Is the Government REWARDING bad behavior?

[Mr. Kotter]

First, let me say...this isn't just a "since Obama became President" thing. It began long, long before that...and accelerated under George W. But....

Is anyone else feeling like maybe, "Eh, screw the mortgage....I wanna go on a spending spree." Or if you own a company, saying "Eh, screw professional ethics; I'll just rape the company, and the government is gonna bail us out."

:hmmm:


I mean, WTF, right? :shrug:


I can just wait until I can file for bankruptcy, and then renegotiate my mortgage rate and terms with my lender under this new legislation, right? Or if I'm a business....I'll just apply for a government loan or bail-out, right?

FTR, I'm not seriously considering it, and I understand that we are in the midst of a serious situation. However, some of the specific proposals just don't seem to make much sense to me.

Do you think that the government encouraging or rewarding bad behavior? Why, or why not?

What say you??? :hmmm:

[Bootlegged]

Listening to BO and Holder - I believe this is get even time. Screw the man, if we can rise up as a people at the expense of others, we can run shit. Simplified, but the theory seems to be playing out before us every day.

[ChiTown]

Does a Shark shit in the sea?

[Bootlegged]

Does a Shark shit in the sea?

Unless he's a landshark.

http://www.chevychasecentral.com/snl/land%20shark.jpg

[HonestChieffan]

Democrats are rewarding democrats. But certainly we are not rewarding good behavior.

[oldandslow]

We have two choices here...

1) Continue to print more money, give more loans, keep things floating, and attempt to find economic growth once again or

2) Go to a tight money supply - which will reward good behavior, but be oh so painful for just about everybody.

Both repubs and dems have opted for 1 because it buys votes. Inflation never stopped a President from being elected (quoting R.M. Nixon after he lifted the last standard on the dollar). Deflation, however, will. Ask Herbert Hoover and the Repub party.

In my perfect world, credit would get much tighter. I like limited growth. It protects resources, is less polluting, etc...

It will never get me elected though. And that, perhaps, is the problem with democracy.

[Garcia Bronco]

I don't think it's that at all, Gents. I think Obama and his administration just literally don't know what the hell they are doing. They're idiots. Worse the George Bush's Administration at this point.

[FishingRod]

If the Government takes control and or ownership of enough business, then they will have made enough people dependant on their handouts to guarantee that they remain in power. It is not a new concept and it works very well for that purpose. For the people it is not so great see North Korea, Cuba and California. Government "should" create job training programs. Support research in the private sector that will create new permanent jobs. If you just gotta spend a bunch of money, how about making some small effort to make college more affordable. In the long term that is investing in our country and "should" pay off. If we are to stimulate the economy we need industry and technology that creates profit for companies to hire more employees that then are paid a decent wage some they can be consumers. Again it is not new Henry Ford saw each of his employees as a potential customer.

[petegz28]

I don't think it's that at all, Gents. I think Obama and his administration just literally don't know what the hell they are doing. They're idiots. Worse the George Bush's Administration at this point.

This. Notice we went from "create 3-4 million jobs" to "save or create 3 million jobs"?


Geithner is a fucking idiot. He crafted TARP 1, and he has no clue of what to do with TARP 2.

[HonestChieffan]

And the Dems are working on another stimulus package right now.....question remains, who can stop the madness? Obama wont...even if he wanted to Im afraid the dems in congress will over ride his veto...like we have any hope he would ever veto a bill that has spending.

[Mr. Kotter]

Does a Shark shit in the sea?

I know, I know....it's self-evident to most of us old foggies; I'm just more than a little surprised by the brisk and unabashed pace of things now.

:shake:

[Mr. Kotter]

We have two choices here...

1) Continue to print more money, give more loans, keep things floating, and attempt to find economic growth once again or

2) Go to a tight money supply - which will reward good behavior, but be oh so painful for just about everybody.

Both repubs and dems have opted for 1 because it buys votes. Inflation never stopped a President from being elected (quoting R.M. Nixon after he lifted the last standard on the dollar). Deflation, however, will. Ask Herbert Hoover and the Repub party.

In my perfect world, credit would get much tighter. I like limited growth. It protects resources, is less polluting, etc...

It will never get me elected though. And that, perhaps, is the problem with democracy.

I believe you have identified the crux of the problem. It makes me fear for the futures of our children. :shake:

I don't think it's that at all, Gents. I think Obama and his administration just literally don't know what the hell they are doing. They're idiots. Worse the George Bush's Administration at this point.

I understand the inclination, but as oldandslow said....given the options, in the present circumstance, the intellect of average Americans, and within the constraints of our democracy, I don't know if we have a better option.

Say what you will about FDR, restoring hope and "doing something" (even if by his own admission, he didn't know if it would work).....to get people back on their feet, and hope that events wake them up....in that day, it was WWII....don't know what it would be today.....is about all we can expect right now.

I'm not saying I like it, but it is what it is.... :shake:

[HonestChieffan]

Kotter, its an age/experience gap. Ive almost become convinced of it...

There is a generation of young people who did not experience the 60's, Vietnam, and the tearing aprt the country went through..nor did they experience the 50s when many of us watched our parents struggle to find a way out of the new deal and the huge cost that had to be paid.

They in turn did not experience the inflation and economic stagnation that went on in the early 70s.

What they did experience was the growth boom in real terms of the Reagan era that spilled into Clintons terms. They saw a stock market that demonstrated real growth, realestate that couldnt miss, and low inflation. So they have zero basis in experience or understanding of the cause of the current situation nor do they have any understanding of the horrific costs they and the next generation will face as a result of this so called stimulus.

With no experience and no desire to understand economics and the effect of messing with an economic system, they are doomed to live thorough what I believe is a repeat of the 60/70 era.

i submit:
....a very expensive foreign policy in Iraq/Afganistan. Its not a question of why we are there, who started it, or the good/bad, its just a fact. We are there, its expensive, its unpopular, and the new president seems much like Johnson in his management of military so far.

...massive debt. Going from where we were in amtter of weeks we have taken on huge burden of debt with at least as much to come in more bailouts and this housing deal he is going to do and a new stimulus being discussed already.

...energy. Carter had the gas shortages, Obama or the next president will see oil spike madly.

..confidence. No one had any confidence in Carter. Remember we had an index of how bad things were. Well, as Obama, if he doesnt start getting it right, will have it worse. He has yet to make comments that would make people feel better or hold out for a turn around. Its all bad. We know its not all bad but bad sells programs.

..jobs. Until the system finds equilibrium, jobs will be scarce. The current offerings do not reward business who expand and grow nor is business incentivized in investiong. In fact the opposite is true. If I can build a widget here and pay 35% corp tax, why should i not build it in Ireland and pay 10% corp tax? Sort of reeks of the Johnson era tax wise...


History may not be fun for all, but its telling in how we tend to repeat mistakes becuse we dont look back and understand.

[Iowanian]

Sure they are. We're the only country in the world with a huge percentage of obese poor people.

[dirk digler]

Damn I had no idea honestchieffan was such an old fart. And long winded at that.

:D

[Mr. Kotter]

Sure they are. We're the only country in the world with a huge percentage of obese poor people.

I do think THAT is symptomatic of the disease.

OTOH, scarcity has conditioned poor people to hoard....to eat or spend when "you have it," and as such it becomes an understandable, if unfortunate, trend.


HFC, nice post; I'll respond when I get some time, but I do think you are right in a lot of what you say.

[Chief Henry]

Sure they are. We're the only country in the world with a huge percentage of obese poor people.

ROFL I know what you mean about that.

In America complacency is running rampant. The govt has created
a large % of people that only care about:

*having cable TV
*having a cold beverage
*bag of chips
*bed for sex with the fat bitch or crack whore
*cell phone

In America you can have all of that and not have a job...:mad:

[Mr. Kotter]

...

In America you can have all of that and not have a job...:mad:

THAT is the real problem with all of this.

And it's why so few Leftys will weigh-in on the topic--because it makes them squirm. A lot.

[HonestChieffan]

The problem I forsee is when the snowball starts rolling, what will "they" give up...

I look at my son. Hes got a good education, job, soon to be married, has his first home, two cars, god knows how many TVs, a wii and all the stuff, computers all over that talkto his phone and each other, ipods, and every other gadget known to man or woman.

What he does not have is experiences that prepare you for times that may not be so good.Not depression...but times when the dollar in inflation takes away that edge...that money that just seems to always be there.

I bought his first car. New....so he has no clue whats involved maintaining one or fixing one to keep it on the road. How many young people have traded or gotten new cars before they ever needed work? (I'm not picking on young folks, its not your fault). Would you consider doing your own oil change? Or buying a used tire that better than the one you have on the wheel? Or sharing a car with your spouse until you can afford a second one?

I still have 1 TV. Its old. Some people may remember when Magnavox was top of the line. Still have it, still works. Will the people someday realize they can get TV free with an antenna? Or will we continue to see 50-100 bucks a month spent on TV?

Long distance phone calls used to send me into a rage. If we spent more than the base amount on telephone I was mad as hell. Today we have land line/DSL or whtever it is plus cell bills and cell bills will run to the hundreds in families with a bunch of phones....when it hits us, will we drop cell phones? Where does high speed internet fit if you have to go get groceries?

Im not talking depression times...for those of you to young to remember, these decisions wer made every week in 1975. Inflation took our raise...but food went up, rent went up, taxes went up, gas went from 27cents to 50 cents...seems crazy...but it doubled. And when it did, you chose to drive or walk or stay home.

Food for thought

[Mr. Kotter]

HRC, thanks for your thoughts. I'll try to get to them when I can do them justice.

[Mr. Kotter]

Hey, Lefties....why the crickets? :hmmm:



Surely, you should have something to say on this issue? I mean, other than dirk and oldandslow.



Or is this notion, as I tend to think, true and difficult to defend? :shrug:

[Jenson71]

It's more fixing than rewarding, but it's hard to disagree with that kind of spin. The economy can either crumble further into chaos because and we can justify it by the government taking a hard-lined judging approach, or we can attempt to correct mistakes that were made from buyers to sellers up and down the ranks. And we can establish measures that look to prevent these problems from happening in the future (like more oversight).

