A new urban flight causing problems in Detroit. [Archive]

Growler

02-28-11, 01:26 PM

It is rather bitter, I imagine, to find that the "American Dream" of home ownership might also extend to, and mean sharing your neighborhood with "ghetto folk."

Juror #10: I don't understand you people! I mean all these picky little points you keep bringing up. They don't mean nothing. You saw this kid just like I did. You're not gonna tell me you believe that phony story about losing the knife, and that business about being at the movies. Look, you know how these people lie! It's born in them! I mean what the heck? I don't have to tell you. They don't know what the truth is! And lemme tell you, they don't need any real big reason to kill someone, either! No sir!
[Five gets up from his seat]
Juror #10: They get drunk... oh, they're real big drinkers, all of 'em - you know that - and bang: someone's lyin' in the gutter. Oh, nobody's blaming them for it. That's the way they are! By nature! You know what I mean? VIOLENT!
Juror #10: [Nine rises and crosses to the window] Where're you going?
Juror #10: Human life don't mean as much to them as it does to us!
[Eleven gets up and walks to the other window]
Juror #10: Look, they're lushing it up and fighting all the time and if somebody gets killed, so somebody gets killed! They don't care! Oh, sure, there are some good things about 'em, too. Look, I'm the first one to say that.
[Eight gets up and walks to the nearest wall]
Juror #10: I've known a couple who were OK, but that's the exception, y'know what I mean?
[Two and Six get up from the table. Everyone's back is to Ten]
Juror #10: Most of 'em, it's like they have no feelings! They can do anything! What's goin' on here? I'm trying to tell you... you're makin' a big mistake, you people! This kid is a liar! I know it. I know all about them! Listen to me! They're no good! There's not a one of 'em who is any good! I mean, what's happening in here? I'm speaking my piece, and you...
[The Foreman gets up and walks away. So does Twelve]
Juror #10: Listen to me. We're... This kid on trial here... his type, well, don't you know about them? There's a, there's a danger here. These people are dangerous. They're wild. Listen to me. Listen.

Tribesman

02-28-11, 01:40 PM

Well played Growler:salute:

GoldenRivet

02-28-11, 02:20 PM

It is rather bitter, I imagine, to find that the "American Dream" of home ownership might also extend to, and mean sharing your neighborhood with "ghetto folk."

Won't happen.

you see the problem is "ghetto folk" as you call them spend thousands of dollars... sometimes tens of thousands of dollars on these

http://static.zoovy.com/img/crite2000/W640-H480-Bffffff/22_gold_wire.jpg

...so they can continue to pay a couple hundred a month on these...

http://i-buy-homes.ca/images/ugly-house2.jpg

Growler

02-28-11, 02:25 PM

Won't happen.

you see the problem is "ghetto folk" as you call them spend thousands of dollars... sometimes tens of thousands of dollars on these

...so they can continue to pay a couple hundred a month on these...

Aw, c'mon, GR - you're above such generalizations. I mean, dude, I've lived and worked in Baltimore, I get what you're saying, but it's a generalization, and an inaccurate one at that. For every young "ghetto kid/chav" who's doing what you allege, there's five or ten who are working their posteriors off to try and get a little ahead.

GoldenRivet

02-28-11, 02:45 PM

For every young "ghetto kid/chav" who's doing what you allege, there's five or ten who are working their posteriors off to try and get a little ahead.

yes...

they live next door to me.

(And no, i dont have a problem with it)

EDIT: are we talking about "ghetto folk" or some other kind of folk?

EDIT#2: what I meant by my first post is that ghetto folk are so busy being ghetto folk and doing ghetto golk things that it is very unlikely that they would find their way into my neighborhood.

Growler

02-28-11, 02:49 PM

yes...

they live next door to me.

(And no, i dont have a problem with it)

EDIT: are we talking about "ghetto folk" or some other kind of folk?

Good point.

gimpy117

02-28-11, 02:55 PM

Personally, I blame the collapse of the middle class. Detroit and flint had its bad parts like any city in the 80's..but when did it get really bad? When the manufacturing jobs pulled out. Theres no more jobs for those people in those towns and they can't get out. Poverty breeds poverty, strife breeds strife, violence breeds more violence. I think people in the ghetto have lost hope, and this behavior is a result.

GoldenRivet

02-28-11, 03:26 PM

mookiemookie

02-28-11, 03:34 PM

a man has to be master of his own destiny... i think that no man - even if he only has $100 to his name - is not totally immobilized and worthless.

nomadic people thousands of years ago WALKED from Europe to North America - why couldn't someone in Anycity, USA get in their car and drive to Anytown, USA and spend a day or two job searching?

Gas, rent deposits, hotel/motel costs? It's not cheap to just up and move. It's a simplistic answer to a difficult problem.

nikimcbee

02-28-11, 03:35 PM

Gimpy, to some extent thats true.

but

in 1920 when you lost your job in Brooklyn you packed your family up and were on your way to Memphis after 2 or 3 days of not finding work in Brooklyn.

Memphis no good? head to Little Rock... Dallas... Ft. Worth... El Paso... Las Cruces... Albequerque... Denver

thing is... no matter how bad the economy gets, no matter how many manufacturing jobs are outsourced - Someone, Somewhere is doing Something to earn money.

today, when a person loses their job in Detroit, they foolishly just sit and wait for things to change. :nope:

a man has to be master of his own destiny... i think that no man - even if he only has $100 to his name - is not totally immobilized and worthless.

nomadic people thousands of years ago WALKED from Europe to North America - why couldn't someone in Anycity, USA get in their car and drive to Anytown, USA and spend a day or two job searching?

Cant afford the car? sell it and get a motorcycle.

Cant afford the motorcycle? get a moped

Cant afford the moped? get a bicycle with a basket on the front of it.

Can't afford the bicycle? get a decent backpack and walk.

When a person finally reaches anytown USA they might not find that manufacturing job, they might have to flip burgers but it puts beans on the MFing table... right?

They might reach Anytown USA and find out that the situation is equally as grim... but the neat thing about that main street that runs through anytown USA is that you can get anywhere in the world by starting out on that road.

whats with people?

I love the town i live in, but im not so attached to it that i wouldnt leave at the first sign of trouble.

my advice to anyone who doesnt have 100% air tight job security - dont plant your roots so damned deep.

Ha, that was the advantage I had when I lost my job a few years ago. There are some many people that refused to leave the area (Eugene, or-gone), that they couldn't find work there. The #1 employer in that county is......wait for it..... gubmint!:har: So when the largest private employer left town, there were a lot on long faces, wailing;" who will pay our taxes?" (as the largest tax payer was now leaving:haha:)
But don't worry, they are waiting for "green jobs":har: to move in to fill the void.

I digress, anywhoo, I have no emotional etachment to that area, so when I got job offers, I had no problem saying, "yes, I will relocate.":up:

Plus I did not get caught up in the un-employment trap, and I found a new job within 1 month.:rock: Others, just partied with their severence package and un-employment and are..... still unemployed.:-?

nikimcbee

02-28-11, 03:36 PM

Gas, rent deposits, hotel/motel costs? It's not cheap to just up and move. It's a simplistic answer to a difficult problem.

That is a great point Mookie, escpecially if you have no emergency credit and/or are living beyond your means.:doh:

GoldenRivet

02-28-11, 03:39 PM

Gas, rent deposits, hotel/motel costs? It's not cheap to just up and move. It's a simplistic answer to a difficult problem.

I know a man who drove a little coupe 1,200 miles across this country to a job interview.

it took him 2 days to do it

he slept in the car and ate bologna sandwiches and had a camping canteen full of water.

he did it all on the only cash he had on hand which was a little over $100

it is those who cannot see the simple answers to difficult problems who generally fail.

he got the job

mookiemookie

02-28-11, 03:48 PM

I know a man who drove a little coupe 1,200 miles across this country to a job interview.

it took him 2 days to do it

he slept in the car and ate bologna sandwiches and had a camping canteen full of water.

he did it all on the only cash he had on hand which was a little over $100

it is those who cannot see the simple answers to difficult problems who generally fail.

he got the job

Did he have kids? If he had, where would they have slept? Would it have worked to take them out of school for two days? What would they have eaten? If they have to move, where do they stay until the first paycheck? How do they pay a rent deposit? Where do they bathe? What do they put down for a permanent address?

Your example is not feasible for the majority of people who are out of work. It just doesn't work that way.

GoldenRivet

02-28-11, 03:57 PM

Did he have kids?

At the time, no

If he had, where would they have slept?

but if he did...

they would have stayed at home in their little crappy apartment with their mother. Trust me - as someone who helps manage rental properties it takes a good 3 or 4 weeks to evict someone in most states, and thats if you follow all the proper steps. and that only takes place after the first rent check is not received by the property owner... so in theory, they might have as much as 60 days to vacate.

Even with the worst case scenario of a home foreclosure you have 30 days in most cases to get out

Would it have worked to take them out of school for two days? What would they have eaten? If they have to move, where do they stay until the first paycheck? How do they pay a rent deposit? Where do they bathe? What do they put down for a permanent address?

see above explaination

Your example is not feasible for the majority of people who are out of work. It just doesn't work that way.

i think that it IS feasible for many people... certainly not every single person - but for many people it IS.

i dont want you to open your mind on this one mookie... just crack the door a bit and realize that with a 3-4 week eviction process, or a 30 day foreclosure process it is at least a possibility :up:

EDIT:

though i do understand that there are individuals who will sit around and feel sorry or themselves and look to the government for help as opposed to trying to do anything to fix their situation - i realize that there ARE certain people who are either incapable or unwilling to take care of themselves.

AVGWarhawk

02-28-11, 04:31 PM

Did he have kids? If he had, where would they have slept? Would it have worked to take them out of school for two days? What would they have eaten? If they have to move, where do they stay until the first paycheck? How do they pay a rent deposit? Where do they bathe? What do they put down for a permanent address?

Your example is not feasible for the majority of people who are out of work. It just doesn't work that way.

Do the majority of the folk not have family and friends that will help watch the kid or put them up until a job is found? I do think this is feasible for a majority of the people out there.

mookiemookie

02-28-11, 04:48 PM

GoldenRivet

02-28-11, 04:52 PM

Blame the victim. "If you're out of a job, it's because there's something wrong with you and you're lazy."

Maybe you guys should be open to the idea that bad things happen to good people who aren't lazy drains on the welfare rolls. It's not all the fault of the system, and it's not all the fault of the individual.

Whoa whoa whoa :timeout::timeout::timeout:

who blamed the victim?

it is not HIS fault he is out of a job. His job was outsourced out from under him. generally jobs are yanked out from under people as they are thrown under the bus.

nobody blamed the victim.;)

the point is that - regardless of who is at fault - a person who suddenly finds themself out of work CAN do something about it.

mookie you just gave a classic example of changing the subject when the debate is clearly lost

gimpy117

02-28-11, 05:36 PM

the problem is, the proletariat's jobs that can pay well enough to support them well have all been outsourced to a country where they can literally pay them pennies on the dollar.

It's a fallacy to say that everyone on the ghetto is unemployed, id say many have jobs, just working somewhere for minimum wage, or selling illegal items etc. The problem is, where before these neighborhoods had workers making enough to live decently, now theres only enough for these people to live in squalor

Growler

02-28-11, 06:09 PM

AngusJS

02-28-11, 06:58 PM

they would have stayed at home in their little crappy apartment with their mother.And if he was divorced? Just have the kids tag along for the ride, I guess? I suppose they could all share the same canteen.

What happens when his car breaks down, and his $100 won't even begin to cover the repairs? Let me guess - it would all work out somehow.

It's a shame that reality is more complicated than your ideology can allow.

GoldenRivet

02-28-11, 07:12 PM

And if he was divorced?

Generally speaking, being divorced doesnt automatically mean the mother has no interest in taking care of her own GD children.

does the man have a mother or a father? trusted friend or neighbor? aunt? uncle? brother? sister? cousin? any relatives on the face of the earth?

What happens when his car breaks down, and his $100 won't even begin to cover the repairs? Let me guess - it would all work out somehow.

its called telling the mechanic your situation, offering to grab a broom, mop, screw driver and wrench or do anything you can to get a break on the bill. Believe it or not, there are folks out there who will let you do this. I've done it once before myself.

hitch hike for Christ's sake. i remember when I was a kid my dad's truck broke down on a long trip to kentucky to visit my grandparents... we rode in a big rig with a trucker for about 60 miles to the nearest dealership where we could get some kind of help.

whether you can believe it or not, people backpack across europe, they hitch hike across the united states too.

Unlike the more liberal population... I refuse to count any man out as helpless as long as he is willing to help himself!

It's a shame that reality is more complicated than your ideology can allow.

yes, reality is complicated - so complicated that JUST LIKE I SAID - this scenario is not for everyone... but it is something that can be done by MOST people :up:

GoldenRivet

02-28-11, 07:20 PM

in fairness... nobody ever said such an undertaking was without risk. :salute:

tater

02-28-11, 07:24 PM

People who elect to have kids without a safety net of a family at home (ie: spouse), and ideally some extended family in the area (grand parents, etc) I have little sympathy for.

I have no sympathy at all for people who choose to have kids out of wedlock. Yes, it's a CHOICE in this country. Birth control is effective, and cheap. If you are actually using it and are one the the (very rare) failures (ie: not a failure to USE BC, but a failure in the properly used method), then abortion is still quite legal in the US, and often paid for (the % of inner city women that have had abortions is staggeringly high).

There is simply no excuse to have kids until you've "built a nest." Even rodents know enough to make a nest.

GoldenRivet

02-28-11, 07:28 PM

There is simply no excuse to have kids until you've "built a nest." Even rodents know enough to make a nest.

win

im borrowing that by the way :03:

AVGWarhawk

02-28-11, 07:28 PM

And if he was divorced? Just have the kids tag along for the ride, I guess? I suppose they could all share the same canteen.

What happens when his car breaks down, and his $100 won't even begin to cover the repairs? Let me guess - it would all work out somehow.

It's a shame that reality is more complicated than your ideology can allow.

What reality is that other than, 'what if?' This seems to be the defeatist reality. Again, if the guy has a kid do you think he might have say...a mother to the kid? The mother's family that might look out for the kid? His family to look out for the kid? What if he was divorced..so what...he got friends and family. After all..that how he got the kid to begin with. Do you think it is just the kid and himself...no one else? In rare cases maybe...very rare that said individual has no one at all.

What happens if the car breaks down? What happens if he slips in the shower the day of his interview and cracks his head open? What if, what if, what if.....

Take the first step in faith. You don't have to see the whole staircase, just take the first step.
Martin Luther King, Jr. (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/martin_luther_king_jr.html)

AVGWarhawk

02-28-11, 07:29 PM

There is simply no excuse to have kids until you've "built a nest." Even rodents know enough to make a nest.

But it happens.

GoldenRivet

02-28-11, 07:31 PM

There are few things on this great earth as worthless and without value as the man who says "it cannot be done".

AVGWarhawk

02-28-11, 07:37 PM

There are few things on this great earth as worthless and without value as the man who says "it cannot be done".

Amen!

gimpy117

02-28-11, 07:43 PM

Losing a job doesn't make you a victim.

Waiting around for it to get better, and not doing anything to change it - doesn't make you a victim.

Getting your house knocked down and losing your job when your employer is flattened in a natural disaster - now, you're a victim.

Being a victim DOES NOT in any way excuse you from standing up, dusting yourself off, and getting to work making your situation better. It does not give you permission to whinge and gripe and sit on your duff waiting for someone else to make it better.

If you're doing something towards improving your lot, I'm all for it. If you're sitting there and whinging about how so-and-so did this to you, and therefore, you're owed something? Sorry. No joy.

what does it make you when your employer lays off everybody in quick succession and then moves your former job to mexico for short term profits?

The people of Flint and Detroit have tried to reinvent themselves and the city itself, but when it comes down to it, when there are few places making things anymore here, and, an out of work manufacturer isn't really somebody who's in demand right now. They'll just either go to mexico and employ the people there...or just hire an immigrant (illegal or not) to work at some bottom basement wage.

Tribesman

02-28-11, 07:53 PM

Its unbelivable the contradictory positions people are having to take to support their views.
As Angus said, you don't live in reality.

In one breath its, hey have family and friends in the locale so you can dump your kids while you go walkabout, the next its don't put down roots and connections in an area so you can just up and leave with no worries.

Taters "nest" idea is actually ludicrous in todays situation as people had their nests and thought they had their security and now they find that their nest is burnt, their tree condemned future propects of getting new twigs is non existantt as they have a burnt nest record and some bloody cuckoo is making a racket about these "silly" people not having a proper nest.
Now OK people might have their parents to fall back on, but in this rust belt situation you a looking at parents left in empty towns with their property asset now worthless and their pension provisions thrown away by some coked up banker, and you people want folk to leave kids with their grandparents who now live in a ghetto while they themselves live out the back of a car or in some doss house working illegaly in the black economy just to fix the damn motor car:doh:

AVGWarhawk

02-28-11, 08:10 PM

In one breath its, hey have family and friends in the locale so you can dump your kids while you go walkabout, the next its don't put down roots and connections in an area so you can just up and leave with no worries.

I'm not sure what kind of family you have but having to 'dump my kids' for a day or so with a family member is never a problem. Specifically if I'm going for a job interview. The pastor of my church and his wife would look after my kids in heartbeat. I can name 5 other family members that would watch my children. WTH...is every jobless person with a kid an introvert with no friends or family? This guy was going for a job interview...not a walkabout to whore and drink. Why not a family member? As far as roots, sometimes you have to cut and run...roots or not. My family moved 8 times since I was born. What seems to be the problem with up and leaving...roots or not? Everyone should attempt to make roots but also accept that the old root ball might have to up and leave. :DL

AVGWarhawk

02-28-11, 08:14 PM

what does it make you when your employer lays off everybody in quick succession and then moves your former job to mexico for short term profits?

The people of Flint and Detroit have tried to reinvent themselves and the city itself, but when it comes down to it, when there are few places making things anymore here, and, an out of work manufacturer isn't really somebody who's in demand right now. They'll just either go to mexico and employ the people there...or just hire an immigrant (illegal or not) to work at some bottom basement wage.

It makes you jobless. Been there and done that. Went and found another job. Got laid off in three months. Jobless again. Found another job and have been at it 6 years.

I do feel for the people of Flint and Detroit. The cities that were build on the car industry. If you did not work for them you worked at the local 5 and dime. The big employers go so does the jobs. Shame really. The Eastern Shore of Maryland is the same way. Purdue Chicken. You are a grower or packer. Anything other than that is the local 5 and dime for a job.

