01-29-2014 01:57 PM
140 ... 23456
tools
  1. Mooncatt's Avatar
    My question then would be should 40 hours of work afford someone a living, even if it were a modest living?
    No. How long you work shouldn't determine your wage, but how productive you are in that time frame should.

    Below is another example of corporate welfare that not many people seem that concerned about except maybe someone like Elizabeth Warren (Someone I wish would run for President, btw).
    I'm not familiar with that case specifically, but I do believe it was government regulation from decades ago that pushed banks into making loans they knew wouldn't be paid back. Who knows, maybe that came up in settlement talks and the government felt that would hurt their case if they went to trial, which was why they settled "low."

    Not sure how I feel on the settlement disclosures. I'd have to see some more debates for and against it to figure which way I'd go. Sure it sounds good, but I wonder what the down sides are.
    01-25-2014 01:27 PM
  2. palandri's Avatar
    ...I'm not familiar with that case specifically, but I do believe it was government regulation from decades ago that pushed banks into making loans they knew wouldn't be paid back....
    You have it backwards. It was government deregulation. They have since added regulations to prevent it from happening again.
    msndrstood likes this.
    01-25-2014 01:53 PM
  3. anon8126715's Avatar
    No. How long you work shouldn't determine your wage, but how productive you are in that time frame should.
    That's where I would disagree. If an employer has work that needs to be done that thinks it requires their employee put in 40 hours a week then that employer should pay a wage that compensates the employee not just for the actual work, but for the employee's time and to some extent the expenses incurred by the employee while engaging the employer's work. If an employer hires someone to work 40 hours but only has 20 hours worth of work, then that's where management needs to either find other tasks for the employee or hire a part-time employee.

    The problem is some of these large companies like Walmart that have an actual need for the employees (especially if you've gone in a Walmart restroom of late), but will hire 40 employees and only work them 30 hours a week to avoid paying them benefits instead of hiring 30 employees and working them 40 hours a week.

    You can argue all you want for these practices, but all it does is tear at worker morale until eventually there's a tipping point.


    As far as the banks are concerned, my main gripe is why does the CEO deserve a raise after all that has been done to our economy? All it's doing is reinforcing his bank's behavior. I guess maybe the government thinks the bank is suffering from "Affluenza"?
    01-25-2014 01:58 PM
  4. anon8126715's Avatar
    You have it backwards. It was government deregulation. They have since added regulations to prevent it from happening again.
    Of course, these big companies would like even more deregulation and they tend to do a good job at convincing the masses that deregulation is the key to a eutopic society. Then a few years from now we'll all have air, water, and a food supply that's similar to that of China.

    msndrstood and palandri like this.
    01-25-2014 02:06 PM
  5. The Hustleman's Avatar
    I friend of mine who I went to high school with just had her 10th child. Which made me think of this. She is on welfare, food stamps, and Medi-Cal for all her children and husband (she also asks from time to time for help from all her friends). Her husband and the father of 9 of the kids doesn't really work, she is a CNA. Don't you think there should be some rules in place about accepting welfare and reproducing like gremlins? If it were up to me I would make a stipulation upon receiving welfare that no children be brought into this world because clearly you can't afford yourself. I don't want to sound cruel, but come on. Some how the right to reproduce supercedes the fact that in doing so we are all paying for it.
    I totally agree with you.

    If you can't afford to feed them, don't make them.
    01-25-2014 02:14 PM
  6. Johnly's Avatar
    Now should the definition of "livable wage" be the same for EVERYONE? Or rather, isn't everyone's definition of "livable" quite different?




    >>> Sent from Hotlanta
    Exactly. Some can live on a small wage, while others are raging alcoholics that need the strip club every weekend lol! And that cost money!