A sense of entitlement is present in a number of places. Limiting it to the poor is ridiculous. Many college students today, white, middle to upper class, feel entitled to As on their papers simply for working on it and handing it in on time.

[Mr. Kotter]

It's more fixing than rewarding, but it's hard to disagree with that kind of spin. The economy can either crumble further into chaos because and we can justify it by the government taking a hard-lined judging approach, or we can attempt to correct mistakes that were made from buyers to sellers up and down the ranks. And we can establish measures that look to prevent these problems from happening in the future (like more oversight).

A sense of entitlement is present in a number of places. Limiting it to the poor is ridiculous. Many college students today, white, middle to upper class, feel entitled to As on their papers simply for working on it and handing it in on time.

I included the bailout of banks and companys too; I didn't limit it to the poor. That's your misinterpretation of what I said, I guess.

Many of the provisions, including some that are benefitting the banks and Wall Street are as big, if not bigger, joke than some of the mortgage provisions IMHO.

So, we are left with....needing to "fix" bad behavior, by rewarding, excusing, enabling, and encouraging even more bad behavior.

What are responsible citizens and businesses who didn't engage in such bad behavior suppose to think?

Isn't that make any sense, in psychological terms of reinforcement theory? Or behavior modification theory? Cause if it does, I'm missing it.

[Jenson71]

So, the bad behavior is with both of these groups, these groups that would take on mortgages they couldn't afford, and the other side that would sell them these they knew they couldn't pay off, and just transfer them over in a bundle to someone else to worry about right? (I don't know much about mortgages and this kind of stuff, so you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong)

I don't see how these people who just might get out due to a refinancing of a loan or the banks and companies that dealt them and are getting by now, are going to turn around and do the same thing. Is it possible? Well, I guess so, but I don't think it's likely. I suspect this recession and housing crisis has snapped the reality back into both the companies that over-agressively sell and the people that over-aggressively buy.

What does a responsible person think? Well, they aren't faced with these mortgage problems, they aren't 'underwater' and they go on continuing living, but they go on while realizing that a poor national economy even effects those who didn't do anything wrong.

There are a lot of people who have been hurt because of this that didn't do anything wrong. Now we can curb that trend, or we can go on moralizing. Doing both might work, but it's still going to cost.

[Otter]

So, we are left with....needing to "fix" bad behavior, by rewarding, excusing, enabling, and encouraging even more bad behavior.

What are responsible citizens and businesses who didn't engage in such bad behavior suppose to think?

It's ludicrous, insane, plain fucking stupid to be giving all this money to the same people who allowed the practices which brought us to this mess and who couldn't run a profitable company to keep their jobs and allocate these funds.

I should just stop reading about it because all it does is make me sick. Fuck this piece of shit government we allowed to turn into this beast.

:Lin:

[stevieray]

This year notoriety, got all confused with fame.

/Don Henley

[Jenson71]

Mayflower Pact!

[Mr. Kotter]

Mayflower Pact!

Well said, Comrad Jenson. :clap:


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1PXCM3e-SMk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1PXCM3e-SMk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[BucEyedPea]

Yes, absolutely!

It's very simple: You get what you reward. You get less of what you penalize. We penalize production and putting off gains later after hard work.
That's what cheap, easy credit does to people. And we penalize production by taxing one earnings. Now the govt is rewarding the bad behavior it
encouraged.

[SHTSPRAYER]

First, let me say...this isn't just a "since Obama became President" thing. It began long, long before that...and accelerated under George W. But....

Is anyone else feeling like maybe, "Eh, screw the mortgage....I wanna go on a spending spree." Or if you own a company, saying "Eh, screw professional ethics; I'll just rape the company, and the government is gonna bail us out."

:hmmm:


I mean, WTF, right? :shrug:


I can just wait until I can file for bankruptcy, and then renegotiate my mortgage rate and terms with my lender under this new legislation, right? Or if I'm a business....I'll just apply for a government loan or bail-out, right?

FTR, I'm not seriously considering it, and I understand that we are in the midst of a serious situation. However, some of the specific proposals just don't seem to make much sense to me.

Do you think that the government encouraging or rewarding bad behavior? Why, or why not?

What say you??? :hmmm:


No. The communists aren't rewarding bad behavior, they are taking advantage of it to bankrupt the country.

Do you realize that in our 200+ year history, that 1/4 for the national debt has been created in just the last ten years?

Pretty sad. And although the B.O. and the communists will bust the place out ala Henry Hill and Tommy DeVito in Goodfellas when they burn down the Hawaain club.

[SHTSPRAYER]

No. The communists aren't rewarding bad behavior, they are taking advantage of it to bankrupt the country.

Do you realize that in our 200+ year history, that 1/4 for the national debt has been created in just the last ten years?

Pretty sad. And although Bush and the Republicans are responsible for half of it, the B.O. and the communists will bust the place out ala Henry Hill and Tommy DeVito in Goodfellas when they burn down the Hawaain club.


B.O. has in one month spent more money than Bush did in Iraq in five years.

Like I've been saying for several years now, get ready for Weimar Republic, the sequel.

[Adept Havelock]

Mayflower Pact!

It had a decent beat, but you couldn't dance to it.

Of course, what else would you expect from folks so uptight even the British kicked them out? :shrug:

Oliver Cromwell FTL...

[RedNeckRaider]

The answer is yes. Be it people who took on loans they could not afford to CEOs that have mismanaged companies. The Government has been in disfunction for quite some time.

Obama is in a win win situation. Things are so screwed up if he turns it around he will go down as the one of the greatest Presidents ever. If he fails people will simply shrug their shoulders and think he never had a chance. I disagree with the approach he is taking, but then he is my President and I hope he knows what he is doing.

I fear there will be a reckoning and that is because I have kids who will suffer the sins of the past. I can tell you I have no answers so I will re frame from blasting those who lead the charge. I may shake my head but it will be disagreeing while hoping I am wrong.

[SHTSPRAYER]

The answer is yes. Be it people who took on loans they could not afford to CEOs that have mismanaged companies. The Government has been in disfunction for quite some time.

Obama is in a win win situation. Things are so screwed up if he turns it around he will go down as the one of the greatest Presidents ever. If he fails people will simply shrug their shoulders and think he never had a chance. I disagree with the approach he is taking, but then he is my President and I hope he knows what he is doing.

I fear there will be a reckoning and that is because I have kids who will suffer the sins of the past. I can tell you I have no answers so I will re frame from blasting those who lead the charge. I may shake my head but it will be disagreeing while hoping I am wrong.

He's not trying to turn it around, he's using this bad economy to make things worse and turn the country into a communist state.

But the military will overthrow him, so we will wind up with a Dictatorship instead.

This is Weimar Germany/Third Reich the sequel.

[NickAthanFan]

This can't be an honest question, does the government reward bad behavior?

If you are able to work but choose not to does the government house, feed, clothe, entertain and support you?

Yes we reward bad behavior, and we speak badly about the few people that are actually footing the bill for it.

[HolyHandgernade]

Mayflower Pact!

ROFL

-HH

[SHTSPRAYER]

This can't be an honest question, does the government reward bad behavior?

If you are able to work but choose not to does the government house, feed, clothe, entertain and support you?

Yes we reward bad behavior, and we speak badly about the few people that are actually footing the bill for it.

Raythithts. /moonbat

[HolyHandgernade]

Hey, Lefties....why the crickets? :hmmm:



Surely, you should have something to say on this issue? I mean, other than dirk and oldandslow.



Or is this notion, as I tend to think, true and difficult to defend? :shrug:

I don't knowif I qualify as a Leftie, but, in my opinion it looks more like an attempt at a correction from the previous administration than just "rewarding" poor choices.

In the previous 8 years, the rules were slanted to favor the wealthy, which instead of producing national wealth, began to hoard it. It created circumstances that made it impossible for even the middle class to keep pace, and tried to hide that by extending more credit with relaxed standards, knowing they would make even more money off the usuary, I mean, interest rates.

The problem which they realized too late was that when you eventually hold all the wealth AND have overextended your credit resources, that soon becomes your debt as well. So, the government, IMO, is simply trying to help balance the wealth a bit. Its a no win situation if you just let it go because even the wealthy find that their real wealth isn't what it was. If you want to continue a free society, its the middle class that has to be bailed out, not just the creditors.

Of course, your opinion on this is going to be dictated by your age and your location. If you didn't work somewhere where, something close was going to cost you in the low 700,000 and the only alternative was to buy something an hour away in the low 300,000, and a couple years later gas prices go through the roof, maybe you don't understand the dilema people had with keeping up with this run away cost of living. If you throw in medical expenses (even if you have good insurance), the unexpecteds (car repairs), and so on. You do what you can to try and wade through what you hope is only a fluctuation. The middle class didn't create these credit schemes, and most of them are not financial wizzes.

Now, I don't advocate buying something you obviously cannot afford, but people look at what they can afford on a month to month basis. That's the culture, not sayingits right or wrong, but blaming one side for it is not very balanced, and blaming the new administration for trying to fix it, I don't think is the right approach either. But then again, I'm not a financial expert, just airing my observations.

-HH

[Simplex3]

So, the bad behavior is with both of these groups, these groups that would take on mortgages they couldn't afford, and the other side that would sell them these they knew they couldn't pay off, and just transfer them over in a bundle to someone else to worry about right? (I don't know much about mortgages and this kind of stuff, so you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong)

I don't see how these people who just might get out due to a refinancing of a loan or the banks and companies that dealt them and are getting by now, are going to turn around and do the same thing. Is it possible? Well, I guess so, but I don't think it's likely. I suspect this recession and housing crisis has snapped the reality back into both the companies that over-agressively sell and the people that over-aggressively buy.

What does a responsible person think? Well, they aren't faced with these mortgage problems, they aren't 'underwater' and they go on continuing living, but they go on while realizing that a poor national economy even effects those who didn't do anything wrong.

There are a lot of people who have been hurt because of this that didn't do anything wrong. Now we can curb that trend, or we can go on moralizing. Doing both might work, but it's still going to cost.