Bubblehead1980

02-28-11, 08:49 PM

HOLD THE PHONE!!!

I actually agree with mookie on something, wow:har:

Seriously....Mookie is right, in today's world for most people who go from a decent income to suddenly not having said income (usually the middle or lower middle class)jumping up and moving across the country to find a job(unless they are already hired), esp if have children, relatives they care for etc is just not really possible in most cases.Consider gas, food(but are high and keep rising) lodging, etc etc Jobs are tough to come by for pretty much everyone looking for one right now.

GoldenRivet

02-28-11, 09:28 PM

It makes you jobless. Been there and done that. Went and found another job. Got laid off in three months. Jobless again. Found another job and have been at it 6 years.

I do feel for the people of Flint and Detroit. The cities that were build on the car industry. If you did not work for them you worked at the local 5 and dime. The big employers go so does the jobs. Shame really. The Eastern Shore of Maryland is the same way. Purdue Chicken. You are a grower or packer. Anything other than that is the local 5 and dime for a job.

when an entire city is founded on a single industry... or maybe two industries, odds are considerably higher that the entire city economy could crumble.

tater

02-28-11, 11:11 PM

Taters "nest" idea is actually ludicrous in todays situation as people had their nests and thought they had their security and now they find that their nest is burnt, their tree condemned future propects of getting new twigs is non existantt as they have a burnt nest record and some bloody cuckoo is making a racket about these "silly" people not having a proper nest.
Now OK people might have their parents to fall back on, but in this rust belt situation you a looking at parents left in empty towns with their property asset now worthless and their pension provisions thrown away by some coked up banker, and you people want folk to leave kids with their grandparents who now live in a ghetto while they themselves live out the back of a car or in some doss house working illegaly in the black economy just to fix the damn motor car:doh:

Are you aware of what % of inner city children in the US are born out of wedlock? This is not a "Swedish" out of wedlock where they cohabitate, and don't marry to score better benis. This is the mom not necessarily even knowing who the dad is, or a dad that is entirely uninvolved in the childrens' (plural, all too often) lives past knocking mom up.

It's ~80%.

80%.

That's what I mean by "not making a nest."

The people who have lost their jobs are NOISE compared to that statistic. This is 100% preventable. Getting pregnant is a CHOICE, period. Having, you know, 2 involved parents is a necessary condition for a nest. Heck, it's a sufficient condition, IMO. I have friends who are unambiguously rich with kids fall into the "nest" category, and some that barely get by—but there are still 2 parents making a home. Unmarried, teenage girls with babies... not "nested." So I'm not talking about people who have their situation change, these are people who choose to have kids in an entirely untenable position.

nikimcbee

02-28-11, 11:28 PM

Are you aware of what % of inner city children in the US are born out of wedlock? This is not a "Swedish" out of wedlock where they cohabitate, and don't marry to score better benis. This is the mom not necessarily even knowing who the dad is, or a dad that is entirely uninvolved in the childrens' (plural, all too often) lives past knocking mom up.

It's ~80%.

80%.

That's what I mean by "not making a nest."

The people who have lost their jobs are NOISE compared to that statistic. This is 100% preventable. Getting pregnant is a CHOICE, period. Having, you know, 2 involved parents is a necessary condition for a nest. Heck, it's a sufficient condition, IMO. I have friends who are unambiguously rich with kids fall into the "nest" category, and some that barely get by—but there are still 2 parents making a home. Unmarried, teenage girls with babies... not "nested." So I'm not talking about people who have their situation change, these are people who choose to have kids in an entirely untenable position.

Sounds like an episode of Maury Povich:doh:

nikimcbee

02-28-11, 11:30 PM

when an entire city is founded on a single industry... or maybe two industries, odds are considerably higher that the entire city economy could crumble.

Speaking of that, it would be interesting to see what would happen to the West Coast, if the Tech industry tanked.:o

GoldenRivet

03-01-11, 12:00 AM

Speaking of that, it would be interesting to see what would happen to the West Coast, if the Tech industry tanked.:o

they still have the porn industry... ten thousand years from now that will still be booming

August

03-01-11, 12:14 AM

they still have the porn industry... ten thousand years from now that will still be booming

I think Internet porn pretty much dies with Internet anonymity.

Tribesman

03-01-11, 04:34 AM

@AVG

I'm not sure what kind of family you have but having to 'dump my kids' for a day or so with a family member is never a problem.
To use an example given here example it isn't a day or two, you said about driving for two days to get to an interview, so that means really a five day round trip. Then moving 1200 miles away for a fresh start in new accomodation waiting for a new paycheck when they didn't even have enough money for a motel room on the journey.
Reality check?
Nice idea, now when they need their friends and family again they are all 1200 miles away.
Unless of course you abandon your kids to someone elses care long term.

My family moved 8 times since I was born.
And?

BTW AVG, you miss the biggest problem with this situation in todays world.
credit history. Before I rent I want a bloody good credit history from them, I ain't gonna take someone who has just been forclosed for not paying their debt or as in some examples mentioned evicted for not paying rent and dragging out the eviction process.

@Tater
Are you aware of what % of inner city children in the US are born out of wedlock?
What has that got to do with the price of cheese?
Oh yeah....."So I'm not talking about people who have their situation change"
So given the actual topic..... Are you aware of what percentage of marriages in the US end in divorce?

AngusJS

03-01-11, 06:25 AM

does the man have a mother or a father? trusted friend or neighbor? aunt? uncle? brother? sister? cousin? any relatives on the face of the earth?Oh he does, they just live 1,000 miles away in the opposite direction. He left them in search of a job in the first place, per your advice.

its called telling the mechanic your situation, offering to grab a broom, mop, screw driver and wrench or do anything you can to get a break on the bill. Believe it or not, there are folks out there who will let you do this. I've done it once before myself.Mechanic: You'll need a new transmission. It'll cost $3,000 and take a week to do.

Mr. Bootstrap: Ok, I only have $100. So can I just help out around the garage to pay it off, even though your own employees would require months to make that much money? Oh, and since all my money is going to the repairs, I'll have to live in my car here at the garage, use your bathroom, and I'll have to dumpster dive out back. Is that cool?

Mechanic: Ummm... no.

hitch hike for Christ's sake. i remember when I was a kid my dad's truck broke down on a long trip to kentucky to visit my grandparents... we rode in a big rig with a trucker for about 60 miles to the nearest dealership where we could get some kind of help.

whether you can believe it or not, people backpack across europe, they hitch hike across the united states too.So, break the law, then? No problem, I guess. I'm sure Mr. Bootstrap can just offer to do odd jobs around the police station to pay off the fine when he's caught.

And Europe is not the US.

Unlike the more liberal population... I refuse to count any man out as helpless as long as he is willing to help himself!Unlike the more conservative population, I refuse to live in a fantasy land.

Maybe the scruffy individualist BS is useful as a sort of golden lie, but that's what it'll remain - a lie.

yes, reality is complicated - so complicated that JUST LIKE I SAID - this scenario is not for everyone... but it is something that can be done by MOST people :up:But then your caveat at the end seemed to imply that while there are people who can't do this, they are the ones who can't or won't help themselves.

AVGWarhawk

03-01-11, 09:10 AM

@AVG

To use an example given here example it isn't a day or two, you said about driving for two days to get to an interview, so that means really a five day round trip. Then moving 1200 miles away for a fresh start in new accomodation waiting for a new paycheck when they didn't even have enough money for a motel room on the journey.
Reality check?
Nice idea, now when they need their friends and family again they are all 1200 miles away.
Unless of course you abandon your kids to someone elses care long term.

And?

BTW AVG, you miss the biggest problem with this situation in todays world.
credit history. Before I rent I want a bloody good credit history from them, I ain't gonna take someone who has just been forclosed for not paying their debt or as in some examples mentioned evicted for not paying rent and dragging out the eviction process.

@Tater

What has that got to do with the price of cheese?
Oh yeah....."So I'm not talking about people who have their situation change"
So given the actual topic..... Are you aware of what percentage of marriages in the US end in divorce?

Abandon kids? Who said anything about abandoning kids? Call it what you like, a family or friend watching your kids is not abandoning them. Long term. Is say 10 days long term? Let's not embellish. I put up my brother-in-law and sister-in-law plus their German shepard for 5 weeks while they settled on a house. This is what families do. I would look after their kids as well if there was a job interview. If you think a family member would not help out then I do not know what to say about your family and experience with them. My family would help in heartbeat. Furthermore, does this individual not recieve unemployment benefits to help with say a place to stay until his first paycheck is received?

You are preaching to the choir on credit situation. I have been their and done that. I dug out of the hole. Losing a job with wife, kids and house to look after. Been there and done that not once but twice. Furthermore, the folks getting foreclosed on...the credit check for a rental...check it man...I have friends that have the worst credit report anyone has seen finding places to rent. I have family members who just got a rental house (second rental) and these clowns were foreclosed on 2 years ago. Their eviction process was over 2 years on the mortgage they let go!!! Not one red cent was paid to the mortgage in 2 years! So the credit check issue is a bump in the road. Nothing more. Rental properties can be had, good, bad or no credit. I was born at night but is was not last night. I did not miss anything concerning credit.

tater

03-01-11, 09:24 AM

What has that got to do with the price of cheese?
Oh yeah....."So I'm not talking about people who have their situation change"
So given the actual topic..... Are you aware of what percentage of marriages in the US end in divorce?

It has a lot to do with the entire discussion since we went on a (typical) tangent. The bulk of "urban" family units have no father around. The US divorce rate is between 40-50% over a marriage. That says nothing about the number of kids who live in divorced households, as a reasonable % of these divorces happen before kids, or after kids have left the home. Even so, divorced fathers usually maintain connection and financial interest in their children. Women that have litters of kids without ever bothering to get married in the first place are an entirely different problem. Their economic stats are far worse than those of divorced women (the usual primary caregivers).

Fatherlessness (kids born when the mother has never been married to the father) is a huge problem in the black community. Some honest black leaders point this out themselves (on both sides of the political system).

This was about the tangential problem introduced regarding the guy seeking employment far from where he lived by driving 1200 miles.

On topic, it's a little less likely to apply since they are buying houses, which, assuming they can no longer get NINJa loans (No Income, No Job) means they are very likely families so this doesn't apply except in the broad cultural sense since any honest to goodness black families are somewhat rare overall, and exceedingly rare coming from an inner city. This means the kids might have a good family, but their friends back in the 'hood were overwhelmingly likely to not have a relationship with their dads (except maybe knowing he was that 'playa down the block).

Armistead

03-01-11, 10:39 AM

The just world phenomenon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_phenomenon) at work. Blame the victim. "If you're out of a job, it's because there's something wrong with you and you're lazy."

Maybe you guys should be open to the idea that bad things happen to good people who aren't lazy drains on the welfare rolls. It's not all the fault of the system, and it's not all the fault of the individual.

I can testify to that. I was stricken with a nerve disease, a rare one. I had insurance, disability, etc..Worked for the same company for 20 years. Doctors had no clue, most gave up, said I was stressed, it cost me that job. I opened my own business, still trying to get help and finally got dx a Mayo, but the only cure that helps is if my illness was found at the start. It got worse, in and out of hospitals, lost my DL's and on enough narcotics for pain that would kill an average person.

Instead of using my disability, I continued working as I could, maybe stupid on my part, slowly I made nothing, so I started living off my savings, about 150K. Course I was paying Cobra, almost 1000 a month, with medical bills, that money lasted about a year and half. Next thing I knew I was broke.

Finally one month I was one day late on paying Cobra. Strange, it was due on Monday and I sent it overnight on Friday. I was worried, but told it would show Monday, they said they got it Tuesday and they dropped me. Now I was in trouble. All my specialist dropped me, had no Doctors, lost all my meds, etc...I couldn't get medical insurance anywhere because of pre-existing illness.

My wife was disabled at the time due to a car accident and 4 operations. She was in the middle of the suit process that would take a few years. The Lawyer said we would be fools to settle until all her medical was done and Doctors knew the result. We were in a mess. I now lived off selling anything I had of value, including my large civil war collection. Finally, being broke, she had to move to another state to her sisters with my son.

My home was 7 years from being paid for. I fought to keep it, tried the Obama mod process through Chase bank, too long to explain, but what Chase does is really criminal, I ended up having to file Chapter 13 to save my home, after I was approved for a mod, that later got turned down, but I was never told. A legal aid lawyer saved me from getting tossed out, but still had to file Chapter 13.

Chapter 13 was a mistake, because you have to pay back anyone you owed. Next thing I knew I had close to 400K of medical bills to pay. I didn't understand, but this was 7 years of bills from my illness. If you have insurance, Doctors take what the insurance pays and write off the rest...so you think. Everything Doctors had written off after insurance they are allowed to add back to a chapter 13. My total Chapter 13 payment went to over $5000 a month. I made two payments, then defaulted. I couldn't pay it, I was totally broke.

I often lived in my home without power, often went without food. I couldn't drive anywhere to get help. I also dealt with great pride, me, I would rather die or find a way than go ask for help, One day I woke up in the hospital in ICU. My nerve damage had effected my organs. The stupid state Doctors I go stuck with never had a clue. My neighbor came to check on me and said I was totally incoherrent. I spent 6 weeks in the hospital. Had they done some simple test, no, but would spend over 100K when it became life threatening.

I was finally released, back home to poverty. I got lucky in a sense. The Doctor here contacted the Neuro at Mayo that dx me. They were in a research program with my illness. I was able to go at no charge. The treatment put me in a coma for 12 days, with that and meds they try to reset the way your nerves act. It actually helped, but I was stuck with all the nerve damage. I joined a support group at this time, those people, all ill themselves probably saved me, they checked on me, brought me food, we illegally all shared meds.

My wife came back and went back to work part time as a pro dog show handler. In time we started breeding, etc...It barely paid the bills. She chooses to work in pain herself, but gets by. I opened my business back up, don't make much as I work from home and sub out what work I can get, but who can wait years for SS approval, the money I paid in. We both also work part time doing social work for some different groups trying to get help for the disabled.

I've been through the game. The so called free services, free care at the hospital is a joke. Before you even qualify they drive you into utter poverty. Then all the red tape, hours standing in long lines, dealing with people who are overburdened, Doctors that rush, angry and just throw tons of paperwork for you to fill out. If you're ill, this becomes so burdensome you just say F. it. Only a lucky few have family that help and even they tire out after a few years. It becomes a lonely process. I would've died, starved or probably killed myself had my wife not come back and chosen to live in utter povety with me and slowly we dug out to where now we barely get by.

I have dealt with many like me. Most all were white upper middle class driven into total loss from illness. I check on several that were once happy, now alone, everything lost. Many have been homeless waiting on section 8 housing. I have personally walked in to check and found dead bodies, people in pain without the medical care that couldn't deal with illness and poverty. Often it's not pretty. The total system is designed to push you out, overloaded and just doesn't work.

If you've read this far, one thing I've learned, the system is designed to fail, it's designed to work against the uneducated, you almost have to have lawyers to get through it; it's designed to line the pockets of corporations. The biggest issue of failure is when people lose jobs from illness, they can't afford medical insurance, it's downhill from there. The only help you get is when it's really too late to do you much good. You may think the world will be there to save you, family, friends, God, co-workers, social services, just watch how all slowly vanish as the years go by.

Mine all started by simply falling off a ladder and breaking my arm, some wierd process misfired all my nerves. I never thought I would end up like this, don't think it can't happen to you.

Damn, sorry so long, but I tire of people thinking people deserve it, their refusal to see how a system based on mass profit preys on the ill, people that fail to see the many human and cultural issues forcing millions more into poverty, why corporate america gets even richer...and we have no problem bailing them out.

Tribesman

03-01-11, 11:04 AM

If you think a family member would not help out then I do not know what to say about your family and experience with them.
Its real world time AVG.
So I am off to Italy for a new job, one brother is in NY, another is in Adelaide , while a third is In Utrecht and a fourth in London, which one do the kids go to?
The old fella of course....ooops Cardiff. in laws ...Yeovil. aunts uncles ......all over the world.
Hey I got an aunt up the road...bugger she is already minding a dozen kids. Wow I got a cousin in town, damn shes off to London next week.

Yes any of them would help out, but this is the real world.
Luckily I spent my life moving and moving and moving for work just like near enough everyone else of my generation and the generations before and now I don't have to.
I know my kids are going to have to move hundreds or thousands of miles away to find decent work.
But this issue is about the intermediate generation who are stuck in a position where they cannot move.
Then again America is different, over there you can rip people off for a fortune and start afresh twelve months later.

AVGWarhawk

03-01-11, 11:57 AM

Its real world time AVG.
So I am off to Italy for a new job, one brother is in NY, another is in Adelaide , while a third is In Utrecht and a fourth in London, which one do the kids go to?
The old fella of course....ooops Cardiff. in laws ...Yeovil. aunts uncles ......all over the world.
Hey I got an aunt up the road...bugger she is already minding a dozen kids. Wow I got a cousin in town, damn shes off to London next week.

Yes any of them would help out, but this is the real world.
Luckily I spent my life moving and moving and moving for work just like near enough everyone else of my generation and the generations before and now I don't have to.
I know my kids are going to have to move hundreds or thousands of miles away to find decent work.
But this issue is about the intermediate generation who are stuck in a position where they cannot move.
Then again America is different, over there you can rip people off for a fortune and start afresh twelve months later.

If that is your real world I suggest a new world for you. Sorry, I do not know anyone in this 'real world' situation you describe. It looks like a defeatist attitude to me. You look at worst case senario. I look at best case. Some just refuse to look.

Then again America is different, over there you can rip people off for a fortune and start afresh twelve months later.

Yea...ask Bernie Madoff. :O:

GoldenRivet

03-01-11, 12:56 PM

AVG you're right. All some people know is defeat and how to quit.

Those are the types that lose their jobs and jus say "oh well" and sit around waiting for the unemployment check. (which is another thing these jolly jokers aren't considering... That the guy might just have some unemployment money)

Another thing, does nobody have a rainy day fund anymore? Have parents completely stopped teaching work ethic and financial responsibility.

Theoretically, the type of man who wants for himself and his family enough is the type to have a coffee can rainy day fund.

Theoretically -if he just lost his job he has enough credit to pay for the transmission he hypothetically needs.

We could spend all week adding hypotheticals to this little scenario but it won't change the fact that if I lost my job tomorrow and didn't have new work inside of 5 days... I'm researching the job market in another city, loading up the truck, taking my rainy day fund and going to get that job.

