and as an American, I think that's a good thing.  America first...