I've watched the same stupid people make the same stupid mistakes and suffer the same consequences for thirty-six years. I think there is a huge percentage of people who have no interest in changing their habits until it literally cripples them. There is a somewhat smaller percentage where even that isn't enough (see Amy Winehouse).

I've learned that everyone has a minimum acceptable standard of living, and they will usually do just enough work to achieve that standard. For some people sleeping under a bridge and eating out of cans is fine. For others as long as they have a thirty year old truck, smokes, and a six pack every night they're good. Sure, they'll both say they "want" more, but in the end they don't want it so badly that they're willing to put the effort in to get it.

However, if you're willing to hand it to them for free, they'll surely take it. Not only that, but they'll become accustomed to it and start to expect it. Demand it even. If you didn't have to earn something you have no idea what it is worth.

Take first generation money. I've known a lot of people who made their own fortunes over the years, and almost to a person they were smart, hard working, intelligent, kind, thoughtful people. They earned it. They know what it took.

Take people with generational wealth. These people are usually cocky, arrogant, jerks. They may be smart. When they're kind or thoughtful it is usually with someone else's money, after all, money is just something you have, not something you had to work for.

[eazyb81]

The idea that the government is "rewarding" bad behavior is viewing a complex situation way too simplisticly. We all need to come to grips with the fact that this is a systemic crisis. First, the taxpayers are upset that they're paying bonuses to executives who got us into this mess, then other taxpayers are upset that they're paying to shore up mortgages.

The problem is that when the crisis becomes systemic, the individual responsibility ethos (which I ordinarily support) becomes hard to apply. Just as we have to try to resuscitate Wall Street banks and their well-paid employees because we need a banking system, we also have to keep a bunch of people in their homes because no one can afford for large numbers of homes to go into foreclosure and those people to be out on the street.

What happens if large numbers of homes go into foreclosure? The first thing is that housing prices continue to spiral downward rapidly, triggering higher interest rates, destroying more wealth, even for those people who thought they were saving money by not paying taxes (didn't they just get tax cuts anyway?). When those people no longer have jobs, consumption goes down in the economy, more companies go out of business, and suddenly everyone else is laid off.

It's clear that we need to transition to an economy where we live with less leverage and within our means, but that transition needs to be much more gradual than this bottom-falling-out process. Hard landings are very destructive. So, yes, we need to hold our nose and shore up the mortgages, then we can start to try to take the worst of them off of the balance sheets, make banks more stable, and have an operating economy again.

[Mr. Kotter]

eazyb81:

Two questions:

1. Should the responsible mortgage holders of the country just flip lenders and the government a giant bird....and refuse to pay THEIR mortgages now (since the government is willing to bail such people out)?

2. Should ethical and responsible business and corporation leaders decide to screw their customers and act in arrogance similar to that exercised by Detroit, banking, and Wall Street execs who've thumbed their nose the naivete' of average Americans....and expect a government bail-out of their companies and industries?

Seriously. :shrug:

[Jenson71]

Your second point brings quite a paradox. Ethical and responsible companies cannot screw their customers.

[Mr. Kotter]

Your second point brings quite a paradox. Ethical and responsible companies cannot screw their customers.

Wrong, Jens. Sure they could. No one can be expected to allow individual ignorance and lack of due diligence by customers....to transfer responsibility for stupid decisions by customers themselves to the business. Only criminally provable deception and failure to "inform" customers of the terms of business, would do that---and most businesses have lawyers who more than safeguard their clients from such silly claims.

Businesses that cover their ass, can't be responsible for customers who fail to do their homework. Ethics and "woulda, shoulda...what's the RIGHT thing to do" for customers....is a discussion separate and apart from a discussion of purely "ethical" issues.

[kcpasco]

The bill worked out for my benefit, so Obama has already won my vote in 4 years.

[Mr. Kotter]

The bill worked out for my benefit, so Obama has already won my vote in 4 years.

So, you screwed-up and will benefit thanks to sugar-daddy government.

Can't say I blame you; the more I think about it....the more I'm wondering if I should continue to pay my own mortgage....

:hmmm:

Which is the plan. Thanks for the personal testimony. :thumb:

[kcpasco]

So, you screwed-up and will benefit thanks to sugar-daddy government.

Can't say I blame you; the more I think about it....the more I'm wondering if I should continue to pay my own mortgage....

:hmmm:

Which is the plan. Thanks for the personal testimony. :thumb:

Sorry, wasn't talking about mortgage crisis. I've never missed a house payment, I was talking about the stimulus bill to put people to work. I had been working as a temporary worker for the past year because the company didn't have the funds to bring me on full time but yesterday I got hired as a permanent employee. I can sleep better at night knowing my kids have health insurance now, and job security.

[HolyHandgernade]

eazyb81:

Two questions:

1. Should the responsible mortgage holders of the country just flip lenders and the government a giant bird....and refuse to pay THEIR mortgages now (since the government is willing to bail such people out)?


Like I said, I'm no expert in this area, so let me ask what exactly it is you are expecting government to do for these people? Are you saying the government is going to buy their homes for them? My understanding, was that some of these loans were going to be restructured to make them affordable. Or, is your implication that you are going to flip them the bird so you can get better terms? If you are current, can't you get better terms now without going that route? I'm not being obtuse, I really don't understand what people are expecting the government to d with some of these mortgages.

-HH

[Taco John]

I don't think government is rewarding bad behavior so much as it's trying to fix the problems that government created which led to the so-called 'bad behavior.'

For my part, it's difficult to blame anyone for jumping on the "property will never go down in value" bandwagon. I could start naming names of the financial geniuses on this forum who were saying this very thing (and criticizing anyone who said differently), and are now suddenly economic geniuses who "saw it all along."

The fact is, nearly everyone was of the belief that any property investment was a good one. Why wouldn't people want to jump into that with both feet if the bank said they qualified for a loan? Property was supposed to be the "bubble that never popped."

I'm very much in favor of personal responsibility. But part of that is the banks having reasonable policies that protect themselves, and a government that doesn't rig the system - and then whine about lack of regulation when their rigging goes for bust.

[Taco John]

Like I said, I'm no expert in this area, so let me ask what exactly it is you are expecting government to do for these people? Are you saying the government is going to buy their homes for them? My understanding, was that some of these loans were going to be restructured to make them affordable. Or, is your implication that you are going to flip them the bird so you can get better terms? If you are current, can't you get better terms now without going that route? I'm not being obtuse, I really don't understand what people are expecting the government to d with some of these mortgages.

-HH


It's my understanding that the government is going to knock a fair amount of principle off of these homes and then force the banks to refinance at around 4.5%.

I'd sure like to get that deal if that's the case.

[Mr. Kotter]

It's my understanding that the government is going to knock a fair amount of principle off of these homes and then force the banks to refinance at around 4.5%.

I'd sure like to get that deal if that's the case.

Wow.... :spock:

"Bingo!"

[to something TJ said....holy crap. Hell has frozen over.]


;)

[Mr. Kotter]

Like I said, I'm no expert in this area, so let me ask what exactly it is you are expecting government to do for these people? Are you saying the government is going to buy their homes for them? My understanding, was that some of these loans were going to be restructured to make them affordable. Or, is your implication that you are going to flip them the bird so you can get better terms? If you are current, can't you get better terms now without going that route? I'm not being obtuse, I really don't understand what people are expecting the government to d with some of these mortgages.

-HH

HH--

I repped you, because...as usual...you are fair and on-point... :thumb:

Brother, I am no expert "in the area" either; but, yeah, the gov should either BUY their homes....or tell the bank and the borrower to figure it out, period...and get the hell out of the way.

Giving these folks the opportunity to "restructure" begs the question...."what the fugg about US (those who were more responsible, bought more affordable homes at more stable rates)???

Given the provisions of this bail-out, a WHOLE LOT of irresponsible folks are gonna be able to "renegotiate" better interest rates and terms....WHY in the hell am I not able to do the same thing (unless I decide to stop paying MY mortgage?)?

[Direckshun]

First, let me say...this isn't just a "since Obama became President" thing. It began long, long before that...and accelerated under George W. But....

Is anyone else feeling like maybe, "Eh, screw the mortgage....I wanna go on a spending spree." Or if you own a company, saying "Eh, screw professional ethics; I'll just rape the company, and the government is gonna bail us out."

:hmmm:


I mean, WTF, right? :shrug:


I can just wait until I can file for bankruptcy, and then renegotiate my mortgage rate and terms with my lender under this new legislation, right? Or if I'm a business....I'll just apply for a government loan or bail-out, right?

FTR, I'm not seriously considering it, and I understand that we are in the midst of a serious situation. However, some of the specific proposals just don't seem to make much sense to me.

Do you think that the government encouraging or rewarding bad behavior? Why, or why not?

What say you??? :hmmm:

It's a tough call, and I honestly can't say either way.

I'd say that's obviously not the intent of keeping these key financial institutions afloat, but that doesn't mean that's NOT what we're doing.

I see the benefits of TARP. That doesn't mean I have to like it.

[BucEyedPea]

There are no benefits to TARP. It's just plain old inequality-under-the law socialism.

[BucEyedPea]

The idea that the government is "rewarding" bad behavior is viewing a complex situation way too simplisticly.
Those trying to run our lives and make us slaves LOVE to make simple matters more complicated. It covers over the fraud and original bad policies. It goes like this: You start with one arbitrary being introduced that creates a distortion in the market, which requires the introduction of more arbitraries to fix it, which leads to another crisis ( many of which are along the way) leading to more arbitraries and on and on it goes in a vicious cycle that is so complicated only because original principles were violated. We don't need all this stinkin' complexity when the causes are simple. Accepting it as too complex is simply a non-confront of the original violations of principles, many of which are ethical principles.


We all need to come to grips with the fact that this is a systemic crisis. First, the taxpayers are upset that they're paying bonuses to executives who got us into this mess, then other taxpayers are upset that they're paying to shore up mortgages.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah....our system of patchwork socialism isn't working?
Well who ever said it worked? It's NEVER worked. Partially or wholly. It always leads to a crisis either in an area or overall.
Get rid of this system and go back to an ethical and sane one that does not punish frugal behavior and reward it's opposite.

