More bad economic news

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



The Dark Cloud
Notice the part about soaring corporate profits though

RE: Blaxican
Honestly, I'm going to just jump off a high object.

The Dark Cloud
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Honestly, I'm going to just jump off a high object.

Don't let me stop you.

Seriously though.... instead of recognizing the problems our society faces and trying to do something you, like many people, just choose to bury your head in the sand and hope everything gets better on it's own.

Bardock42
And your act of problem solving is.......posting an article on KMC?

The Dark Cloud
Originally posted by Bardock42
And your act of problem solving is.......posting an article on KMC?

It's hardly the only thing I do, but discussion of said topics is a start. Right now the only way information flows freely is via the internet. All other forms of media....television, radio, newspaper, etc. are one way. We get what the media tells us, but we can't respond. on the internet we can.

Blaxican, and some others probably, accuse me of always being negative. But as I see it that's how things are now. I do have an open mind though, so please, someone, anybody, point me in the direction of something currently positive about world economics, the long term outlook on food production, energy resources, water availability, access to healthcare, species not going extinct at an alarming rate, etc, etc.

Or maybe I should just care about the score to the red sox/yankees game or whether or not Lindsay Lohan is doing coke again, or watching Nancy Grace talk about Casey Anthony for the 290, 568, 300,987, 162 time.

RE: Blaxican
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Don't let me stop you.

Seriously though.... instead of recognizing the problems our society faces and trying to do something you, like many people, just choose to bury your head in the sand and hope everything gets better on it's own. No, I just don't complain about it and resign myself to hopelessness like you do, which is the difference. There's acknowledging a problem, and doing something about it, and then there's acknowledging about it, and then moping about it, which is what you do.

I laugh at your defeatist threads here but in real life I exercise frequently and eat well to avoid death by diabetes/heart disease which runs in my family, I protect my credit, manage my money properly, get my degrees and figure out how to rise above the poverty from which I was born in, and I beat the system. What do you do?

Bardock42
I masturbate frequently.

RE: Blaxican
What a waste of a girlfriend. If I had one I wouldn't masturbate ever.

Bardock42
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
What a waste of a girlfriend. If I had one I wouldn't masturbate ever.

I partake in her facilities frequently, too.

RE: Blaxican
What an excellent wording.

The Dark Cloud
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
No, I just don't complain about it and resign myself to hopelessness like you do, which is the difference. There's acknowledging a problem, and doing something about it, and then there's acknowledging about it, and then moping about it, which is what you do.

I laugh at your defeatist threads here but in real life I exercise frequently and eat well to avoid death by diabetes/heart disease which runs in my family, I protect my credit, manage my money properly, get my degrees and figure out how to rise above the poverty from which I was born in, and I beat the system. What do you do?

Oh but you're wrong, I don't "resign myself to hopelessness" as you accuse me of. I point out problems and try when I can to offer solutions. I am 48 and have recently lost 50 lbs which has helped my health enormously though my diabetes persists, sometime genetics overrules the healthiest of lifestyles.

I have less than 2 years to retirement (will you be able to retire at 50) so my financial situation is pretty secure.

I recycle everything I can, drive a compact car, avoid shopping at big box chains which promote globalization, and buy American whenever I can (which is often easier than many think).

Unlike you, I do not belittle other posters in this forum so go ahead and laugh all you want, you have already derailed this thread by attacking me but what the hell, it's only the internet, right?

It's good that you excercise, watch your credit, and try to educate yourself but try thinking beyond just yourself and try to think what you can do to help the overall situation of your community, country, and planet, we all have to, or we're all in big trouble. That's not negativity, it's reality.

RE: Blaxican
Well, go ahead and toss out some solutions then, now that you're in the spotlight. I have never seen you do so, and apparently neither have quite a few people here, hence why you get so much flack. Do you have something to contribute that isn't vague, like "do what you can to save the planet"? Something a little more specific?

Bardock42
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
No, I just don't complain about it and resign myself to hopelessness like you do, which is the difference. There's acknowledging a problem, and doing something about it, and then there's acknowledging about it, and then moping about it, which is what you do.

I laugh at your defeatist threads here but in real life I exercise frequently and eat well to avoid death by diabetes/heart disease which runs in my family, I protect my credit, manage my money properly, get my degrees and figure out how to rise above the poverty from which I was born in, and I beat the system. What do you do? Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Oh but you're wrong, I don't "resign myself to hopelessness" as you accuse me of. I point out problems and try when I can to offer solutions. I am 48 and have recently lost 50 lbs which has helped my health enormously though my diabetes persists, sometime genetics overrules the healthiest of lifestyles.

I have less than 2 years to retirement (will you be able to retire at 50) so my financial situation is pretty secure.

I recycle everything I can, drive a compact car, avoid shopping at big box chains which promote globalization, and buy American whenever I can (which is often easier than many think).

Unlike you, I do not belittle other posters in this forum so go ahead and laugh all you want, you have already derailed this thread by attacking me but what the hell, it's only the internet, right?

It's good that you excercise, watch your credit, and try to educate yourself but try thinking beyond just yourself and try to think what you can do to help the overall situation of your community, country, and planet, we all have to, or we're all in big trouble. That's not negativity, it's reality.

Now, now, both of these sound great....but who has the bigger penis?

RE: Blaxican
Such a silly question to ask a black guy

The Dark Cloud
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Well, go ahead and toss out some solutions then, now that you're in the spotlight. I have never seen you do so, and apparently neither have quite a few people here, hence why you get so much flack. Do you have something to contribute that isn't vague, like "do what you can to save the planet"? Something a little more specific?

You asked me "what do you do" and I responded, those are some solutions, or didn't you read them?. Are you going to point out some positive contradictions (other than apply just to you) like I asked?

You want another one? I actually do my research on political candidates before voting for (or against) them, unlike the vast majority of voters, If people really paid attention and held politicans accountable rather than just voting along party lines or voting for the "other" party whenever things are bad it just might make a difference.

Bardock42
Who did you vote for in the last 5 presidential elections?

RE: Blaxican
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
You asked me "what do you do" and I responded, those are some solutions, or didn't you read them?.
So it takes someone criticizing you to make you post solutions to these problems?

Is this a typo?

Who'd you vote for in the last presidental election? Or, what Bardock said?

The Dark Cloud
Originally posted by Bardock42
Who did you vote for in the last 5 presidential elections?

My Presidential voting record

84-Reagan (before I knew any better)
88-Didn't vote
92-Perot
96-Clinton
00-None of these (an option in Nevada where I live)
04-David Cobb (Green Party)
08-McCain (and had to hold my nose to do it, I did so because I felt I had to vote against Obama)

Bicnarok
The bubble is bound to burst eventually, the worlds economical system is sitting on a pile of fantasy money created in cyber space.

I wonder what will happen when it bursts, will the rich money hoarders still be in control?

This video, although politically biast. Hits the nail on the head.

x3HlyZk-Th0

dadudemon
I see nothing wrong...for the most part. I see that Americans still need to cut back on spending. We spent waaaaaay too much money (both the people and the government.)

Now that we have to hold back, it's going to take a bit. A part of me is glad something like this is happening. I just wish it would happen much faster and much more severely. That way, we could be done with it and start making significant recovery.



There's nothing wrong with being a nation full of prudent and financially responsible people. We just lived so long, irresponsibly, that it's taking forever to recover. It would be faster if stuff were allowed to fail.


Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Honestly, I'm going to just jump off a high object.

I'll go get Mairuzu, then. BRB.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I masturbate frequently.

*Remembers the pictures of Sarah*

no expression


Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Such a silly question to ask a black guy

Best comeback, this week. laughing


Originally posted by Bicnarok
x3HlyZk-Th0

lol. I like that old dude. Obviously biased, true.

To answer his last question: the last thing Obama should do is alienate the Republican by being as derisive as possible. That would do nothing and make things worse.


What we need is a bunch of blue dog democrats (70) to sweep house and the senate, for about 12 years. That's unrealistic but it's the most realistic scenario for cleaning up the mess.

I could be wrong and I'm more than open to changing my mind on that. Anyone?

Symmetric Chaos
How are economies outside of the US doing?

lord xyz
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How are economies outside of the US doing? Europe's dependent on America right now, China and Japan are to be America's ***** and the rest of the world has been ****ed over by American and/or Europe.

In other words, we're all ****ed.

Bardock42
I think we'll be alright...

RE: Blaxican
Originally posted by lord xyz
Europe's dependent on America right now, China and Japan are to be America's ***** and the rest of the world has been ****ed over by American and/or Europe.

In other words, we're all ****ed. It's such a great feeling, considering how much shit you guys talk about us. Almost makes it easy for me to forget that our horrible foreign policy is what causes most of the abrasiveness between us and the rest of you, and instead think that you guys are just butthurt cause we own the world.

Bicnarok
Yep were all in for a deep sky dive into the depths of no money.

King Kandy
Originally posted by dadudemon
To answer his last question: the last thing Obama should do is alienate the Republican by being as derisive as possible. That would do nothing and make things worse.


What we need is a bunch of blue dog democrats (70) to sweep house and the senate, for about 12 years. That's unrealistic but it's the most realistic scenario for cleaning up the mess.

I could be wrong and I'm more than open to changing my mind on that. Anyone?
I totally disagree. Obama came in in a situation very comparable to FDR coming in after Hoover. FDR relentlessly criticized Hoover in every campaign speech he gave. Even after being elected he was endlessly critical of him and congressional republicans and strong-armed his bills through. I think Obama should constantly be comparing himself to Bush and blame him and the republicans for all problems; a president gets things done when they dig their feet in the ground and keep plowing through opposition. Obama didn't do this, and he lost his supermajority within one election cycle.

If I was Obama, I would get on TV and declare that I would veto any budget that cuts social security/medicare... I would demonize republicans as trying to cut programs for the middle class and poor, while keeping policies that benefit only the rich. I would suggest military cuts and demand them in every speech I gave. That's how Obama would get votes, not playing centrist.

inimalist
Originally posted by lord xyz
Europe's dependent on America right now, China and Japan are to be America's ***** and the rest of the world has been ****ed over by American and/or Europe.

In other words, we're all ****ed.

unless you are in Greece, afaik, most economic markers are up compared to this point last year...

but I live in a nation with heavily regulated banks and financial markets, so why would I worry?

Prep-Man
Originally posted by Bicnarok
The bubble is bound to burst eventually, the worlds economical system is sitting on a pile of fantasy money created in cyber space.

I wonder what will happen when it bursts, will the rich money hoarders still be in control?

This video, although politically biast. Hits the nail on the head.

x3HlyZk-Th0

nice clip. It's only a matter of time now.

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Kandy
I totally disagree. Obama came in in a situation very comparable to FDR coming in after Hoover. FDR relentlessly criticized Hoover in every campaign speech he gave. Even after being elected he was endlessly critical of him and congressional republicans and strong-armed his bills through. I think Obama should constantly be comparing himself to Bush and blame him and the republicans for all problems; a president gets things done when they dig their feet in the ground and keep plowing through opposition. Obama didn't do this, and he lost his supermajority within one election cycle.

The political strategy has changed greatly. So much so that it would be impossible without 2/3 support for Obama's plans. He doesn't have that. We plainly see that, as well. Roosevelt also had massive support: Obama isn't experiencing that. He didn't have as much support as Roosevelt, either, when elected.

No matter which angle you approach this, there is no legitimate comparison between Roosevelt and Obama from a political power perspective.


Reality: Obama is stuck sucking GOP balls to get anything done. In order to accomplish that, he has to literally appease them. The result is shitty laws and policies that don't satisfy either side. Ergo Obama's current situation. He's had success in some places, but not the true success he wanted. If Obama tried to strong arm, he'd become the most impotent president in recent history. His best tactic to get anything done is to play the diplomat with the GOP.

A couple of 20 somethings on an internet forum do not know how to be president better than the geniuses working for Obama. They are working in the smartest way possible, currently. They blew their chance with he majority D.

Originally posted by King Kandy
If I was Obama, I would get on TV and declare that I would veto any budget that cuts social security/medicare... I would demonize republicans as trying to cut programs for the middle class and poor, while keeping policies that benefit only the rich. I would suggest military cuts and demand them in every speech I gave. That's how Obama would get votes, not playing centrist.

I like these ideas. smile

Except the part about SS and Medicare. I want to end the way SS is currently run. I would pretty much destroy SS. For medicare, I would want to expand it to be much more encompassing.

I would also destroy income taxes, altogether. smile

The Dark Cloud
Originally posted by dadudemon




I would also destroy income taxes, altogether. smile

And how would you pay for national infrasructure, defense, etc?

The Dark Cloud
Originally posted by dadudemon

the geniuses working for Obama.


You actually think the people working for Obama are geniuses? eek!

Tha C-Master
The recession is over?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
And how would you pay for national infrasructure, defense, etc?