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    01-25-2014 02:17 PM
  7. Mooncatt's Avatar
    You have it backwards. It was government deregulation. They have since added regulations to prevent it from happening again.
    Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. Read up on it and its leading to predatory lending practices.
    01-25-2014 02:21 PM
  8. palandri's Avatar
    Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. Read up on it and its leading to predatory lending practices.
    ...However, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission formed by the US Congress in 2009 to investigate the causes of the 2008 financial crisis, concluded that "the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis".[111] Ben Bernanke, then Chairman of the Federal Reserve, wrote that experience and research contradict "the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties."[112] Other economists and government officials, including Janet Yellen, then President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco,[113] FDIC Chair Sheila Bair,[114] Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan,[115] and Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner,[116] also hold that the CRA did not make a significant contribution to the subprime crisis. According to Yellen, now current Chair of the Federal Reserve, independent mortgage companies made risky "higher-priced" loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the "higher-priced" loans that have contributed to the current crisis.[113][117][118] Others have also concluded that the CRA did not contribute to the financial crisis, notably, Nobel laureate Paul Krugman,[119] Tim Westrich of the Center for American Progress,[120] Robert Gordon of the American Prospect,[121] Ellen Seidman of the New America Foundation,[122] Daniel Gross of Slate,[123] and Aaron Pressman from BusinessWeek.[124]...
    Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    01-25-2014 02:30 PM
  9. Johnly's Avatar
    I find it hard to believe that some of you think there's nothing wrong with the system that rewards the few at the cost of many.

    I never said or implied that, maybe you didn't mean to quote me?

    As fat as 40 hours= a livable wage, we'll yes, someone on minimum wage could roommate with people to afford a roof, and drive a less than new car to not have car payments, and with all that, they could even afford to eat. That is not living at its finest, but it is living, fed, and off the streets. I did that when I was young and worked hard, went to school and moved up. The youth these days expect everyone to hand them everything. If someone makes poor choices throughout life and never moves up, then that is on them. The whole 15 dollar an hour for a drive through clerk job is not the issue. If a company wants to pay that, so be it. I dont think employers should be forced to overpay either.

    We live in a different age, and the time spent picketing for 15 dollar an hour drive through jobs could have been invested in filling out a FAFSA to make good choices, get an education, and make more than just a living, but a modest living where on could pay a mortgage, car payment, and afford to take a payed vacation. Life is a series of choices. It can go either way.





    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    01-25-2014 02:31 PM
  10. anon8126715's Avatar
    I never said or implied that, maybe you didn't mean to quote me?

    As fat as 40 hours= a livable wage, we'll yes, someone on minimum wage could roommate with people to afford a roof, and drive a less than new car to not have car payments, and with all that, they could even afford to eat. That is not living at its finest, but it is living, fed, and off the streets. I did that when I was young and worked hard, went to school and moved up. The youth these days expect everyone to hand them everything. If someone makes poor choices throughout life and never moves up, then that is on them. The whole 15 dollar an hour for a drive through clerk job is not the issue. If a company wants to pay that, so be it. I don’t think employers should be forced to overpay either.

    We live in a different age, and the time spent picketing for 15 dollar an hour drive through jobs could have been invested in filling out a FAFSA to make good choices, get an education, and make more than just a living, but a modest living where on could pay a mortgage, car payment, and afford to take a payed vacation. Life is a series of choices. It can go either way.





    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    My first statement was in response to your quote, but then I just roll with my train of thought, and then I also used "some of you", mostly those that are ok with inflated CEO salaries when so many hard working people struggle on a daily basis.

    And I do agree that a living wage shouldn't be good enough for people to settle, but enough to take care of themselves (and maybe 1 child), but enough for them to also be able to invest in their future. What's sad is a person can go make minimum wage, take out school loans, get the job they want, but still be indebted and still roughly be in the same boat. I still think we need to take into account that the top is siphoning too much wealth. Eventually, they will realize that everything is off balance. The economic course we're on is not sustainable.
    01-25-2014 02:48 PM
  11. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Yet you'll apparently so easily discount the numerous items above that paragraph pointing out problems from the CRA. I've no doubt a government investigation would try to blow it off to save face.
    01-25-2014 02:50 PM
  12. Mooncatt's Avatar
    What's sad is a person can go make minimum wage, take out school loans, get the job they want, but still be indebted and still roughly be in the same boat.
    That's a big problem in and of itself. This mentality that EVERYONE should go to college. Not everyone is cut out for higher education (and there's many good jobs that don't require a 4+ year degree), but yet we're told it's the only way to make a living. So kids, mostly with no/wrong financial teachings and how loans affect them, get these government subsidized loans and go to college with no real career focus.

    The colleges don't care, they'll get their money, making it easy to artificially inflate their tuition. That's one thing spiraling out of control, because that market is so largely artificial. The students that don't belong are more or less wasting their/our money, getting un-marketable degrees like German Polka History, and then wind up in dead end jobs with massive debt they can't pay back.