The problem is that when the crisis becomes systemic, the individual responsibility ethos (which I ordinarily support) becomes hard to apply. Just as we have to try to resuscitate Wall Street banks and their well-paid employees because we need a banking system, we also have to keep a bunch of people in their homes because no one can afford for large numbers of homes to go into foreclosure and those people to be out on the street.
No it becomes hard to apply because no one wants to feel any pain. Again a non-confront of reality. The market is speaking and disciplining those who erred.
It always has the last say despite good intentions.

What happens if large numbers of homes go into foreclosure?
So what? Millions more get to buy homes cheap. You just want to have the govt pick the winners and the losers.


I won't even deal with the rest of your post which is basically more of what didn't work. What didn't work before, will not work again. What worked before will work again. It's really very simple if you are willing to confront the reality as harsh as it may seem. American's don't need a pity party policy.

[eazyb81]

Those trying to run our lives and make us slaves LOVE to make simple matters more complicated. It covers over the fraud and original bad policies. It goes like this: You start with one arbitrary being introduced that creates a distortion in the market, which requires the introduction of more arbitraries to fix it, and on and on it goes in a vicious cycle that is so complicated only because original principles were violated. We don't need all this stinkin' complexity when the cause are simple. Accepting it as too complex is simply a non-confront of the original violations of principles, many of which are ethical principles.



Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah....our system of patchwork socialism isn't working?
Well who ever said it worked? It's NEVER worked. It always leads to a crisis.
Get rid of this system and go back to an ethical and sane one that does not punish frugal behavior and reward it's opposite.


No it becomes hard to apply because no one wants to feel any pain.


So what? Millions more get to buy homes cheap. You just want to have the govt pick the winners and the losers.


I won't even deal with the rest of your post which is basically more of what didn't work. What didn't work before, will not work again. What worked before will work again. It's really very simple if you are willing to confront the reality as harsh as it may seem. American's don't need a pity party policy.

My God, are you ever going to come to grips with reality that your obsession with Austrian Economics will never gain acceptance in the modern world? Every single post of yours is more hysterical than the last.

The argument over macroeconomic theories is over. Done. You lost. Have fun spending the rest of your life telling yourself that everyone is just a moron and you and the rest of your cronies are the only ones that really get "get it".

Now go back under the bridge you came from so the rest of us can focus on the issues at hand while understanding the framework we are in.

[Dave Lane]

We have two choices here...

1) Continue to print more money, give more loans, keep things floating, and attempt to find economic growth once again or

2) Go to a tight money supply - which will reward good behavior, but be oh so painful for just about everybody.

Both repubs and dems have opted for 1 because it buys votes. Inflation never stopped a President from being elected (quoting R.M. Nixon after he lifted the last standard on the dollar). Deflation, however, will. Ask Herbert Hoover and the Repub party.

In my perfect world, credit would get much tighter. I like limited growth. It protects resources, is less polluting, etc...

It will never get me elected though. And that, perhaps, is the problem with democracy.

Credit is as tight as its ever been. In fact unless you have a 800+ credit rating its non existent.

And to Robs question, yes it is rewarding bad behavior on the part of real estate speculators, home owners, stock market buyers, wall street employees, banks and really probably probably touchs 80% of all americans however you look at it.

[BucEyedPea]

My God, are you ever going to come to grips with reality that your obsession with Austrian Economics will never gain acceptance in the modern world? Every single post of yours is more hysterical than the last.
My Gawd, are you projecting again?Ayup! You and the utopian camp are the one's denying reality.

The argument over macroeconomic theories is over. Done. You lost. Have fun spending the rest of your life telling yourself that everyone is just a moron and you and the rest of your cronies are the only ones that really get "get it".

Now go back under the bridge you came from so the rest of us can focus on the issues at hand while understanding the framework we are in.

Since when is multiple opinion a gaurantee of success or truth? I may be howling in the wind, but your inclination to follow herd mentality or what is popular is just the blind leading the blind. Honest to gawd, what a reason for setting policy. Parasitism is unbecoming.

Now go poop elsewhere. ROFL

[BucEyedPea]

Credit is as tight as its ever been. In fact unless you have a 800+ credit rating its non existent.
That is completely false. I have an 800 + credit rating and I can get it. I still get offers in the mail. My neighbor works for BOA and they're still giving credit to those that deserve it.

[Taco John]

My God, are you ever going to come to grips with reality that your obsession with Austrian Economics will never gain acceptance in the modern world? Every single post of yours is more hysterical than the last.

The argument over macroeconomic theories is over. Done. You lost. Have fun spending the rest of your life telling yourself that everyone is just a moron and you and the rest of your cronies are the only ones that really get "get it".

Now go back under the bridge you came from so the rest of us can focus on the issues at hand while understanding the framework we are in.



What a dope. The argument over macroeconomic theories is far from over. It's just beginning. There's never been so much interest in Austrian economics in the history of the school.

The only thing you need to understand about the framework that we are in is that it has failed us. The whole model has proven itself to be toxic. This is why the interest in Austrian economics is so high right now, and is only getting higher.

So no. We're not going to self censor ourselves. We're going to keep showing people the light as the Keynesian bulbs continue to burn out.

[BucEyedPea]

What a dope. The argument over macroeconomic theories is far from over. It's just beginning. There's never been so much interest in Austrian economics in the history of the school.

The only thing you need to understand about the framework that we are in is that it has failed us. The whole model has proven itself to be toxic. This is why the interest in Austrian economics is so high right now, and is only getting higher.

So no. We're not going to self censor ourselves. We're going to keep showing people the light as the Keynesian bulbs continue to burn out.

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

But of course!

[eazyb81]

My Gawd, are you projecting again?Ayup! You and the utopian camp are the one's denying reality.



Since when is multiple opinion a gaurantee of success or truth? I may be howling in the wind, but your inclination to follow herd mentality or what is popular is just the blind leading the blind. Honest to gawd, what a reason for setting policy. Parasitism is unbecoming.

Now go poop elsewhere. ROFL

ROFL

Just the type of nonsensical BS I expected from a twerp like yourself.

So - again - back to the actual topic at hand, rather than arguing about a theory that has been accepted by modernized countries decades ago.

[eazyb81]

What a dope. The argument over macroeconomic theories is far from over. It's just beginning. There's never been so much interest in Austrian economics in the history of the school.

The only thing you need to understand about the framework that we are in is that it has failed us. The whole model has proven itself to be toxic. This is why the interest in Austrian economics is so high right now, and is only getting higher.

So no. We're not going to self censor ourselves. We're going to keep showing people the light as the Keynesian bulbs continue to burn out.

:clap:

Huzzah!

The Keynesian model has shown it is not perfect, despite the fact that no one has ever claimed it as perfect, and you view that as some sort of victory for a kooky theory that no one relevant (except awesome message board posters like yourself ) takes seriously.

I expect multiple countries to adopt Austrian economics over the next few years due to the atrocities of the Keynesian system. And of course, if they don't, they're morons, right?

Bravo!

[Iowanian]

Our fattest people, are our poorest.


Think about that.

American Socialism is failing already.

[Jenson71]

Our fattest people, are our poorest.


Think about that.

American Socialism is failing already.

Think about what the cheapest food is like.

[Iowanian]

Food Stamps don't buy "Cheap food".

They buy kingsize snicker bars, jumbo bags of Doritos, little debbies, frozen pizzas, sugar cereal.....You've worked at a grocery store..you know what it most often buys.

[Jenson71]

You're right that there are many who abuse it, because often its one of the few pleasures they have in life - junk food. There should definitely be reforms made in that area. But the cheapest food is usually the worst type of food. And conversely, look at the organic, whole food section of a grocery store. It's the healthiest, and it's the costliest.

[Iowanian]

I don't know too many non-producer-Americans who really care anything about eating healthy...unless you mean consuming their daily orange-food-group in the form of Cheetos during Judge Judy.

Physical Labor is a great way to not be fat.

[BucEyedPea]

ROFL

Just the type of nonsensical BS I expected from a twerp like yourself.

So - again - back to the actual topic at hand, rather than arguing about a theory that has been accepted by modernized countries decades ago.

So, in other words you've got nuthin' intelligent to counter what I said.
I got it now. :D

[Calcountry]

First, let me say...this isn't just a "since Obama became President" thing. It began long, long before that...and accelerated under George W. But....

Is anyone else feeling like maybe, "Eh, screw the mortgage....I wanna go on a spending spree." Or if you own a company, saying "Eh, screw professional ethics; I'll just rape the company, and the government is gonna bail us out."

:hmmm:


I mean, WTF, right? :shrug:


I can just wait until I can file for bankruptcy, and then renegotiate my mortgage rate and terms with my lender under this new legislation, right? Or if I'm a business....I'll just apply for a government loan or bail-out, right?

FTR, I'm not seriously considering it, and I understand that we are in the midst of a serious situation. However, some of the specific proposals just don't seem to make much sense to me.

Do you think that the government encouraging or rewarding bad behavior? Why, or why not?

What say you??? :hmmm:

Umm, let's see. If you have a baby without a father, you can either get a free abortion at Planned parenthood, or, you can have the government hook you up with food stamps, Wic, direct welfare cash, perhaps even some housing assistance.

If you do the right thing, get married, have a husband with a job, you get taxed.

I don't know, what do you think?

[Dave Lane]

That is completely false. I have an 800 + credit rating and I can get it. I still get offers in the mail. My neighbor works for BOA and they're still giving credit to those that deserve it.

Did you misread my quote? IF you are >>>>> 800 yes you can get credit maybe. Some banks just aren't loaning period. Some are, Credit is tighter than I've ever seen it.

[Mr. Kotter]

You're right that there are many who abuse it, because often its one of the few pleasures they have in life - junk food. There should definitely be reforms made in that area. But the cheapest food is usually the worst type of food. And conversely, look at the organic, whole food section of a grocery store. It's the healthiest, and it's the costliest.

