>The housing bubble was in part caused by crazy incentives in the financial industry to make as many loans as possible and sell that debt back and forth. The ability to do this and make ever larger bets which meant any downturn at all in housing would be catastrophic was allowed by deregulation.

Those "crazy incentives" were put in place by well-meaning people who confused middle class signifiers with causative behavior. In other words, people who thought home ownership was a way into the middle class instead of what it is - a middle class luxury.

>Welfare programs haven't expanded in the last few years, they've simply been more needed.

Not true. Before Obama took office you could be on food stamps three months in a three year period. Now the only limit is your income. Even bigger is Medicaid, which consumes ever greater portions of state budgets on a per-capita basis.

>I don't think you understand what being trapped in poverty really means. If people are choosing to stay on benefits, it's usually because working 60 hours a week to barely tread water doesn't seem to appealing to them.

That's exactly my point. Of course nobody wants to work hard. But if you don't take an entry level job you'll never have a job that makes you comfortable. Thus my comment about social programs trapping people in poverty.

>Tax liens: for the most part it's not corrupt, but I was referring to this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349476

I understood what you were referring to. The article is written to inflame passions in people who don't understand the process. If you read through the HN thread you'll see half the people who read the article think the lien holder pockets the entire amount from property sales.

>So far you're not really disproving my point, just arguing other aspects of your ideology.

No, I'm disproving your point, but you're ideological blinkers prevent you from reassessing your position.

My position that the rich (and their corporations) have more influence on law-making than the poor, and that this can disadvantage the poor? I think it's hilarious you find this controversial; it has been the case throughout human history in all systems of government. Pretending this doesn't happen really doesn't help except in order to encourage complacency on the part of the poor.

I still don't think you understand what being trapped in poverty means. Even taking that entry-level job, assuming you can get it in the first place, often doesn't raise the person much higher. Been trapped in poverty often means you don't have the background, education, opportunity, or even awareness to go after that job in the first place.

Tax lien thing: the article never mentioned what happened to the money from the sale of the house, other than that it was sold by the investor, so I hardly think it was a matter of political blindness on the part of the readers. Furthermore, the man was eveicted from his lifetime home over a $150 dollar bill, and forced to pay $5000 instead, no to mention either lose the house or lose out on selling the house under more favourable conditions to a buyer willing to pay more, depending on what is in fact true. Discussion on that article seems to indicate he did indeed lose the equity, and that this is a problem in Washington D.C. due to how the law is worded there. This example proves my point either way.

>My position that the rich (and their corporations) have more influence on law-making than the poor, and that this can disadvantage the poor?

Is that a question? Of course wealthy people have more influence, and that's a good thing, too. If they didn't the poor people would vote themselves everyone else's money and complain when the economy crashed.

But I don't think the laws "screw" the poor. Whenever the government is taking money from one person and giving it to a different person you wouldn't call the second guy "screwed".

>I still don't think you understand what being trapped in poverty means. Even taking that entry-level job, assuming you can get it in the first place, often doesn't raise the person much higher. Been trapped in poverty often means you don't have the background, education, opportunity, or even awareness to go after that job in the first place.

And yet somehow millions have escaped from that trap. I don't know why you don't think I understand what you mean here. I'm just skeptical it's a real thing. Have you considered this may be a case of survivor bias, that people with the character and discipline to not be poor... are no longer poor?

>Tax lien thing: the article never mentioned what happened to the money from the sale of the house, other than that it was sold by the investor, so I hardly think it was a matter of political blindness on the part of the readers.

Well, that's my point. The article never mentions the homeowner gets the money from the sale of the house less the lien amount. The whole point of the article is to upset you - if they tell you everything you'll think "oh, that makes sense" and turn the page.

>Furthermore, the man was eveicted from his lifetime home over a $150 dollar bill, and forced to pay $5000 instead, no to mention either lose the house or lose out on selling the house under more favourable conditions to a buyer willing to pay more, depending on what is in fact true.

Bad things happen when you don't pay your taxes. Surely this isn't headline news? Of course if you have any equity at all you don't let someone foreclose on your house - you sell it first. But the "left with nothing" guy didn't have any equity, so the particulars of the sale don't matter that much to him. But we're supposed to emote here without wondering how much money he took out of the house during the real estate boom.

>Discussion on that article seems to indicate he did indeed lose the equity, and that this is a problem in Washington D.C. due to how the law is worded there. This example proves my point either way.

No. The fact that "discussion" has confused you doesn't prove anything. There's no legal trick wherein you can steal someone's house for $150. The reason the homeowner isn't getting anything is he doesn't have any equity.

The article was deliberately written to confuse you. The only thing that should cause you to raise an eyebrow is the amount the lien holders were charging for legal fees. But those are normal sorts of numbers (ridiculous, but still normal) when you get sued and have to pay legal costs.

"Is that a question?"

Let's take a look at the original quote from you I was responding to:

"Is it the poor who have power to change things, or the rich?"

Yeah, that was the question.

That's not what I was responding to.