    I get it that if it wasn't so easy to get a student loan, not as many people would get into college. But on the flip side, tuition would be cheaper, those that do go would be more inclined to do well and not treat it as a party time, and scholarships would go farther and be more plentiful for those needing help. Knowing what I know now, I'll never understand why it's so easy to lend tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to someone fresh out of high school with no real credit worthiness or collateral.
    01-25-2014 04:05 PM
  13. anon8126715's Avatar
    That's a big problem in and of itself. This mentality that EVERYONE should go to college. Not everyone is cut out for higher education (and there's many good jobs that don't require a 4+ year degree), but yet we're told it's the only way to make a living. So kids, mostly with no/wrong financial teachings and how loans affect them, get these government subsidized loans and go to college with no real career focus.

    The colleges don't care, they'll get their money, making it easy to artificially inflate their tuition. That's one thing spiraling out of control, because that market is so largely artificial. The students that don't belong are more or less wasting their/our money, getting un-marketable degrees like German Polka History, and then wind up in dead end jobs with massive debt they can't pay back.

    I get it that if it wasn't so easy to get a student loan, not as many people would get into college. But on the flip side, tuition would be cheaper, those that do go would be more inclined to do well and not treat it as a party time, and scholarships would go farther and be more plentiful for those needing help. Knowing what I know now, I'll never understand why it's so easy to lend tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to someone fresh out of high school with no real credit worthiness or collateral.
    You have to look at it from a global perspective as well. We're falling further behind other industrialized nations as far as a skilled workforce is concerned. I personally think that jr. high schools and high schools aren't doing enough to prepare students for college. And I definitely will agree with you that most colleges don't really care. It's actually kind of sad when you get a kid fresh from college that doesn't know much of anything. It makes you wonder why colleges aren't teaching them more real world applications.
    01-25-2014 05:53 PM
  14. nolittdroid's Avatar
    Im in New York and I make more than minimum wage...I also have a car bill, insurance, a phone bill, and pay for my own health insurance...in order to be able to afford rent on my own I'd need to work something like 110 hours a week to do it. I do not qualify for any assistance and I'm hearing impaired. I don't fault anyone on welfare, despite having to pay taxes: I don't know their story. I do however take issue with the fact that there is no room for growth and its nearly impossible to find a better job because I don't have five years of experience in one single position, nor a degree. Having a 4-year degree isn't enough anymore to attain a position to be able to be self sufficient. So what's the solution? Get screwed over by going back to school? Find two more jobs? I work hard enough and do well at my job and that's not enough. I estimate that I would need to make $40~ an hour....not happening any time soon.

    ✌SG3/iPad2
    01-25-2014 06:31 PM
  15. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Going back to my trucking career, you can get a CDL for next to nothing (less than $10k for even that best training schools and many entry companies reimburse or straight up pay for your schooling) and make an ok living right out of the gate. With 1-2 years under your belt, it's not hard to find $50k+ per year driving jobs. A little more, and you could find $60-80k/yr jobs without doing anything too specialized. Get into something like heavy haul or hazmat, and you could approach $100k/yr.

    You can also buy your own truck and go into business for yourself. If you know what you're doing, $150k/yr net isn't out of the question. The next step would be to buy more trucks and hire drivers for them, a few office personal, and you have a small trucking company. From there, the sky is the limit and all without a traditional college education or spending near as much to get in.

    Heck, there's people making a good living with something simple as a dog walking business. There's a lot of opportunity out there if you're able to think outside the cubicle.
    01-25-2014 07:18 PM
  16. Johnly's Avatar
    My first statement was in response to your quote, but then I just roll with my train of thought, and then I also used "some of you", mostly those that are ok with inflated CEO salaries when so many hard working people struggle on a daily basis.

    And I do agree that a living wage shouldn't be good enough for people to settle, but enough to take care of themselves (and maybe 1 child), but enough for them to also be able to invest in their future. What's sad is a person can go make minimum wage, take out school loans, get the job they want, but still be indebted and still roughly be in the same boat. I still think we need to take into account that the top is siphoning too much wealth. Eventually, they will realize that everything is off balance. The economic course we're on is not sustainable.
    I do agree; although, I think the debt from a positive investment can be dealt with if one is serious about finishing their program. There are good paying jobs to if one is willing to work real hard. Oil rigs, long distance truck driving, pipeline, and many skilled construction jobs can be had. I believe fast food like Qdoba hires most of there management frome within, and those hard workers get that 15 an hour. If someone is disabled and can't go to school or work at a skilled job, well they can collect disability, and that is not welfare.