Privatization, I assume.

Pepsi Cops
Mattel Public Highway
Blackwater Schooling

King Kandy
Originally posted by dadudemon
The political strategy has changed greatly. So much so that it would be impossible without 2/3 support for Obama's plans. He doesn't have that. We plainly see that, as well. Roosevelt also had massive support: Obama isn't experiencing that. He didn't have as much support as Roosevelt, either, when elected.

No matter which angle you approach this, there is no legitimate comparison between Roosevelt and Obama from a political power perspective.


Reality: Obama is stuck sucking GOP balls to get anything done. In order to accomplish that, he has to literally appease them. The result is shitty laws and policies that don't satisfy either side. Ergo Obama's current situation. He's had success in some places, but not the true success he wanted. If Obama tried to strong arm, he'd become the most impotent president in recent history. His best tactic to get anything done is to play the diplomat with the GOP.

A couple of 20 somethings on an internet forum do not know how to be president better than the geniuses working for Obama. They are working in the smartest way possible, currently. They blew their chance with he majority D.
Obama had a 60-40 majority in the senate (fillibuster proof) and even when ted kennedy was alive he couldn't keep it together. That demonstrates a tremendous failure of leadership. FDR with 59 democrats including several who resisted his plans. He still got over it. You think they couldn't filibuster back in the day? If Obama wanted his legislature passed, they should have put it to vote and allowed the republicans to filibuster all they want. I'd love to see how long they could keep it up, and I think they would have looked like idiots doing it and have severally discredited themselves. Obama's biggest problem was that he backed down at the mere threat of filibuster. He should have pressed forward and dug his feat in.

All the staffers in the world can't keep a failing leader together. When I look at the great leaders of history, they are decision makers who allowed themselves to hear the guidance of others, but still had the commanding personality and the final word. I do not get this image from Obama at all, and him listening to those "geniuses" just hurts him more in that regard. Anyway, by that token I could just say "Obama's the president, of course he knows what he's doing". I trust my own eyes more than I trust these "expert" economists and politicians who work for big business.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I like these ideas. smile

Except the part about SS and Medicare. I want to end the way SS is currently run. I would pretty much destroy SS. For medicare, I would want to expand it to be much more encompassing.

I would also destroy income taxes, altogether. smile
I've paid into SS, if it goes away that money is literally stolen from me, and I never get any benefits from it. Unless you're willing to rebate all the money from the program, I will never agree to cutting SS. And when this is a conversation about saving the budget, that doesn't seem like a great idea.

I would be in favor of changing medicare. I would make it a single-payer system covering basic care for all americans. Obviously, I think i'd need some taxes to do that. Haha, I would gladly pay extra income tax for that guarantee!

King Kandy
Compare and contrast as well, the civil rights act of 1957. A similarly contentious issue, filibuster was invoked. The majority simply allowed them to exhaust themselves and it actually damaged the reputations of the southern bloc.

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Kandy
Obama had a 60-40 majority in the senate (fillibuster proof) and even when ted kennedy was alive he couldn't keep it together. That demonstrates a tremendous failure of leadership.

I think that speaks much much greater to how fractured the Democratic party has become, actually.


A D next to your name could mean you're conservative, liberal, fiscally conservative, and so forth. (That's cause I can't think of anything else.)


But, for the sake of argument, let's just envision that the 60 could have been corralled to filibuster level proofness.

Originally posted by King Kandy
FDR with 59 democrats including several who resisted his plans. He still got over it. You think they couldn't filibuster back in the day? If Obama wanted his legislature passed, they should have put it to vote and allowed the republicans to filibuster all they want. I'd love to see how long they could keep it up, and I think they would have looked like idiots doing it and have severally discredited themselves. Obama's biggest problem was that he backed down at the mere threat of filibuster. He should have pressed forward and dug his feat in.

I still think that's a a faulty comparison. Sure, he had dissent, but not on the level of Obama. I would say that it wasn't even close to what Obama had to deal with. They also came from a different political, economic, and social climate.



But, I said I was humor you, so I'll say this: if that's true, then FDR was a better president than Obama. Some people would say that is a silly/rhetorical statement.

Originally posted by King Kandy
All the staffers in the world can't keep a failing leader together. When I look at the great leaders of history, they are decision makers who allowed themselves to hear the guidance of others, but still had the commanding personality and the final word. I do not get this image from Obama at all, and him listening to those "geniuses" just hurts him more in that regard. Anyway, by that token I could just say "Obama's the president, of course he knows what he's doing". I trust my own eyes more than I trust these "expert" economists and politicians who work for big business.

I think Obama did a better job of selecting his advisors than Bush. I also think Obama is more educated and intelligent than Bush. I also think he is doing the best he can...but it's still not good enough. Even with my "I think I know everything" attitude, I still don't think I could do any better than Obama and THAT'S saying something. no expression


Originally posted by King Kandy
I've paid into SS, if it goes away that money is literally stolen from me, and I never get any benefits from it. Unless you're willing to rebate all the money from the program, I will never agree to cutting SS. And when this is a conversation about saving the budget, that doesn't seem like a great idea.

But..you see, that money will not exist when you want to retire so it's being stolen from you, already.

Also, based on how poorly the budget has been run, you've had much more than SS stolen from you.

Lastly, you should be more than happy to have paid in money so that those who needed, it had. uhuh

Originally posted by King Kandy
I would be in favor of changing medicare. I would make it a single-payer system covering basic care for all americans. Obviously, I think i'd need some taxes to do that. Haha, I would gladly pay extra income tax for that guarantee!

Yes, this.

And, how dare you present such a contrast in two different paragraphs.

Quark_666
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think Obama did a better job of selecting his advisors than Bush. I think most presidents would take that compliment as an insulting comparison.

King Kandy
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think that speaks much much greater to how fractured the Democratic party has become, actually.

A D next to your name could mean you're conservative, liberal, fiscally conservative, and so forth. (That's cause I can't think of anything else.)


But, for the sake of argument, let's just envision that the 60 could have been corralled to filibuster level proofness.
I think a sign of good leadership would have been the ability to unify a fractured party.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I still think that's a a faulty comparison. Sure, he had dissent, but not on the level of Obama. I would say that it wasn't even close to what Obama had to deal with. They also came from a different political, economic, and social climate.

But, I said I was humor you, so I'll say this: if that's true, then FDR was a better president than Obama. Some people would say that is a silly/rhetorical statement.
I think that FDR had much greater dissent, but they are comparable in many ways. For instance, both were often accused of being communists for their public spending programs. The more I read about FDR the more deep the parallels I see to today.

FDR is obviously a better president. My point was that Obama should be following the lessons of FDR and maybe he would start getting things accomplished. FDR accomplished more in his 1st 100 days than Obama has in his whole first term. I mean, am I wrong that I should expect great leadership from our country's highest office? Why are visionary leaders so hard to come by? This is supposed to be the most qualified person in the entire country.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think Obama did a better job of selecting his advisors than Bush. I also think Obama is more educated and intelligent than Bush. I also think he is doing the best he can...but it's still not good enough. Even with my "I think I know everything" attitude, I still don't think I could do any better than Obama and THAT'S saying something. no expression
I think Obama did a terrible job with his cabinet and staff. He has stacked it with extremely conservative, pro-corporate politicians like Tim Geithner... it is one of the worst lineups in a century. Better than Bush, maybe. Bush was one of the worst presidents of all time imo, so that's really not saying much. If "better than bush" is considered a good president, our standards have really dropped.

More educated and intelligent, totally. I think Bush was a better politician than Obama. I think Obama is not doing nearly as good of a job as he can (or rather, if this is the best he can do then he's a terrible president). Obama is supposed to be the single highest authority in the US and he lets himself be bossed around by a minority in congress. Republicans win 90% of their disputes, and there's no reason he should be caving.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But..you see, that money will not exist when you want to retire so it's being stolen from you, already.

Also, based on how poorly the budget has been run, you've had much more than SS stolen from you.

Lastly, you should be more than happy to have paid in money so that those who needed, it had. uhuh
Yes, sadly the medicare/SS surpluses have been spent on ridiculous wars and projects that don't benefit me at all. How about instead of cutting SS, they cut 2/3rds of the military and pop that into paying back my investments.

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Kandy
I think a sign of good leadership would have been the ability to unify a fractured party.

I think that that is literally impossible, at this point. Short of doing something illegal (threats, money), I do not think it is possible to unify the Dems anymore.

This is probably why we differ in what Obama can or should do.


Originally posted by King Kandy
I think that FDR had much greater dissent, but they are comparable in many ways. For instance, both were often accused of being communists for their public spending programs. The more I read about FDR the more deep the parallels I see to today..

It's actually quite amazing how different two people can go with the same information.

I'm just the opposite. The more I read about his 4 terms and the initial election, the more I see how the Obama and FDR are not that similar and the media comparison is just for Hyperbole.


Originally posted by King Kandy
FDR is obviously a better president. My point was that Obama should be following the lessons of FDR and maybe he would start getting things accomplished. FDR accomplished more in his 1st 100 days than Obama has in his whole first term. I mean, am I wrong that I should expect great leadership from our country's highest office? Why are visionary leaders so hard to come by? This is supposed to be the most qualified person in the entire country.

I commented on this, sort of.

If Obama tried to strong arm in this current setting, he'd become the most impotent president in modern history.

It would have been nice had Obama closed down Guantanimo and setup a withdrawal plan much more steep for Iraq.


Originally posted by King Kandy
I think Obama did a terrible job with his cabinet and staff. He has stacked it with extremely conservative, pro-corporate politicians like Tim Geithner... it is one of the worst lineups in a century. Better than Bush, maybe. Bush was one of the worst presidents of all time imo, so that's really not saying much. If "better than bush" is considered a good president, our standards have really dropped.

Agreed on all points except that: I don't think his advisor's are off in their advice.

Originally posted by King Kandy
More educated and intelligent, totally. I think Bush was a better politician than Obama. I think Obama is not doing nearly as good of a job as he can (or rather, if this is the best he can do then he's a terrible president). Obama is supposed to be the single highest authority in the US and he lets himself be bossed around by a minority in congress. Republicans win 90% of their disputes, and there's no reason he should be caving.

What are his recourses? He can't veto something that will never get passed. That's been thep problem.


Originally posted by King Kandy
Yes, sadly the medicare/SS surpluses have been spent on ridiculous wars and projects that don't benefit me at all. How about instead of cutting SS, they cut 2/3rds of the military and pop that into paying back my investments.

I want that too...IN ADDITION to cutting SS. I don't expect it to be cutoff for everyone, of course. For instance, I would be okay with them allowing those who are withint 10 years of being able to collect SS, to get it.

RE: Blaxican
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Blackwater Schooling That sounds amazing.

King Kandy
Originally posted by dadudemon
I commented on this, sort of.

If Obama tried to strong arm in this current setting, he'd become the most impotent president in modern history.

It would have been nice had Obama closed down Guantanimo and setup a withdrawal plan much more steep for Iraq.
I think that right now, he is the most impotent president in modern history. Because he lets the republicans have their way in every dispute. If he strong armed it, at least he'd come off neutral to me. Right now he's all bad.

How long do you think Republicans could keep filibustering for? When has a filibuster ever stopped a bill (I don't mean bills where they backed down on the threat of a filibuster). If republicans actually spent their days rambling off speeches, it wouldn't look bad for Obama; it would look bad for republicans. They would look foolish and obstructionist filibustering on a 40-60. Obama never calls them on it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Agreed on all points except that: I don't think his advisor's are off in their advice.
You think guys like Tim Geithner are giving good advice? I don't see how people advising him to cut medicare, extend bush tax cuts, or remove the public option from his bill, are giving good advice. On a personal basis, I would vote for him in 2012 if he did these steps. As is I will probably not. So that is at least one vote his advisors have lost him. I suppose in 2012 we will see how successful he is. I think he will win in 2012, but it won't be because anyone believes in his leadership. It will be because the republicans fail to field a real candidate.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What are his recourses? He can't veto something that will never get passed. That's been thep problem.
I already talked about this. Rather than backing down at the threat of filibuster, he should demand that congress bring it to vote and allow the republicans to actually execute the filibuster. I think it would make the republicans lose credibility then, not him, and he would eventually get what he wants because filibusters aren't infinitely sustainable.

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Kandy
I think that right now, he is the most impotent president in modern history. Because he lets the republicans have their way in every dispute. If he strong armed it, at least he'd come off neutral to me. Right now he's all bad.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by King Kandy
How long do you think Republicans could keep filibustering for? When has a filibuster ever stopped a bill (I don't mean bills where they backed down on the threat of a filibuster). If republicans actually spent their days rambling off speeches, it wouldn't look bad for Obama; it would look bad for republicans. They would look foolish and obstructionist filibustering on a 40-60. Obama never calls them on it.