Anyone wanting to work and take care of their family can find a way. Those who don't want to... Will piss and moan about the impossibility of it all and turn their backs on all responsibility.

On my first big job interview, I slept in an airport terminal and took a spit bath in a public restroom.
There are those who can do such things... And those who - I guess - feel that society owes them a job, or perhaps the feel above something like sleeping in a car or a 5am spit bath. Who knows why some people just give up like that?

Beats me.

Those who want it bad enough, find a way.

One of the most successful restaurant owners in my town started out homeless in NYC. I refuse to believe success cannot be achieved by ones own initiative.

Tribesman

03-01-11, 12:56 PM

If that is your real world I suggest a new world for you.
Why? I traveled widely chasing the best money and now I can sit back and relax.
But thats just me, I am lucky, other people have mortages on increrasingly devalued houses and lack the flexibility or reserves to just get up and pack off elsewhere.

Sorry, I do not know anyone in this 'real world' situation you describe.
Maybe you should get out and about more.

It looks like a defeatist attitude to me.
Far from it.

You look at worst case senario. I look at best case. Some just refuse to look.

Isn't it funny how much your "best case" has echoes the very complaints of the "bad case" made in the opening piece.
Its sorta reminiscent to put it back in great depression days of the locals attacking people who had migrated to better areas looking for work and burning people out who were sleeping rough just while they looked for employment.
You seem to be sugar coating reality AVG to make it more palatable

AVGWarhawk

03-01-11, 01:27 PM

Why? I traveled widely chasing the best money and now I can sit back and relax.
But thats just me, I am lucky, other people have mortages on increrasingly devalued houses and lack the flexibility or reserves to just get up and pack off elsewhere.

Maybe you should get out and about more.

Far from it.

Isn't it funny how much your "best case" has echoes the very complaints of the "bad case" made in the opening piece.
Its sorta reminiscent to put it back in great depression days of the locals attacking people who had migrated to better areas looking for work and burning people out who were sleeping rough just while they looked for employment.
You seem to be sugar coating reality AVG to make it more palatable

I find your argument in this thread increasing invalid.

But thats just me, I am lucky, other people have mortages on increrasingly devalued houses and lack the flexibility or reserves to just get up and pack off elsewhere.

Sure you can walk away from the mortgage. People are doing it everyday and finding other places to live. The contract for the home states if a certain amount of money is paid per month for a certain amount of years that person can live in the home. The home is soley owned by this person if the payments are met in full. Everyone has the flexability to up and leave with little recourse from the bank. You are left with a mark on your record but as we find it makes little difference. I personally know one that has done this. So as far as getting out in the real world..I live it everyday with my mortgage, business levels dropping, children and all the other plethora of bills associated. I don't sugar coat a thing. I guess you just missed the post were I have done the losing the job not once but twice. The credit hole.

Its sorta reminiscent to put it back in great depression days of the locals attacking people who had migrated to better areas looking for work and burning people out who were sleeping rough just while they looked for employment.

I have know idea how you construed this from anything I have posted. Enjoy your day. :salute:

gimpy117

03-01-11, 01:28 PM

Thats how It is armistead...america throws many people under the bus.
I see a lot of people that seem decent, but are in hard times and wonder what happened.

I see homeless who are obviously mentally Ill, and I wonder...why is nobody helping them?

I see 75 year olds working at Meijer and i wonder...why are they working? do they just love it? or paying for pills?

Then I see people in your unfortunate situation, people who are throwing bake sales and benefits to get over illness, flat broke because they're sick.

America Throws these people under the bus, and people in the ghetto are not different. Why does this happen? Because theres no money to be made, no profit margin for time and kindness to help somebody less fortunate than you, no investment return on that homeless man who needed mental care, no dividends from that man who was sick. I think somewhere along the line money got in the way of somebody doing the decent thing.

Armistead

03-01-11, 02:16 PM

Well Gimp, my post was too long for most to read, but I've lived it.

Most wear blinders and look at what they refer to as lazy people taking advantage, not looking at the facts that a larger majority are people with illness. Before the economic meltdown caused by corporations getting rich, over 62% of bankruptcies were due to illness, with most having medical insurance in the beginning, a large percentage middle class.

When you get a serious chronic illness, you'll soon find yourself in serious trouble. Our healthcare is based on mass profits from insurance, to pharma, to overpriced medical care and if you find yourself seriously ill, you'll soon see you don't fit into the profit plan.

Some should look at facts.
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/health/2009/06/health-care-bankruptcy-on-rise-medical-debt-medical-bills-how-to-avoid-bankruptcy.html

the_tyrant

03-01-11, 02:27 PM

@armistead
I read you long post, thats an amazing story you have there
how are you now? Is your disease cured?

UnderseaLcpl

03-01-11, 02:56 PM

The just world phenomenon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_phenomenon) at work.
There's a name for that? Hah, color me stupid! The closest approximation I could ever come up with was schadenfreude, but it's not really the same thing. I always figured that phenomenon was just a natural result of millions of years of competitive co-evolution and sexual selection pressure expressing itself, but everyone already knew it so we didn't need a name for it.

This is why I read your posts, Mark. Once again, I can honestly say that I learned something today because of you. :salute:

Blame the victim. "If you're out of a job, it's because there's something wrong with you and you're lazy."

Maybe you guys should be open to the idea that bad things happen to good people who aren't lazy drains on the welfare rolls. It's not all the fault of the system, and it's not all the fault of the individual.

Well said, but I would offer the counterpoint that most of "us guys" don't have such an ignorant attitude. For one thing, we know perfectly well that bad things happen to good people, including ourselves. That's what makes people like GoldenRivet so remarkable; they know the risk involved in throwing everything they have into an endeavour, and they do it anyway. Most of the time they fail, but they keep trying. They also provide good work for us lesser mortals in the process, which is why we support them rather than trying to effectively punish them with taxes and restrictions imposed by people who don't create jobs or wealth. You could call the attitude simple, but there is an elegance to simplicity.

Secondly, we are not without consideration for those who fall through the cracks. The most generous contributors to the public welfare are the privately wealthy in every sense. Percentage of income, total amount, effective results, whatever. You name it, they're on top. You might think that the government has contributed more in terms of total wealth donated or total good done, but you'd be wrong. Virtually every cent of what the government contributes is taken from someone. Not earned or generated, but taken, by force if necessary. Even then, it operates at considerable loss.

If that's not enough, just look at the good they have done thus far. The whole reason we are even having this discussion is because the government has failed to do what it promised to do at every level. Two-thirds of the annual taxed income of the wealthiest nation on the planet devoted to entitlements that nobody is happy with!? And you think that the same mechanism that enabled such a thing by promising equality is going to acheive it by imposing penalties on the producers of wealth, as if they had enough wealth to solve the world's woes in the first place?

How can someone intelligent enough to be concerned with the common welfare be so blind to the mechanisms that produce it? I assume that you have a better ideal than free-trade, but I'm curious as to how you would ever manage to implement such a thing without driving trade away in the process.

My dog ate my wealth-generating successful business. Where's yours?

Armistead

03-01-11, 03:12 PM

@armistead
I read you long post, thats an amazing story you have there
how are you now? Is your disease cured?

No, there is no cure per say. It was called RSD when I got it, more referred to as CRPS now. What happens is a person gets an injury, this sends pain signals to the brain, but for the unlucky few the brain misfires sending pain signals all over the body and nerve death sets in. It's considered the most painful disease known to man, often called the suicide disease.

The only way I could explain it was a frozen burn, like setting outside naked in freezing weather until the cold turns into severe burn, like painful frostbite, cept you can never go inside to get warm. You feel on fire. Mine went systemic, over 80% of my body.

If they figure it out early, they can do nerve blocks and stop it, but it's missed 90% of the time. Usually it takes 5 years before most get a dx.

I keep count, I've had 17 friends over the last seven years commit suicide that were in a few support groups around here. Most give up when pushed into total poverty and lose medical care. Shame, with the proper treatment and pain meds, most live in severe pain, but they can bare it, but you need lot's of money and good medical insurance to get correct help. Just a few months ago I went to check on a man in our group that wouldn't answer his phone. I already knew. Got to his house, door unlocked, found him in the bathtub, shot himself through the heart. Also found out he had been cooking hard dogfood mixed with flour to eat.

There are hundreds of thousands that suffer from such nerve diseases. Most end up in utter poverty and pain, many can't handle both. The fact is these people are discarded by our society. Sadly, strong narcotics are cheap, Neurologist aren't, so many do without.

the_tyrant

03-01-11, 03:35 PM

No, there is no cure per say. It was called RSD when I got it, more referred to as CRPS now. What happens is a person gets an injury, this sends pain signals to the brain, but for the unlucky few the brain misfires sending pain signals all over the body and nerve death sets in. It's considered the most painful disease known to man, often called the suicide disease.

The only way I could explain it was a frozen burn, like setting outside naked in freezing weather until the cold turns into severe burn, like painful frostbite, cept you can never go inside to get warm. You feel on fire. Mine went systemic, over 80% of my body.

If they figure it out early, they can do nerve blocks and stop it, but it's missed 90% of the time. Usually it takes 5 years before most get a dx.

I keep count, I've had 17 friends over the last seven years commit suicide that were in a few support groups around here. Most give up when pushed into total poverty and lose medical care. Shame, with the proper treatment and pain meds, most live in severe pain, but they can bare it, but you need lot's of money and good medical insurance to get correct help. Just a few months ago I went to check on a man in our group that wouldn't answer his phone. I already knew. Got to his house, door unlocked, found him in the bathtub, shot himself through the heart. Also found out he had been cooking hard dogfood mixed with flour to eat.

There are hundreds of thousands that suffer from such nerve diseases. Most end up in utter poverty and pain, many can't handle both. The fact is these people are discarded by our society. Sadly, strong narcotics are cheap, Neurologist aren't, so many do without.

I don't know what to say.
Well good luck:salute:

Armistead

03-01-11, 03:41 PM

I don't know what to say.
Well good luck:salute:

Hehe, wish I had a dollar for everytime I heard that...:D

I never want pity or sorrow, just wish people would see how failed the system is instead of dealing with it by blaming others without looking at the facts. I have a hard time hearing CEO's of insurance corps, pharma, ect.. getting 15 million dollar bonuses while some poor sick person kills themselves cause they can't afford a Doctor's visit. I'm all for profit, but when corps buy our government to provide mass profit returns over health care, sucks, but that's the american way.
but I'm sure the CEO's wife needs another pair of $5000 shoes.

In the midst of a deep economic recession, America's health insurance companies increased their profits by 56 percent in 2009, a year that saw 2.7 million people lose their private coverage. If you think that's capitalism, good luck, the facts prove it's corporate american buying regulation to make them rich over basic medical care.

Sad to say, I was much the same way before.

gimpy117

03-01-11, 03:50 PM

GoldenRivet

03-01-11, 04:03 PM

Armistead

03-01-11, 04:39 PM

its a sad situation. and reform is needed... i just dont think uncle same could do a better job of it, nor do i think the tax payer should be forced to buy.

but thats a story for another thread ;)

Maybe, but let's be honest, the GOP wouldn't even be talking healthcare reform if not for liberals. When corporate america connected healthcare to wall street for mass profit, the system failed. Add to that congress selling their seats passing regulations to insure mass profit over medical care...and these mass profits have caused no trickle down effect.

In the next ten years another 20 million americans will lose medical insurance. We all know the fix, the greed will continue, a mass thinning of the heard will take place, just hope you're not one of them. If you have young children now, expect a much different world for them, by the time they grow up a mere 10% will control 80% of all wealth in the US.

and you guys still call that capitalism....

Armistead

03-01-11, 05:01 PM

:nope: that story makes me sad on so many levels. America, the richest country in the world, lets our citizens go untreated, and reduced to eating dog food to stay alive.

you are right, the profit based system we have is no way to deal with health. A persons health is a basic need and something that you could almost say is a right. Profit vs. care for a patient will always end up generating conflicts of interest. I too also believe that capitolsim, with some restrictions is a much better system than some form of communism, but making profits on somebody's basic need for health isn't really something i stand for, for the reason of conflict of interest i stated before.

As far as I know, health care isn't considered a constitutional right for americans. Prision inmates are the only people in the country with a constitutional guarantee to free health care.

Other recent studies showed that terrorist in Gitmo get better healthcare than the average american and have better diets than 40% of american children.

tater

03-01-11, 07:49 PM

As far as I know, health care isn't considered a constitutional right for americans. Prision inmates are the only people in the country with a constitutional guarantee to free health care.

Other recent studies showed that terrorist in Gitmo get better healthcare than the average american and have better diets than 40% of american children.

Where do you get this stuff? Huffpo? Dailykos?

The large majority of Americans have healthcare plans, and all polls show they are happy with the one they have. That's why the democrats lied and said that their plan allowed you to "keep your plan" even though the nuts and bolts are designed to force employers to drop people onto government care.

Better diets? Yeah, because they are forced to eat a diet set by a nutritionist because they have no choice—they are in jail. Parents are to blame for their choices in feeding kids.

tater

03-01-11, 07:56 PM

In the midst of a deep economic recession, America's health insurance companies increased their profits by 56 percent in 2009, a year that saw 2.7 million people lose their private coverage. If you think that's capitalism, good luck, the facts prove it's corporate american buying regulation to make them rich over basic medical care..

LOL. Great way to post a statistic.

Their profits increased 56% in 2009. I'll take that as true.

That means above 2008... what could have happened in 2008 that might have impacted profits? Hmmm, I have no idea... could it be that money that was invested until needed might have dropped when the market was in free fall?

Also, 56% sounds huge... but the healthcare segment of insurance has very low profit. 1-2%, in fact (other insurance that these companies do is far more profitable as a %). So a 56% increase means their profits might go up from 1% to 1.56%, or perhaps 2% to 3.12%. 3% is a low profit.

Healthcare doesn't need reform—unless the reform is to get rid of medicaid and medicare (I'm open to starting over with a safety net program for the very poor, nothing else).

"Reform" usually means idiotic laws like "no preexisting conditions" nonsense. Insurance is gambling. The whole point is for people at higher risk to pay more. It costs more to insure a Bugatti Veyron than a Ford Focus for good reason, the expectation value on a payout is higher.

gimpy117

03-01-11, 08:03 PM

As far as I know, health care isn't considered a constitutional right for americans. Prision inmates are the only people in the country with a constitutional guarantee to free health care.

Other recent studies showed that terrorist in Gitmo get better healthcare than the average american and have better diets than 40% of american children.

I wasn't getting at healthcare being a right, I was talking about you're right to Life. Allowing health companies to act the way they are is hindering that right. Theres no right that says you need insurance, but I think every american ought to have the ability to keep themselves healthy when the unthinkable happens, without lining somebody's pockets and going eyeballs deep in debt.

but as to calling it capitoilism, I think you are right, were shifting to something else. Some call it plutocracy, some hint at Neofeudalism. Witch ever way you put it, the wealth coming from the progress in the economy is piling up at the top, and we are forced to become indebted to the richest companies in the world to have some of the basic things we need. We then work for most of the rest of out lives to pay them. Sounds like serfs to me

tater

03-01-11, 09:43 PM

I wasn't getting at healthcare being a right, I was talking about you're right to Life. Allowing health companies to act the way they are is hindering that right. Theres no right that says you need insurance, but I think every american ought to have the ability to keep themselves healthy when the unthinkable happens, without lining somebody's pockets and going eyeballs deep in debt.

but as to calling it capitoilism, I think you are right, were shifting to something else. Some call it plutocracy, some hint at Neofeudalism. Witch ever way you put it, the wealth coming from the progress in the economy is piling up at the top, and we are forced to become indebted to the richest companies in the world to have some of the basic things we need. We then work for most of the rest of out lives to pay them. Sounds like serfs to me

Except that point was rubbish.

How are "health companies" acting, exactly? Their profits are not high. What about "solutions?" The Obamacare bill does nothing, nothing at all to reduce cost. It will in fact raise costs. The only way the government can reduce costs short of major tort reform (which will only drop costs 10-20% (these will take a long time to happen, as well, as it is the "culture" of defensive medicine. It might literally take a new generation or a few of docs to be realized after tort reform.) is for them to get out of healthcare, or ration care. Period.

The bottom line is that aggressive care for terminal illness is the vast majority of lifetime healthcare costs. Something like 90% of total, lifetime costs are incurred in the last months of life. These costs are independent of the wealth of the patient. Your ICU care costs the same if you are medicaid or Bill Gates. Can Steve Jobs afford more aggressive care than medicaid might pay for? Sure. End result any better? Nope.

Rationing is actually a natural result of unfettered insurance—companies will try and reduce costs, but they are balanced by having to compete with other companies that offer more for a given premium. If the patient doesn't like it, they can switch companies. Yes, if they have a preexisting condition they might have to pay a LOT un a "pure" insurance world. That's good, since they are poor risks, they SHOULD pay more. A more "market" approach would tend to self correct if allowed. Right now nearly 50% of healthcare is already government controlled, and because of that it is entirely screwed up.

Imagine the oil industry being told that they must sell 50% of their gas for $1.00/gallon to the poor. What would the rest of us pay, do you think? That's exactly analogous to what government involvement in healthcare has done (except the numbers are worse than that gas example in healthcare).

gimpy117

03-01-11, 09:53 PM

Yes, people do spend a lot of money in the last bit of life, but something like 62% of bankruptcies were due to health care costs. Im not talking about end of life expenses here, I'm talking about people with chronic conditions being bankrupted sometimes even though they had insurance.

Also, Im not saying obamacare was ever a good bill, don't assume i was saying that. Im saying we need a better bill whatever it is. Personally I want universal health care.

thirdly, Insurance companies are raising rates, and taking people who have paid into the system for years and dropping them for little reason when they get sick. They deny coverage for profits. And after they get done cutting them off, our people are at the mercy of the system of high costs. These aren't just cable subscribers, these are SICK PEOPLE, dropping them and acting like they do is terrible. And what? "they can just switch" think for one second. they'll get denied by every other company...BECAUSE THEY HAVE A MEDICAL CONDITION.

something about health companies not making huge profits??
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HealthCare/health-insurers-post-record-profits/story?id=9818699 I guess it dosen't count to you unless they make as much as exxon during the high gas cost crisis 2 years ago.

BTW..your oil story is rubbish. Again, we are talking about peoples health and lives here, not fueling somebody's car. If you can't afford gas you ride a bike of the bus. If you can't afford cancer treatment you either rack up a huge bill or DIE

tater

03-01-11, 10:06 PM

Yes, people do spend a lot of money in the last bit of life, but something like 50% or more of bankruptcies were due to health care costs. Im not talking about end of life expenses here, I'm talking about people with chronic conditions being bankrupted even though they had insurance.

That stat is nonsense, it was debunked years ago.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/2/w74.abstract?rss=1

More like 17%, and not middle class, but poor people. Also, when your situation is already heading to bankruptcy, virtually any added expense at all will push you over the edge.

Also, Im not saying obamacare was ever a good bill, don't assume i was saying that. Im saying we need a better bill whatever it is. Personally I want universal health care.

Ie: you want me to pay for your healthcare because you are too lazy to pay yourself. Gotcha.

thirdly, Insurance companies are raising rates, and taking people who have paid into the system for years and dropping them for little reason when they get sick. They deny coverage for profits. And after they get done cutting them off, our people are at the mercy of the system of high costs. These aren't just cable subscribers, these are SICK PEOPLE, dropping them and acting like they do is terrible. And what? "they can just switch" think for one second. they'll get denied by every other company...BECAUSE THEY HAVE A MEDICAL CONDITION.

something about health companies not making huge profits??
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HealthCare/health-insurers-post-record-profits/story?id=9818699 I guess it dosen't count to you unless they make as much as exxon during the high gas cost crisis 2 years ago.

Their profits increased 56% Wow! To what % did they increase, it's not in the article for some reason. The reason is that it doesn't look as bad for the hated insurance companies if the headline was "Health insurers profits soared last year from 1% to 1.56%!"

Again, they profit margin is very small. 56% means at most a ~1% change in revenues.

gimpy117

03-01-11, 10:20 PM

That stat is nonsense, it was debunked years ago.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/2/w74.abstract?rss=1

More like 17%, and not middle class, but poor people. Also, when your situation is already heading to bankruptcy, virtually any added expense at all will push you over the edge.

Thats still a significant number. getting closer to a quarter.
oh and Im gonna go with CNN on this one what was your source again?
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/health/bankruptcy.medical.bills_1_medical-bills-bankruptcies-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH

or the NY times:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/medical-bills-cause-most-bankruptcies/

Ps. My articles aren't copyright 2006.

Ie: you want me to pay for your healthcare because you are too lazy to pay yourself. Gotcha.

Thats funny...because EVERYBODY pays for it smart one. you would pay taxes and get health care, and so would I. Under a bill like that nobody gets to freeload unless you are legitimately poor enough to not pay any taxes...like it is now for every other program there is.

Their profits increased 56% Wow! To what % did they increase, it's not in the article for some reason. The reason is that it doesn't look as bad for the hated insurance companies if the headline was "Health insurers profits soared last year from 1% to 1.56%!"

Again, they profit margin is very small. 56% means at most a ~1% change in revenues.

huh? 56% increase in profits? that means the money they make after all of that went up by 56% either which way you put it, they made much more this year than they did last year by dropping customers and raising premiums. 5 companies made 12 billion.

August

03-01-11, 11:04 PM

tater

03-01-11, 11:16 PM

Thats still a significant number. getting closer to a quarter.
oh and Im gonna go with CNN on this one what was your source again?
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/health/bankruptcy.medical.bills_1_medical-bills-bankruptcies-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH

or the NY times:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/medical-bills-cause-most-bankruptcies/

Ps. My articles aren't copyright 2006.

The MA study all this is based on didn't even use actual bankruptcies, but an algorithm that assumed them even when they did not exist (they apparently started with people ona sort of "pre-forclosure" list, some of whom eventually we. Even NPR debunked this (actually the very left "This American Life") just last year.

The stat has been re-quoted wrongly since the study was first done. Just like the bogus claim of battered women during the Superbowl was parroted over and over, and they "study" didn't exist.

All of those links cite the wrong study in the AJM by Himmelstein, et al. The doc is a partisan advocate for national health care for one. Second, the methodology is BS. DOJ did a study during the same time period and found that over 50% of bankrupcies had NO medical debt, and of the remaining 40-whatever %, 90% had under $5000 in medical bills (ie: chump change).

Himmelstein's study threw away ~4000 of the >5000 bankruptcies in his study—presumably to make the numbers look the way he wanted. On top of that, the study (all your links refer to the same study—it was debunked in an even earlier publication, hence my earlier article date) calls the reason for bankruptcy medical if the surveyed people cited medical cost as A reason, not THE reason. Ie: they cite medical expenses as A reason, yet they other debts are 10X or more what there medical debt is... in that study, it was the healthcare that did it, nevermind the 500k mortgage they cannot pay, or the cars, etc.

So reevaluated, the 17% figure means 17% had health as some sort of factor, but under $5000. Unless they owed less than 5k on their house or car(s), it's still just A factor, not by any means the critical factor.

Thats funny...because EVERYBODY pays for it smart one. you would pay taxes and get health care, and so would I. Under a bill like that nobody gets to freeload unless you are legitimately poor enough to not pay any taxes...like it is now for every other program there is.

Nonsense. I'd pay $50,000 and get healthcare, and you'd pay $500 and get the same thing. Those legitimately poor enough to pay more taxes? You mean the bottom 50% of earners that pay no net income tax? Or how about not paying at least their fair share (budget divided by taxpayers is a share—right now it's $12,000 per capita, so for a family of 4 if they don't pony up $48,000 in federal taxes they are not pulling their weight).

What tax does "everybody" pay equally for?

Please, do tell. Shall we all pay the insurance premium, every family of 4 the same amount, Bill Gates or some guy in BF noplace who works at WalMart?

huh? 56% increase in profits? that means the money they make after all of that went up by 56% either which way you put it, they made much more this year than they did last year by dropping customers and raising premiums. 5 companies made 12 billion.

A 56% increase in profit means that profits are raised by 56%. If their profit margin is 1%, then their profit margin after the increase is 1.56%.

The insurance companies make a large profit in dollar, but that is meaningless, it's the margin that matters, to make 12 Billion they spent 12 times that. In addition, if the companies have non-health insurance components, make sure to remove that first.

nikimcbee

03-01-11, 11:47 PM

Orgone has a state health insurence, and the creator of it called it a total failure, and THEY ARE THE BIGGEST DENIERS OF SERVICES BECAUSE OF COST when compaired to private insurance.

We need another health insuance thread.:doh:

gimpy117

03-01-11, 11:52 PM

1. Well 17% is still an alarming number...approaching a quarter

2. you paying more?? DUHHHH thats how taxes work :doh: it has something to do with you making more money and what not. if i made more than you i'd pay more in taxes then

3. If they're profit margin increases by 56% then your profits increase by 56%...besides that article does not say "profit margins" they say profits

nikimcbee

03-01-11, 11:54 PM

Half measures like Obamacare never work so I think that government needs to either nationalize health care for all citizens or get out of it completely.

But as the national debate continues I increasingly tend to lean toward the former. Although I am generally a conservative in most issues I don't think that everything should be about the Almighty Buck. Health care especially. The drive for corporate profit is always going to be at odds with a patients best interests.

Russia had some interesting health care ideas, such as, if it is a drug that is a life/maintinece, the state pays for it (ie insulin), the problem, in our litigious society, everybody would want their drug on the list:stare:, so it will bankrupt the system.

The chronic illnesses are a problem though that need a better fix.

UnderseaLcpl

03-02-11, 01:53 AM

So there I was, reading threads, considering opinions, and generally minding my own business when I saw.....
Half measures like Obamacare never work so I think that government needs to either nationalize health care for all citizens or get out of it completely. But as the national debate continues I increasingly tend to lean toward the former.

What the crap is this, August!? Are you completely insane? Nationalized health-care!? Why!? You know what the governments is. You know what they'll do if they ever get into healthcare! Just look at what they've done with the power we've given them over healthcare already!

That was my initial reaction, but I know you are many years my senior and probably have perspective I lack, so please, let me ask why you would adopt such a stance.

Although I am generally a conservative in most issues I don't think that everything should be about the Almighty Buck. Health care especially. The drive for corporate profit is always going to be at odds with a patients best interests.

And again, I am forced to question you. Presumably, you are aware of the fact that the "drive for corporate profit" is at odds with anyone's best interests, that being the nature of "profit". Fortunately, we're all human beings more or less capable of rational decision-making and we don't often buy stuff we don't like, especially not more than once. That would be where the irreducible concept of "mutually beneficial exchange" comes in and checks the drive for profit.

There is no such check for the state. Once it has control, it pretty much does whatever it wills and it is all but impossible to stop. Sheer bureaucratic inertia propels it forward, regardless of cost or results.

You say that you are a conservative, as do I, but this is not the first time we've disagreed upon provisions for the care and maintenance of seniors, which is what you're really talking about. I could take everything you just said straight out of an AARP pamphlet. It seems to me that you are a conservative when it benefits you, but not so much when you think that your entitlements are endangered. That would make you a supporter of special interests, which is a decidedly un-conservative status.

I hope you have a good explanation for your stance, August. You're both a teacher and a military professional. You are supposed to be a leader in every sense of the word. You are supposed to lead by example, and you are not doing that.

Armistead

03-02-11, 03:22 AM

One only need to look at salaries, bonuses to see how they skim money from so called profit margins, but that's not the big deal, look at the top CEO's stock options, some over 200 million, one close to 500 million, but had to give 190 of it back due to fraud. Pay the officers these large salaries, bonus...but oh that stock option....

If tater had his way, drop medicare...excuse me, I paid into that for 30 years. I guess we would have to bring back the ovens to burn all the dead bodies lying around. Course, that's basically the GOP plan, let em die, we already spent their money on our corporate friends.

Tribesman

03-02-11, 03:56 AM

@AVG
I find your argument in this thread increasing invalid.

I found your arguement invalid from the start, your "best case" doesn't reflect reality today.
Then again you have realised shortly after the start that it isn't widely applicable yet switch to wide and narrow applications as the wind blows.

It is amazing that I am a prime example of the position you are putting forward for what people should do yet you say my arguement is invalid.

I have know idea how you construed this from anything I have posted.
Sorry, that is in relation to a flow from GR you supported.

Tribesman

03-02-11, 04:01 AM

@UnderseaLcpl
What the crap is this, August!? Are you completely insane? Nationalized health-care!? Why!? You know what the governments is. You know what they'll do if they ever get into healthcare!
You answer your own question.......I hope you have a good explanation for your stance, August. You're both a teacher and a military professional.

UnderseaLcpl

03-02-11, 04:58 AM

@UnderseaLcpl

You answer your own question.......

Don't be an ass, Tribesman. I'm not in the mood for your worthless, contrite, and often completely uninformative and arrogant asnwers at the moment. You don't know a goddamn thing about what I am talking about because you lack context. You are not a military professional. Put yourself in harm's way for the sake of a complete stranger or get your friends blown to little pink and blue pieces and then come back and talk to me about military professionalism or leadership by example.

I am questioning August because his attitude is inconsistent with the ideals of military leadership and the Lockean ideals upon which modern US conservativism is based, and the ideals he has heretofore professed.

If you have a point to make, just come out and say it. You're obviously an intelligent person, so why do you consistently hide behind linguistic vagaries? Your views, if they are correct, should stand upon their own merit and not rely upon others questioning their own judgement because you asked a question. Quit being an ass and take the time to spell out your views in a polite fashion. We gain little to nothing from superior attitude.

Morts

03-02-11, 06:44 AM

Don't be an ass, Tribesman. I'm not in the mood for your worthless, contrite, and often completely uninformative and arrogant asnwers at the moment. You don't know a goddamn thing about what I am talking about because you lack context. You are not a military professional. Put yourself in harm's way for the sake of a complete stranger or get your friends blown to little pink and blue pieces and then come back and talk to me about military professionalism or leadership by example.

I am questioning August because his attitude is inconsistent with the ideals of military leadership and the Lockean ideals upon which modern US conservativism is based, and the ideals he has heretofore professed.

If you have a point to make, just come out and say it. You're obviously an intelligent person, so why do you consistently hide behind linguistic vagaries? Your views, if they are correct, should stand upon their own merit and not rely upon others questioning their own judgement because you asked a question. Quit being an ass and take the time to spell out your views in a polite fashion. We gain little to nothing from superior attitude.
:o
:o
:o
:o
:o
.
.
.
:up::rock:

Tribesman

03-02-11, 07:00 AM

Don't be an ass, Tribesman.
It is you who is being one.
You are not a military professional.
what has that to do with the price of cheese?

Put yourself in harm's way for the sake of a complete stranger or get your friends blown to little pink and blue pieces and then come back and talk to me about military professionalism or leadership by example.

Get off your high horse.:down:

I am questioning August because his attitude is inconsistent with the ideals of military leadership and the Lockean ideals upon which modern US conservativism is based, and the ideals he has heretofore professed.

It is a simply explained inconsistancy, it is one he has expressed many tiimes.
Look at what you have written.
In case you missed it the military are government employees and they get government run healthcare.
They see first hand over a long period the problems and the benefits.
That means they get a better view than those whose view is based on some sort of political idealism like modern US conservatism.
For an inconsistant attitude you would have to look at one of those confused seniors who say want the evil government to keep out of their medicare/medicaid.

AVGWarhawk

03-02-11, 09:14 AM

@AVG

I found your arguement invalid from the start, your "best case" doesn't reflect reality today.
Then again you have realised shortly after the start that it isn't widely applicable yet switch to wide and narrow applications as the wind blows.

It is amazing that I am a prime example of the position you are putting forward for what people should do yet you say my arguement is invalid.

Sorry, that is in relation to a flow from GR you supported.

My argument is valid because I have lived it. Not everyone lives under a rock. I'm suspecting you do. My "best case" was reality. Nothing short of it. The original story was a guy who drove 1200 miles, slept in his car and made his job interview. He was hired. You turned the story into what if he had kids, the car brokedown and he has no friends for family to 'dump' his kids on to go on a job interview. Sorry, I went through this as well as my family members who lost jobs or went through a divorce. Family help. Friends help. The church in your local neighborhood will help. I know ours helps families everyday. Your reality differs quite a bit from my reality. You have brought nothing to table but 'what if.' Sure, there are some that are in a tight corner and do not have many avenues to turn however I suspect there are much more that do have a support group, ie family and friends. As stated, you always fine the worst case and decide this is everyone's reality. As far as a prime example...the only thing you put forward in every post is argumentative just for the sake making in argument. This is the only example you present with every post. It gets tiresome at best. Enjoy your day.

tater

03-02-11, 09:27 AM

If tater had his way, drop medicaid...excuse me, I paid into that for 30 years. I guess we would have to bring back the ovens to burn all the dead bodies lying around. Course, that's basically the GOP plan, let em die, we already spent their money on our corporate friends.

One, you don't seem to even know the difference between medicaid and medicare. Medicare is what you get when you are old.

As it is, medicare already is starting to pay out more than it gets in taxes. You say you've "paid in"—what do you think that means? Do you think they put in a vault someplace? No, they SPENT THE MONEY ALREADY. If you've been paying in for years, then people you have elected are the ones who already spent it. It's GONE.

The promises of future benefits are made based on a ponzi scheme—that future workers will pay for YOUR medical care. The trouble is that the baby boomers are more numerous than the people after, so there are simply not enough workers now. Asking them to be taxed any higher than YOU were taxed is grossly unfair since your lower rate of tax was already collected, and spent, on YOU (you meaning whatever your generation is).

Medicare will bankrupt the country unless massively curtailed. It in fact makes SS look like not so much of a problem going forward.

So the partisan talking point of "Republicans just want you to die" is the kind of nonsense I'd expect from someone who doesn't really grasp the subject. Nothing short of basically eliminating medicaid and medicare and starting over will solve the problem. Something will need to take their place since hospitals cannot turn people away. That's why I suggested a safety net for the very poor. If you are not very poor, then tough, you suck it up and pay your own way. That's reasonable since the alternative is what? The government printing more money on the literally trillions in medicare promises out there going forward? Where do you think the money will come from? If we have hyper-inflation, then all the rest of your savings are meaningless—but you'll have medicare! (course docs will simply stop taking it altogether, cause they already get stiffed as it is).

BTW, I've been a registered Independent since 1983, thank you very much, and until the last elect voted for at least 2 major parties on every ballot since then.

Armistead

03-02-11, 11:44 AM

I totally agree medicare is broke, around 60 trillion, probably more now. I agree the system needs to be scraped.

The rest of your post made our point. I'm not sure to you what is poor versus very poor, but if you're middle class without insurance, one illness or injury will make you poor. Again, before the meltdown, over 60% of bankruptcies were due to illness and over 2/3's had insurance...that's from the AMB. A short stay in a hospital can wipe out anyone. Many millions are underinsured and a major illness or injury would wipe them out. That's our point, no safety net exist for these now.

Every society has a poor class and a large lower end middle class. Guess what, our system of economics operates this way. Without these classes, we would have no upper class. America became the strongest nation in the world by passing fair laws and regulation to insure that these classes have basic needs met so they can do all they do. They do the millions of jobs that must be done for a meager wage. They do most of the physical back breaking work. They face more illness and physical injury. No nation could exist without these people. In many ways they're the reason the rich get rich. The danger comes when the rich destroy the lower classes and the corporate takeover of America has done that. We can only look around the world at what's going on and see what happens when a nation becomes two classes. You'll always fail to see and blame the poor, instead of the mass greed that now purchases our congressional seats.

We all should save for bad times, facts prove no poor or middle class person could save enough to cover a major injurty or illness. I wasn't rich, but I had 150 K saved, over 200 K in a 401K and a 6 figure income, home almost paid for and in 5 years my illness reduced me to poverty. The only debt I had was my home, 0 credit card debt, cars paid for, nada.

I read an article that actually made sense, if the poor and middle class saved what they needed to cover the average medical cost of an illness, they couldn't buy anything else, after basic bills, every dime would have to be saved, no new cars, homes, cell phones, no shopping, no eating out, no spending..none. If they actually did what was required in savings for an illness our entire economy would crumble in a year, because no one would be buying goods or services. For the millions without insurance, they can't afford it. If they did buy it at such high cost, most would have to cut lifestyle and no spending...down comes the economy. Course dumb americans not only spend, they go in debt, but corporate America wanted and desired this.

People like you will always wear blinders to how a strong society functions and how classes are connected supporting each other. History has proven over and over that the elite never get enough, they take and take, until eventually nothing is left. We now do it under the false guise called capitalism. I love how the GOP sells capitalism now, no it's corporate control. It really proves how stupid they're. I'm all for someone getting rich, but through fair trade and competition, not closet monopolies and buying congress to pass whatever you want. Sure rich governments can suppress a 80% poor class for awhile, but eventually the system crumbles and chaos takes over. All factors show America is heading this way, even now a meager 1% control almost 45% of all wealth.

Do you really think when a mere 10% control 90% of all wealth this nation can lone survive? Gonna happen next generation and when that US dollar goes, kiss all your corporate benefits in America goodbye. I can just see all the corporate managers having their pay cut to nothing, benefits taken away when corporate America transfers to work globally where they can make money scream..."This isn't fair"

Armistead

03-02-11, 12:01 PM

My argument is valid because I have lived it. Not everyone lives under a rock. I'm suspecting you do. My "best case" was reality. Nothing short of it. The original story was a guy who drove 1200 miles, slept in his car and made his job interview. He was hired. You turned the story into what if he had kids, the car brokedown and he has no friends for family to 'dump' his kids on to go on a job interview. Sorry, I went through this as well as my family members who lost jobs or went through a divorce. Family help. Friends help. The church in your local neighborhood will help. I know ours helps families everyday. Your reality differs quite a bit from my reality. You have brought nothing to table but 'what if.' Sure, there are some that are in a tight corner and do not have many avenues to turn however I suspect there are much more that do have a support group, ie family and friends. As stated, you always fine the worst case and decide this is everyone's reality. As far as a prime example...the only thing you put forward in every post is argumentative just for the sake making in argument. This is the only example you present with every post. It gets tiresome at best. Enjoy your day.

You do ignore reality, not sure of the numbers now, but somewhere around one job available versus five unemployed people applying for that job.

Certainly your smart enough to do that math....

tater

03-02-11, 12:06 PM

tater

03-02-11, 12:16 PM

Here we are, NPR has a story about home sizes... http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5525283

Average 1950 home? 983 square feet.

Average in 1970? 1500 ft^2.

2004? 2349 ft^2. (it went up til 2008 according to another google, and dropped for the first time in 30 years in '09 by 100ft^2, so it is level at ~2400 right now).

Given that the price of homes per square foot is about the same, halving half the size home would halve people's mortgage payments. The typical middle class person has the typical, median priced home, right? In 2004 (to match the NPR stat) that was ~250k or ~$100/ft^2. Total debt for a mortgage is really ~2X the purchase price (interest), so the average family is 500k in debt in 2004, but they could be only 250k in debt if they bought a house half the size like their parents or grandparents were happy to live in.

That's $250,000 lost by "living large." That's 250k to the typical US family. If I suggested a one-time tax from everyone to the tune of 250k to correct all our budget woes, how would you react? That's a HUGE amount of money. Huge.

Since a home is the single largest expense, this is a HUGE factor in where wealth goes.

My dad was a publishing executive. We lived in a very posh CT town. That said, our house was half the size of my house now (and we only have 2, not 3 kids). We had no AC when I was a kid, I have 2 central air units. We have 2 TVs (study and TV room), my folks had just one til my mom had back surgery, then they got one in their bedroom since my mom was in bed a long time. We have 2 expensive euro-cars. My folks had a chevy wagon, and various small, used cars for my dad to drive to the train station. The list goes on and on. In constant dollars we spend WAY more than my dad ever did, and I had a great home as a kid IMO.

The first house I bought was 850 ft^2. It was built in 1935, and was a family home. People buy those 1930s houses in ABQ, and throw additions on them to make them modern family homes that more than double the size. Every other house on my old street was fixed up like that from <1000ft^2, to over 2000. Many gutted the original house, and the entire bungalow becomes the Great room/kitchen. That's the most common remodel. These are not "rich" people (since I'm still friends with many old neighbors). They are school teachers, librarians, a retired AF officer, etc.

Growler

03-02-11, 12:23 PM

I am questioning August because his attitude is inconsistent with the ideals of military leadership and the Lockean ideals upon which modern US conservativism is based, and the ideals he has heretofore professed.

To clarify for those not up to speed on Locke:

In short, John Locke is considered the father of what were then considered liberal concepts, as they challenged the conservative establishment of a Divine Monarchy granting rights to subjects. Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke1/Essay_contents.html) (1690) is considered the source for the statement that every man has certain rights (referred to in the US Declaration of Independence as "unalienable") that were God-given - these rights were, as gifts of God, incontrovertible and non-negotiable, nor could they be abridged or abdicated. The Declaration of Independence sums these rights as Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness, and the Right to Change Governments when the old order ceases to facilitate the protection and exercise of the other enumerated rights.

What bothers me, most of all, about the current debate is that the engagement of politics is overshadowing a fundamental crisis in humanism, and that is this: we (generically) are no longer content to live and let live; somewhere, someone in some form or power is creating causes with with to get reelected, instead of addressing the essence of the answer to every single one of these hot-button issues.

In short, the answer, as I perceive it to be, is this: Does this law/regulation/decision infringe upon any of these "unalienable" rights? To use an example: At it's simplest level - absent insurance, legality, health care benefits, or other "attached" concerns - does allowing gay marriage affect my unalienable rights? Not a whit. Does forbidding it affect another person's rights? Absolutely. QED, forbidding it is an infringement of those rights, and should therefore not be permitted. Any government that acts in such a manner does so in opposition to those earlier stated "unalienable rights" and does so at peril to its continuance - as per Locke.

Where the whole mess runs aground is on the rocks and shoals of interpretation. I see forbidding gay marriage as an infringement of rights. Others see allowing it as such. I see government interference in many matters of daily concern; others see government assistance in said matters.

Armistead

03-02-11, 12:43 PM

tater

03-02-11, 01:07 PM

You again ignore reality and contradict yourself. You say the poor get medicaid...Have you ever gone through that process? I agree it works in some cases, but it doesn't work for the millions chronically ill and it's broke.
If you use it, the Doctors aren't basing the care you get on what you need, it's the least amount of care. Trust me, you don't want a chronic or serious illness and get stuck on medicare/caid. Because so many are losing insurance and falling into medicaid, the system is becoming overwhelmed and broken. Specialist become mediocre when it's medicaid.

That's because medicaid pays literally pennies on the dollar. My wife loses money on every single medicaid she sees. Not "makes less," but LOSES money. Our family pays our money, out of pocket for them to get treated. My wife doesn't treat them differently, she just tries not to see them AT ALL. So she only gets a few she must take contractually with the hospitals (still a sizable number), plus through the ER where she has no choice.

Caring for medicaid patients taxes our family to the tune of at least $30,000 a year. That does not count lost wages for my wife (since she could be actually getting paid to see patients instead paying to see them). 30k a year plus in charity, and we cannot even write it off.

You said scrap it, but then say that's what they get. So what's your safety net then, affordable health insurance for all or $500 million stock options for CEO's.

I don't care what CEOs make. Not at all (except companies I own stock in).

Safety net? I'd set up a pool for critical care insurance. Nothing more. Large enough copay to avoid needless ER visits. You get really sick, or have trauma, then it is taken care of. Primary care is cheap, they can pay out of pocket.

The vast majority of Americans that have insurance are under insured. In NC, over 80% of those that work for skilled trades either have no insurance or pay 30% of income for a 60/40 policy. Either way a chronic illness wipes you out. Do you even know the number of people with insurance that are denied treatment? More and more insurance corps are adding so much fine print, that many may think a procedure is covered, to only find their Doctor telling them..."insurance doesn't cover what you need."

Downsize their average homes, pocket a quarter of a million bucks.

You're ignoring the future, that the next generation will be less that 50% insured or underinsured.

They'll also be paying for people to be retired who squandered their SS retirement money. That's what people retiring now did, after all. They created the modern SS they will collect from, paid in, then turned right around and spent every penny of it on themselves in the form of more programs. So the workers now get to pay for their retirements, AND all the stupid programs they created for themselves.

The only reason Americans have some things is usually credit debt. Why enough blame can be had, our corporate controlled government created the atmosphere for it to happen. They love the debt, the interest and when it goes belly up for the tax payer to bail them out, win win...If we would've had proper regulation restricting credit...but corporate America insured we didn't and got filthy rich.

It's not corporate america's fault, it's THEIR FAULT. I have no credit card debt. Zero. I only use them to put off paying til the end of the month (rarely) when I travel, etc. That's it. Cash, thanks. No money? Don't buy it. We even do home remodeling with cash. We save, then spend it.

Don't get me wrong, I can hardly find a Dem plan that makes sense, but when you hear the GOP screaming conservative capitalism, be smart enough to know that's code for corporate elitism..

What does that mean? "Corporate elitism?"

You should really get out more and travel among the lower classes, you'll see they don't have the things you think. You're thinking typical stereotypes and why a percentage do these things, they're not the majority.

The median is the median. Knowing a few people is anecdote.

You'd be surprised, actually. My friends are all over the spectrum. Many are certainly in the well under 50k a year crowd. Heck, many around 30k. teachers, dental lab techs, nurses, cooks, plasterers, firefighters, artists, officer workers (like insurance company drones) etc.

AVGWarhawk

03-02-11, 01:11 PM

You do ignore reality, not sure of the numbers now, but somewhere around one job available versus five unemployed people applying for that job.

Certainly your smart enough to do that math....

I do not ignore reality. You ignore the fact that not all parts of the country are the same. In my area of this mud ball we call earth unemployment is not as severe as say Detroit or Flint. That is my reality. The mall near my house I can not park on the weekends because it is full. In fact, every weekend every parking lot is full no matter the store. You would never guess there was a problem. Detroit...you can guess in about a second that is economically depressed. My brother assessed foreclosed properties for banks. I understand what the reality of it when he explains to me were most of the foreclosure assessments are. It is in the mid-west. You like Tribesman ignore what I have posted and my experiences. Certainly you are smart enough to understand the same math does not always work for all areas. Just this area I live with the military base realignments alone will offer 5000+ jobs at Fort Meade. Furthermore, the new slots business Maryland that was voted in will also bring a slew of jobs not only for the slots establishment but construction companies as well. My wife lost her job last June and took the summer off. She found a job in two weeks after posting her resume. In fact she had three job offers. Again, were am I ignoring my reality or anyones reality?

You sound like my sister-in-law....foreclosure...everyone is doing it. Her reality is this is how it is. Unfortunate it is not everyone's reality. She is the only one I know who went to foreclosure. This was her own doing and no one elses.

Not every area is economically depressed to the 10th degree. That is the reality of it.

tater

03-02-11, 01:16 PM

The base in Clovis, NM is one of the few in the US that is heavily expanding (Spec Ops training base). They are spending as much on that base as NM spends on itself, period, right now.

I know a guy working with them out of the base here. He said their biggest problem? Civilian employees—lack of them.

Really good paying jobs, both on base, and needed construction, etc (and long term in town as well after construction) that go wanting because no one wants to move to rural, Eastern NM (basically the place looks like West Texas).

AVGWarhawk

03-02-11, 01:22 PM

Maryland's average unemployment rate is 7.4% today. Michigan is 11%. Almost twice what Maryland is. Again, ones reality is not always the same for all.

AVGWarhawk

03-02-11, 01:26 PM

See the best to the worst for unemployment. Nevada lives in a very different reality than the rest of the country:

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

tater

03-02-11, 01:36 PM

Amazing that people are unwilling to even move from ABQ to Clovis, lol.

We lived in maybe 6 different places before I was in 3d grade cause my dad was transferred a lot.

Armistead

03-02-11, 01:54 PM

Middle class people have insurance already, or CHOSE not to, so they're not one illness from bankruptcy.

The poor get medicaid.

The lower class do not face more illness and injury. Income is largely a function of age. The bulk of lower wage earners are YOUNG. Insurance is a bad investment because they don't get sick often. Injury? In the workplace, it's already covered (has to be), even if the employees have no health plan. Otherwise, the cheapest insurance to get is major medical for younger people. It's very reasonable.

I wear no blinders, but that article about saving you mention makes little sense. People now—lower middle class people, the average family income (which is just under 50k in the US)—live vastly "larger" lives than our parents did. Not buy anything else? Not if the requirement is 1 cell phone per family member, land line, broadband, cable TV, flat screen (big) to watch the games, 2 cars, and more square feet per person that someone in the 1950s or 1970s might have had, etc, ad nauseum.

Correct for model "large" lifestyles and I bet many problems get corrected with that alone.

Your whole "elite" argument is predicated on the silly notion that it's a zero-sum game. It's not. Does someone making the US median income in 2011 have more stuff, or less stuff than a person making the median income in 1971 or 1951, yes or no? Do they have on average more ft^2 per person in their homes? Do they have more phones, more TVs, etc? What % of the total GDP they control is meaningless.

Again, ignoring the facts. The middle class have insurance. They get ill and disabled, lose a job, lose insurance...that make sense.

At this time the middle class person probably has some assets, savings, equity, etc...You just don't get it, you become eligible. First most of your assets have to go, you'll need to be in utter poverty first to qualify. Not sure of the income allowed now and states may differ, but use to be not over $700 a month.

Many that make over this quit the job to qualify. Ok, life is tough, maybe this is fair. If a person owns a home, he sells it or just lets the bank foreclose. This is why over 60% of bankruptcies are due to illness, mostly middle class, over 2/3rd's with medical insurance to start with, but in the end someone has to absorb these cost.

Now that the person on caid is in utter poverty to qualify, but now they can't afford the basic needs, shelter, food, etc..a large majority have zero income. Most turn to other social programs. Where do they live? The average wait to get SS is 3-5 years if you qualify unless your fast tracked with a serious/terminal illness. Often with medicaid, many end up homeless and starved.

I grew up as you, small home, one air unit in parents room, course back then you could leave all the windows open for a breeze, one TV, etc. I grew up low middle class, but had all I needed and probably happier than kids today. The problem I think is the technology world has left millions behind. Back then a large majority where I lived worked in manufacturing, had benefits and pensions. These jobs are gone thanks to corporate America.

Did people have less stuff, not sure you can argue that, most had the stuff that existed at that time. We didn't operate on false credit to build a fake economy to increase mass wealth for the few. Still, most had affordable care, benefits and pensions...basically non existence today. Shoot, you could walk into a Doctor's office pay $10 and get a hour visit and good care.

Armistead

03-02-11, 02:08 PM

I do not ignore reality. You ignore the fact that not all parts of the country are the same. In my area of this mud ball we call earth unemployment is not as severe as say Detroit or Flint. That is my reality. The mall near my house I can not park on the weekends because it is full. In fact, every weekend every parking lot is full no matter the store. You would never guess there was a problem. Detroit...you can guess in about a second that is economically depressed. My brother assessed foreclosed properties for banks. I understand what the reality of it when he explains to me were most of the foreclosure assessments are. It is in the mid-west. You like Tribesman ignore what I have posted and my experiences. Certainly you are smart enough to understand the same math does not always work for all areas. Just this area I live with the military base realignments alone will offer 5000+ jobs at Fort Meade. Furthermore, the new slots business Maryland that was voted in will also bring a slew of jobs not only for the slots establishment but construction companies as well. My wife lost her job last June and took the summer off. She found a job in two weeks after posting her resume. In fact she had three job offers. Again, were am I ignoring my reality or anyones reality?

You sound like my sister-in-law....foreclosure...everyone is doing it. Her reality is this is how it is. Unfortunate it is not everyone's reality. She is the only one I know who went to foreclosure. This was her own doing and no one elses.

Not every area is economically depressed to the 10th degree. That is the reality of it.

Basic math again for you.. There are areas doing well, but these areas can't absorb the unemployed. I don't care if your area has 5 jobs available, if 10 unemployed move there, where doe's that leave you? Study facts, the people in these depressed areas have already left like Moses leaving Egypt looking for employment elsewhere, but the numbers stay the same.

I live in Winston Salem, the skilled trade industry sunk, millions of jobs lost, but just hours away in Raleigh/Durham unemployment is lower and the medical field is doing some mild hiring. I guess you think all the plumbers and painters here should go there and apply for the openings in surgery:har:

Sorry, most unemployed can't afford to go to school for new training while they have no income.

In the end the math is still the same, 1 job available for every 5 applying for it nationwide, location and ratings in areas don't change the math.

Foreclosures are worse in some areas, but still a crisis in every state. Here in NC, were ranked 36th nationwide, but foreclosures are up 26%. Hardly a state has escaped and most of us have seen our property values drop drastically.

tater

03-02-11, 02:44 PM

60% of foreclosures are NOT related to illness. Again, that study is BS.

If anyone said that medical costs were A factor (Ie: they had ANY medical expenses), then the study called the bankruptcy due to illness.

It's bogus.

Medicaid is not just the desperately poor. Families get on NM medicaid ("Salud") who make well over 36k a year.

BTW, the average income for the middle US tax bracket was just over $60,000 in 2005 (last data I can find from the CBO). The 1/5th just below that have an average income of $39,400 in 2005. The next quint up is $89,500.

I'd call the middle tax quintile "middle class." The quintiles on either side can be lower and upper MC. Some lower middle class people qualify for medicaid as it is.

AVGWarhawk

03-02-11, 02:55 PM

Basic math again for you.. There are areas doing well, but these areas can't absorb the unemployed. I don't care if your area has 5 jobs available, if 10 unemployed move there, where doe's that leave you? Study facts, the people in these depressed areas have already left like Moses leaving Egypt looking for employment elsewhere, but the numbers stay the same.

I live in Winston Salem, the skilled trade industry sunk, millions of jobs lost, but just hours away in Raleigh/Durham unemployment is lower and the medical field is doing some mild hiring. I guess you think all the plumbers and painters here should go there and apply for the openings in surgery:har:

Sorry, most unemployed can't afford to go to school for new training while they have no income.

In the end the math is still the same, 1 job available for every 5 applying for it nationwide, location and ratings in areas don't change the math.

Foreclosures are worse in some areas, but still a crisis in every state. Here in NC, were ranked 36th nationwide, but foreclosures are up 26%. Hardly a state has escaped and most of us have seen our property values drop drastically.

Now we are talking about absorbing the unemployed in areas not affected as much??? :hmmm: Last time I check we were talking about my ignoring reality. Your are rambling on about getting schooling while unemployed? Do you think for a minute that me in transportation would apply for a job working on jet engines? Go to school for it when I need to make cash now? You apply to jobs in your trade. If none available then look for something that you can do. My father-in-law a dockman for 25 years at Preston went to work for the Royal Farms Stores after he lost his job to Preston closing down. He was peddling coffee and hot dogs. It was a job. He also worked for a rental car company. He reinvented himself at the age of 55.

Maryland foreclosures are down 17% same time last year. Yes, my property has dropped in value. However, I do not project gloom and doom.

but just hours away in Raleigh/Durham unemployment is lower

Probably because of IBM and the technology triangle there I believe it is called.

Back to your basic math. The discussion between you and myself concerned reality. I have none apparently. I provided my reality in my area yet you continue with the math of the entire country. There are other realities to consider. Not just NC or MD or the entire US. Yes, based you your number for the entire US it is a grim reality. Based on numbers locally in my area it is not a bad a picture as you would think. So what is your point with math?

I guess you think all the plumbers and painters here should go there and apply for the openings in surgery:har:

And this statement is condecending. Entirely unnecessary.

gimpy117

03-02-11, 02:56 PM

I grew up as you, small home, one air unit in parents room, course back then you could leave all the windows open for a breeze, one TV, etc. I grew up low middle class, but had all I needed and probably happier than kids today. The problem I think is the technology world has left millions behind. Back then a large majority where I lived worked in manufacturing, had benefits and pensions. These jobs are gone thanks to corporate America.

Did people have less stuff, not sure you can argue that, most had the stuff that existed at that time. We didn't operate on false credit to build a fake economy to increase mass wealth for the few. Still, most had affordable care, benefits and pensions...basically non existence today. Shoot, you could walk into a Doctor's office pay $10 and get a hour visit and good care.

We probably do have more stuff now and heres why: We are encouraged left and right to spend spend spend to keep the economy growing. New Ipod this year? Gotta buy it, New flatscreen? dump the old one buy new!. this is how it is, the average american is being brainwashed to spend, often money they don't have. And this is just for things that Americans want were not talking about their cars and their homes. when those are all paid for Americans are hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt already. So when the get huge medical bills get put on us no wonder we default.

we wouldn't have such a big problem if our wages had actually grown on average since the late 80's but....

AVGWarhawk

03-02-11, 03:05 PM

tater

03-02-11, 03:19 PM

Before we moved to CT in 1973, my dad didn't even have a "station car." In Rye, NY, we used to drive him to the train station in the morning, and pick him up every night.

I have a friend with 1 car (he bikes a lot to work, and his wife uses the car), but virtually everyone else I know has 2 cars in the family, regardless of income. The only people I know without a TV are in the well into the top tax bracket (tiger mom won't let the kids be coddled by TV I guess ;) ). Everyone I know has internet. We have a woman who we consider as if she was the widow of my brother (his GF) who has mental health issues, and is chapter 8. SHE has internet access, lol (faster than mine since she's in a more urban area, and I'm at the bleeding edge of DSL availability).

People have "more" now by virtually any measure. Sure, it's "normal" now, but only because everyone demands more stuff be "normal." Also, as I said, all other expenses are practically noise compared to the cost of a home. Settling for a house that would have been normal for a 1950s family of the same size would literally save the average American ~$250,000.

All that money could be saved, instead, it's all "extra" money they actually have since they give it to the bank right now. But, no, they gotta have a bigger house than grandma did.

UnderseaLcpl

03-02-11, 03:32 PM

It is you who is being one.
At the moment, yes. I was being an ass. I'm also being one right now. You, on the other hand, seem to make a habit of it.

what has that to do with the price of cheese?

Absolutley nothing. And also everything. Unlike most of my arguments, my disagreement with August is one I have a personal stake in. He is a fellow servicemember and a senior servicemember at that. I respect him, and if his motivations do not befit the uniform, it is a matter of great concern to me.

Get off your high horse.:down:

Really? You're going to pull that on me? Even if I didn't have every damn reason in the world to climb upon this particular high horse (which I rarely do), such simple statements and the accompanying "thumbs-down" emoticon should be beneath you, Tribesman.

A person of your intellect has no excuse for offering anything less than a complete, well-defined, properly-constructed rationale for your views, doubly so in this venue. Anything less is a disservice to the community. Keep that in mind the next time you arrogantly suppose that you're advancing the greater good by mocking people.

It is a simply explained inconsistancy, it is one he has expressed many tiimes.
Look at what you have written.
In case you missed it the military are government employees and they get government run healthcare.
They see first hand over a long period the problems and the benefits.
That means they get a better view than those whose view is based on some sort of political idealism like modern US conservatism.
For an inconsistant attitude you would have to look at one of those confused seniors who say want the evil government to keep out of their medicare/medicaid.

And finally we come to the part where you actually bother to explain something. It's not a good explanation and it is far from complete, but it has some valid points. I swear to God, getting even this much out of you is like pulling goddamn teeth.

At the moment, I would like to have a discussion with August, but I would also be willing to discuss the matter with you. If you can manage a modicum of amicability, we might actually learn something from each other.

Armistead

03-02-11, 03:38 PM

We probably do have more stuff now and heres why: We are encouraged left and right to spend spend spend to keep the economy growing. New Ipod this year? Gotta buy it, New flatscreen? dump the old one buy new!. this is how it is, the average american is being brainwashed to spend, often money they don't have. And this is just for things that Americans want were not talking about their cars and their homes. when those are all paid for Americans are hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt already. So when the get huge medical bills get put on us no wonder we default.

we wouldn't have such a big problem if our wages had actually grown on average since the late 80's but....

The issue is two-fold, self responsibility vs a corporate/government marketing plan for mass wealth for the few. It's a very complex issue based a lot on culture, education, peer pressure, etc..

Government and corporate America certainly marketed a culture of spend spend. Credit laws were lax to the point of stupidity. Credit cards given out like candy, loans, etc...Letting people get 2nd mortgages up to 200% of value. This was well scripted by the elite to get wealth. They knew properly wrapped and marketed in what appeared to be a good economy people would spend themselves into mass debt. Our culture to spend, look good, have toys, big homes, cars, etc...well scripted by corporations. Only one thing stood in the way, regulation, well, corporations bought that and the plan unfolded perfectly for them. Remember Bush.."we're in a crisis, go spend America." The grand economy was totally fake, designed for the rich to get richer. Did they suffer, no taxpayers bailed them out, got even richer.

So should people have been responsible, well, yes and no. It's hard to blame. Sure, they should have, but that's ignoring an ugly truth, our culture has never educated the people that way. Our education system hides how the system works to the majority. That's why we have a government designed to work for the good of the people, to insure this madness isn't allowed, we haven't for a long time, they pander to special interest.

So when a banker with a smile says I can get you in a big home with no credit, no down payment, it's obvious most can't resist. Americans getting dozens of credit cards in the mail where all you have to do is sign your name.

Many blame Americans, I can understand that, but they fail to see the big hoax behind it. If our government won't protect us from this, who will? It's really just the elite taking advantage of the poor and uneducated. I hate to say it, but we do need laws to keep many from doing things they can't seem to help, but we do the opposite, we package it like chocolate and wave it in front of their nose saying "you know you want a bite."

Kids today at all income levels get more toys at Christmas than I probably got in my life. We went out in the woods, picked up a stick and said "bang"...It's a mass marketing hoax I tell you.

Tribesman

03-02-11, 03:47 PM

My argument is valid because I have lived it.
The answer to that was given earlier, it was ....
"And?"

Not everyone lives under a rock. I'm suspecting you do.
No, I am the guy who lives where he wants to live and doesn't have to worry about chasing jobs anymore as I did all that when I was young and needed to.
Like I said, I am lucky as I did what you did in a much bigger way and more often. Other are not so fortunate and are unable to take those steps.

You turned the story into what if he had kids, the car brokedown and he has no friends for family to 'dump' his kids on to go on a job interview.
No I built on those points which others had raised in relation to yours and GRs posts. Those points illustrate the problems in your "best case" view.

As stated, you always fine the worst case and decide this is everyone's reality.
At no point have I made any such claim.
The problem you have with your position is that I am a prime example of what you are putting forward and how well it can work, but I also saw lots of people along the way that were not so lucky or had bad timing or just got overtaken by events or circumstance.

Armistead

03-02-11, 03:52 PM

Now we are talking about absorbing the unemployed in areas not affected as much??? :hmmm: Last time I check we were talking about my ignoring reality. Your are rambling on about getting schooling while unemployed? Do you think for a minute that me in transportation would apply for a job working on jet engines? Go to school for it when I need to make cash now? You apply to jobs in your trade. If none available then look for something that you can do. My father-in-law a dockman for 25 years at Preston went to work for the Royal Farms Stores after he lost his job to Preston closing down. He was peddling coffee and hot dogs. It was a job. He also worked for a rental car company. He reinvented himself at the age of 55.

Maryland foreclosures are down 17% same time last year. Yes, my property has dropped in value. However, I do not project gloom and doom.

Probably because of IBM and the technology triangle there I believe it is called.

Back to your basic math. The discussion between you and myself concerned reality. I have none apparently. I provided my reality in my area yet you continue with the math of the entire country. There are other realities to consider. Not just NC or MD or the entire US. Yes, based you your number for the entire US it is a grim reality. Based on numbers locally in my area it is not a bad a picture as you would think. So what is your point with math?

And this statement is condecending. Entirely unnecessary.

You were the one stating the unemployed should move to areas thriving, not me. Your post proves all my points.

You say, if you can't find a job in your trade, look for something else, the reality again.....4 others will be applying for that job, seems simple to me and they probably have the skills for that job you don't.

Foreclosures dropped in most states last year, but mostly due to government stopping them why they dealt with all the fraud of the banks. Now that has been dealt with and in most states they're back on the rise.

I read if Chase alone put all their foreclosed properties on the market, the entire housing market would crumble and values for all would drop another 20%. Don't know the truth of the number, but a trillion bucks in original loan value just sitting vacant with Chase alone. They don't care, the government paid them off and they still have the houses.

GoldenRivet

03-02-11, 03:55 PM

You say, if you can't find a job in your trade, look for something else, the reality again.....4 others will be applying for that job, seems simple to me and they probably have the skills for that job you don't.

Not applying for a job guarantees only one thing

that you won't get the job

You would be hard pressed to find a single position out there that doesnt have at least one other person competing against you for it.

Armistead

03-02-11, 04:06 PM

Not applying for a job guarantees only one thing

that you won't get the job

You would be hard pressed to find a single position out there that doesnt have at least one other person competing against you for it.

Totally agree, but works much better when only one or two are competing, not 4-5.. That's the problem millions of Americans face, they do everything to market themselves well, apply constantly and often it's over a year before they find one, many in certain trades go years or give up. During this time unemployment doesn't pay the bills, certainly not medical insurance.

Certainly we're all smart enough here to agree we have a severe unemployment problem and we should all be smart enough to know what caused it.

GoldenRivet

03-02-11, 04:10 PM

gimpy117

03-02-11, 04:18 PM

I'll tell you another major problem.

A lot of positions out there that traditionally do not require a 4 year college degree are now requiring them.

it creates this illusion that a person who has a college degree is somehow smarter or more qualified for a position than a person who only has a high school diploma.

a couple of the most successful people I know have never set foot on a college campus, and i know several people who are high school graduates that dont have college degrees who could run mental circles around many of the folks coming out of colleges and universities.

and then add in the factor that college costs have been inflating at like 400% the CPI or something like that and we've got a problem.

i keep wondering where all the cash goes...and then i see the cafeteria feeding us the leftover crab cakes, cheese platters, and pates with crackers they had from the luch for the deans, and then i know.

AVGWarhawk

03-02-11, 04:34 PM

You were the one stating the unemployed should move to areas thriving, not me. Your post proves all my points.

Please point out were I emphatically stated the unemployed should up a leave. This conversation started after GR posted of a man who went 1200 miles for a job interview. At any rate, that is neither here nor there. My reality in MD is the unemployment problem is not far reaching as it is in other states. However I'm told I ignore reality. Check.

You say, if you can't find a job in your trade, look for something else, the reality again.....4 others will be applying for that job, seems simple to me and they probably have the skills for that job you don't.

Driving a rental car or working a cash register is not what I would call a skilled job. Reality again, if there is nothing in your field look elsewhere and take what you can get. My father-in-law did it. My wife found a job, three offers at that, in under 2 weeks. According to your math 4 others applied as well. She beat 12 people to the job offers. My reality in my area. Your reality seems to encompass the entire country. I find this needlessly expended energy. You can not change what is happening in Detroit when you live in NC. Nor can I. So why worry about that statistic?

Foreclosures dropped in most states last year, but mostly due to government stopping them why they dealt with all the fraud of the banks. Now that has been dealt with and in most states they're back on the rise.

In some respects yes but more than likely the pool of people in trouble and facing possible foreclosure or will be foreclosed on has dried up. Eventually the dominos stop falling because those still standing currently are in good standing. The glut of foreclosure was going to stop eventually.

I read if Chase alone put all their foreclosed properties on the market, the entire housing market would crumble and values for all would drop another 20%. Don't know the truth of the number, but a trillion bucks in original loan value just sitting vacant with Chase alone. They don't care, the government paid them off and they still have the houses.

There is nothing but toxic loans out there certainly. My understanding is mortgage insurance should cover a lot of these defaulted loans. I have not heard anything concerning this. Wonder why I pay it at all. But yes, banks don't care and they really do not want any more homes. It is a crappy situation. Furthermore, if your not holding 10% of the sale price plus a credit report that is stellar you can forget buying a home. This is how it was before Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae.

August

03-02-11, 04:34 PM

Not applying for a job guarantees only one thing

that you won't get the job

You would be hard pressed to find a single position out there that doesnt have at least one other person competing against you for it.

You are absolutely right about that GR.

I'd also venture to say that those who fear competition probably aren't the best candidates to begin with.

AVGWarhawk

03-02-11, 04:36 PM

Armistead

03-02-11, 04:36 PM

I'll tell you another major problem.

A lot of positions out there that traditionally do not require a 4 year college degree are now requiring them.

it creates this illusion that a person who has a college degree is somehow smarter or more qualified for a position than a person who only has a high school diploma.

a couple of the most successful people I know have never set foot on a college campus, and i know several people who are high school graduates that dont have college degrees who could run mental circles around many of the folks coming out of colleges and universities.

I agree, I read some article on this and was amazed at how many employers are requiring degrees for jobs that don't need them, yet today a college degree doesn't mean a job like it once did in the past. Many of these jobs have poor pay versus the cost of education. I don't think the market is flooded with college grads looking for cheap work, but it may be.

AVGWarhawk

03-02-11, 04:38 PM

You are absolutely right about that GR.

I'd also venture to say that those who fear competition probably aren't the best candidates to begin with.

Not only a fear of competition but fear of failure. I have been passed over for jobs. It sucks but I kept getting up.

August

03-02-11, 04:40 PM

Certainly we're all smart enough here to agree we have a severe unemployment problem and we should all be smart enough to know what caused it.

That there's a problem few would disagree, but what caused it and more importantly what can be done about it has a lot of room for debate.

Armistead

03-02-11, 04:46 PM

That there's a problem few would disagree, but what caused it and more importantly what can be done about it has a lot of room for debate.

Corporate control of government is what caused it. They marketed and scripted a fake economy and paid government to let them do it. Now, 10% control 90% of all wealth.

Sadly, many Americans bought in to the wealth effect to go out and spend beyond their means. They started spending as if they were part of the 10% elite crowd, but this was a well scripted plan. But once the tide rolled out, it was clear they were not. And the horribly built bailouts demonstrate who is controlling our political system. This was not the rule of a capitalist system but a corporate run government.

Just think about the bailouts and which companies were saved. We ended up bailing out the worst performing and troubled companies thus keeping alive companies that should have completely failed. Even with all their failures, nothing was done to change how they do business and the same players are still there. Did we bail out Google? Proctor and Gamble? Of course not. These companies actually produce something that people want.

Consider Wall Street, of investment assets 90 percent of Americans own 12.2 percent. The rest goes to the top 10 percent. They know how to use really worthless wealth to build real wealth, based on real assets. It can tumble, the top 10% will still be just as rich.

When only 10% control 90% of all wealth, that is corporate elitism, regardless of how the GOP tries to sell it as capitalism.

Some think they have some wealth, but few have wealth in real assets, most of it is based on the dollar. The future could easily see that dollar go, then they will find themselve broke.

August

03-02-11, 10:36 PM

Not only a fear of competition but fear of failure. I have been passed over for jobs. It sucks but I kept getting up.

There's a lot to be said for tenacity.

August

03-03-11, 12:49 AM

I hope you have a good explanation for your stance, August.

Or what Sonny? :stare: Don't make me go epic beard and leave you calling for da amberlamps. :DL

You're both a teacher and a military professional. You are supposed to be a leader in every sense of the word. You are supposed to lead by example, and you are not doing that.The military professional part is ancient history now but thanks for the vote of no confidence... :dead:

Look, the government runs the military, do you think we could do better job of national defense with hired mercenaries? The government runs the Fire Department, the Police, the Coast Guard, Customs, Code Enforcement, Patents, Post Office. Do you think turning those fields over private sector would be a better thing than what we have now?

If you answer no to any of them then you have to admit that the market is not always the best choice for every aspect of our society. I have come to believe that Health Care is one of these areas.

The For Profit system has an inherent conflict of interest in an area where most people are just not sufficiently knowledgeable enough to caveat emptor with the degree of accuracy that the importance of the subject demands.

After all "The money is in the treatment, not the cure". is not a government slogan. I just don't want my doctor to be seeing me as a revenue source. A NHS will do that. Can you show me how that can be avoided in the private sector?

gimpy117

03-03-11, 02:47 AM

Sadly, many Americans bought in to the wealth effect to go out and spend beyond their means. They started spending as if they were part of the 10% elite crowd, but this was a well scripted plan. But once the tide rolled out, it was clear they were not. And the horribly built bailouts demonstrate who is controlling our political system. This was not the rule of a capitalist system but a corporate run government.

Just think about the bailouts and which companies were saved. We ended up bailing out the worst performing and troubled companies thus keeping alive companies that should have completely failed. Even with all their failures, nothing was done to change how they do business and the same players are still there. Did we bail out Google? Proctor and Gamble? Of course not. These companies actually produce something that people want.

Of course. If the republican party was truly committed to "conservative capitalism" like they say there would never have been a bailout. but, instead, in the last moments of the bush administration they started the idea in motion and momentum went from there. Why? because we were told that without giving all this money to these crooks the economy would blow up. Under true capitalism those companies should have failed for their bad practices...but theres too much money and clout in Washington for when the rules of capitalism go against them once for a change.

August

03-03-11, 08:39 AM

Of course. If the republican party was truly committed to "conservative capitalism" like they say there would never have been a bailout. but, instead, in the last moments of the bush administration they started the idea in motion and momentum went from there. Why? because we were told that without giving all this money to these crooks the economy would blow up.

Yeah right. If you think the lame duck Bush administration had that much influence over the Democrat controlled US Congress you're crazy. Truth be told the Democrats wanted this bailout and Bush only provided the excuse to go ahead with it.

AVGWarhawk

03-03-11, 08:45 AM

AVGWarhawk

03-03-11, 09:12 AM

Corporate control of government is what caused it. They marketed and scripted a fake economy and paid government to let them do it. Now, 10% control 90% of all wealth.

Corporations have control of the government because the government allows it. I believe the script is to large to fake an economy. What business are working on is not real capital. It is all on paper.

Sadly, many Americans bought in to the wealth effect to go out and spend beyond their means. They started spending as if they were part of the 10% elite crowd, but this was a well scripted plan. But once the tide rolled out, it was clear they were not. And the horribly built bailouts demonstrate who is controlling our political system. This was not the rule of a capitalist system but a corporate run government.

The wealth effect? You mean offering credit cards (the rope) that people went out and hung themselves on? You are suggesting then that all these people have been victimized in the scripted plan by large corporations. These folks are not a fault. I don't follow your logic. It sounds like the farmer peeing on crops. He grows his crops for a return later. He has no return if he takes a leak on his crops. The crop whithers? Why would a corporation bury the very customer that generates income? Was a bailout scripted as well?

Consider Wall Street, of investment assets 90 percent of Americans own 12.2 percent. The rest goes to the top 10 percent. They know how to use really worthless wealth to build real wealth, based on real assets. It can tumble, the top 10% will still be just as rich.

Most of the wealth was in paper only from what I understand.

Some think they have some wealth, but few have wealth in real assets, most of it is based on the dollar. The future could easily see that dollar go, then they will find themselve broke.

Agreed.

Just think about the bailouts and which companies were saved. We ended up bailing out the worst performing and troubled companies thus keeping alive companies that should have completely failed. Even with all their failures, nothing was done to change how they do business and the same players are still there. Did we bail out Google? Proctor and Gamble? Of course not. These companies actually produce something that people want.

The bailouts although done hastily saved jobs. Just think...there are only 4 others applying for the same job instead of 6. This has been some of your concerns in this thread. Google produces nothing.

Armistead

03-03-11, 11:14 AM

Corporations have control of the government because the government allows it. I believe the script is to large to fake an economy. What business are working on is not real capital. It is all on paper.

The wealth effect? You mean offering credit cards (the rope) that people went out and hung themselves on? You are suggesting then that all these people have been victimized in the scripted plan by large corporations. These folks are not a fault. I don't follow your logic. It sounds like the farmer peeing on crops. He grows his crops for a return later. He has no return if he takes a leak on his crops. The crop whithers? Why would a corporation bury the very customer that generates income? Was a bailout scripted as well?

The issue is two-fold, self responsibility vs a corporate/government marketing plan for mass wealth for the few. It's a very complex issue based a lot on culture, education, peer pressure, etc..

Government and corporate America certainly marketed a culture of spend spend. Credit laws were lax to the point of stupidity. Credit cards given out like candy, loans, etc...Letting people get 2nd mortgages up to 200% of value. This was well scripted by the elite to get wealth. They knew properly wrapped and marketed in what appeared to be a good economy people would spend themselves into mass debt. Our culture to spend, look good, have toys, big homes, cars, etc...well scripted by corporations. Only one thing stood in the way, regulation, well, corporations bought that and the plan unfolded perfectly for them. Remember Bush.."we're in a crisis, go spend America." The grand economy was totally fake, designed for the rich to get richer. Did they suffer, no taxpayers bailed them out, got even richer.

So should people have been responsible, well, yes and no. It's hard to blame. Sure, they should have, but that's ignoring an ugly truth, our culture has never educated the people that way. Our education system hides how the system works to the majority. That's why we have a government designed to work for the good of the people, to insure this madness isn't allowed, we haven't for a long time, they pander to special interest.

So when a banker with a smile says I can get you in a big home with no credit, no down payment, it's obvious most can't resist. Americans getting dozens of credit cards in the mail where all you have to do is sign your name. Millions of Americans were given credit cards that never even got through high school or couldn't understand the interest was gonna triple in 3 months.

Many blame Americans, I can understand that, but they fail to see the big hoax behind it. If our government won't protect us from this, who will? It's really just the elite taking advantage of the poor and uneducated. I hate to say it, but we do need laws to keep many from doing things they can't seem to help, but we do the opposite, we package it like chocolate and wave it in front of their nose saying "you know you want a bite."

No, government should protect the uneducated, stupid and irresponible from themselves, not willingly let corporations take advantage of them, because in the end the taxpayers flip the bill, not the corporations or the ones that overspent.

mookiemookie

03-03-11, 11:57 AM

The issue is two-fold, self responsibility vs a corporate/government marketing plan for mass wealth for the few. It's a very complex issue based a lot on culture, education, peer pressure, etc..

Government and corporate America certainly marketed a culture of spend spend. Credit laws were lax to the point of stupidity. Credit cards given out like candy, loans, etc...Letting people get 2nd mortgages up to 200% of value. This was well scripted by the elite to get wealth. They knew properly wrapped and marketed in what appeared to be a good economy people would spend themselves into mass debt. Our culture to spend, look good, have toys, big homes, cars, etc...well scripted by corporations. Only one thing stood in the way, regulation, well, corporations bought that and the plan unfolded perfectly for them. Remember Bush.."we're in a crisis, go spend America." The grand economy was totally fake, designed for the rich to get richer. Did they suffer, no taxpayers bailed them out, got even richer.

So should people have been responsible, well, yes and no. It's hard to blame. Sure, they should have, but that's ignoring an ugly truth, our culture has never educated the people that way. Our education system hides how the system works to the majority. That's why we have a government designed to work for the good of the people, to insure this madness isn't allowed, we haven't for a long time, they pander to special interest.

So when a banker with a smile says I can get you in a big home with no credit, no down payment, it's obvious most can't resist. Americans getting dozens of credit cards in the mail where all you have to do is sign your name. Millions of Americans were given credit cards that never even got through high school or couldn't understand the interest was gonna triple in 3 months.

Many blame Americans, I can understand that, but they fail to see the big hoax behind it. If our government won't protect us from this, who will? It's really just the elite taking advantage of the poor and uneducated. I hate to say it, but we do need laws to keep many from doing things they can't seem to help, but we do the opposite, we package it like chocolate and wave it in front of their nose saying "you know you want a bite."

No, government should protect the uneducated, stupid and irresponible from themselves, not willingly let corporations take advantage of them, because in the end the taxpayers flip the bill, not the corporations or the ones that overspent.

Ask the people that blame the borrowers to apply the "but for" test. "But for the banks, could this have happened?" If the answer is "no" then the banks share in some of the fault. This is the way you assign blame to the contributors and the causes - note that there's a very distinct difference between the two.

"But for the banks extending stupid amounts of credit to unworthy borrowers, the debt issue would not have been a problem."

And the key thing that people don't realize is that we didn't have a housing crisis - we had a credit crisis. The homes with the most volatile price changes were concentrated more on the lower end of the price scale, not the higher end. And that's where the most indiscriminate lending practices were.

Blaming the victim also glosses over the rampant fraud and misrepresentation that existed in the system. Corrupt underwriters and appraisers, fly by night mortgage brokers.

The fact is that unworthy borrowers have existed as long as there's been lending. Banks have denied loans every day for the last thousand years. That's what their job is - to evaluate credit and making lending decisions based upon prudent standards. It's when they fail at this - or more accurately, when they're willfully negligent in that duty - the system breaks down.

Of course it's the fault of the people who bought more house they could afford. There's plenty of blame to go around - but the bank also has a fiduciary duty and laws it has to obey. It's indeed a two way street. Pinning all the blame on the schmucks who "shoulda known better" is intellectually dishonest and myopic.

AVGWarhawk

03-03-11, 12:26 PM

The issue is two-fold, self responsibility vs a corporate/government marketing plan for mass wealth for the few. It's a very complex issue based a lot on culture, education, peer pressure, etc..

This is part of it. They also made it too easy as you point out.

Government and corporate America certainly marketed a culture of spend spend. Credit laws were lax to the point of stupidity. Credit cards given out like candy, loans, etc...Letting people get 2nd mortgages up to 200% of value. This was well scripted by the elite to get wealth. They knew properly wrapped and marketed in what appeared to be a good economy people would spend themselves into mass debt. Our culture to spend, look good, have toys, big homes, cars, etc...well scripted by corporations. Only one thing stood in the way, regulation, well, corporations bought that and the plan unfolded perfectly for them. Remember Bush.."we're in a crisis, go spend America." The grand economy was totally fake, designed for the rich to get richer. Did they suffer, no taxpayers bailed them out, got even richer.

This was the rope I mentioned. The creditors gave us the rope. We inserted our necks and kicked the chairs out from under ourselves. The creditors did assist in this respect. If your card was maxed one phone call and you had more rope added. The grand economy you speak of dates back to Bill Clinton I believe. However, it really got grand when lenders such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were told to peddle the American Dream. Who told them to do this? Uncle Sam. As you noted, home loans handed out like candy with little to nothing down. Shakey work history was no issue. Got a spot on you credit report...no problem let's get the eraser. Done. Once the mortgage was completed in came the credit card offers. As far as the credit card people were concerned if you got approved for a mortgage you were good to go. Have all the plastic you want. It is unfortnate that the credit card people did not see these loans were toxic from day one or will be toxic down the road. Interest only and ARM loans cleverly crafted by the banks. These loans offered and approved to people who were on the edge already. This part of the story I can agree that the scheme was well crafted and all at the beset of the government pushing the American Dream. Not all fell into the void. I myself was part of these loan programs. My first home was on an ARM loan. After the first year (1993) I recognized the problem with ARM and refinanced to a conventional loan. Certainly, the banks did play a good hand and still not lose the game when the house of cards folded in. As you stated, the bailout saved their arses. Now their doors are locked tight. If you want a loan you have to have stellar credit...I mean stellar.

So when a banker with a smile says I can get you in a big home with no credit, no down payment, it's obvious most can't resist. Americans getting dozens of credit cards in the mail where all you have to do is sign your name. Millions of Americans were given credit cards that never even got through high school or couldn't understand the interest was gonna triple in 3 months.

Dead on. But there is one more point to make...once the cards were out of control what did the bank offer???? Refinance!!!! Sweet. Your now once mortgage of 100k is 135k after absorbing the credit cards and any other loan (car) that was applied. Usually this loan was at a higher rate to boot!!! I refinanced and absorbed some bills. However, I was smart, I did not get any credit cards and start the process over again. Many did and dug the hole again.

Many blame Americans, I can understand that, but they fail to see the big hoax behind it. If our government won't protect us from this, who will? It's really just the elite taking advantage of the poor and uneducated. I hate to say it, but we do need laws to keep many from doing things they can't seem to help, but we do the opposite, we package it like chocolate and wave it in front of their nose saying "you know you want a bite."

Americans can not take all the blame however many did not recognize the potential problem coming. Some did and ignored it. Some corrected the problem but started the process all over again. As far as government protecting us...they started the process! Before this debacle there had to be 7-10% down and excellent credit to purchase a home. Two years ago all you need was a few dollars and a pulse. This was due to the government forcing the banks to give the American Dream to all. There was even backing of these loans by the government. There was very little oversight. We are now in the boat were are in. The boat is rudderless as well.

No, government should protect the uneducated, stupid and irresponible from themselves, not willingly let corporations take advantage of them, because in the end the taxpayers flip the bill, not the corporations or the ones that overspent

Well, you just described a good portion of America. Corporations were allowed to feed on them at the governments request. The corporations got the government backing to approve loans. To banking industry it was like shooting fish in a barrell. But who cared? Everything was good. People making money. "Wake up Bud Fox. Let's go to work.", Wall Street mentality. But hey, the taxpayers pay because the government said they would back these loans. Here they are cashing in the chips at our expense.

mookiemookie

03-03-11, 01:08 PM

This was due to the government forcing the banks to give the American Dream to all.

Respectfully...

BULLPUCKY!

What legislation required banks to not verify income or credit scores or employment? What law said that banks had to offer no money down loans? What government program shifted loan-to-value ratios from 80% to 120%? What government agency forced banks to adopt automated underwriting software that allowed for more loan approvals at the expense of loan quality? If it was truly Fannie and Freddie's fault, how come they lost market share to private underwriters throughout the housing boom years?

How did the government force the credit ratings agencies to rate junk mortgage-backed-securities as AAA? What law forced investment managers to take on leverage in order to load up their portfolios on this junk?

Banks set their own underwriting standards. To say that negligent underwriting was the fault of anyone else is just plain wrong.

Armistead

03-03-11, 01:17 PM

Respectfully...

BULLPUCKY!

What legislation required banks to not verify income or credit scores or employment? What law said that banks had to offer no money down loans? What government program shifted loan-to-value ratios from 80% to 120%? What government agency forced banks to adopt automated underwriting software that allowed for more loan approvals at the expense of loan quality? If it was truly Fannie and Freddie's fault, how come they lost market share to private underwriters throughout the housing boom years?

How did the government force the credit ratings agencies to rate junk mortgage-backed-securities as AAA? What law forced investment managers to take on leverage in order to load up their portfolios on this junk?

Banks set their own underwriting standards. To say that negligent underwriting was the fault of anyone else is just plain wrong.

I tend to agree with AVG here and we seldom agree on anything. The government created many programs to get the poor into home ownership they couldn't afford...Barn Frank was a major player. Not that I'm saying it's a bad idea, but to lax credit, push programs, force banks to loan to certain sectors, all a bad idea. Most don't know the economy, the banks almost crashed under Bush, we were already in big mess, the players knew the crash was coming and no one did anything about it. No doubt the banks bordered on criminal with what they did during this time.

AVGWarhawk

03-03-11, 01:17 PM

Tut tut Mookie....Uncle Sam wanted the banks to relax there rules for approval. In doing so many more were able to get loans. Did I say they were forced to do this by the government? Did I say legislation anywhere in my post? I said the government requested it. They said they would back the loans. The banks were left to their own devices. Thank you very much. :DL

AVGWarhawk

03-03-11, 01:22 PM

I tend to agree with AVG here and we seldom agree on anything. The government created many programs to get the poor into home ownership they couldn't afford...Barn Frank was a major player. Not that I'm saying it's a bad idea, but to lax credit, push programs, force banks to loan to certain sectors, all a bad idea. Most don't know the economy, the banks almost crashed under Bush, we were already in big mess, the players knew the crash was coming and no one did anything about it. No doubt the banks bordered on criminal with what they did during this time.

Truly, the banks were drunk on the loans. Loan officers were loving the commissions. Real estate agents were bird dogging for the loan officers. Basically the guys who would approve a corpse for a loan. Both involved got the commissions. This is a perfect example of a kid in the candy store and the owner was asleep in the back room. We were in a big mess but everyone turned the other way. Those overseeing (Barney Frank) said all was well in the land. How wrong and uninformed he was.

Armistead

03-03-11, 01:26 PM

In fact, during congressional hearings they found out loans were given to dead people, course a few scamming loans, but pretty bad when not enough in place to catch it.

Those hearings were a joke, give them bailouts with no changes, regulation, ect. Just a circus show for the public. I can hear congress now.
"We have to call you in for hearings and say some bad things about you, but we'll go eat dinner after the show.."

mookiemookie

03-03-11, 01:31 PM

Did I say they were forced to do this by the government?

That is indeed exactly what you said.

The government was asleep at the wheel. They let banks, mortgage brokers and Wall Street "self regulate" themselves into oblivion, and then caused tremendous moral hazard by bailing them out when their gambles blew up. But don't make the mistake of saying excessive regulation caused the crisis - it was indeed the opposite.

Again - the government does not set bank's credit underwriting standards for them. No program, no agency, no law at all does that.

AVGWarhawk

03-03-11, 01:44 PM

That is indeed exactly what you said.

The government was asleep at the wheel. They let banks, mortgage brokers and Wall Street "self regulate" themselves into oblivion, and then caused tremendous moral hazard by bailing them out when their gambles blew up. But don't make the mistake of saying excessive regulation caused the crisis - it was indeed the opposite.

Again - the government does not set bank's credit underwriting standards for them. No program, no agency, no law at all does that.

Find it for me...

Who is making the mistake that excessive regulation cause the crisis? I have said quite the opposite. The government left the wheelhouse to the bankers.

Ummm...did I say the government does set the standards or the government asked the banks to relax their standards? :hmmm:

In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton) to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers by increasing the ratios of their loan portfolios in distressed inner city areas designated in the CRA of 1977.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae#cite_note-HolmesNYT-16) Because of the increased ratio requirements, institutions in the primary mortgage market pressed Fannie Mae to ease credit requirements on the mortgages it was willing to purchase, enabling them to make loans to subprime borrowers at interest rates higher than conventional loans. Shareholders also pressured Fannie Mae to maintain its record profits.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae#cite_note-HolmesNYT-16)

In 2000, because of a re-assessment of the housing market by HUD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hud_(housing)), anti-predatory lending rules were put into place that disallowed risky, high-cost loans from being credited toward affordable housing goals. In 2004, these rules were dropped and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae#cite_note-17)
The intent was that Fannie Mae's enforcement of the underwriting standards they maintained for standard conforming mortgages would also provide safe and stable means of lending to buyers who did not have prime credit. As Daniel Mudd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Mudd), then President and CEO of Fannie Mae, testified in 2007, instead the agency's underwriting requirements drove business into the arms of the private mortgage industry who marketed aggressive products without regard to future consequences: "We also set conservative underwriting standards for loans we finance to ensure the homebuyers can afford their loans over the long term. We sought to bring the standards we apply to the prime space to the subprime market with our industry partners primarily to expand our services to underserved families.

mookiemookie

03-03-11, 01:46 PM

Find it for me...

Here:

This was due to the government forcing the banks to give the American Dream to all.

Ummm...did I say the government does set the standards or the government asked the banks to relax their standards? :hmmm: And why would the banks acquiesce to such a request unless they were motivated by profit? The profit that Wall Street's voracious appetite for debt to package into securities offered?

AVGWarhawk

03-03-11, 01:51 PM

Here:

And why would the banks acquiesce to such a request unless they were motivated by profit? The profit that Wall Street's voracious appetite for debt to package into securities offered?

Stand corrected! :salute:

The banks were backed by the government. If a loan defaulted the banks were covered by the government. It was a win/win profit situation for the banks. If the loan was good they made money. If the loan defaulted they got their money back. Anyone would take that deal. They did but did not consider the long term consequences.

Government backed. What did Fanny Mae care:

In 1999 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999), The New York Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times) reported that with the corporation's move towards the subprime market "Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s."[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae#cite_note-19) Alex Berenson of The New York Times reported in 2003 that Fannie Mae's risk is much larger than is commonly held.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae#cite_note-20) Nassim Taleb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassim_Taleb) wrote in The Black Swan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan_(Taleb_book)): "The government-sponsored institution Fannie Mae, when I look at its risks, seems to be sitting on a barrel of dynamite, vulnerable to the slightest hiccup.

The problem coming was already self evident. Everyone slept.

mookiemookie

03-03-11, 02:03 PM

Stand corrected! :salute:

The banks were backed by the government. If a loan defaulted the banks were covered by the government. It was a win/win profit situation for the banks. If the loan was good they made money. If the loan defaulted they got their money back. Anyone would take that deal. They did but did not consider the long term consequences.

The share of loans held by and securitized by the GSEs declined throughout boom. They were being supplanted by the securitizers on Wall Street. THAT is what helped fuel the fire.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/OB-MK956_FANFRE_NS_20110208232002.jpg

The problem didn't lie with conforming loans, or loans eligible for a GSE guarantee. It was the so-called high-cost or subprime loan market that was the spark that set the whole house afire. But banks that were subject to affordable housing regulations like the CRA were LESS likely to make subprime loans, and when they did, they were LESS likely to sell them to get them off their books. (http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf) So where were the subprime loans coming from and why were they being made? The vast majority of them were made by lenders that were not subject to comprehensive federal supervision like traditional banks - they were mortgage brokers, thrifts, private mortgage companies. (http://financialservices.house.gov/hearing110/barr021308.pdf)

Armistead

03-03-11, 02:05 PM

What's sad is the government is paying off these banks the value of the loan, not the market value of the home. Not only that a percentage of interest, fee's, etc...Don't know the truth, but also read banks get a percent for cost for lawyers fee's added in. That's why they did little to do mods, they made more money from the government, then sit on the property.

The Dems certainly led the way to offer more affordable homes, the GOP insured corporations would get rich off of it

AVGWarhawk

03-03-11, 02:10 PM

Win/win. "This is your wake up call Bud Fox. I'm gonna make you rich. Let's go to work."

http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2217477/2250785/2265745/100922_BB_wallstTT.jpg

gimpy117

03-03-11, 02:24 PM

Yeah right. If you think the lame duck Bush administration had that much influence over the Democrat controlled US Congress you're crazy. Truth be told the Democrats wanted this bailout and Bush only provided the excuse to go ahead with it.

No, they set forth the idea, and OF COURSE the FED backed it (being full of former wall street execs and what not). So the Fed and all these financial were screaming at everyone saying that the sky was falling unless congress acted right now.

August

03-03-11, 06:40 PM

No, they set forth the idea, and OF COURSE the FED backed it (being full of former wall street execs and what not). So the Fed and all these financial were screaming at everyone saying that the sky was falling unless congress acted right now.

The Bush administration did not come up with the idea of corporate bailouts. The Federal government has been doing it for over 40 years. Remember the Chrysler bailout?

But even if you were right, the Democrats sure have taken that bailout ball and ran with it, now haven't they.

gimpy117

03-03-11, 08:32 PM

The Bush administration did not come up with the idea of corporate bailouts. The Federal government has been doing it for over 40 years. Remember the Chrysler bailout?

But even if you were right, the Democrats sure have taken that bailout ball and ran with it, now haven't they.

Do you really think it would have been any different if McCain had won? Highly. Doubtful. Bush starting this proves my point.

Growler

03-03-11, 08:35 PM

But even if you were right, the Democrats sure have taken that bailout ball and ran with it, now haven't they.

Shoot, August, can you blame them? A chance to blame the last guy who wasn't theirs, AND someone handing over buckets of cash at the same time? What surprises me is that the bailed out businesses haven't taken MORE.

gimpy117

03-03-11, 08:37 PM

Shoot, August, can you blame them? A chance to blame the last guy who wasn't theirs, AND someone handing over buckets of cash at the same time? What surprises me is that the bailed out businesses haven't taken MORE.

may i also bring up all the "experts" telling congress that it was absolutely necessary or all hell would break loose.

Growler

03-03-11, 08:40 PM

may i also bring up all the "experts" telling congress that it was absolutely necessary or all hell would break loose.

Well, in their defense, it ain't exactly a rose garden right now - but it also sure ain't hell, either.

August

03-03-11, 09:11 PM

Do you really think it would have been any different if McCain had won? Highly. Doubtful. Bush starting this proves my point.

Yeah well bottom line is the Democrats controlled Congress and Congress makes the decisions as to whether anyone gets bailed out and how much.

Now either the Democrats knew full well what they were getting into and wanted the bailout to happen as much as Bush did, or the Democrats are so incompetent that they'd allow an unpopular, lame duck President who they've been saying for 8 years was too stupid to tie his own shoes sell them on the idea in spite of their better judgment.

So which is it? Incompetence or complicity?

Armistead

03-03-11, 09:32 PM

Do you really think it would have been any different if McCain had won? Highly. Doubtful. Bush starting this proves my point.

Sure, McCain would've done the same thing and the GOP would've been supporting it. For the many GOP'ers that were against bail-outs, they knew they were gonna happen, it was just of way of blaming Obama and passing the buck and being able to celebrate with corporate america. They didn't have to do the dirty work.

As far as blame, both parties had their hand in it for different reasons.

August

03-03-11, 09:38 PM

For the many GOP'ers that were against bail-outs, they knew they were gonna happen, it was just of way of blaming Obama and passing the buck and being able to celebrate with corporate america. They didn't have to do the dirty work.

Yeah that's right. The Evil Republicans knew that Obama would be elected before hand. :roll:

UnderseaLcpl

03-03-11, 10:09 PM

Or what Sonny? :stare: Don't make me go epic beard and leave you calling for da amberlamps. :DL

Epic beard?:haha: :up: I don't even know what that means but if going it means I'm the one calling the ambulance you might want to avoid such exertion.

The military professional part is ancient history now but thanks for the vote of no confidence... :dead:
You're welcome. You'll continue to recieve such votes until you un-frack yourself and start acting like a military leader. You cannot support a conservative stance when it benefits you and then just turn around and support the opposite stance when it suits your needs.

You are a teacher and a member of the the Army elite, retired or no. You have an obligation to lead by example.

Look, the government runs the military, do you think we could do better job of national defense with hired mercenaries? Given the cost of our efforts and the effectiveness of the same, I would at least suggest that mercenaries might be an alternative worth trying. They've been remarkably successful in the past.

The government runs the Fire Department, the Police, the Coast Guard, Customs, Code Enforcement, Patents, Post Office. Do you think turning those fields over private sector would be a better thing than what we have now?

Yes, sir, I think turning all those fields over to the private sector would be a good move. Profit motive and complete lack of civil-service attitude aside, the private sector could hardly do a worse job of providing such services than the government has. The Coast Guard fails to guard anything effectively, including the damn coast, which is why we are consistently concerned with offshore drug and weapons imports.

The Police and Fire Departments are doing a wonderful job of pre-empting crime without infringing upon civil liberties, as evidenced by...well any kind of evidence you'd care to consider. Criminals rehabilitated, arson attempts thwarted. You name it, it's been not done.

Don't even get me started on the Post Office. The existence and success of two major private competiors belies your argument.

Code Enforcement? Patents? Not that I've ever specifically advocated private intervention in those sectors, but you can see perfectly well the incredible job the government has done in those areas. There's a huge legal industry devoted to the interpretation of both. That would be your favored choice of implementation at work, there.

If you answer no to any of them then you have to admit that the market is not always the best choice for every aspect of our society. I have come to believe that Health Care is one of these areas.

Well, I didn't answer "no'" to any of them, but I didn't address Customs, so let's just assume you're right on this point. In fact, let's just go all the way and assume that healthcare is one of those things only the government can handle properly. I still don't know what "epic beard" means, but your explanation for the travesty that is government-run healthcare in this country had better be pretty epic. Throwing in some beard probably couldn't hurt. It's about the most calamitous failure in healthcare since the advent of government-regulated healthcare.

The For Profit system has an inherent conflict of interest in an area where most people are just not sufficiently knowledgeable enough to caveat emptor with the degree of accuracy that the importance of the subject demands.

The For-Profit system has an inherent conflict of interest in almost every area where people lack sufficient knowledge to exercise caveat emptor with any degree of accuracy no matter how important the subject is.

My car is very important to me. Without it I wouldn't have a way to get to work and all the good health in the world would be worth nothing to me because I'd be broke and very bored. I know enough about cars to perform basic mechanical maintenance but I have no freaking idea how that computerized crap works. Didn't stop me from obtaining a reliable 2004 Kia Spectra that runs like a dream, though. It wasn't difficult, all I did was ask around and do a little research.

Same goes for doctors. I could get treatment for free at the VA, but I don't because everyone I talked to said it sucked. I even went to see for myself. The doctors at the Ft. Worth VA personally told me that the care sucks. The clerks were obviously unhappy and bored, and I waited a pretty damn long time just to get a physical. They were all good people, don't get me wrong, but they were stuck in a system that had no risk and no reward.

My private physician is the complete polar opposite, and he's not even that great of a physician, comparitively speaking. I only picked him because he was convenient. I'm young and stupid enough that my health isn't really that important to me; I'm still effectively immortal. Even then, he's miles ahead of the VA doctors. He takes an active interest in my health and has become a friend of mine in the process. I have no illusions about why he's so concerned. He's young enough that he's probably still paying off school loans and he needs patients. He does what needs to be done to keep me coming back.

After all "The money is in the treatment, not the cure". is not a government slogan.
Did you take that straight from the AARP or did you paraphrase it? You don't even see what it is you are doing, do you? You are supposed to be a soldier. You are supposed to be a teacher. You are supposed to be an embodiment of everything that is good and right, and you are supposed to give your knowledge to those who come after you, but you are not doing that.

I just don't want my doctor to be seeing me as a revenue source. A NHS will do that.

And you imagine that the government sees you as anything other than a revenue source or a vote? Stop and think for two seconds, you Army ass. Your training requires that you have the critical-thinking skills to keep men alive in a combat environment. Assuming you remember that, how can you explain your stance? Offer a better explanation next time.

Can you show me how that can be avoided in the private sector? Done and done, with momentum to spare.

gimpy117

03-03-11, 10:14 PM

Yeah that's right. The Evil Republicans knew that Obama would be elected before hand. :roll:

again...they were already pushing a bailout before obama got elected.

August

03-03-11, 11:42 PM

You're welcome. You'll continue to recieve such votes until you un-frack yourself and start acting like a military leader. You cannot support a conservative stance when it benefits you and then just turn around and support the opposite stance when it suits your needs.

Why not? Do I have free will or not? Who are you to tell me what stances I may take?

This weird "military leader" vision you have of me is just downright scary. I'm an American citizen Lcpl. I am not here to lead or be led by anyone. Frankly the very idea of it smacks to me of fascism. Well sorry dude but I goose step for no man.

FWIW I have experienced government run health care through the military and the VA firsthand and based on those experiences, and the lack of an acceptable alternative plan to reverse the continued downward spiral of the present system, I'll continue to support the establishment of nationalized health care system that is accessible to all Americans. If that makes me not conservative enough for you then, well so be it. I have absolutely no problem living with your disdain.

Given the cost of our efforts and the effectiveness of the same, I would at least suggest that mercenaries might be an alternative worth trying. They've been remarkably successful in the past.

...

...I think turning all those fields over to the private sector would be a good move.

:o You disparage my conservatism then you turn around in the very same post and promote some of the most liberal concepts I've ever heard! Why not just do away with government altogether and live Mad Max style? Just think of the tax money you'll save!

Amazing.

I never, ever, want see our nations military in it just for the money. I couldn't think of a more efficient way to turn their loyalties away from the people they are supposed to defend. I will also never, ever support turning our emergency services over to private companies either.

If these are "conservative" goals then paint me red and call me a dirty Democrat because people like you need to be kept out of power lest you destroy my country completely. Not everything is supposed to be about money.

How's that for leadership?

August

03-03-11, 11:45 PM

again...they were already pushing a bailout before obama got elected.

And again: The bottom line is the Democrats controlled Congress and Congress makes the decisions as to whether anyone gets bailed out and how much.

Now either the Democrats knew full well what they were getting into and wanted the bailout to happen as much or more as the republicans did, or the Democrats are so incompetent that they'd allow an unpopular, lame duck President who they've been saying for 8 years was too stupid to tie his own shoes sell them on the idea in spite of their better judgment.

So which is it? Incompetence or complicity?

UnderseaLcpl

03-04-11, 01:24 AM

Why not? Do I have free will or not? Who are you to tell me what stances I may take?
You have the free will to conduct yourself as befitting your position as a military leader and a civilian teacher. Anything less than exemplary performance in this respect is a dereliction of duty. You cannot be a soldier devoted to defending the greater good with your life and simultaneously support a healthcare system that screws the people you swore to defend.

This weird "military leader" vision you have of me is just downright scary.
Too bad for me, I guess. I expected more of an Army NCO.

I'm an American citizen Lcpl. I am not here to lead or be led by anyone. Frankly the very idea of it smacks to me of fascism. Well sorry dude but I goose step for no man.

Well, that attitude would explain how you ended up in the Army.

FWIW I have experienced government run health care through the military and the VA firsthand and based on those experiences, and the lack of an acceptable alternative plan to reverse the continued downward spiral of the present system, I'll continue to support the establishment of nationalized health care system that is accessible to all Americans.

Okay, explain your rationale, then. And don't try to throw some worthless crap like the paragraph I just quoted at me. You're a teacher. Start teaching.

If that makes me not conservative enough for you then, well so be it.
I have absolutely no problem living with your disdain.

That's fortunate.

:o You disparage my conservatism then you turn around in the very same post and promote some of the most liberal concepts I've ever heard! Why not just do away with government altogether and live Mad Max style? Just think of the tax money you'll save!

Amazing.

You idiot. You're oversimplifying my views and you know it. If you have some kind of logical view, why don't you start acting like the teacher you supposedly are? Why are you even letting me get under your skin like this? I've given you every opportunity to logically justify yourself and you respond with this crap? Unacceptable.

I never, ever, want see our nations military in it just for the money. I couldn't think of a more efficient way to turn their loyalties away from the people they are supposed to defend.
I could. It's not even difficult. You're doing a great job right now. You're an Army veteran, but you're not above supporting Nationalized Healthcare regardless of the cost to the people you're supposed to be defending.

You're also a teacher, but you're not teaching anything. Instead, you're wasting your time arguing semantics with me instead of making a valid point. You're what, 30-something years my senior and a teacher to boot and you're not completely wiping the floor with me with sheer intellectual superiority?

I will also never, ever support turning our emergency services over to private companies either.
Thanks for explaining so thoroughly.

If these are "conservative" goals then paint me red and call me a dirty Democrat because people like you need to be kept out of power lest you destroy my country completely. Not everything is supposed to be about money.

Good attitude, complete lack of reasoning. For one thing, it's not "your" country. It's "our" country. I fought for it, too. Secondly, you should be experienced enough to know what happens when you give the government control over anything. Stop parroting the AARP and think for yourself or about everyone else for a moment.

How's that for leadership?

:hmmm:Not too bad. I'd give it a four out of ten. The passion is there but you're totally missing the leadership and explanatory elements. I'm not completely sure about the validity of my assesment but I am sure about the fact that I wouldn't follow your sorry ass in a fight.

No need to get all worked up about the matter, though. If you give me your address I'll send you a quarter so you can call your wife and tell her you talked to a Marine today.

gimpy117

03-04-11, 01:37 AM

And again: The bottom line is the Democrats controlled Congress and Congress makes the decisions as to whether anyone gets bailed out and how much.

Now either the Democrats knew full well what they were getting into and wanted the bailout to happen as much or more as the republicans did, or the Democrats are so incompetent that they'd allow an unpopular, lame duck President who they've been saying for 8 years was too stupid to tie his own shoes sell them on the idea in spite of their better judgment.

So which is it? Incompetence or complicity?

More like the bottom line: Financial companies are running the show, and they got their way. It would have happened if republicans had been in power as well too. They got their way when their bad business practices were allowed via the deregulation in the bush years. However, I don't accept you trying to shift blame solely on the democrats, thats an over simplification and it serves you party agenda, Especially when plans for the bailout (TARP) were in progress during the final plans of the bush administration, and when both Rep. and dem. candidates said they would support the bill. Furthermore, TARP was signed into law by Bush (who immediately supported the bill) who could have vetoed.

Or are you confusing TARP with the stimulis? kinda easy to do with all the frothing at the mother the GOP has been doing. really fill me in here...because im at a loss how you try to say how its our loss when a bill is signed into law by the republican president is our fault...you know with the veto and all, especially when almost as many republicans voted for it than against it (91 aye, 108 nay), and 63 democrats opposed it as well.

Tribesman

03-04-11, 03:19 AM

You're what, 30-something years my senior and a teacher to boot and you're not completely wiping the floor with me with sheer intellectual superiority?

He has, but you don't realise it.

August

03-04-11, 08:40 AM

You have the free will to conduct yourself as befitting your position as a military leader and a civilian teacher. Anything less than exemplary performance in this respect is a dereliction of duty. You cannot be a soldier devoted to defending the greater good with your life and simultaneously support a healthcare system that screws the people you swore to defend.

My position as a military leader? You really are nuts!

You're a teacher. Start teaching. Pay me sufficiently and I might. You're the one who doesn't think people should get anything for free and i'm not inclined to give anything free to a hypocrite.

You idiot.:up: <-- Imagine this was a different finger.

You're what, 30-something years my senior and a teacher to boot and you're not completely wiping the floor with me with sheer intellectual superiority? Maybe that's because I am not here to wipe the floor with anyone, nor do I consider myself anyones superior or inferior. That's elitist crap. Is that what this forum is to you? Some kind of substitute for combat?

Thanks for explaining so thoroughly. Sure, it's free of charge,... this time.

Stop parroting the AARP.I am not a member of the AARP nor do I read their literature. Thanks for the dose of ageism though.

I am sure about the fact that I wouldn't follow your sorry ass in a fight. Oh good, because I certainly wouldn't lead you.

We're done here. Buh bye.