    I really don't mind a portion of my taxes helping a single working parent with kids (or someone trying to get back on track) who doesn't make enough and has welfare. What drives me insane is the lazy type who sit on their **** all day and collect welfare and give up because they think they are entitled to the same pay a CNA makes from busting **** taking care of people all day, for saying welcome to McDonald's how can I help you? You see the mentality there? Nobody gets a cushion in life. It has to be worked for.

    Sometimes I sympathize for people that want a 15 dollar an hour job for the heck of it, and feel entitled that they should make that because that is all they can do, the drive through. That thought process is a big part of welfare, people can take it as a hand up and work hard and be somebody, or people can be lazy and see it as a hand out.

    I should have threw a sign saying pay me the wage of a CNA to hand out fast food. Wait a minute, you mean CNAs work without breaks and told what do do every hour of the day, wiping ****, cleaning ostomies, puke, blood, getting yelled at for what the nurse didn't do, being held responsible if someone falls breaks a hip and dies? Fast food employees really think they work that hard? Bologna. I worked fast food for my first jobs, had smoke breaks, wasn't responsible for people's life's, wasn't exposed to people with very nasty contagions......and I never expected to be paid like one. My last sentence is what is wrong with society today. Everyone wants something for nothing and blames the government that pays their rent, food, and tuition for being so evil and oppressing them. When those kind of thinking people actually get out and bust **** for a few years and work to move on up, the problems with this society will subside.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    toober likes this.
    01-25-2014 08:36 PM
  17. anon8126715's Avatar
    I do agree; although, I think the debt from a positive investment can be dealt with if one is serious about finishing their program. There are good paying jobs to if one is willing to work real hard. Oil rigs, long distance truck driving, pipeline, and many skilled construction jobs can be had. I believe fast food like Qdoba hires most of there management frome within, and those hard workers get that 15 an hour. If someone is disabled and can't go to school or work at a skilled job, well they can collect disability, and that is not welfare.

    I really don't mind a portion of my taxes helping a single working parent with kids (or someone trying to get back on track) who doesn't make enough and has welfare. What drives me insane is the lazy type who sit on their **** all day and collect welfare and give up because they think they are entitled to the same pay a CNA makes from busting **** taking care of people all day, for saying welcome to McDonald's how can I help you? You see the mentality there? Nobody gets a cushion in life. It has to be worked for.

    Sometimes I sympathize for people that want a 15 dollar an hour job for the heck of it, and feel entitled that they should make that because that is all they can do, the drive through. That thought process is a big part of welfare, people can take it as a hand up and work hard and be somebody, or people can be lazy and see it as a hand out.

    I should have threw a sign saying pay me the wage of a CNA to hand out fast food. Wait a minute, you mean CNAs work without breaks and told what do do every hour of the day, wiping ****, cleaning ostomies, puke, blood, getting yelled at for what the nurse didn't do, being held responsible if someone falls breaks a hip and dies? Fast food employees really think they work that hard? Bologna. I worked fast food for my first jobs, had smoke breaks, wasn't responsible for people's life's, wasn't exposed to people with very nasty contagions......and I never expected to be paid like one. My last sentence is what is wrong with society today. Everyone wants something for nothing and blames the government that pays their rent, food, and tuition for being so evil and oppressing them. When those kind of thinking people actually get out and bust **** for a few years and work to move on up, the problems with this society will subside.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    I still think if we were to stop overcompensating some of the highest paid among us, we wouldn't have this discussion. I think I remember someone mentioning something about "free market", but then a few posts later they mentioned how discussing wages or having peoples' wages out in the open was a bad idea. I think if everyone knew what everyone else made, it would be easier to take a "free market" approach to this topic. For some reason we're ok with this information being made public in regards to professional sports, but not in the workplace.