They could do it until the life of the bill expired, obviously. Why do you think we have the system of just standing up and saying you will filibuster? It's cause it wastes too much time to talk a bill to death. It's actually quite easy to talk for long periods of time about nothing. That's how they got elected. awesome

Originally posted by King Kandy
You think guys like Tim Geithner are giving good advice? I don't see how people advising him to cut medicare, extend bush tax cuts, or remove the public option from his bill, are giving good advice. On a personal basis, I would vote for him in 2012 if he did these steps. As is I will probably not. So that is at least one vote his advisors have lost him. I suppose in 2012 we will see how successful he is. I think he will win in 2012, but it won't be because anyone believes in his leadership. It will be because the republicans fail to field a real candidate.

Yes, Tim can and does give out good advice. You think he doesn't? Don't you think that is a bit one-track minded to say he doesn't give out good advice? Bush-Tax-Cuts: Obama had to appease in order to get something from the GOP, remember? It's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. It's not as simple as strong-arm politics, like you suggest. The public option was removed because he couldn't get enough backing as some Dems will NEVER support that type of option and pretty much none of the Republicans will either.

Also, appeasing a thinking, intelligent, and politically educated voter, is DEFINITELY not who they are aiming to attract votes from. You don't win people elections, bro. Sorry. It's the masses of morons that cared about Casey Anthony, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, watch Jersey Shore, etc. These are the majority voters. (Yes, that includes old people.)


Originally posted by King Kandy
I already talked about this. Rather than backing down at the threat of filibuster, he should demand that congress bring it to vote and allow the republicans to actually execute the filibuster. I think it would make the republicans lose credibility then, not him, and he would eventually get what he wants because filibusters aren't infinitely sustainable.

You think so? I don't. I think it would just delay them from getting any real work done and it would make both sides look like whiners that didn't get any work done.

The Dark Cloud
Originally posted by King Kandy
? This is supposed to be the most qualified person in the entire country.


WOW! Really, I mean how are we supposed to get the "most qualified" person with an election? eek!

Bardock42
I like Jersey Shore.

Darth Jello
One tiny aspect where I support the imposition of Jewish Old Testament law on the public where I don't think I'm going to get any argument from anyone on this forum- All debts should be forgiven after 7 years.

inimalist
Originally posted by Darth Jello
All debts should be forgiven after 7 years.

student loans? mortgages? other major bank loans for cars and things people need?

I see the benefit of such an idea, but with that caveat, no bank/institution would give the loans many people need to go to school or buy a house

Darth Jello
Originally posted by inimalist
student loans? mortgages? other major bank loans for cars and things people need?

I see the benefit of such an idea, but with that caveat, no bank/institution would give the loans many people need to go to school or buy a house Well the original biblical intent of that law is that the debt is forgiven after 7 years of faithful payments, not after 7 years of not paying. I don't think this would hurt anything but corporate profits if it were applied to credit cards for example.

inimalist
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Well the original biblical intent of that law is that the debt is forgiven after 7 years of faithful payments, not after 7 years of not paying. I don't think this would hurt anything but corporate profits if it were applied to credit cards for example.

oh, sure, but aren't mortgages normally like, 10-15 years? or in the case of student loans, don't you often have more then 7 years before they require you to start paying?

I just don't think a blanket "no debt after X" is really worthwhile, as exceptions will have to be made in almost every case. I think it would actually make it harder for lower/middle income people to get homes or education, because banks wouldn't be as willing to loan, or, if there is a 7 year limit, poorer people wont be able to pay off the rate of a 7 year mortgage, imho at least.

something does need to be done about credit cards, yes... pay-pal is helping, but I look at it more as a consumer side thing. There are students at my school who buy their morning coffees with credit card (we've all been there, I'm just saying), and the average credit debt people have is ridiculous. Is it a symptom of a loss in the ability of people to afford what they need? sure it is. Is is also a symptom of people being irresponsible with their money, yes, most assuredly.

idk, tough issue, and my "look, all we need to do is change cultural values and the way people think about money" is a little on the Utopian side, I admit, but I think your plan might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In principle, I don't see anything wrong with being able to voluntarily get into a long term loan with a bank.

Tha C-Master
I think people should pay the debts they borrow. If you can't afford to take out the money then don't do it. People take out money and refuse to pay it back, or file bankruptcy and make no effort to pay anything back show a sign of a morality issue.

I've had customers at times order services and then try to weasel out of them. Which is why I changed my payment services (also for the convenience). I want my money for the service my company performed and so would anyone else.

Also people who don't pay back loans hurt everyone (like the mortgage crisis). Somebody's paying for the difference and it is all of us. In the forms of higher taxes, higher interest rates, harder time getting loans or applying for mortgages (to those who are actually responsible). It ends up hurting everyone. People need to look at their finances closer, especially with student loans since they can't be forgiven. Those who go and take out the loans and then find themselves making $12 an hour may be disappointed when the they have debt close to or over 6 figures.

Darth Jello
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I think people should pay the debts they borrow. If you can't afford to take out the money then don't do it. People take out money and refuse to pay it back, or file bankruptcy and make no effort to pay anything back show a sign of a morality issue.

I've had customers at times order services and then try to weasel out of them. Which is why I changed my payment services (also for the convenience). I want my money for the service my company performed and so would anyone else.

Also people who don't pay back loans hurt everyone (like the mortgage crisis). Somebody's paying for the difference and it is all of us. In the forms of higher taxes, higher interest rates, harder time getting loans or applying for mortgages (to those who are actually responsible). It ends up hurting everyone. People need to look at their finances closer, especially with student loans since they can't be forgiven. Those who go and take out the loans and then find themselves making $12 an hour may be disappointed when the they have debt close to or over 6 figures.

I agree, but only if the lender wasn't predatory or disingenuous or engaging in loan sharking.

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by Darth Jello
I agree, but only if the lender wasn't predatory or disingenuous or engaging in loan sharking. Possibly. If the person was elderly or mentally disabled I could understand. But people who go and take a loan out and have the paperwork in front of them should read before they sign or go somewhere else. Everybody has to be responsible for their financial well being. Americans are especially bad and greedy when it comes to this.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Darth Jello
One tiny aspect where I support the imposition of Jewish Old Testament law on the public where I don't think I'm going to get any argument from anyone on this forum- All debts should be forgiven after 7 years.


I disagree. I think it should be 'interest free' after 7 years of faithful payments. That would be nice.


And no more than 10% APR. No variable rates.

inimalist
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Possibly. If the person was elderly or mentally disabled I could understand. But people who go and take a loan out and have the paperwork in front of them should read before they sign or go somewhere else. Everybody has to be responsible for their financial well being. Americans are especially bad and greedy when it comes to this.

those forms are written in such, deliberately, obtuse and confusing ways that even regulators have said they have no idea what they say

King Kandy
Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree. I think it should be 'interest free' after 7 years of faithful payments. That would be nice.


And no more than 10% APR. No variable rates.
The torah already commands jews not to charge interest on their fellow jews... so that would have been redundant.

King Kandy
Originally posted by dadudemon
They could do it until the life of the bill expired, obviously. Why do you think we have the system of just standing up and saying you will filibuster? It's cause it wastes too much time to talk a bill to death. It's actually quite easy to talk for long periods of time about nothing. That's how they got elected. awesome
Can you give me any examples of important bills that were defeated that way? I already offered an example of what happens when its taken to filibuster. When segregationists filibustered civil rights bills, they exhausted their filibuster long before the bill itself expired. There are tons of examples of how to beat a filibuster so its hardly like some invincible weapon that democrats were helpless against.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, Tim can and does give out good advice. You think he doesn't? Don't you think that is a bit one-track minded to say he doesn't give out good advice? Bush-Tax-Cuts: Obama had to appease in order to get something from the GOP, remember? It's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. It's not as simple as strong-arm politics, like you suggest. The public option was removed because he couldn't get enough backing as some Dems will NEVER support that type of option and pretty much none of the Republicans will either.

Also, appeasing a thinking, intelligent, and politically educated voter, is DEFINITELY not who they are aiming to attract votes from. You don't win people elections, bro. Sorry. It's the masses of morons that cared about Casey Anthony, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, watch Jersey Shore, etc. These are the majority voters. (Yes, that includes old people.)
I think Tim Geithner is one of the worst cabinet members in recent history. He's right up there with Rumsfeld in my opinion. Equally disastrous policies but at least Rumsfeld was a shrewder politician imo.

Bush got more down with a republican minority in congress than Obama did with a democratic supermajority. Any way you cut it that is a breathtaking failure of leadership. Republicans steamroll with the slightest advantage while democrats can get the biggest advantages around and not get anything done. And you are trying to tell me that the democrats are genius politicians?

Originally posted by dadudemon
You think so? I don't. I think it would just delay them from getting any real work done and it would make both sides look like whiners that didn't get any work done.
As opposed to now? What "real work" have they done lately? I suppose bills have been passed, but they're so awful that i'd rather they didn't.

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Kandy
Can you give me any examples of important bills that were defeated that way? I already offered an example of what happens when its taken to filibuster. When segregationists filibustered civil rights bills, they exhausted their filibuster long before the bill itself expired. There are tons of examples of how to beat a filibuster so its hardly like some invincible weapon that democrats were helpless against.

Are you really asking me to teach you American Government history? erm

I am not up for it. facepalm But if you want a history of the filibuster:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=History+of+the+US+Filibuster



Here's a relavant link:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1933802,00.html


Originally posted by King Kandy
Bush got more down with a republican minority in congress than Obama did with a democratic supermajority. Any way you cut it that is a breathtaking failure of leadership. Republicans steamroll with the slightest advantage while democrats can get the biggest advantages around and not get anything done. And you are trying to tell me that the democrats are genius politicians?

Bush's limited success can be partially attributed to 9/11 and other terror events that occured after.

Additionally, part of Bush's success can be blamed on the same problem we have now: a fractured democratic party.

Lastly, advisors are not politicians: they are advisors. wink

Originally posted by King Kandy
As opposed to now? What "real work" have they done lately? I suppose bills have been passed, but they're so awful that i'd rather they didn't.

The "work" being done is usually a messy compromise that has been heavily amended by the GOP before they will pass it.

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Kandy
The torah already commands jews not to charge interest on their fellow jews... so that would have been redundant.

This is not about the Torah, but DJ's suggestion. I don't like his suggestion, so I came up with my own.


Jew on Jew actions be damned in my suggestion. They can operate how ever they want to when giving each other money.

Bicnarok
I read that Obama said they have to sort it out in 24 - 36 hours "or else"
or else what?

I missed that bit:

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bicnarok
I read that Obama said they have to sort it out in 24 - 36 hours "or else"
or else what?

I missed that bit:

Spankings. Painful ones. no expression

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by inimalist
those forms are written in such, deliberately, obtuse and confusing ways that even regulators have said they have no idea what they say It could be made simpler perhaps (and not all regulators said that). It doesn't relieve one of responsibility to what they agreed to and signed on.

It goes back to what I said about Americans and financial literacy. Most have little savings or anything for retirement. Most don't understand interest or the fact that a 0% interest loan goes up dramatically after a specified period of time, so they just sign the loan.

People who do research (especially on a purchase that large) know that by default. Why anybody would take out large sums of money and not know what they're getting into is beyond.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
It could be made simpler perhaps (and not all regulators said that). It doesn't relieve one of responsibility to what they agreed to and signed on.

Quite a few regulators said so and they're professionals in the field. It's not a stretch to say that the average person had no way of understanding the contract. Of course if you realize you don't understand it should be taken as a reason not to sign.

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Quite a few regulators said so and they're professionals in the field. It's not a stretch to say that the average person had no way of understanding the contract. Of course if you realize you don't understand it should be taken as a reason not to sign. I know a number have. But a large number do.

It's no different than laws or other legal contracts. I'd take a professional's advice on the matter on a large contract if I didn't understand it.

Affording something isn't just paying the flat rate. It's paying maintenance, legal costs, and if you need a lawyer or an accountants advice to pay for it. Many people cheap out or can't afford that and it costs them later. If I'm signing something, especially something that large, I would definitely do so.

Now a large number of students do sign anything to pay for college. When when students get these loans they have to read and fill out a Q and A program showing they understand it. I think many just breeze through it to get the loan though.

inimalist
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
It could be made simpler perhaps (and not all regulators said that). It doesn't relieve one of responsibility to what they agreed to and signed on.

It goes back to what I said about Americans and financial literacy. Most have little savings or anything for retirement. Most don't understand interest or the fact that a 0% interest loan goes up dramatically after a specified period of time, so they just sign the loan.

People who do research (especially on a purchase that large) know that by default. Why anybody would take out large sums of money and not know what they're getting into is beyond.

so, I bare no fault if I deceive you? It is your fault for being deceived?

nobody is saying individuals have no role to play, but you can't honestly sit there and think banks don't act in predatory ways with their lending. I refuse to believe that, you are an intelligent person

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
so, I bare no fault if I deceive you? It is your fault for being deceived?

nobody is saying individuals have no role to play, but you can't honestly sit there and think banks don't act in predatory ways with their lending. I refuse to believe that, you are an intelligent person

I agree with him. I interpreted what he said as: "within in the framework of sound, yet unstifling, regulation."

If you think of it that way, you can have your cake and eat it, too.


Why?

Because you could end up with contracts that say:

But with the boopty badd booms, you have to wiggy wiggle woms with the popety naynoos.


Meaning, if you don't spin around 3 times while getting up, but directly after signing, your interest becomes 5000% as soon as you leave the building. The person would have no way of knowing. How contract language is now, that's how it reads to the uneducated...which is part of what your point is, correct?

So I do get what you're saying but it just doesn't make sense if that's what he said was okay.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree with him. I interpreted what he said as: "within in the framework of sound, yet unstifling, regulation."

If you think of it that way, you can have your cake and eat it, too.


Why?

Because you could end up with contracts that say:

But with the boopty badd booms, you have to wiggy wiggle woms with the popety naynoos.


Meaning, if you don't spin around 3 times while getting up, but directly after signing, your interest becomes 5000% as soon as you leave the building. The person would have no way of knowing. How contract language is now, that's how it reads to the uneducated...which is part of what your point is, correct?

So I do get what you're saying but it just doesn't make sense if that's what he said was okay.

...

you guys are aware that banks were outright lying to their customers about the quality of the stock and mortgage options they were getting?

like, serious federal fraud?

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
...

you guys are aware that banks were outright lying to their customers about the quality of the stock and mortgage options they were getting?

like, serious federal fraud?

That sounds like a criminal matter.

I didn't read anywhere where criminal actions were being executed in the banking industry in a large fashion. I did read/hear that they gave out poorly backed loans to poorly qualifying individuals.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
That sounds like a criminal matter.

I didn't read anywhere where criminal actions were being executed in the banking industry in a large fashion. I did read/hear that they gave out poorly backed loans to poorly qualifying individuals.

srsly?

they were selling stock they described in internal emails as "shit" as triple A rated (meaning, as secure as government bonds). They were approving people for loans they knew they couldn't pay, because it allowed them to bundle it as these toxic stocks, which would then be triple A rated. There was absolutely no accountability, because if the people didn't pay, the bank didn't lose any money.

I hate to be all like "watch this movie".... but, check out Inside Job, a doc about the recession

major banking institutions have for decades operated in ways very much comparable to organized criminal groups, up to and including engaging in activities that are criminal.

There is just no political will to prosecute the banks, in fact, the political establishment has all but given them immunity from prosecution (though I think the NY DA is going after them).

I can't believe you haven't heard this... no expression I don't mean that as an insult, I mean, I figured Americans would be all over this type of thing more than some half-interested Canadian...

King Kandy
Obviously banks lie all the time... in fact, bank of america has foreclosed houses they don't even own!

inimalist
totally, I'm just like... really surprised... that people didn't know this...

Its like someone just argued "of course there is no mafia"...

idk, maybe I've exaggerating... Does American news cover this stuff?

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
srsly?

they were selling stock they described in internal emails as "shit" as triple A rated (meaning, as secure as government bonds). They were approving people for loans they knew they couldn't pay, because it allowed them to bundle it as these toxic stocks, which would then be triple A rated. There was absolutely no accountability, because if the people didn't pay, the bank didn't lose any money.

I hate to be all like "watch this movie".... but, check out Inside Job, a doc about the recession

major banking institutions have for decades operated in ways very much comparable to organized criminal groups, up to and including engaging in activities that are criminal.

There is just no political will to prosecute the banks, in fact, the political establishment has all but given them immunity from prosecution (though I think the NY DA is going after them).

I can't believe you haven't heard this... no expression I don't mean that as an insult, I mean, I figured Americans would be all over this type of thing more than some half-interested Canadian...


I could have sworn the triple A rating came from an outside party.



I read the rest, later.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
I could have sworn the triple A rating came from an outside party.



I read the rest, later.

it does

the corruption was endemic

EDIT: their defense isn't that the stocks were actually triple A, but that under freedom of speech, such ratings only reflect "opinions", even though these people knew the stocks were toxic. It was a cabal of people acquiring terrible loans, packaging them as stock options, than having them rated as triple A, so they could re-sell them.

The Dark Cloud
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I think people should pay the debts they borrow. If you can't afford to take out the money then don't do it. People take out money and refuse to pay it back, or file bankruptcy and make no effort to pay anything back show a sign of a morality issue.

I've had customers at times order services and then try to weasel out of them. Which is why I changed my payment services (also for the convenience). I want my money for the service my company performed and so would anyone else.

Also people who don't pay back loans hurt everyone (like the mortgage crisis). Somebody's paying for the difference and it is all of us. In the forms of higher taxes, higher interest rates, harder time getting loans or applying for mortgages (to those who are actually responsible). It ends up hurting everyone. People need to look at their finances closer, especially with student loans since they can't be forgiven. Those who go and take out the loans and then find themselves making $12 an hour may be disappointed when the they have debt close to or over 6 figures.


http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=544368

King Kandy
Originally posted by dadudemon
I could have sworn the triple A rating came from an outside party.



I read the rest, later.
An outside party, that was completely bought off by the banks.

The Dark Cloud
The more you look into it the more depressing it is

Seriously, it's time to start renegotiating "free trade" agreements and penalize corporations who send jobs overseas.

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
The more you look into it the more depressing it is

Seriously, it's time to start renegotiating "free trade" agreements and penalize corporations who send jobs overseas. Why should they? Business should be able to work where they want, just like you shop where you want or work where you want.

How did that video above take away from people who sign things they shouldn't and then refuse to pay back their debts? If you borrow money, you must pay it back.

The Dark Cloud
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Why should they? Business should be able to work where they want, just like you shop where you want or work where you want.

How did that video above take away from people who sign things they shouldn't and then refuse to pay back their debts? If you borrow money, you must pay it back.


We need to do what's best for the citizens of our country, not just the global elite.

And as for the video, can't you see what a big corrupt racket, and yes, racket is the proper description, the government and banks are pulling here? Because some don't pay their mortgages, I know some are abusing the system here but many simply aren't able to, you can't pay with money you don't have, the government is stealing the taxpayers money and giving it to the banks.

King Kandy
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Why should they? Business should be able to work where they want, just like you shop where you want or work where you want.

How did that video above take away from people who sign things they shouldn't and then refuse to pay back their debts? If you borrow money, you must pay it back.
But I don't shop or work where I want. If I want to ring up a million dollars of jewelry like Newt Gingrich, guess what I can't. So that kind of economic freedom, is only really freedom for the rich.

But they only took those loans because the banks lied to them and told them they would be able to pay it back easily. And anyway it is not like they "refused" to pay the debt; they were literally incapable of doing so.

BTW, even if you pay your mortgage, that doesn't mean your house is safe from foreclosure. Like I said, banks have been committing fraud and foreclosing on houses that they never even owned in the first place. They don't keep all the paperwork, they just make it up.

inimalist
O9E6FeTs7Og

King Kandy
Jeeze, when is Cenk getting back? These new guys just aren't the same.

inimalist
no, they really arent

Quark_666
Ha... just when I was starting to feel like an old-timer...

I did hear about the bank's freedom of speech argument though. I was really disappointed that I wasn't allowed to chew those people out in person, actually.

inimalist
Originally posted by Quark_666
Ha... just when I was starting to feel like an old-timer...

I did hear about the bank's freedom of speech argument though. I was really disappointed that I wasn't allowed to chew those people out in person, actually.

I know, it'd be like arguing that price tags are just an opinion about the cost of a product

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
srsly?

they were selling stock they described in internal emails as "shit" as triple A rated (meaning, as secure as government bonds). They were approving people for loans they knew they couldn't pay, because it allowed them to bundle it as these toxic stocks, which would then be triple A rated. There was absolutely no accountability, because if the people didn't pay, the bank didn't lose any money.

I hate to be all like "watch this movie".... but, check out Inside Job, a doc about the recession

major banking institutions have for decades operated in ways very much comparable to organized criminal groups, up to and including engaging in activities that are criminal.

There is just no political will to prosecute the banks, in fact, the political establishment has all but given them immunity from prosecution (though I think the NY DA is going after them).

I can't believe you haven't heard this... no expression I don't mean that as an insult, I mean, I figured Americans would be all over this type of thing more than some half-interested Canadian...


I think I will watch the "inside job."

Netflix keeps suggesting it to me.



But, I was talking about the "criminal" aspect of your statement, earlier. Millions of lives were affected and many were outraged. With that many people, at least some of them would have persued legal action. Some did. Some won. Some didn't. I don't think it was as criminally "bad" as you suggest...or at least how I interpretted your statement. I do remember some trying to sue financial/investment organizations that no longer existed and people sobbing about it because there was literally no one they could take their anger out on.


I also remember this one investor/advisor going completely bankrupt because he was "lied" to about the quality of the backing on the notes. Then his clients tried to sue him and he had not a dime to his name, forclosed, turned his car in, etc. He was married with children. He went from a millionaire to nothing almost overnight. His clients still hounded him and tried to sue him all the time. It was rather lame.


But, it seems I'm getting off track. It doesn't appear as criminally bad as you suggest. I did lots of research on this for a paper I had to write. For me, the problem was mostly over-zealous banks trying to cash in on the various bad-loans being offered because of the climate the Bush Administration created.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Obviously banks lie all the time... in fact, bank of america has foreclosed houses they don't even own!

That happened before the recession. And not just from BoA. It's a "who's on first" problem, not criminal problem.

Originally posted by King Kandy
An outside party, that was completely bought off by the banks.

This sounds a bit conspiratorial and silly. Surely it's not as bad as you suggest?

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
We need to do what's best for the citizens of our country, not just the global elite.

And as for the video, can't you see what a big corrupt racket, and yes, racket is the proper description, the government and banks are pulling here? Because some don't pay their mortgages, I know some are abusing the system here but many simply aren't able to, you can't pay with money you don't have, the government is stealing the taxpayers money and giving it to the banks. Where are you getting just the elite? People who don't have enough to eat, are going to have jobs now. So it isn't about the whole for people here. It is about themselves. Which isn't a surprise, people do what they want in their own interest.Originally posted by King Kandy
But I don't shop or work where I want. If I want to ring up a million dollars of jewelry like Newt Gingrich, guess what I can't. So that kind of economic freedom, is only really freedom for the rich.

But they only took those loans because the banks lied to them and told them they would be able to pay it back easily. And anyway it is not like they "refused" to pay the debt; they were literally incapable of doing so.

BTW, even if you pay your mortgage, that doesn't mean your house is safe from foreclosure. Like I said, banks have been committing fraud and foreclosing on houses that they never even owned in the first place. They don't keep all the paperwork, they just make it up. You can work where you want to if you meet the requirements. Just like every business owner can go overseas. Nobody is restricting you from shopping somewhere, you either do or you don't, or you have the capital or the requirements the company is asking for. For consumers to shop somewhere the company has to meet their requirements. People vote for their feet.

People took out those loans because they were greedy. Many lied on their stated income loans, and many were trying to flip houses and were just as greedy as the guys up top. People are responsible on all sides, not just the rich or poor, but excusing people for not knowing what they sign or for not paying back their loans is an excuse. People (especially in America) need to educate themselves before they buy things. Americans want to spend, spend, spend without knowing the consequences, and most *don't* read. Nor do they check their own bank accounts regularly. Financial education here is terrible.

Any company that commuted fraud should be in trouble, but the losers who took out money they couldn't afford out of greed or ignorance deserve their fate as well, because guys like me have to pay for their stupidity and greed. I've seen many people like this and I know many people like this.

I'm safe because I know what I got into. Btw the overwhelming majority of those who had their mortgages readjusted just defaulted all over again in 6 months.

King Kandy
Those companies are not in trouble at all. The amount they pay out is a pittance.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think I will watch the "inside job."

Netflix keeps suggesting it to me.



But, I was talking about the "criminal" aspect of your statement, earlier. Millions of lives were affected and many were outraged. With that many people, at least some of them would have persued legal action. Some did. Some won. Some didn't. I don't think it was as criminally "bad" as you suggest...or at least how I interpretted your statement. I do remember some trying to sue financial/investment organizations that no longer existed and people sobbing about it because there was literally no one they could take their anger out on.


I also remember this one investor/advisor going completely bankrupt because he was "lied" to about the quality of the backing on the notes. Then his clients tried to sue him and he had not a dime to his name, forclosed, turned his car in, etc. He was married with children. He went from a millionaire to nothing almost overnight. His clients still hounded him and tried to sue him all the time. It was rather lame.


But, it seems I'm getting off track. It doesn't appear as criminally bad as you suggest. I did lots of research on this for a paper I had to write. For me, the problem was mostly over-zealous banks trying to cash in on the various bad-loans being offered because of the climate the Bush Administration created.

you should check out inside job

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
O9E6FeTs7Og

He skipped from number one straight to number three...but still called it number 2!

Other than that, it was frustrating listening to that guy. His speech was too broken. I couldn't stand watching him. I'm sure he had a good point.

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by King Kandy
Those companies are not in trouble at all. The amount they pay out is a pittance. And the people who took out loans they can't afford are making us pay for them, so people on all ends played a part. Nobody made them take out those loans.

The Dark Cloud
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
And the people who took out loans they can't afford are making us pay for them, so people on all ends played a part. Nobody made them take out those loans.

So how are they supposed to pay their mortgage if the business they worked for decided it was free to do business elsewhere and the alternative is now only a low paying service job....which is all that is coming back? You simply cannot pay if you don't have the money, it's impossible. Many got their homes with every intention of paying in good faith but because their job was relocated to China or India they are now f.u.c.k.e.d.

The problem is on all sides but the biggest part is those at the top of the corporations and government.

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
So how are they supposed to pay their mortgage if the business they worked for decided it was free to do business elsewhere and the alternative is now only a low paying service job....which is all that is coming back? You simply cannot pay if you don't have the money, it's impossible. Many got their homes with every intention of paying in good faith but because their job was relocated to China or India they are now f.u.c.k.e.d.

The problem is on all sides but the biggest part is those at the top of the corporations and government. Many of them lived in apartments and had no business buying a home, and then they lied on stated income loans. People do business elsewhere because the cost of doing business is too high in one area, people don't just want to up and move their operations if they didn't have a reason to. Employees are expensive. Ask the automotive industry.

inimalist
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
and then they lied on stated income loans

I would like to see a source that says the intentional lying of people to get mortgages on homes was a major factor in the recession

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
I would like to see a source that says the intentional lying of people to get mortgages on homes was a major factor in the recession

lol!

I don't have that answer, but it is always a contributing factor.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
lol!

I don't have that answer, but it is always a contributing factor.

you don't have a source then?

how about a single case study?

EDIT: poor people not being able to pay, or their deliberate deceit of those poor, poor bankers (who were only trying to help them), would not have caused major banking institutions to collapse.

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
you don't have a source then?

how about a single case study?

Why would there be a study? (There is...)

But let's go with 1/3.

I'm not joking.



http://www.articlesbase.com/loans-articles/is-it-smart-to-lie-in-your-loan-application-99969.html


http://www.newschannel5.com/story/5653569/loan-applications-falsified-at-bill-heard



That was just the first things I ran across. I don't really want to search to back up what someone else has said.



During the "sub-prime loan" period, people were sometimes encouraged to lie or "round up" on their loans.

So that made it worse.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
Why would there be a study? (There is...)

But let's go with 1/3.

I'm not joking.



http://www.articlesbase.com/loans-articles/is-it-smart-to-lie-in-your-loan-application-99969.html

from 2007, before the recession...

so, people lying on their loans wasn't a big deal until the recession, when it became prudent to blame anyone but the banks.

also, this says nothing about people not being able to afford the loans they are being given. Clearly some percentage of those 1/3 are people who lied just to make their application look better, as opposed to people who lied to qualify for something they couldn't pay.

Originally posted by dadudemon
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/5653569/loan-applications-falsified-at-bill-heard

this appears to be a report about employees doctoring stuff to get people to qualify, such that they would sell more cars. Essentially exactly what I have been talking about.

Originally posted by dadudemon
During the "sub-prime loan" period, people were sometimes encouraged to lie or "round up" on their loans.

So that made it worse.

hmmmm, when the police behave that way, it is called entrapment... I don't see how this reduces the culpability of banks at all, if anything, it is proof positive of the illegal practices I have been talking about

Let me put it like this:

Lets pretend that:

- Banks haven't lobbied and funded politicians for 30+ years to get massive deregulation unheard of in other first world nations

- The mantra of the republican party and academics (who made money from banks) didn't become "deregulate for deregulation sake"

- The state hasn't stopped any legal investigation into banks

- Banks didn't participate in widespread fraud against their customers

- Banks were responsible for their loans, rather than selling their loans to third parties

- banks hadn't corrupted the stock system such that they could get toxic stocks labeled as triple A

etc

etc

etc

pretend all of that is fixed. That you have a reasonable banking system that isn't surrounded by a culture of fraud and illegality. How many poor people does it take, who are deliberately coming in and deceiving these banks, to sink the economy? Remember, banks are now accountable for their loans, so they aren't just going to rubber stamp anything.

Or:

pretend the banking system was a corrupt as it really was, but, for a thought experiment, pretend no poor people came in and lied to the banks. Would you argue that the recession would have never happened. LOL, would you think the recession would be any better? LOL, do you think any fewer people would have lost their homes?

I mean seriously...

Quark_666
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
So how are they supposed to pay their mortgage if the business they worked for decided it was free to do business elsewhere and the alternative is now only a low paying service job....which is all that is coming back? You simply cannot pay if you don't have the money, it's impossible. Many got their homes with every intention of paying in good faith but because their job was relocated to China or India they are now f.u.c.k.e.d.

The problem is on all sides but the biggest part is those at the top of the corporations and government. Concerning outsourcing: if it's economically favorable, it's economically favorable. It might sound patriotic to protect American employees, but it's just a trade-off against American consumers, who ultimately happen to be the same people. Of course, that's just the pro-America argument. If you're pro-human-race, you might also consider that Asians are hard workers with wives and children too.

As for fault, well gosh, the government should have regulated what happened, the banks should have regulated what happened, and the homeowners should have regulated what happened. Listening to you blame the government, you'd think the government hired spies to dupe the American people into stupid contracts. C'mon.....it's a sin of omission in three directions.

EDIT: What am I saying? The banks didn't "overlook" this, they planned it. That's not omission, that's pure crime. Anyway, it makes that much less sense to blame the government.

inimalist
Originally posted by Quark_666
Listening to you blame the government, you'd think the government hired spies to dupe the American people into stupid contracts.

the government isn't responsible for investigating crimes?

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by inimalist
I would like to see a source that says the intentional lying of people to get mortgages on homes was a major factor in the recession Seriously?

http://www.survivingtherecession.net/started-recession-part-2-housing-bubble-pop/

Stated income loans are normally used for self employed people or business owners to buy their homes because they have a harder time tracking their income. These subprime loans were given out to people who then lied on them to get houses. Some to live in, others were flipping houses left and right trying to be real estate gurus. I saw it with my own two eyes (and someone also posted a source), it definitely played a part.Originally posted by inimalist
you don't have a source then?

how about a single case study?

EDIT: poor people not being able to pay, or their deliberate deceit of those poor, poor bankers (who were only trying to help them), would not have caused major banking institutions to collapse. Nobody is saying the banks were innocent, they were trying to make money. That is what banks do.

But the poor people weren't victims like people who want to be PC paint them out to be. People who borrow money and can't pay it back or lie on a stated income loan (which a huge amount did) then they deserve no type of mercy. People on all ends played a part in something this big. Not just one side. Nobody made those people get those loans.

If you are dumb enough to think a 0% interest loan will stay that way forever then you deserve to lose your house. Not only that but these people re-defaulted after a few months of their mortgage being adjusted.

Which just goes to show, if they didn't have the houses they couldn't have lost them. People like that will stay perpetually broke.

lord xyz
The economy is failing because America can't control oil in Iran. I think that's what's being built in Iraq, ways of stealing Iran's oil. America of course can't invade Iran because of China, which doesn't trust America because America caused east Asia to be bankrupt during the 90s.

It's a failing system anyway. I hope the all money collapses. People think it'll turn to chaos, I think people who offer the best resources will instead be turned to. You know, how it's supposed to be?

inimalist
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Seriously?

http://www.survivingtherecession.net/started-recession-part-2-housing-bubble-pop/

Stated income loans are normally used for self employed people or business owners to buy their homes because they have a harder time tracking their income. These subprime loans were given out to people who then lied on them to get houses. Some to live in, others were flipping houses left and right trying to be real estate gurus. I saw it with my own two eyes (and someone also posted a source), it definitely played a part. Nobody is saying the banks were innocent, they were trying to make money. That is what banks do.

But the poor people weren't victims like people who want to be PC paint them out to be. People who borrow money and can't pay it back or lie on a stated income loan (which a huge amount did) then they deserve no type of mercy. People on all ends played a part in something this big. Not just one side. Nobody made those people get those loans.

If you are dumb enough to think a 0% interest loan will stay that way forever then you deserve to lose your house. Not only that but these people re-defaulted after a few months of their mortgage being adjusted.

Which just goes to show, if they didn't have the houses they couldn't have lost them. People like that will stay perpetually broke.

Originally posted by inimalist
Let me put it like this:

Lets pretend that:

- Banks haven't lobbied and funded politicians for 30+ years to get massive deregulation unheard of in other first world nations

- The mantra of the republican party and academics (who made money from banks) didn't become "deregulate for deregulation sake"

- The state hasn't stopped any legal investigation into banks

- Banks didn't participate in widespread fraud against their customers

- Banks were responsible for their loans, rather than selling their loans to third parties

- banks hadn't corrupted the stock system such that they could get toxic stocks labeled as triple A

etc

etc

etc

pretend all of that is fixed. That you have a reasonable banking system that isn't surrounded by a culture of fraud and illegality. How many poor people does it take, who are deliberately coming in and deceiving these banks, to sink the economy? Remember, banks are now accountable for their loans, so they aren't just going to rubber stamp anything.

Or:

pretend the banking system was a corrupt as it really was, but, for a thought experiment, pretend no poor people came in and lied to the banks. Would you argue that the recession would have never happened. LOL, would you think the recession would be any better? LOL, do you think any fewer people would have lost their homes?

I mean seriously...

also, how could you possibly think that link supports your point?

The Dark Cloud
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Many of them lived in apartments and had no business buying a home, and then they lied on stated income loans. People do business elsewhere because the cost of doing business is too high in one area, people don't just want to up and move their operations if they didn't have a reason to. Employees are expensive. Ask the automotive industry.

And many banks gave those loans knowing they were extremely risky. They were assuming continual apprecialtion of the housing market which didn't happen. It's not just houses. Before the credit crunch banks were giving almost anybody credit cards often with very high limits knowing those people made very little and then they lob bied hard to make the bankruptcy laws change furthering their goal of economic slavery of the masses by keeping them in debt.

As for employees being expensive, that's the best way to run our society. Right now too much wealth is being pushed towards the top, a trend that has been going on for 30 years. The solution is to eliminate foreign cheap labor by not allowing their products in the country. Yes it will make things more expensive, but it will also increase wages. Where there will be a negative shift is at the top. I really don't care if Bill Gates loses half his fortune...hell, he'd still be worth $25 BILLION.

inimalist
its not just that they were risky

its that banks had spent millions/billions in lobbying such that they could pass off the losses from their loans to other companies. In this environment, there was no reason to even check to see if people could pay back their loans.

In a nation with real bank regulation, there is no way these people would have gotten these loans.

Tha C-Master
Banks do need to be watched closer, and people should have tighter restrictions getting those loans.


Originally posted by inimalist
also, how could you possibly think that link supports your point? Just pointing out that people do lie on the loans, it is no secret, it's done all of the time. Just on as wide as a scale.

Let's pretend the:
People didn't live beyond their means.
Didn't lie on loans.
Saved money.
Invested money.
Put money away for retirement.
Didn't spend so much.
Didn't re-default.

Do you think the economy would be better here? Do you think we'd have so many different forms of debt crisis, do you think the responsible people would have to pay for the irresponsible?

Everybody played a part in it. All sides were greedy, not just one.Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
And many banks gave those loans knowing they were extremely risky. They were assuming continual apprecialtion of the housing market which didn't happen. It's not just houses. Before the credit crunch banks were giving almost anybody credit cards often with very high limits knowing those people made very little and then they lob bied hard to make the bankruptcy laws change furthering their goal of economic slavery of the masses by keeping them in debt.

As for employees being expensive, that's the best way to run our society. Right now too much wealth is being pushed towards the top, a trend that has been going on for 30 years. The solution is to eliminate foreign cheap labor by not allowing their products in the country. Yes it will make things more expensive, but it will also increase wages. Where there will be a negative shift is at the top. I really don't care if Bill Gates loses half his fortune...hell, he'd still be worth $25 BILLION.

He made the 25 billion by innovating and providing a service that is used worldwide. Wealth is simply a number that shows what you contribute, and your value in terms of services and what you provide. Bill Gates has given numerous people jobs, has provided services that people have wanted. There aren't many people who have the talent and ability to create businesses like Bill Gates, Rockerfeller, Carnegie, etc. That's why they made so much money.

A worker that comes in and checks groceries out at Wal-Mart and punches out does not deserve that much because they are too easy to replace. People who solve problems and advance life in some way (automobiles, quicker and cheaper resources, internet) are the ones who create lots of value.

Raising the costs of running business is very bad. Workers here cost too much and provide too little, many are lazy and want everything handed to them, they don't have the hunger they once did.

And btw simply raising the pay of everybody is going to make the cost of everything else go up as well. Supply and demand. People want these cheap prices for things they buy, but they want to be paid top dollar. They simply can't understand the correlation. Being American and all. *sigh*

American automobile makers had "legacy costs" in their vehicle to cover the costs of paying for and covering workers into their grave, even if they were no longer providing anything to the company. Foreign cars moved in and had cheaper vehicles that were of superior quality. The consumers don't find it worth it to pay more for what they're getting. Same with companies that choose to go overseas. They vote with their feet.

Not only that but it also helps people around the world. Most people aren't worried about business, they're worried about themselves. People are self centered by nature. Business wants profits, workers want money, and consumers want low prices. Other people less fortunate will benefit from the jobs and tech that business will provide.

We can't compete with the rest of the world with our high costs of doing business. Globalization is inevitable, the best thing to do is to be ready for it, and see what opportunities will await in the future.

inimalist
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Just pointing out that people do lie on the loans, it is no secret, it's done all of the time. Just on as wide as a scale.

Let's pretend the:
People didn't live beyond their means.
Didn't lie on loans.
Saved money.
Invested money.
Put money away for retirement.
Didn't spend so much.
Didn't re-default.

Do you think the economy would be better here? Do you think we'd have so many different forms of debt crisis, do you think the responsible people would have to pay for the irresponsible?

Everybody played a part in it. All sides were greedy, not just one.

sure, everyone is greedy...

but no, I still think there would be a huge recession even if people lived within their means.

The fact is, bank were predatory in their lending and entirely unaccountable for the money they were loaning. It doesn't really matter what people did to get those loans, the system itself was corrupt

like, if all you want to say is people get loans when they should just try to save, well, bravo...

that is so unrelated to why there is such a huge recession right now. Guess what, people take stupid loans in Canada too, but our banks didn't fail

inimalist
Originally posted by inimalist
like, if all you want to say is people get loans when they should just try to save, well, bravo...

to add a non-glib sort of extension to this

like, back as far as 2004-5 (probably earlier, but that is sort of when I started paying attention) you had issues like, if the Central Bank of Canada raised interest rates even like half a percent, some huge portion of people would have to declare bankruptcy.

I get where you are coming from, but if you think these sort of personal irresponsibility issues were at the core of the recession, I don't think that is really true.

the economy worked fine when people lived paycheque to paycheque, it was only when these sort of toxic loan and mortgage issues started to compile, and people who had invested in what they thought were triple A stock lost all their investments, did we see the banks and the economy start to crumble.

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
from 2007, before the recession...

so, people lying on their loans wasn't a big deal until the recession, when it became prudent to blame anyone but the banks.

also, this says nothing about people not being able to afford the loans they are being given. Clearly some percentage of those 1/3 are people who lied just to make their application look better, as opposed to people who lied to qualify for something they couldn't pay.



this appears to be a report about employees doctoring stuff to get people to qualify, such that they would sell more cars. Essentially exactly what I have been talking about.



hmmmm, when the police behave that way, it is called entrapment... I don't see how this reduces the culpability of banks at all, if anything, it is proof positive of the illegal practices I have been talking about

Let me put it like this:

Lets pretend that:

- Banks haven't lobbied and funded politicians for 30+ years to get massive deregulation unheard of in other first world nations

- The mantra of the republican party and academics (who made money from banks) didn't become "deregulate for deregulation sake"

- The state hasn't stopped any legal investigation into banks

- Banks didn't participate in widespread fraud against their customers

- Banks were responsible for their loans, rather than selling their loans to third parties

- banks hadn't corrupted the stock system such that they could get toxic stocks labeled as triple A

etc

etc

etc

pretend all of that is fixed. That you have a reasonable banking system that isn't surrounded by a culture of fraud and illegality. How many poor people does it take, who are deliberately coming in and deceiving these banks, to sink the economy? Remember, banks are now accountable for their loans, so they aren't just going to rubber stamp anything.

Or:

pretend the banking system was a corrupt as it really was, but, for a thought experiment, pretend no poor people came in and lied to the banks. Would you argue that the recession would have never happened. LOL, would you think the recession would be any better? LOL, do you think any fewer people would have lost their homes?

I mean seriously...



OHHHH! I see, now. You were assuming that I was trying to blame shift from the banks?

Not the case. I think the banks ENCOURAGED the people to lie so they could get "a sale." It was the "popular" thing to do because, hey!, everyone is buying our poisonous notes!

I think that many people lie on stuff like applications for loans or jobs.

Now, they get really fancy with checks. The make it to where you have to prove yourself 100% for sure or you get rejected. Meaning, previous 2 years W2, two recent pay stubs, etc. (Etc includes lots of stuff. Trust me, I just bought a home.)

Before the collapse, it was in the bank's best interest to move as many loans as possible and sell the mortgages as soon as possible. Getting their customer's to round up on their income to "fly" under the radar does not seem implausible. In fact, it seems like part of the problem.

I think that the blame is with all parties: the banks that gave out the loans, the financial and investor organizations that moved the loans all over the place, and the customers that applied when they could not afford it.



Some of the liberals like to say emotional things like, "those poor people. They had no idea and were illiterate. Those predator bankers preyed on them."

That's definitely true for some, but I'd say for the majority, they were average people. Definitely smart enough to know not to get something you could not pay for. Definitely smart enough to ask questions or read the documents they were signing. I think the "poor dumb person" was few and far between. It was the willfully ignorant and the stupidly hopeful that were the majority.


So, yes, I believe the people getting the loans are partially at fault.


I believe I said in the other thread, last year, that it was 90-10. 90% the applicants, 10% predatory lending practices.

I need to amend.


I want to say it was 40% the applicants, 10% lending practices, and 50% "mortgage movers."

inimalist
but like, it isn't reasonable for an average person to understand a mortgage that even the regulators themselves said were impossible to understand.

Sure, maybe you say, "well, if you don't understand, don't sign", but what if you need a home for a child, etc. Or even worse, what about when the bank is saying, "oh ya, its ok, you will be able to afford it". Its really not unreasonable for a person to take the word of someone who should be knowledgeable. Like, in what other type of business are you allowed to outright lie to your customers? As I said above, if police officers acted in the way these bankers did, it would be called entrapment. The courts don't say, "gee, you should have known better", they say "the police officer abused their power and therefore you are not legally responsible for the crime you committed"

and like I was saying before, how big of an impact do you think this, compared to the culture of corruption within large financial institutions and no oversight whatsoever, had in the financial collapse. Like, cool, you have a good point, people shouldn't spend above their means, but thats not why your banks collapsed.

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by inimalist
sure, everyone is greedy...

but no, I still think there would be a huge recession even if people lived within their means.

The fact is, bank were predatory in their lending and entirely unaccountable for the money they were loaning. It doesn't really matter what people did to get those loans, the system itself was corrupt

like, if all you want to say is people get loans when they should just try to save, well, bravo...

that is so unrelated to why there is such a huge recession right now. Guess what, people take stupid loans in Canada too, but our banks didn't fail Recessions are natural, but people had to take out those loans or nothing would have happened. They played their role too. Financial education is more of a cure for these things, and less greed.

Huge amounts of debts and bankruptcies force others to pay for them. It definitely plays a part in it. The banks didn't just loan it to themselves.

Same people who took out those loans jacked up the prices of housing before it inevitably burst. Much like college is doing. Going up and up.

inimalist
so, let me just make sure I'm clear, you are saying the recession is the fault of consumers not being educated enough about the financial markets?

The Dark Cloud
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Recessions are natural, but people had to take out those loans or nothing would have happened. They played their role too. Financial education is more of a cure for these things, and less greed.

Huge amounts of debts and bankruptcies force others to pay for them. It definitely plays a part in it. The banks didn't just loan it to themselves.



Kinda like the government using taxpayer money to bail out big banks and corporations. Most of the greed is at the top. Banks loaned out enormous amounts of money they didn't even have, their investors took a risk and management screwed them over. It shouldn't be up to the taxpayer or consumer to make up the difference.

Quark_666
Originally posted by inimalist
the government isn't responsible for investigating crimes? Well I'd obviously feel pretty silly if that's what I said, but since contextually I was referring to the government's regulations and not their investigations, I simply feel, well, taken out of context.

inimalist
Originally posted by Quark_666
Well I'd obviously feel pretty silly if that's what I said, but since contextually I was referring to the government's regulations and not their investigations, I simply feel, well, taken out of context.

lol

rephrase:

don't you think it is the responsibility of the government to either pass regulation or enforce the ones that are in place?

roll eyes (sarcastic)

Quark_666
Originally posted by inimalist
lol

rephrase:

don't you think it is the responsibility of the government to either pass regulation or enforce the ones that are in place?

roll eyes (sarcastic) That's been my position since before the 2008 crisis, so yeah, but my point was that it was a "sin of omission."

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by inimalist
so, let me just make sure I'm clear, you are saying the recession is the fault of consumers not being educated enough about the financial markets? They played a part. You know as well as I that I said numerous times that many people played a part in it on all sides. The banks didn't just lend the money into the air.Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Kinda like the government using taxpayer money to bail out big banks and corporations. Most of the greed is at the top. Banks loaned out enormous amounts of money they didn't even have, their investors took a risk and management screwed them over. It shouldn't be up to the taxpayer or consumer to make up the difference. I don't believe in bailing out people on any level. It should correct itself.

People on the lowest end are some of the greediest people. They live beyond their means and buy things they can't afford. They do the most gambling and buy the most lottery tickets. People on the lower end want something for nothing too. People on the higher end can be greedy, but they understand they must provide a service.

People lying on loans and not paying back debt on credit cards is greedy, immoral, and dishonest. Most Americans owe more than they have, the reason is because they're greedy. They live a lifestyle better than just about any other country and yet they want more. It is a consumer society. People will ultimately do what is in their own best interest. The government should step in when it is harmful to other people.

inimalist
Originally posted by Quark_666
That's been my position since before the 2008 crisis, so yeah, but my point was that it was a "sin of omission."

a sin of omission which the banks payed millions for in political and campaign donations? a sin of omission that involves quashing any criminal investigation into the financial sector? a sin of omission that involves systematically deregulating what other first world nations feel are essential controls on finance, and taking the teeth out of any regulatory commission that tries to enforce what weak regulations do exist?

I can't say I agree with your assessment. I certainly don't think the government did this with malicious intent, but I can't possibly fathom how you can see as an omission. the government has deliberately sought the financial environment that exists today, largely at the behest of financial interests.

The Dark Cloud
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
They played a part. You know as well as I that I said numerous times that many people played a part in it on all sides. The banks didn't just lend the money into the air. I don't believe in bailing out people on any level. It should correct itself.

People on the lowest end are some of the greediest people. They live beyond their means and buy things they can't afford. They do the most gambling and buy the most lottery tickets. People on the lower end want something for nothing too. People on the higher end can be greedy, but they understand they must provide a service.

People lying on loans and not paying back debt on credit cards is greedy, immoral, and dishonest. Most Americans owe more than they have, the reason is because they're greedy. They live a lifestyle better than just about any other country and yet they want more. It is a consumer society. People will ultimately do what is in their own best interest. The government should step in when it is harmful to other people.

You really have a chip on your shoulder. Why do you think we are a consumer driven society? There needs to be a correction, from all sides...but because those at the top have stolen the most they should now pay the most.

inimalist
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
They played a part. You know as well as I that I said numerous times that many people played a part in it on all sides. The banks didn't just lend the money into the air.

let me try a different approach

do you think entrapment is a valid legal defense?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
let me try a different approach

do you think entrapment is a valid legal defense?

Don't bother. I've met people who believe outright fraud should be legal because consumers "know the risks".

Quark_666
Originally posted by inimalist
a sin of omission which the banks payed millions for in political and campaign donations? a sin of omission that involves quashing any criminal investigation into the financial sector? a sin of omission that involves systematically deregulating what other first world nations feel are essential controls on finance, and taking the teeth out of any regulatory commission that tries to enforce what weak regulations do exist?

I can't say I agree with your assessment. I certainly don't think the government did this with malicious intent, but I can't possibly fathom how you can see as an omission. the government has deliberately sought the financial environment that exists today, largely at the behest of financial interests. Thinkin I should watch that video....

immaturerainbow
Originally posted by Quark_666
Thinkin I should watch that video....

You Sir, have 666 in your UserName!

inimalist
Originally posted by Quark_666
Thinkin I should watch that video....

not all of that is part of Inside Job, but ya, I think its fantastic

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Don't bother. I've met people who believe outright fraud should be legal because consumers "know the risks".

sad

I wonder why victim blame is so appealing cognitively... why would we be biased to say "that individual is an idiot" rather than "that individual was lied to"...

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
You really have a chip on your shoulder. Why do you think we are a consumer driven society? There needs to be a correction, from all sides...but because those at the top have stolen the most they should now pay the most. I think you have a chip on your shoulder. You keep blaming one part, when everybody played their part. Saying the poor is not greedy because they have less is ridiculous. I've seen both ends.

This "hate the rich" mindset in this thread has a bitter undertone.

Originally posted by inimalist
let me try a different approach

do you think entrapment is a valid legal defense? So they were entraped when they were lying on their loans and taking out more than they can afford? People who are dishonest in their companies should be punished accordingly.Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Don't bother. I've met people who believe outright fraud should be legal because consumers "know the risks". No, fraud should not be legal and whatever company does that should pay the price. As I've said. But people who are ignorant, stupid, greedy, or dishonest should not be excused. Why do people want to blame others for their own problems?

It's no different than fat people blaming restaurants for being fat. They chose to eat at the restaurant. This nation likes to play the blame game.Originally posted by inimalist
sad

I wonder why victim blame is so appealing cognitively... why would we be biased to say "that individual is an idiot" rather than "that individual was lied to"...

I wonder why blaming others for one's own mistakes is so appealing? Because it's the easy way out. The people who do never learn. Like the people who re-defaulted on their loans six months later after they got a break.

The vast majority of people who get themselves in tons of debt do it to themselves. It doesn't "just happen" people who say that are making a copout and people like that never learn.

I said all people played a part, not just one. Stop treating people who have less money as innocent victims, it's really more of an insult than anything. It's like saying certain people are too stupid to know what's good for them.

Quark_666
Originally posted by inimalist
sad

I wonder why victim blame is so appealing cognitively... why would we be biased to say "that individual is an idiot" rather than "that individual was lied to"... I only noticed one or two people claiming that. Although I am inclined to believe that making college more accessible to the common people would dispel considerable naivety against an increasingly sophisticated criminal world. I should specify that I am in no way implying that I think criminals should get away with what they do.

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by Quark_666
I only noticed one or two people claiming that. Although I am inclined to believe that making college more accessible to the common people would dispel considerable naivety against an increasingly sophisticated criminal world. I should specify that I am in no way implying that I think criminals should get away with what they do. Well yes criminals should be in trouble for what they do, rich or poor. People shouldn't be bailed for what they do, rich or poor.

But people do need to educate themselves. Saying people are too stupid to protect themselves is insulting. Just like people who try to make it illegal to make fast food restaurants in poor areas. Like minorities are too stupid to know fast food is bad for them. They know what the food contains and they make choices based upon that. I don't believe in insulting people by pretending they are "too stupid" and need extra protection that the rest of us don't have.

inimalist
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I think you have a chip on your shoulder. You keep blaming one part, when everybody played their part. Saying the poor is not greedy because they have less is ridiculous. I've seen both ends.

This "hate the rich" mindset in this thread has a bitter undertone.

So they were entraped when they were lying on their loans and taking out more than they can afford? People who are dishonest in their companies should be punished accordingly. No, fraud should not be legal and whatever company does that should pay the price. As I've said. But people who are ignorant, stupid, greedy, or dishonest should not be excused. Why do people want to blame others for their own problems?

It's no different than fat people blaming restaurants for being fat. They chose to eat at the restaurant. This nation likes to play the blame game.

I wonder why blaming others for one's own mistakes is so appealing? Because it's the easy way out. The people who do never learn. Like the people who re-defaulted on their loans six months later after they got a break.

The vast majority of people who get themselves in tons of debt do it to themselves. It doesn't "just happen" people who say that are making a copout and people like that never learn.

I said all people played a part, not just one. Stop treating people who have less money as innocent victims, it's really more of an insult than anything. It's like saying certain people are too stupid to know what's good for them.

you convinced me

inimalist
Originally posted by Quark_666
I only noticed one or two people claiming that. Although I am inclined to believe that making college more accessible to the common people would dispel considerable naivety against an increasingly sophisticated criminal world. I should specify that I am in no way implying that I think criminals should get away with what they do.

the mortgages that people were signing were so deliberately written that even regulators, people whose job it is to understand these documents, couldn't understand what they said

simply having a more educated population wouldn't have helped at all, unless part of that education is a degree in financial legalese, and even then, the contracts would be written in such a way that you still wouldn't understand them

inimalist
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Well yes criminals should be in trouble for what they do, rich or poor. People shouldn't be bailed for what they do, rich or poor.

But people do need to educate themselves. Saying people are too stupid to protect themselves is insulting. Just like people who try to make it illegal to make fast food restaurants in poor areas. Like minorities are too stupid to know fast food is bad for them. They know what the food contains and they make choices based upon that. I don't believe in insulting people by pretending they are "too stupid" and need extra protection that the rest of us don't have.

now that is a strawman

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by inimalist
now that is a strawman Bud, there have been people trying to push laws that prohibit restaurants in poor areas, and liquor stores. I say poor people can make all the decisions the rest of us can make, and they should be able to deal with the good and bad of it. No need to "shelter people from themselves".

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I don't believe in insulting people by pretending they are "too stupid" and need extra protection that the rest of us don't have.

Huh? Your whole argument is that people are too stupid and have destroyed the economy (but that for some reason nothing should be done to stop them from destroying the economy because, uh, a healthy economy would be bad I guess).

inimalist
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Bud, there have been people trying to push laws that prohibit restaurants in poor areas, and liquor stores. I say poor people can make all the decisions the rest of us can make, and they should be able to deal with the good and bad of it. No need to "shelter people from themselves".

nobody has suggested protecting people from themselves... hence the strawman

Quark_666
Originally posted by inimalist
the mortgages that people were signing were so deliberately written that even regulators, people whose job it is to understand these documents, couldn't understand what they said

simply having a more educated population wouldn't have helped at all, unless part of that education is a degree in financial legalese, and even then, the contracts would be written in such a way that you still wouldn't understand them Um.... then who has a fighting chance of understanding their contract anyway?

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
but like, it isn't reasonable for an average person to understand a mortgage that even the regulators themselves said were impossible to understand.

I disagree. The regulators were using hyperble, at best.

Originally posted by inimalist
Sure, maybe you say, "well, if you don't understand, don't sign", but what if you need a home for a child, etc.

This is why you rent.

If you don't know how to read, there is assistance for that. Even a damn stranger might offer help, if asked.

Originally posted by inimalist
Or even worse, what about when the bank is saying, "oh ya, its ok, you will be able to afford it".

That's the person's fault for believing it. At some point, you have to make people responsible for their actions. We are not these idiot creatures that fall for every trick or story to be told.

Is it really that hard to do elementry math? Keep in mind, the vast majority were working, normal people. They weren't idiots.

Is it REALLY that hard to say, "okay, I have income x, my monthly payment will be y. x-y = what's left over." Or how about the variable rate loans: "I have income x. My payment for the first year is y. x-y= what's left over. I can manage that. But what about in 2 years. x-z = what's left over. NOPE! I can't do that. F*** this loan. Bye, Mr. Lender man."




So why did they get them, still, knowing full well that they could not afford it?

"Oh, I will make more money, in 2 years."

or

"Who cares, I'll live for now."

or

"I can default on this debt, if I need to. So I'm not too worried."


That's the type of mentality many people had because they just didn't give a damn. We are/were a society of debtors. Americans love their debt and living financially irresponsible. It's practically a cultural norm...or rather, was.

Originally posted by inimalist
Its really not unreasonable for a person to take the word of someone who should be knowledgeable. Like, in what other type of business are you allowed to outright lie to your customers?

Every single salesman ever. no expression

You weren't born yesterday.


Nor were those tens of thousands of people.

Originally posted by inimalist
As I said above, if police officers acted in the way these bankers did, it would be called entrapment.

No it wouldn't because that's an apples to oranges comparison.

Originally posted by inimalist
and like I was saying before, how big of an impact do you think this, compared to the culture of corruption within large financial institutions and no oversight whatsoever, had in the financial collapse. Like, cool, you have a good point, people shouldn't spend above their means, but thats not why your banks collapsed.

I already said why the banks collapsed. Like..a dozen times since this problem?

If the people themselves had a different culture, this wouldn't have happened to begin with. No one party can be seen as innocent tha was involved. You can't pretend that the person getting the loan is completely innocent. It's that type of attitude that is making tort law stupid.

Tha C-Master
You hit the nail on the head. If you can't afford to buy, then rent. Not only that but most lose money living in a house anyways. They believe the myth that "a house always goes up in value". Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Get an accountant or lawyer to look it up. Most people just don't care. They believe they'll just default or go bankrupt and "who the hell cares" their credit was already shitty anyways. Very selfish and it irritates me. If you're going to get into a loan that big, you should know your stuff. For your own sake.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Huh? Your whole argument is that people are too stupid and have destroyed the economy (but that for some reason nothing should be done to stop them from destroying the economy because, uh, a healthy economy would be bad I guess).

No it isn't. My argument is that everybody played a part, and not just one side. People who took out the loans took their share of the blame too. That was my argument.Originally posted by inimalist
nobody has suggested protecting people from themselves... hence the strawman Sure we were. "The poor and middle class are simply too stupid to look after themselves."

We need to take out restaurants and also any kinds of loans. It's no secret that Americans owe more than they make/have. Americans take out all kinds of debt (even some of the upper middle class ones) because they are greedy. A person making 30,000 a year knows they can't afford a $500,000 house. But they tried to get one anyways.

People need to be responsible for their own actions. Of course the US is too PC to say that the "working man" did anything wrong.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
Every single salesman ever. no expression

You weren't born yesterday.


Nor were those tens of thousands of people.

Fraud, it's what's for dinner.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Fraud, it's what's for dinner.

laughing laughing laughing


You win. big grin

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
laughing laughing laughing


You win. big grin

What exactly would count as fraud in your world? If lies and deception don't I can't think of anything that does.

Tha C-Master
Americans have confused what is a luxury and what is a necessity. Having your own house is a luxury, having a car is a luxury, going to college is a luxury. Having a nice house, car, or going to a good school is *definitely* a luxury. If you can't afford it, you need to rent, share a car or get a used car, and go to a cheaper school. Americans have a strong sense of entitlement. Not only that but the losers who do this make it more expensive for the responsible ones to buy a house (not anymore, now they are really cheap, thanks losers).


Not paying your bills is immoral. If you borrow money you must pay it back. It's that simple. Borrowing more money than you can afford to take out and not paying it back shows a lack of character.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
Every single salesman ever. no expression

You weren't born yesterday.


Nor were those tens of thousands of people.

salesmen are not allowed to lie to you

they might, but it is fraud. Like, if a salesman says, "this is $10", but it is really $70, they have actually committed fraud (as long as it wasn't an accident).

Originally posted by dadudemon
No it wouldn't because that's an apples to oranges comparison.

well, yes, it actually would:

Police officer: its ok if you smoke this joint, you will be fine, its not illegal, I wont arrest you

Me: I'm not so sure about that, but you are the police officer, you would know

vs

Bank: its ok, you will be able to afford it, just sign

Me: I'm not so sure about that, but you are the bank, you would know

it is exactly the same thing, and it is problematic for the same reason. It would be like if your doctor was lying to you. Sure, you could go get your MD so that you could "know better", but like.... /sigh, **** it, you are right, your economy collapsed because of dumb consumers.

Harbinger
The "those gotdamn poor people are just so entitled" deal is beyond boilerplate at this point. It's essentially a tangent of Ray-Gun's "welfare queens in pink Cadillacs" line.

Most of the poor people I knew (from growing up), and currently know, don't have fancy cars or live in nice houses. Most, if not all of them, rent their homes. They don't have cars and have to rely on Detroit's crappy public transit. They have low-paying jobs because they never went to college. They don't feel "entitled" to a Benz or a McMansion. They also usually lack the money to better themselves and their lives (whether that be by way of higher education or other means).

If people were truly interested in talking about why our economy's off in the ditch, they'd be talking about the entire spectrum or poor people, not just the part that suits their argument. Plenty of people got out, gamed the system, and contributed to collapsing the economy. There's also a lot of people that went out and got gamed by mortgage companies. But for all of the talk about the "hate the rich" undertone of this thread, the "hate and blame the poor" undertone is equally as strong.

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by inimalist
salesmen are not allowed to lie to you

they might, but it is fraud. Like, if a salesman says, "this is $10", but it is really $70, they have actually committed fraud (as long as it wasn't an accident).



well, yes, it actually would:

Police officer: its ok if you smoke this joint, you will be fine, its not illegal, I wont arrest you

Me: I'm not so sure about that, but you are the police officer, you would know

vs

Bank: its ok, you will be able to afford it, just sign

Me: I'm not so sure about that, but you are the bank, you would know

it is exactly the same thing, and it is problematic for the same reason. It would be like if your doctor was lying to you. Sure, you could go get your MD so that you could "know better", but like.... /sigh, **** it, you are right, your economy collapsed because of dumb consumers. Banks tell you that you are approved, not that you can afford it.

A person may not be able to afford it no matter what they make because they may be spending too much already. Affording something is based on what you do. They just put the numbers together and say what is reasonable based on your income and credit, but if you are towing the line, then you probably can't.Originally posted by Harbinger
The "those gotdamn poor people are just so entitled" deal is beyond boilerplate at this point. It's essentially a tangent of Ray-Gun's "welfare queens in pink Cadillacs" line.

Most of the poor people I knew (from growing up), and currently know, don't have fancy cars or live in nice houses. Most, if not all of them, rent their homes. They don't have cars and have to rely on Detroit's crappy public transit. They have low-paying jobs because they never went to college. They don't feel "entitled" to a Benz or a McMansion. They also usually lack the money to better themselves and their lives (whether that be by way of higher education or other means).

If people were truly interested in talking about why our economy's off in the ditch, they'd be talking about the entire spectrum or poor people, not just the part that suits their argument. Plenty of people got out, gamed the system, and contributed to collapsing the economy. There's also a lot of people that went out and got gamed by mortgage companies. But for all of the talk about the "hate the rich" undertone of this thread, the "hate and blame the poor" undertone is equally as strong.

I grew up very poor so that won't work on me. I grew up in one of the poorest areas in the country. I know their behaviors very well as I know many people personally who adhere to it. They are the ones with 4 kids at 23 years old sucking up money. The ones who are perpetually unemployed and never pay their bills. They are the ones who buy impulsively, gamble impulsively, and spend money on alcohol and drugs. I know what it's like and I know what people do as I've been on all sides. I've had friends who were broke, then go out and buy a car or a gaming system and complain that they couldn't pay their rent because the "rich man stole from them". No, they were just being stupid. These are the ones with a $500 a month apartment driving an $40,000+ vehicle.

Here are the facts:


People who are poorer are more likely to have kids out of wedlock, or more kids than they can afford, that's a fact.

People who are poor are less likely to spend money on education and more likely to spend money on drugs and alcohol.

People who are poor are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol.

Poor people are more likely to not educate their children or really care.

Poorer people are more likely to commit crimes and be in jail.

People who are poor or more likely to be single mothers. Single mothers give birth to more dysfunctional children, drug addicts, teenage mothers, criminals, etc.

And on and on.

It isn't just the poor either, many of the middle class do some of these things (but not all) many of them signed on loans to be able to flip houses and make a quick buck. They are also fiscally irresponsible. Even though they earn more.

Poverty isn't a lack of money, it's a mindset that keeps people poor. I spend lots of time trying to educate people in real life on how to be more successful and how to not make bad decisions (knocking up your girlfriend, buying things you can't afford, etc.) Very basic stuff, and I do care about this subject quite a bit. I'm harsh because I care.

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
salesmen are not allowed to lie to you

Have you ever purchased a car? Have you ever purchased a home from a realtor? Have you ever purchased expensive electronics? (Meaning, have you ever had to spend quite a bit of money on a single purchase that required you go through a salesman.) No, this is not a snarky/derisive question, but it could be read that way.

If you have, then you know what I'm talking about. They work on commission and they try their best to get a sale.

You know what I'm talking about, right?


It feels like we've swapped sides in this discussion, all of a sudden. I feels like I'm trying to sell to you the sleaziness of some of the bank agents that sold this loans. mad


Originally posted by inimalist
they might, but it is fraud. Like, if a salesman says, "this is $10", but it is really $70, they have actually committed fraud (as long as it wasn't an accident).

I like this one, better, because it's not nearly as cut and dry:

"Sure! You can pay this loan in 2 years when the interest increases. NO PROBLEM big grin"


And they used that same sh*t eating grin "I'm a salesman" smile.

Are they wrong? Probably not legally because they can give their opinion that the person could cancel their cable, electricity, cell phone, and walk/ride a bike to work everyday to make up the difference.


Originally posted by inimalist
well, yes, it actually would:

Police officer: its ok if you smoke this joint, you will be fine, its not illegal, I wont arrest you

Me: I'm not so sure about that, but you are the police officer, you would know

vs

Bank: its ok, you will be able to afford it, just sign

Me: I'm not so sure about that, but you are the bank, you would know

it is exactly the same thing, and it is problematic for the same reason. It would be like if your doctor was lying to you. Sure, you could go get your MD so that you could "know better", but like.... /sigh, **** it, you are right, your economy collapsed because of dumb consumers.

I don't think it's a good comparison because they are really just two different things.

That's also not how entrapment works, btw. Your example is actually NOT entrapment. The person committing the crime has to have not committed the crime "otherwise". Meaning, in your scenario, you'd have to modify it to something like this:

Disguised Cop: Sir, would you like this weed? It's 5 ounces (1 once over the legal limit, for example).

Victim: No thanks. I don't smoke weed. Besides, that probably costs a crapload of money.

Disguised Cop: No, no...it's free. I'm giving it away because some cops are coming over tomorrow and I need to get rid of this, stat.

Victim: ... Well, okay. I have a stoner friend that might like this. I owe him $200, anyway.



*hands Victim the weed and the Victim puts it in his pocket.*


Disguised Cop: HANDS ABOVE YOUR HEAD AND LIE FLAT ON THE GROUND!

Tha C-Master
Well that isn't a lie. If you get a $0 down loan or a 0% interest loan, anybody with common sense knows the loans skyrocket in prices after a set amount of time, usually 6 months to a year. If you don't know that you are not fit to buy a house, and you shouldn't be taking loans like that anyways because they aren't good deals. If you can't afford to make a down payment, you can't afford a house. If you can't afford maintenance you can't afford a house. If you can't afford to have a lawyer or adviser look at the paperwork, then you can't afford a house. You must do due diligence first.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
Disguised Cop: Sir, would you like this weed? It's 5 ounces (1 once over the legal limit, for example).

5 ounces?

where are you allowed to carry a quarter pound with it still being under the legal limit?

EDIT: yes, this is the most important part of what you said

Originally posted by dadudemon
Victim: ... Well, okay. I have a stoner friend that might like this. I owe him $200, anyway.

...

200?

5o of good is at least 9-1g

maybe I need to visit Oklahoma

inimalist
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Banks tell you that you are approved, not that you can afford it.

/facepalm

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Poverty isn't a lack of money, it's a mindset that keeps people poor. I spend lots of time trying to educate people in real life on how to be more successful and how to not make bad decisions (knocking up your girlfriend, buying things you can't afford, etc.) Very basic stuff, and I do care about this subject quite a bit.

I thought you didn't believe in telling people they were stupid.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Well that isn't a lie. If you get a $0 down loan or a 0% interest loan, anybody with common sense knows the loans skyrocket in prices after a set amount of time, usually 6 months to a year. If you don't know that you are not fit to buy a house, and you shouldn't be taking loans like that anyways because they aren't good deals. If you can't afford to make a down payment, you can't afford a house. If you can't afford maintenance you can't afford a house. If you can't afford to have a lawyer or adviser look at the paperwork, then you can't afford a house. You must do due diligence first.

This logic says to me that Bernie Madoff is innocent. After all the only people at fault are the ones who gave him money. They should have done their due diligence.

That poor man, being made out to be some kind of villain sad He didn't defraud anybody, they defrauded themselves.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
Have you ever purchased a car? Have you ever purchased a home from a realtor? Have you ever purchased expensive electronics? (Meaning, have you ever had to spend quite a bit of money on a single purchase that required you go through a salesman.) No, this is not a snarky/derisive question, but it could be read that way.

If you have, then you know what I'm talking about. They work on commission and they try their best to get a sale.

You know what I'm talking about, right?


It feels like we've swapped sides in this discussion, all of a sudden. I feels like I'm trying to sell to you the sleaziness of some of the bank agents that sold this loans. mad

And if they outright lie to you (which banks actually did) you can sue them. Whereas you seem to think that it's not fraud. When a bank tells a lie it is not a lie. For some reason.

I suppose you also think we've always been at war with Eastasia, too.

The Dark Cloud
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I think you have a chip on your shoulder. You keep blaming one part, when everybody played their part. Saying the poor is not greedy because they have less is ridiculous. I've seen both ends.

.

I do have a chip on my shoulder, but at least I admit it, and I feel it's justified. I agree that many at the lower end of the scale are to blame for their own financial situation but my primary concern is the middle class (or what's left of it) which really fuels America's economic engine. Problem is the wealthy via the amount of money they control are far more able to do economic damage to our country which they have via globalization.

Unless we have jobs...yes jobs (I know that's a dirty word to you), that pay in th $40k-$80k a year range come back and be the stable norm the future of everyone in this country, except the top 1 or 2% is in peril. Soon even many of the wealthier and small business owners will suffer (many already have) because nobody can afford their products or services.

Your claim that globalization is inevitable might have some merit except I see two problems with this down the road, energy and water. How will China ship all those cheap manufactured goods in Diesel powered cargo ships when oil hits $200-$300 a barrel? Water will be another problem in the coming decades, the worlds aquifiers, which the vast majority of agriculture, are drying up. More localization, rather than globalization, might just be the solution.

lord xyz
Originally posted by inimalist
It would be like if your doctor was lying to you. Sure, you could go get your MD so that you could "know better", but like.... /sigh, **** it, you are right, your economy collapsed because of dumb consumers. The healthcare system in America lies to you anyway.

Pharmacist: Here, take this pill, it'll make you feel better
*2 weeks later*
Patient: Hey, I took that pill, and it kinda worked, but now I got side-effects
Pharmacist: Here, take another pill
*2 weeks later*
Patient: Hey, I took that pill, and it kinda worked, but now I got side-effects
Pharmacist: Here, take another pill
*2 weeks later*
Patient: Hey, I took that pill, and it kinda worked, but now I got side-effects
Pharmacist: Here, take another pill
*2 weeks later*
Patient: Hey, I think I'm getting ill again
Pharmacist: Shit, well I'm sure your insurance company will cover it

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by inimalist
/facepalm You do know the difference?Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I thought you didn't believe in telling people they were stupid.



This logic says to me that Bernie Madoff is innocent. After all the only people at fault are the ones who gave him money. They should have done their due diligence.

That poor man, being made out to be some kind of villain sad He didn't defraud anybody, they defrauded themselves. Nope Bernie Madoff is guilty, but he's only doing the same ponzi scheme as Social Security anyways.

Oh and btw, a lot of people knew what he was doing was screwy, they just didn't care and wanted their piece of the pie, just like the ones who bought those houses and didn't care about the consequences. Greed on all sides.

Oh no I never said that. There's different types of stupid. Having sex without a condom knowing full well the effects is stupidity by choice. But treating people like they're too stupid to know better is another thing entirely.Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I do have a chip on my shoulder, but at least I admit it, and I feel it's justified. I agree that many at the lower end of the scale are to blame for their own financial situation but my primary concern is the middle class (or what's left of it) which really fuels America's economic engine. Problem is the wealthy via the amount of money they control are far more able to do economic damage to our country which they have via globalization.

Unless we have jobs...yes jobs (I know that's a dirty word to you), that pay in th $40k-$80k a year range come back and be the stable norm the future of everyone in this country, except the top 1 or 2% is in peril. Soon even many of the wealthier and small business owners will suffer (many already have) because nobody can afford their products or services.

Your claim that globalization is inevitable might have some merit except I see two problems with this down the road, energy and water. How will China ship all those cheap manufactured goods in Diesel powered cargo ships when oil hits $200-$300 a barrel? Water will be another problem in the coming decades, the worlds aquifiers, which the vast majority of agriculture, are drying up. More localization, rather than globalization, might just be the solution. I've noticed with your threads and all.

As I've said, look who will benefit from it. Numerous people, far poorer than you. Companies don't move out of the country for no reason, they do it because their expenses are higher. Their expenses are higher because we have people demanding more and more while giving less and less. So it only makes sense to find cheaper work to give those American's the "prices they deserve".

Jobs have their purpose. What I said is it is unwise to rely on a job because the era of "jobs taking care of you for life" are now over. We are in an information age, not an industrial one. People are still stuck in their industrial mindset, and it's going to leave them behind. I recommend people educate themselves about finances and let their money work for them more.

I don't have a chip on my shoulder lol. I love my life and I look forward to the future as I'm looking to find good in things, not the bad. I think we have more potential with products and services going around the world. It breaks down barriers as well. People are only worried about themselves. Understandable as it is human nature. Just like schools costing more and the results getting worse. Teachers know this (and I've talked to many) but they still want their check. Human nature, all around.

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>