Those rippin' off the system LOVE people like you. As long as liberals continure to believe the stuff you are eatin' up, those abusing the system won't ever have to worry about anything--cause sugar-daddy government will take care of them....cradle-to-grave.

I sincerely hope this sort of enabling behavior is not transferred into your personal life, Jens....or you are in a very challenging life, especially if you intend to marry and have children. Codependency is usually not so well-established in someone so young.

[Mr. Kotter]

Umm, let's see. If you have a baby without a father, you can either get a free abortion at Planned parenthood, or, you can have the government hook you up with food stamps, Wic, direct welfare cash, perhaps even some housing assistance.

If you do the right thing, get married, have a husband with a job, you get taxed.

I don't know, what do you think?


Of course I'm aware of the existence of stuff like this. It's just that in the 90s, even with Clinton in the WH....we began moving slowly away from this enabling and codependent crap. It appears, even under W and now with Dems in charge (not that it's surprising,) but the breakneck speed with which we are moving BACK toward a society of entitlement....is simply breath-taking to me.

I sure hope it's temporary, and that once back on our feet....Obama and the govenment will balance some of this crap out, because if they don't....we've got another Jimmy Carter and the late 70s on our hands--and that's not good for the nation.

[banyon]

What a dope. The argument over macroeconomic theories is far from over. It's just beginning. There's never been so much interest in Austrian economics in the history of the school.

The only thing you need to understand about the framework that we are in is that it has failed us. The whole model has proven itself to be toxic. This is why the interest in Austrian economics is so high right now, and is only getting higher.

So no. We're not going to self censor ourselves. We're going to keep showing people the light as the Keynesian bulbs continue to burn out.

Can either of you dedicated scholars tell me what the difference is between this new hippified Austrian economics and the classical laissez-faire economics that was supplanted by Keynes' general theory and its progeny?

[Jenson71]

Those rippin' off the system LOVE people like you. As long as liberals continure to believe the stuff you are eatin' up, those abusing the system won't ever have to worry about anything--cause sugar-daddy government will take care of them....cradle-to-grave.

I sincerely hope this sort of enabling behavior is not transferred into your personal life, Jens....or you are in a very challenging life, especially if you intend to marry and have children. Codependency is usually not so well-established in someone so young.

You are dependent on over-generalizations that cloud real issues, party rhetoric and cable news.

[BucEyedPea]

Jenson:

Thous shalt not steal.
Thous shalt not covet they neighbor's goods.

[Jenson71]

I'm advocating for neither.

[BucEyedPea]

I'm advocating for neither.

If you're for supporting this stimulus you are. Advocating taking from some to give to others by govt which is force. Someone has to pay for it.

[Jenson71]

We consent to live under the laws of the United States, and under these laws, this bill and the forms of taxation are entirely legal, ethical, and just.

[BucEyedPea]

We consent to live under the laws of the United States, and under these laws, this bill and the forms of taxation are entirely legal, ethical, and just.

Was it consent when ships were sent to RI to strongarm them to ratify the Constitution? There's no consent. And there is disagreement that all our laws are ethical, just or even legal. They simply have the power of force. If you believe that then I've got a bridge to sell you.

Would you prefer "Just say no to generational theft" then?

BTW protests are starting up around the country against the massive legal plunder and theft of this bill because all it does is grow govt.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&issue=20090220

[banyon]

100 people? Those are some pretty tiny protests to be getting excited about.

[Jenson71]

I did not say that all of our laws are just and ethical, and I did not say that we could not protest laws.

[eazyb81]

100 people? Those are some pretty tiny protests to be getting excited about.

You're so naive banyon. Austrian economics is huge and will take over any day now as the dominant macroeconomic theory.

[Taco John]

Can either of you dedicated scholars tell me what the difference is between this new hippified Austrian economics and the classical laissez-faire economics that was supplanted by Keynes' general theory and its progeny?


I'd first have to understand what you mean by "new hippified" Austrian economics.

[Taco John]

:clap:

Huzzah!

The Keynesian model has shown it is not perfect, despite the fact that no one has ever claimed it as perfect, and you view that as some sort of victory for a kooky theory that no one relevant (except awesome message board posters like yourself ) takes seriously.

I expect multiple countries to adopt Austrian economics over the next few years due to the atrocities of the Keynesian system. And of course, if they don't, they're morons, right?

Bravo!


Not much of a response you've given. The Keynesian model didn't just show that it's not perfect. It has shown that it's completely bankrupt. But it *is* the ruling theory right now... And all of our money - and money for generations into the future is being spent to prop it up right now in order to keep the power balance where the ruling elite need it to be: out of our hands, and into theirs.

It may be that they keep the system propped up. I have my doubts. But if they don't manage to keep the system propped up, there's only so many ways that the pieces can be put back together: 1) either as balkanized nation states with their own independent currencies, and 2) as a super unionized North American Union and a super-fiat currency that can be traded across the former borderlines.

The only way that I see the Austrian theory taking hold is in the balkanized scenario. So no, I'm not particularly optimistic about it coming about any time soon. But what I do know is that from a moral perspective, Austrian economics is superior to the morally bankrupt Keynsian debt based system. Austrian economics rewards producers with wealth. Keynsian economics rewards the looters. In these days when we get to witness the downfall of Keynsian economics, and watch people cheer as we loot the future and penalize our dependants for the crruption of the present, it means little to me that you don't like having the superior system thrown in your face as a solution. And your empty rebuttals of "oh yeah, well Austrian economics isn't respected by the ivory tower liberals of our time, so there" means little to me as well.

[banyon]

I'd first have to understand what you mean by "new hippified" Austrian economics.

I'll take this as a "no I can't"

eliminate the "new, hippified" adjectives if you want if it will get you closer to an answer.

[banyon]

Keynesian economics has plenty of problems, but the answer isn't to go back to 1872.

[eazyb81]

Not much of a response you've given.....etc

Not much of a response is needed when you and buc enter every discussion on macroeconomics to waste everyone's time by going on and on about the greatness of a theory that not one relevant country in the entire world uses, let alone even considers a plausible option.

[Mr. Kotter]

You are dependent on over-generalizations that cloud real issues, party rhetoric and cable news.

Is that what they teach you to do these days, when you cannot defend your position OR cannot effectively attack opposing views? Seriously?

:shake:

I take it you've never really debated---or more importantly, engaged in real critical thinking other than, coffee-house and "intellectual" self-actualization sessions (the preferred method of hippies and hippies proteges)?

It's alright; I've grown accustomed to such intellectual laziness. No problem.

[Mr. Kotter]

Not much of a response is needed when you and buc enter every discussion on macroeconomics to waste everyone's time by going on and on about the greatness of a theory that not one relevant country in the entire world uses, let alone even considers a plausible option.

Speaking of "not much of a response"--have I somehow missed your response to post #41??? If I did, much apologies....

:(

[Jenson71]

Is that what they teach you to do these days, when you cannot defend your position OR cannot effectively attack opposing views? Seriously?

:shake:

I take it you've never really debated---or more importantly, engaged in real critical thinking other than, coffee-house and "intellectual" self-actualization sessions (the preferred method of hippies and hippies proteges)?

It's alright; I've grown accustomed to such intellectual laziness. No problem.

If I was to debate, you'd have to actually give me something to do so. You responded to my post about food and prices with "you enable those people and you have a tough life ahead of you, Jenson."

Your grandstanding was a fine effort in rhetoric, but if you want debate, you need substance.

[Mr. Kotter]

If I was to debate, you'd have to actually give me something to do so. You responded to my post about food and prices with "you enable those people and you have a tough life ahead of you, Jenson."

Your grandstanding was a fine effort in rhetoric, but if you want debate, you need substance.

:spock:

You honestly think poor people don't eat healthy, because they can't shop in the ritzy healtfood and organic section of the grocery store...you honestly think that is the major reason for their not "eating healthy?"

Seriously?

:shake:

[Taco John]

We consent to live under the laws of the United States, and under these laws, this bill and the forms of taxation are entirely legal, ethical, and just.


That's equivocating BS. It's not ethical. At least not by Christian standards. We're putting future generations in the bondage of debt to pay for our excesses. How is that ethical?

[eazyb81]

eazyb81:

Two questions:

1. Should the responsible mortgage holders of the country just flip lenders and the government a giant bird....and refuse to pay THEIR mortgages now (since the government is willing to bail such people out)?

I'm not going to tell people what they should or should not do. I would imagine that the extreme majority of responsible mortgage holders would choose to continue to stay current on their loan to avoid the credit hit and the potential disruption to their lives.

This question is synonymous with asking if normal workers should quit their jobs and go on welfare just because others are on welfare. Rational people might grumble that it is unfair, but will still not willingly choose to be on welfare or stop paying their mortgage.

2. Should ethical and responsible business and corporation leaders decide to screw their customers and act in arrogance similar to that exercised by Detroit, banking, and Wall Street execs who've thumbed their nose the naivete' of average Americans....and expect a government bail-out of their companies and industries?

Seriously. :shrug:

Businesses can do whatever they want to do, but they would be wise to give strong consideration to whether or not their industry is as essential as the banking industry or as nostalgic as the automotive industry before making any drastic decisions.

[HonestChieffan]

I think we should try to be less broad sweeping...all banks are not in this thing, Ford has not taken a dime, and many wall street execs are as good apeople as you will meet.

[Stewie]

There is NO value in "bailing out" homeowners. It propagates the housing bubble that has burst.

"Your house is worth $210,000"
"No it's not!"
"Says who?"
"Obama!"
"Is he buying your house?"
"Well, sort of."
"He's paying $400,000 for that house?"
"Yeah, with taxpayer money. Ain't it grand?!!!"
"I suppose... for YOU!!!" :doh!::doh!::doh!:

[Jenson71]

:spock:

You honestly think poor people don't eat healthy, because they can't shop in the ritzy healtfood and organic section of the grocery store...you honestly think that is the major reason for their not "eating healthy?"

Seriously?

:shake:

That's part of the problem. The cheapest food is usually the stuff that is bad for you. Another problem is that food can be an outlet, maybe it's their only pleasure in life. Another problem is education.

But yeah, food and price is significant.

Even outside the grocery store, there is what? Cheap fast food.

[Iowanian]

Good grief Jenson.....


I'm thinking that you personally don't know very many "poor" people.

[Jenson71]

How would that even matter? That's even worse than Kotter saying, "I know because I've seen." Seen does not equate to understand. And knowing a poor person personally does not mean you understand either. Is there anything in my post you can disagree with?

[J Diddy]

Good grief Jenson.....


I'm thinking that you personally don't know very many "poor" people.

Nice strong argument. Real convincing.

[Simplex3]

We consent to live under the laws of the United States, and under these laws, this bill and the forms of taxation are entirely legal, ethical, and just.

I never consented to jack crap. That's the problem. A bunch of people I didn't vote for are pointing guns at me and telling me to hand my money to the people who *did* vote for them.

[Simplex3]

That's part of the problem. The cheapest food is usually the stuff that is bad for you. Another problem is that food can be an outlet, maybe it's their only pleasure in life. Another problem is education.

But yeah, food and price is significant.

Even outside the grocery store, there is what? Cheap fast food.

The cheapest food, per serving, is not the pre-packaged name brand puke that you're whining about. It is certainly the quickest, easiest, and most well marketed.

This kind of leads back to why the majority of poor people are poor. They aren't really that smart and/or hard working. Sadly no amount of liberalism cures stupid or lazy.

[Jenson71]

I never consented to jack crap. That's the problem. A bunch of people I didn't vote for are pointing guns at me and telling me to hand my money to the people who *did* vote for them.

Then go to jail, leave the country, or start a movement and try to impeach or wait for the next election.

[Simplex3]

Then go to jail, leave the country, or start a movement and try to impeach or wait for the next election.

How about you leave the country? Instead of turning this nation into another "socialist paradise" you and people who hold your opinion can move to one of the already existing ones. Lots of socialist countries out there already. They must be beacons of civilization, where all is just and fair. Right? So, why spend so much time and effort trying to change this country when you can bail right now? Every moment you spend in this country is another moment you live outside of the paradise of complete and total social justice.

I'll pose the challenge again. Find me a country where I can be more free than here. You can be the first person to actually answer that question.

[Jenson71]

The cheapest food, per serving, is not the pre-packaged name brand puke that you're whining about. It is certainly the quickest, easiest, and most well marketed.

This kind of leads back to why the majority of poor people are poor. They aren't really that smart and/or hard working. Sadly no amount of liberalism cures stupid or lazy.

"Energy-dense foods rich in starch, sugar, or fat are the cheapest option for the consumer. As long as the healthier lean meats, fish, and fresh produce remain more expensive, obesity will continue to be a problem for the working poor," Drewnowski says.

http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=4798

Sit the fuck down.

[Iowanian]

Nice strong argument. Real convincing.

I know you want to be my girlfriend today, and thats sweet, but I'm not really into your type. You know, sniveling penis socks...


As usual, you're trying to sword fight with a wet paper towel center.



Jenson's probably right though....If we took every 300lb poor person in the country, gave them 2 weeks of training on nutrition and doubled their government assistance, they'd probably all eat like a contestant on the Biggest Loser with a personal chef.....that or a bigger TV and Bulk Doritos.

[Jenson71]

As I've said, I'm in favor of reforming food stamps so there are institutional checks on junk food. It's a serious problem. It's killing those people who depend on food stamps, giving them diabetes (especially prevalent in blacks), and it effects the amount of health care costs. Because when poor people get sick, we know how that goes down.

[Iowanian]

Maybe we should switch to actual food distributions...dried food packets of nutritionally appropriate food like we send to Africa and other areas with famine.

Like the commercial diet products....instead of buying pepsi and little debbies, enjoy this dinner for 6. A cotton bag of rice, beans, dried vegetables, meat and minerals....

[Simplex3]

"Energy-dense foods rich in starch, sugar, or fat are the cheapest option for the consumer. As long as the healthier lean meats, fish, and fresh produce remain more expensive, obesity will continue to be a problem for the working poor," Drewnowski says.

http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=4798

Sit the fuck down.

Piss off you egotistical know it all with no life experience. You've never accomplished jack shit that means anything to anyone other than you and your parents, but you walk around all high and mighty. I hope that when you're twice the age you are now and are trying to support your own family while considering what the future holds for your children you sit down and read the shit you've written here. Trust me, you will look back and think "I was such a tool".

Because it is an energy dense food these poor, pitiful fat people could, oh, I don't, know, eat less of it. Nobody came out of Auschwitz fat. If you control your caloric intake you will not get fat. Period.

Have you ever driven through one of these "poor" neighborhoods, Jensen? You'll notice some things. Lots of cigarettes. Really necessary. Lots of six packs of beer. Apartment buildings that look like they're falling down will have satellite dishes all over them. Loud stereos. 22" rims. Bass boats. Designer clothes. Mobile phones (with data plan). Televisions. Game consoles. Last time I looked none of those were on Maslow's hierarchy of needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs).

The problem is that you have been duped into a shitty definition of what 'poor' means.

[Simplex3]

As I've said, I'm in favor of reforming food stamps so there are institutional checks on junk food.

Good luck with that. The minute you try that there will be an outcry against you from the very people you think you're trying to help because you're trying to control their lives.

[Jenson71]

I see you get a little defensive when research is thrown into the discussion that completely undermines your original statement. I'll skip that part because I don't want to be annoyed right now.

Your post highlights some concerns that are legitimate, underlying them in the importance of education and motivation.

You're right that a good deal of poor spend money foolishly. But let's not pretend they'd have a deep portfolio if it just wasn't tied up in rims, cigs, and X-Boxes. $23,000 a year is well, just that.

[Jenson71]

Good luck with that. The minute you try that there will be an outcry against you from the very people you think you're trying to help because you're trying to control their lives.

I deal with facts, and if I don't now or in the future, please let me know. When the facts point to doing that, I'm for it.

[Iowanian]

I have no problem taking care of elderly, former producer-Americans and those who can't. I have a huge problem providing rent,lights,heat,food and spending money to people who are perfectly capable of working if they'd get off of their asses.....the same ones who often have nicer cars, more cable channels, newer cell phones and better furniture than most of the working people I know.

More of these people might not have "deep portfolios" but are MORE than capable of supporting themselves the same way other struggling, working people do every day, if they'd get off of their fat lazy asses.

Having grown up in an area with one of the lowest average incomes in the US, and definitely in the state, I have no problem defending my insights on this topic.

When I hear someone quit a job "because they're going to lose their we'fare" it makes me want to pull their throats out.....YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO NOT BE ON WELFARE, DUMBF@CK!"

[Jenson71]

Why do you think that I'm in favor of giving things to people who can work but choose not to? Not once have I indicated that, and for the record, never will I advocate for that.

[Iowanian]

You've been basically argueing that in every stimulus-welfare thread on the board in which you've been involved.\

How many people who work their asses off to "get by" are going to get shoved under the poverty-bus by increasing the taxes you're defending?




You grew up in an area with poverty.....how much time did you spend on the east side?

[BucEyedPea]

I'll pose the challenge again. Find me a country where I can be more free than here. You can be the first person to actually answer that question.

Hong Kong. I believe the US has dropped to 4th place on the freedom yardstick.

[Sully]

Do we reward bad behavior by having things such as welfare, food stamps, etc?
In some (many?) cases, we absolutely do.
But, IMO, it's no different than rewarding bad behavior by living by the "guilty until proven innocent." it sucks that bad people take advantage of the system, and I grew up with a mother who did/does just that. But I'd prefer those that legitimately need help have access to it, rather than having 30s style Hoovervilles.

We should always be looking to home the system and weed out those who are "gaming" it. And, yes, that includes exerting a bit of control and rules on those who accept the help... (and that honing should largely consist of mandatory education). But some losers will always be rewarded for bad behavior.

[Iowanian]

If I have to pass a drug test to work and pay taxes, you should have to pass a regular drug test to receive welfare.

[Sully]

If I have to pass a drug test to work and pay taxes, you should have to pass a regular drug test to receive welfare.

Agreed.

[Jenson71]

You've been basically argueing that in every stimulus-welfare thread on the board in which you've been involved.\

How many people who work their asses off to "get by" are going to get shoved under the poverty-bus by increasing the taxes you're defending?




You grew up in an area with poverty.....how much time did you spend on the east side?

No one who is working their asses off to get by should be shoved under the poverty-bus. No one should get screwed. And increasing taxes on those who make over $150,000 is not screwing them. The highest classes have been 'gaming the system' through tax accounting, law-making, policy-enforcing, and discussion-driving for longer than any poor has been gaming any system, and at a much greater expense for everyone in this country.

[Iowanian]

gase taxes...milage tax...cig tax...beer tax

starting to see any taxes that might negatively affect the working lower-middle and near poverty class?


Just think how many jobs could be created for people to test welfare recipients for drugs? Package the meals(like I've done before for a shipment to Africa), distribution....

Instead, we'll continue to make programs that encourage sloth....and democratic votes.

MOST VOTES EVAAAAAAAR!!!

[stevieray]

If I have to pass a drug test to work and pay taxes, you should have to pass a regular drug test to receive welfare.

:clap:

[petegz28]

gase taxes...milage tax...cig tax...beer tax

starting to see any taxes that might negatively affect the working lower-middle and near poverty class?


Just think how many jobs could be created for people to test welfare recipients for drugs? Package the meals(like I've done before for a shipment to Africa), distribution....

Instead, we'll continue to make programs that encourage sloth....and democratic votes.

MOST VOTES EVAAAAAAAR!!!

Hey, the money has to come from somewhere to bail out these failing Wall St. firms

[Direckshun]

So I've done my best to understand Obama's foreclosure's plan since Kotter's OP was obviously inspired by it.

Far as I understand it, it has three parts:

1. Refinancing. Borrowers in good standing with some of the more insane loans (stuff hovering around 90-100% of the property value) will get legit shots at refinancing their home loans to the current, lower rates. This drastically lowers the chance of defaulting, and it helps out both the borrowers and the GSEs that hand these loans out.

2. Loan modification. The foreclosure plan targets loans that are in severe risk of defaulting, and a series of incentives will drive repayments down to 30% of total income, which drives down the chances of defaulting. Up 'til now, repayments have historically been driven up in these situations, heightening the chances of foreclosure.

3. $200 billion in capital for GSEs, particularly Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. This loosens up their ability to buy mortgage-backed securities at market value, and keeps interest rates for borrowers from skyrocketing.

So does this plan reward bad behavior? You'd have to say "yes." Especially the plan's second prong.

But there are too many innocent bystanders when a tidal wave of foreclosures sweep across the nation. There is a public interest in stemming this as much as responsibly possible. And there isn't one way -- not ONE way -- to resolve the impending foreclosure crisis that doesn't raise serious moral flags. While I like what I'm reading of the proposal, it is no exception.

When your choice is a rock and a hard place, you're not going to pick something soft.

So while the OP's question is apt and appropriate, and is worth keeping in mind, we can also ask ourselves, given the Obama administration does nothing: is the government ALLOWING bad behavior to bring down the majority of the country that's played by the rules?

[petegz28]

So I've done my best to understand Obama's foreclosure's plan since Kotter's OP was obviously inspired by it.

Far as I understand it, it has three parts:

1. Refinancing. Borrowers in good standing with some of the more insane loans (stuff hovering around 90-100% of the property value) will get legit shots at refinancing their home loans to the current, lower rates. This drastically lowers the chance of defaulting, and it helps out both the borrowers and the GSEs that hand these loans out.

2. Loan modification. The foreclosure plan targets loans that are in severe risk of defaulting, and a series of incentives will drive repayments down to 30% of total income, which drives down the chances of defaulting. Up 'til now, repayments have historically been driven up in these situations, heightening the chances of foreclosure.

3. $200 billion in capital for GSEs, particularly Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. This loosens up their ability to buy mortgage-backed securities at market value, and keeps interest rates for borrowers from skyrocketing.

So does this plan reward bad behavior? You'd have to say "yes." Especially the plan's second prong.

But there are too many innocent bystanders when a tidal wave of foreclosures sweep across the nation. There is a public interest in stemming this as much as responsibly possible. And there isn't one way -- not ONE way -- to resolve the impending foreclosure crisis that doesn't raise serious moral flags. While I like what I'm reading of the proposal, it is no exception.

When your choice is a rock and a hard place, you're not going to pick something soft.

So while the OP's question is apt and appropriate, and is worth keeping in mind, we can also ask ourselves, given the Obama administration does nothing: is the government ALLOWING bad behavior to bring down the majority of the country that's played by the rules?

#2 is that bad one. But medicine is bitter usually...I guess that is the bitter part.

[Direckshun]

#2 is that bad one. But medicine is bitter usually...I guess that is the bitter part.

That's about where I'm at.

[petegz28]

That's about where I'm at.

Put it this way, good people are getting screwed one way or the other. By that I mean we can hand billions of $'s to companies that continue to layoff workers and enrich their execs or we can help the little guy. As I said, good people are getting screwed either way.

[Simplex3]

I see you get a little defensive when research is thrown into the discussion that completely undermines your original statement. I'll skip that part because I don't want to be annoyed right now.

Your post highlights some concerns that are legitimate, underlying them in the importance of education and motivation.

You're right that a good deal of poor spend money foolishly. But let's not pretend they'd have a deep portfolio if it just wasn't tied up in rims, cigs, and X-Boxes. $23,000 a year is well, just that.

You believed the first thing you found on the Internet that met your opinion. Good for you. Quick question: For how many years have you been managing your family's food budget?

$23,000 a year is enough to get your child a decent public education. It's enough to show up to work, on time, every day, and bust ass and get a promotion. It's enough to hit the public library and learn on your own time. It is enough to put some of it away for the future. It isn't about the amount of money you're making right now. It *is* about the effort you put forth.

I would bet you good money that the majority of people who make $23k a year, given the opportunity to work twice as hard to make $34.5k a year, would turn it down or fail miserably after they took the new job because they simply didn't want to work that hard. They have achieved a lifestyle that meets what they have determined as the minimum necessary.

I lived for two years straight on 1/3 of $23k. My primary staple was the giant bag of spaghetti noodles (purchased on sale) and the mondo jars of some off brand spaghetti sauce. I ate a lot of raw fruits. I would eat the meat that was on sale. Frequently it was pork or chicken. What did I not eat? Fast food. Name brand pre-packaged crap. I only had access to a TV if my roommate at the time had it. But you know what? I was fit and happy. I didn't need anything more until I got married. Then I needed more *before* we had kids so we could support them.

Now, of course, the collective is robbing my children's future to finance their current excess. Once again, when there are fewer commercials for expensive, trivial, unnecessary crap I'll start worrying about the masses of poor.

[Direckshun]

Put it this way, good people are getting screwed one way or the other. By that I mean we can hand billions of $'s to companies that continue to layoff workers and enrich their execs or we can help the little guy. As I said, good people are getting screwed either way.
Right.

The way I see it, it's better to break a deal for some of the riskiest borrowers and save the rest of us from a wave of foreclosures.

You can't deal in black and whites and expect to run a competent government. That's what Bush tried to do, and here we are.

[Simplex3]

No one who is working their asses off to get by should be shoved under the poverty-bus. No one should get screwed. And increasing taxes on those who make over $150,000 is not screwing them. The highest classes have been 'gaming the system' through tax accounting, law-making, policy-enforcing, and discussion-driving for longer than any poor has been gaming any system, and at a much greater expense for everyone in this country.

Every feel good program in history "should" have worked, yet here we sit and poor people still exist.

If I used force to take 15% off of each of your grades and gave it to kids who were in need, would you feel screwed? Especially when you found out that the needy kids were all at a frat party doing keg stands while you were at the library studying?

The upper classes can game the tax system because the tax system is ridiculously complex and written by people who are in the upper classes. Nobody games the tax code like a politician who wrote it.

How is someone not having their money taken by the government costing "us" anything? To make that leap you have to start with the assumption that their money is not theirs, it is the government's. Are you ready to make that claim?

[Simplex3]

But there are too many innocent bystanders when a tidal wave of foreclosures sweep across the nation. There is a public interest in stemming this as much as responsibly possible

Hanging tree air fresheners around that rotting, gaping wound doesn't cure the gangrene. The problems still exist, they've just been suppressed.

[petegz28]

Hanging tree air fresheners around that rotting, gaping wound doesn't cure the gangrene. The problems still exist, they've just been suppressed.

But that is all that we do when we hand money to the rich that put us where we are now.

[Direckshun]

Hanging tree air fresheners around that rotting, gaping wound doesn't cure the gangrene. The problems still exist, they've just been suppressed.

I disagree that that's what we're doing.

[Simplex3]

But that is all that we do when we hand money to the rich that put us where we are now.

The government deciding who wins and who loses is, in part, why we are where we are. Taking money from anyone who earned it and giving it to someone who didn't is what put us where we are now.

If social programs worked why are there poor people in every country, decades after we've been going to war against poverty?

[Simplex3]

I disagree that that's what we're doing.

Do you agree that spending more than we have is what has us in this mess?

[Direckshun]

Do you agree that spending more than we have is what has us in this mess?

What has us in this mess is far to complex to be summarized by the words "spending more than we have."

[Jenson71]

You believed the first thing you found on the Internet that met your opinion. Good for you. Quick question: For how many years have you been managing your family's food budget?

$23,000 a year is enough to get your child a decent public education. It's enough to show up to work, on time, every day, and bust ass and get a promotion. It's enough to hit the public library and learn on your own time. It is enough to put some of it away for the future. It isn't about the amount of money you're making right now. It *is* about the effort you put forth.

I would bet you good money that the majority of people who make $23k a year, given the opportunity to work twice as hard to make $34.5k a year, would turn it down or fail miserably after they took the new job because they simply didn't want to work that hard. They have achieved a lifestyle that meets what they have determined as the minimum necessary.

I lived for two years straight on 1/3 of $23k. My primary staple was the giant bag of spaghetti noodles (purchased on sale) and the mondo jars of some off brand spaghetti sauce. I ate a lot of raw fruits. I would eat the meat that was on sale. Frequently it was pork or chicken. What did I not eat? Fast food. Name brand pre-packaged crap. I only had access to a TV if my roommate at the time had it. But you know what? I was fit and happy. I didn't need anything more until I got married. Then I needed more *before* we had kids so we could support them.

Now, of course, the collective is robbing my children's future to finance their current excess. Once again, when there are fewer commercials for expensive, trivial, unnecessary crap I'll start worrying about the masses of poor.

Oh, so you did fine with less than $23k until you got married, wanted a nice, comfortable life, and could support your kids? THAT'S AN AMAZING STORY SIMPLEX. You really came from behind and showed the world!

Your story sounds eerily familiar to 99% of white young adults raised in middle class households.

I guess I don't see what the point of it was.

[mlyonsd]

Right.

The way I see it, it's better to break a deal for some of the riskiest borrowers and save the rest of us from a wave of foreclosures.

You can't deal in black and whites and expect to run a competent government. That's what Bush tried to do, and here we are.

Current conditions have less to do with Bush than the professional politicians we call congress.

[Direckshun]

Current conditions have less to do with Bush than the professional politicians we call congress.

Bush's dealings in black and white affected us everywhere, and rarely was it positive.

[Simplex3]

What has us in this mess is far to complex to be summarized by the words "spending more than we have."

Really? How so?

I happen to think we as humans overthink almost everything. This is one of them.

There is a perfectly simple solution to this problem. You take care of you and yours. I'll take care of me and mine. Everyone in the country does this. Problem solved.

[Simplex3]

Oh, so you did fine with less than $23k until you got married, wanted a nice, comfortable life, and could support your kids? THAT'S AN AMAZING STORY SIMPLEX. You really came from behind and showed the world!

Your story sounds eerily familiar to 99% of white young adults raised in middle class households.

I guess I don't see what the point of it was.

No, when I was poor I wasn't living off of my parents or school loans.

[mlyonsd]

Bush's dealings in black and white affected us everywhere, and rarely was it positive.

I guess I don't understand what you mean by "black and white".

[Simplex3]

I guess I don't understand what you mean by "black and white".

He's convinced that Bush's rejection of moral relativism is the root of all evil. Ironic, huh?

[Direckshun]

Really? How so?

I happen to think we as humans overthink almost everything. This is one of them.

There is a perfectly simple solution to this problem. You take care of you and yours. I'll take care of me and mine. Everyone in the country does this. Problem solved.

I think you want to live in a 1950's television show.

[Direckshun]

I guess I don't understand what you mean by "black and white".

He's convinced that Bush's rejection of moral relativism is the root of all evil. Ironic, huh?

I don't think moral relativism is the cure for all our ills, but you have to have a greater acceptance of the grey areas of morality to properly govern a country.

"Either/or" ultimatums are fair in football, not in recessions.

[Simplex3]

I think you want to live in a 1950's television show.

I think it makes you feel good to think that things are so complex. Things are only complex because you make them so.

[Direckshun]

I think it makes you feel good to think that things are so complex. Things are only complex because you make them so.

I'm... not entirely sure if complexity makes me happy. I've never explored those emotions.

Would you like to put me on the couch?

[mlyonsd]

I don't think moral relativism is the cure for all our ills, but you have to have a greater acceptance of the grey areas of morality to properly govern a country.

"Either/or" ultimatums are fair in football, not in recessions.

I guess I don't agree that our current conditions are all Bush's fault. Not by a long shot. That's what I was questioning.

[Direckshun]

I guess I don't agree that our current conditions are all Bush's fault. Not by a long shot. That's what I was questioning.

I don't think they are, either.

[petegz28]

I guess I don't agree that our current conditions are all Bush's fault. Not by a long shot. That's what I was questioning.

I lay a lot of it at his feet. For not paying attention to the consequences of the actions taken over the last 8 years.

[Simplex3]

The President can't enforce laws until Congress passes them.

[petegz28]

The President can't enforce laws until Congress passes them.

Go look up the trade deficit. Notice how it skyrocketed under Bush. Note also how his job creation was less than stellar. I bought the line too. Record trade deficit, terrible budget deficit, millions of people out of work.....but hey...the rich made a killing over the last 8 years so who gives a fuck, right?

[Direckshun]

The President can't enforce laws until Congress passes them.

And Bush was clamoring so intensely for Congress to get into gear, wasn't he?

I'm starting to love this "simplicity" of yours.

[mmaddog]

Your second point brings quite a paradox. Ethical and responsible companies cannot screw their customers.

No....but those very same customers have no problem in screwing the suppliers.

mmaddog
*******

[mlyonsd]

I lay a lot of it at his feet. For not paying attention to the consequences of the actions taken over the last 8 years.

Our current condition started a lot longer than 8 years ago.

[Simplex3]

You guys are barking up the wrong tree. Bush was a fucking abortion. Right along with almost every President for a century or more. Congress has sucked out loud as well. Both parties. Top to bottom. Sure, the rare person snuck in who wasn't a tool, but to what effect?

[mmaddog]

Wrong, Jens. Sure they could. No one can be expected to allow individual ignorance and lack of due diligence by customers....to transfer responsibility for stupid decisions by customers themselves to the business. Only criminally provable deception and failure to "inform" customers of the terms of business, would do that---and most businesses have lawyers who more than safeguard their clients from such silly claims.

Businesses that cover their ass, can't be responsible for customers who fail to do their homework. Ethics and "woulda, shoulda...what's the RIGHT thing to do" for customers....is a discussion separate and apart from a discussion of purely "ethical" issues.

You've evidently not been in the business world lately....try working in the retail environment. It used to be that when a retailer ordered product to stock shelves the Buyer was responsible for forecasting what the need of the store would be for the season. If they forecasted incorrectly, then the business suffered. Now, if the Buyer forecasts incorrectly the Retailer goes back to the supplier to "cram down" a participative answer to a poor forecast by their Buyer.

Retailers make sure you know that if you want to do business with them they must always make a profit on your product regardless of whether or not you do.

mmaddog
*******

[petegz28]

Our current condition started a lot longer than 8 years ago.

Sorry, the numbers do not favor the Bush era. Our trade deficit went up over 3 fold under his leadership. Our $ went to record lows under his leadership.

[Simplex3]

You've evidently not been in the business world lately....try working in the retail environment. It used to be that when a retailer ordered product to stock shelves the Buyer was responsible for forecasting what the need of the store would be for the season. If they forecasted incorrectly, then the business suffered. Now, if the Buyer forecasts incorrectly the Retailer goes back to the supplier to "cram down" a participative answer to a poor forecast by their Buyer.

Retailers make sure you know that if you want to do business with them they must always make a profit on your product regardless of whether or not you do.

mmaddog
*******

Clear back in the early 90's Best Buy would return half-empty boxes and send them back to their suppliers expecting a complete refund.

[petegz28]

Clear back in the early 90's Best Buy would return half-empty boxes and send them back to their suppliers expecting a complete refund.

Yes, they did. And it was BS. Somewhere along the lines it became acceptable to allow companies to place their own bad decisions on someone else's shoulders.

[mlyonsd]

Sorry, the numbers do not favor the Bush era. Our trade deficit went up over 3 fold under his leadership. Our $ went to record lows under his leadership.

Sorry, this all started when we decided a global economy was the way to go.

You can't have a country consisting of 300 million people and expect to live at super power status when working at a Walmart is considered a normal job.

A country of this size has thinkers, builders, worker bee's, and those that can't or won't.

We should take care of those that can't, give stable long term jobs to the worker bee's, and the thinkers and builders will thrive. Those that won't shouldn't be given food stamps.

Unfortunately the only thing that will wake up this country is a depression.

[petegz28]

Sorry, this all started when we decided a global economy was the way to go.

You can't have a country consisting of 300 million people and expect to live at super power status when working at a Walmart is considered a normal job.

A country of this size has thinkers, builders, worker bee's, and those that can't or won't.

We should take care of those that can't, give stable long term jobs to the worker bee's, and the thinkers and builders will thrive. Those that won't shouldn't be given food stamps.

Unfortunately the only thing that will wake up this country is a depression.

Sounds like excuses to me. The problem with your argument is we don't give long term jobs to the worker bee's. We ship their jobs overseas. Thus the record high trade deficit.

You need to understand that the only labor corporate Execs think is worth paying for is other corporate Exec positions.

[mlyonsd]

Sounds like excuses to me. The problem with your argument is we don't give long term jobs to the worker bee's. We ship their jobs overseas. Thus the record high trade deficit.

You need to understand that the only labor corporate Execs think is worth paying for is other corporate Exec positions.

I'm not sure what a labor corporate Exec is buy you need to understand you missed my point all together.

[petegz28]

I'm not sure what a labor corporate Exec is buy you need to understand you missed my point all together.

What point did I miss?

[mlyonsd]

What point did I miss?
That the problem started when we decided shipping long term jobs overseas was a good idea. That started long before W.

I'm not saying Bush wasn't part of the problem. But past administrations from both parties created the problem.

[petegz28]

That the problem started when we decided shipping long term jobs overseas was a good idea. That started long before W.

I'm not saying Bush wasn't part of the problem. But past administrations from both parties created the problem.

I agree, it started with Regan. It just accelerated under W.

[mlyonsd]

I agree, it started with Regan. It just accelerated under W.

Who opened up free trade with China?

btw, his name was Reagan.

[banyon]

Who opened up free trade with China?

btw, his name was Reagan.

Clinton accomplished more than W to send uson our way in this area IMO, passing the WTO agreement and pushing through NAFTA at any cost.

Everyone made fun of Perot in those Gore/Perot debates on Larry King, but the giant sucking sound has been pretty loud the last few years.

[petegz28]

Who opened up free trade with China?

btw, his name was Reagan.

All I am saying is the trade deficit exploded under W., just saying :shrug:

[petegz28]

Clinton accomplished more than W to send uson our way in this area IMO, passing the WTO agreement and pushing through NAFTA at any cost.

Everyone made fun of Perot in those Gore/Perot debates on Larry King, but the giant sucking sound has been pretty loud the last few years.

Agreed, but Clinton was lucky and had the PC Revolution which created millions of jobs

[Direckshun]

So I've done my best to understand Obama's foreclosure's plan since Kotter's OP was obviously inspired by it.

Far as I understand it, it has three parts:

1. Refinancing. Borrowers in good standing with some of the more insane loans (stuff hovering around 90-100% of the property value) will get legit shots at refinancing their home loans to the current, lower rates. This drastically lowers the chance of defaulting, and it helps out both the borrowers and the GSEs that hand these loans out.

2. Loan modification. The foreclosure plan targets loans that are in severe risk of defaulting, and a series of incentives will drive repayments down to 30% of total income, which drives down the chances of defaulting. Up 'til now, repayments have historically been driven up in these situations, heightening the chances of foreclosure.

3. $200 billion in capital for GSEs, particularly Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. This loosens up their ability to buy mortgage-backed securities at market value, and keeps interest rates for borrowers from skyrocketing.

So does this plan reward bad behavior? You'd have to say "yes." Especially the plan's second prong.

But there are too many innocent bystanders when a tidal wave of foreclosures sweep across the nation. There is a public interest in stemming this as much as responsibly possible. And there isn't one way -- not ONE way -- to resolve the impending foreclosure crisis that doesn't raise serious moral flags. While I like what I'm reading of the proposal, it is no exception.

When your choice is a rock and a hard place, you're not going to pick something soft.

So while the OP's question is apt and appropriate, and is worth keeping in mind, we can also ask ourselves, given the Obama administration does nothing: is the government ALLOWING bad behavior to bring down the majority of the country that's played by the rules?

I'd like to hear more people's points of view on this particular observation, other than petegz28's honest reply.

Please & thanks.

[Bootlegged]

The majority of the country has had their 401(k)/IRA cut in half if not more. Should we have another "stimulus" bill to restore them to previous levels? If so, does everyone get the money or will they pick the "winners" again - those making less than $75k.