    If Bob makes $35 an hour but is always late for work and leaves early and does the same job that I do for $30 an hour, shouldn't I know? And before someone says, "But what if Bob does this and does that?" Then that information should also be made available. If someone is worth a certain amount of money for a certain type of work then why not make that information available? You don't go to the grocery store and buy a plain cardboard box of mystery food at a random price.

    Granted, the whole "free market" argument tends to just be a talking point that people make when they don't have a leg to stand. It's like the whole, "You're not a real patriot" excuse that people would use when you'd argue against the war in Iraq.
    01-25-2014 09:03 PM
  18. Johnly's Avatar
    I hear you. You can find out any starting wage. That is transparent, but if Bob got a 5 dollar an hour raise because he saved the company a half million and everyone just did the status quo and got 30 cents, then it is what it is, even if Bob is having attendance issues.

    Raises are kept secret because it can create discord within a company that can hurt the bottom line. One thing I learned that most people don't do is advocate for a better wage by selling themselves and not accepting the starting wage. Yes that is tough, but if one can show a company why they are worth it, and their value, it can happen.

    You do bring up a good point. Military careers can be lucrative. Problem is, if anyone is dis honorable due to PTSD or anything else, they loose those benifiets for life. Can be said survival of the finest, but when a solder spends years of his life and then gets a DUI, and is discharged without honor, they get nothing for life when they need it the most. I think instead of trying to figure out the welfare thing, we should figure out how to keep veterans with benifiets, even if they made a mistake. Because people can make mistakes and still get welfare. Veterans make a mistake and they get nothing.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    01-25-2014 09:28 PM
  19. Johnly's Avatar
    I do want to note, citizens pay taxes and should be able to access welfare if needed. Citizens don't risk their lives for their country, but welfare is there for them. Soldiers risk their lives so citizens can have welfare. They get better lifelong benifiets risking that life. They should be able to keep those benifiets if they mess up. Citizens do.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    01-25-2014 09:35 PM
  20. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I still think if we were to stop overcompensating some of the highest paid among us, we wouldn't have this discussion.
    Because taking something from someone suddenly makes someone else more productive and worth more? Sure.

    I did find something interesting, though. I think I was the one you were referring to about saying wages shouldn't be discussed between co-workers. Idealistically, I stand by that and was doing some looking online for some debate points for it. I found several articles saying that forbidding those discussions is now illegal (except for confidentiality reasons). So if that were the case and I ran a company, I'd have a very strong anti-gossip policy. If you come to me with a legitimate concern about your pay compared to others, and are willing to listen to reason, then fine. But if you're one of those people that think you should be paid as high as someone else with no regard to why they get it, are simply complaining to management, and spreading gossip and rumours because of some perceived injustice, then you're out the door.

    Management has better things to do than babysit whining employees because they aren't getting their way, and that's why I'm ok with those policies. Legal or not.
    01-25-2014 09:56 PM
  21. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Surprised this hasn't been brought up yet: Drug testing for welfare recipients.

    I was originally for it and sounds good in theory. Kick the drug users off welfare, save the states some money. Then I heard a report that Florida (I think) was doing that and found that the number of people kicked out of the system didn't offset the cost of the tests. Now I'm not sure if it's a good idea and would want to see more results on states that do try it.

    It's kind of a two part question. Do you think welfare recipients should undergo random drug tests like employees do for their money? I agree with the principle. If it ends up costing more for the testing than what is saved in welfare payouts, should the testing continue and see higher taxes/cuts to other programs as a result? That's where I'm unsure and I guess would depend on how much is lost on the testing.
    01-25-2014 10:34 PM
  22. Johnly's Avatar
    Surprised this hasn't been brought up yet: Drug testing for welfare recipients.

    I was originally for it and sounds good in theory. Kick the drug users off welfare, save the states some money. Then I heard a report that Florida (I think) was doing that and found that the number of people kicked out of the system didn't offset the cost of the tests. Now I'm not sure if it's a good idea and would want to see more results on states that do try it.

    It's kind of a two part question. Do you think welfare recipients should undergo random drug tests like employees do for their money? I agree with the principle. If it ends up costing more for the testing than what is saved in welfare payouts, should the testing continue and see higher taxes/cuts to other programs as a result? That's where I'm unsure and I guess would depend on how much is lost on the testing.
    Not sure how they tested in Florida, but it would be cheaper to just have the ability to make them random. Then when people have been on welfare for years, pop em one. They comply or loose the help. Colorado and Washington welfare recipients do get the green thumb though they can't buy pot with EBTs. I think anyone on welfare should actively seek employment. They should be required to apply to a couple jobs a week. That would at least keep them on their toes. If you work and get welfare, then so be it because it probably isn't much...but hopefully those people will work their way into better positions by not being cracked addicts but by showing up to work and getting raises, even promoted. Welfare is a miserable poor life. I think we spend way more money on random pork barrel projects than welfare when we consider the benifiet to cost, but welfare is over 80 programs and is the largest chunk of the budget. Welfare can be trimmed though. Now let's tackle social security!

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    01-25-2014 11:34 PM
  23. anon8126715's Avatar
    Because taking something from someone suddenly makes someone else more productive and worth more? Sure.
    You can use the same argument against the people that decided to jack up their own salaries by laying people off, or by cutting their benefits. I'm not sure why you think it's ok one way but not the other.

    I did find something interesting, though. I think I was the one you were referring to about saying wages shouldn't be discussed between co-workers. Idealistically, I stand by that and was doing some looking online for some debate points for it. I found several articles saying that forbidding those discussions is now illegal (except for confidentiality reasons). So if that were the case and I ran a company, I'd have a very strong anti-gossip policy. If you come to me with a legitimate concern about your pay compared to others, and are willing to listen to reason, then fine. But if you're one of those people that think you should be paid as high as someone else with no regard to why they get it, are simply complaining to management, and spreading gossip and rumours because of some perceived injustice, then you're out the door.

    Management has better things to do than babysit whining employees because they aren't getting their way, and that's why I'm ok with those policies. Legal or not.
    Actually, management (at least good management) should be trying to figure out what employees are the greater asset to the company. They're also supposed to help employees develop their skills. I figured it was pretty obvious that they're called "Management" for a reason. Just an FYI, it has to do with MANAGING employees.

    As far as not discussing your salary with your peers, you can't insist that we need a "free market" and tell everyone to keep quiet about how much they make. Those two opinions do not reconcile.
    01-25-2014 11:55 PM
  24. palandri's Avatar
    Yet you'll apparently so easily discount the numerous items above that paragraph pointing out problems from the CRA. I've no doubt a government investigation would try to blow it off to save face.
    I didn't discount anything. I gave you the link and it list changes made to the CRA. What I post was the conclusion, by numerous financial experts and you think it's some type of government cover up to save face with no evidence to back that claim up.
    01-26-2014 12:38 AM
  25. Mooncatt's Avatar
    You can use the same argument against the people that decided to jack up their own salaries by laying people off, or by cutting their benefits. I'm not sure why you think it's ok one way but not the other.
    If you think that's the mentalities of executives, then we'll be at permanent odds. They don't lay people off simply to raise their salaries.

    As far as not discussing your salary with your peers, you can't insist that we need a "free market" and tell everyone to keep quiet about how much they make. Those two opinions do not reconcile.
    There's always those employees that will use it to do nothing but drag moral down. But the free market still works. If I'm offered a job at a wage I feel is fair or negotiated a better rate that my employer and I are both happy with, how does what other people earn play into that? I don't need to know or care what others are paid to be happy with mine.


    I didn't discount anything. I gave you the link and it list changes made to the CRA. What I post was the conclusion, by numerous financial experts and you think it's some type of government cover up to save face with no evidence to back that claim up.
    The evidence is there. It doesn't matter that you didn't like it, or that the CRA was changed to fix those problems. It may not be the only reason for the recession (I'd guess there are many), but it had a hand in it.
    01-26-2014 01:21 AM
140 ... 23456

Similar Threads

  1. Education Reform
    By Darth Spock in forum Politics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-13-2013, 04:29 PM
  2. Confessions of a reformed OS tweaker
    By LeoRex in forum General News & Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-19-2013, 03:32 PM
  3. Reformed Apple User - Love Android!
    By pwake in forum New to the Forums? Introduce Yourself Here!
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-21-2012, 12:40 PM
  4. reformateing the internal 2G/B memory?
    By Lehocki in forum Verizon Droid Charge
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-11-2012, 06:15 PM
  5. Greetings from a reformed geek
    By expatCanuck in forum New to the Forums? Introduce Yourself Here!
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-26-2011, 01:45 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD