Sad day for America

Page 11 of 16  
Picasso wrote:
<...>


I have to ask, "What system?" The US doesn't have a system. That's the problem. Unfortunately, insurance companies, hospital companies, drug makers and doctors are comfortable with the way things are and are resistant to change, because they are now making money.
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You mean the very same people from whom the bill is requiring you to buy coverage, dummy? LOL

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
One of my grand daughters was in Costa Rica, her rental cars was struck from the rear. When she asked a policemen to call an ambulance she was told ambulances only resound for people who are badly hurt that can not drive to a hospital.
She had to call a cab, it was a ten year old Nissan. When she got to the hospital they told her she had to wait till morning when the Doctors come in. They put her in a ward, with all types of other patients, many who were coughing.
A doctor came to see her around 1PM. He told her they would X-ray her neck the next day. She was there for three more days in that hospital, that was NOT even air-conditioned, before they sent her home without pain medicine. The bed linins were never changed during all that time. She asked the only "nurse" in that ward, who was actually only a nurses aid, about clean sheets and was told that family members bring in clean sheets and take the dirty sheets home to be washed.
Her care was "free" under the countries health care law. When she came back to the states she went to her Doctor, because of her continuing pain, who discovered she had a neck injury that required surgery. I was performed at Saint Luke's hospital in Milwaukie the next day.
Is that the type of care we can expect from government run health care? You bet!
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Hunter wrote:

Wrong. The care that people on Medicare get is much better than you describe.
Jeff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 27/03/2010 8:57 AM, Mike Hunter wrote:

Hey Mike, I thought you were all for Obama bailing out every loser?
--
--------------
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I never said that, my friend. I mealy pointed out the erroneous things you were posting about GM, big difference from backing BO.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You are a funny paradox. You should seek some help. Pro-GM, GM is OK for pork and bailout. Supplid by Obama. Yet you do and don't support Obama marxism. Yet when it hits health care, you 180 degrees out of sync.
I know, liberals are a confusing bunch. But if you support GM, you must support Obama, as it is Obama Governemtn Motors.
On 27/03/2010 6:12 PM, Mike Hunter wrote:

--
--------------
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
So was bailing out GM, dummy

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bailing out GM will go down in hostory as a poster child of why this depression occured in the first place.
Too much corruption and dead weight on the system.
On 28/03/2010 10:48 AM, Mike Hunter wrote:

--
--------------
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 28/03/2010 11:41 AM, Tom wrote:

--
--------------
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Canuck57 wrote:

And not nearly enough oversight. The problem was not with GM or Chyrsler (although there were plenty of problems there), but the problem was with the banking industry and the way the US let them get away with so much crap, like giving loans to people who could not possibly give them back, and then repackaging them and selling them, often lying to the borrowers.
Jeff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

--
Clive


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree with this. The overwhelming desire to keep the snowball rolling is shared by Republicans and Democrats alike...and fueled by a consumer that always wants more than they can actually afford.

I'm not sure why you assign the '401k' to a Democrat philosophy. If anything, I'd assign it to a Republican philosophy while company pensions are more in tune with a Democrat philosophy. In either case, lets all be really glad that the government didn't succeed in getting Soocial Security funds into the stock market investing game a few years ago.

Not sure what this has to do with 401k. Americans are content to offshore jobs as long as the job isn't theirs and as long as the result will be cheaper products for them to buy here in America.

I don't know about that, but I am one of those that believes that a global economy is one of the best ways to avoid global warfare...and all the expenses that go along with destroying rather than building.

If there is a line in the sand where you can point and claim that America suddenly felt this way (as opposed to always feeling this way), I'd point at the 1980s, not the 1990s.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

many Americans to believe that the interests of Wall Street coincided with their own. That's a fairly recent phenomenon, and a fallacy. I note that many Democrats are for "change" - as long as it doesn't affect their personal 401k. There is a hypocrisy there.

Part and parcel with "American Exceptionalism." Personally, I never felt I was better than a Chinaman. And here we are. Content?

strong are not incompatible. Our politicians and policy makers couldn't manage that.

Perhaps you're right. I noticed it more in the '90's. On magazine covers mostly. First time pure pencil pushers became lionized. The history of hedge funds is a good guide to map the increasing fraud on Wall Street.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hasn't that been the Republican party platform for the last 3 decades? (if it is good for big business, it is good for you)

I'm not sure why you apply that hypocricy to the Democrats. I think the 'change is only good if it benefits me' is a universal theme.

This week it is hedge funds...a few decades ago it was Savings &Loans. the late 1920s and the 1930s had their own issues. ebb and flow...and bubbles will always be unavoidable...but the government needs to be more vigilant about managing the size of the bubbles.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You seem to be the one falling for a lie. People know exactly how much they paid for their previous mortgage or for their rent. they know exactly how much they were saving (or not saving) before. So, when they sign on for an even bigger mortgage, they knew full wel that it was beyond their means. The problem is that most people practice the 'fantasy mentality' where they 'promise to eat out less, promise to buy fewer new clothes, promise to work more hours, etc... once they get the new mortgage. The consumers were lying to themselves.
As for the 'bait and switch' of fixed rate vs. adjustable rate...well, what those people really heard was 'the rate stays fixed for the first two years and then, if you do as you claim you will do and work towards establishing a better credit score) you can refinance to a fixed rate loan. Few/none of those people really failed to undetrstand that their loans would go up (heck, even fixed rate loans go up nearly every year because taxes and insurance go up with the home's rising value). The point was that they didn't care if the adjustable rate was coming (who cares about the 'distant' future) because they all felt that their own incomes would go up (doesn't everyone hope for that), that their would be able to improve their credit (lied to themselves about what kind of person they were), that they would be able to refinance (a lie that worked for nearly everyone for a couple decades), or that they would be selling this home and moving on to a different one in a few years anyway (starter home mentality).

True. Some people really got shafted by timing, especially in places like Nevada, Florida, and Arizona. Still, the other half of that is that the 'intelligent' people (those that chose not to buy beyond their means) that were being priced out of the home ownership market in those areas now have their pick of affordable homes.

Yep. The root of the problem was/is people buying beyond their means. Not bad government, not bad banks, just bad consumers. And, despite what some people her ebelieve, the vast majority of those consumers were not lower income families.

The news mentioned something this morning about Citibank stock being sold off (recouped) over the rest of this year. All of the money won't get recovered GM/GMAC will always be a real loss for the government/taxpayer, but a significant portion of it will.
Side note: Bank of America recently expanded their program to simply reduce the amount of money that people owe on their home mortgage. Owe $200,000 on a home that is currently only worth $150,000? Well, fine, the bank will give you a magic gift for your fiscal irresponsibility and reduce the amount you owe to $150,000. I hate this plan as it only promotes a return to irresponsible borrowing by the consumer. If the consumer doesn't get 'hurt' when they spend beyond their means, how will they ever learn? At the very least, these reductions in the mortgage amount due should be modified so that the bank itself takes an ownership share (non-voting share if you will) in the home and that the bank will get a share of any equity/profit that exists when the home is eventually sold.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Obveeus wrote:

So did the mortgage broker. The mortgage brokers told them that they could refi again in a few years. Sometimes the mortgage brokers told them that their ARM was a fixed-rate mortgage. They didn't give the people a chance to look at the paperwork before signing it, or the required time to back out of the contract.

The problem was that people were taking advantage of other people.

Perhaps in some cases. In other cases, the only thing said was "fixed rate mortgage."

To understand this, they have to be told this. They weren't.

So they were lied to or misled.

That's the bottom line. That not only applies to houses, but it also applies to cars, clothes, computers, big-screen TVs and vacations. The main reason that the amount of money consumers owe went down in the last year is because of all the right-offs.

I agree
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

GM (as well as Ford and Chrysler) have been bankrupt for decades due to irresponsible demands/contracts with unions. There is no real value in any of these companies due to the pension promises.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Very few people go first to a lender to get advise on what they can afford. Most home buyers are looking for and finding the home first, then going to the lender and asking 'how do we make this happen'. In many cases, the only way the lender can get them into that 'home of their dreams' is with some backended mortgage with an ARM and/or balloon payment.

I haven't seen any stats on education level of people that are currently in foreclosure. Do you have a cite for that? I would advise everyone to stay away from believing anything a new home developer says, as they are about on par in honestly level as used car salesmen. I would advise everyone to stay away from taking financial advise from a real estate agent says, as they are not particularly knowledgeable about anything.

Yep...such is the cycle of an economy. It will rise and fall no matter what amount of regulation is in place. The only thing regulation can do is nip off the extent of the peaks and valleys. I do think that government regulation should step in and make it less advantageous to buy a home that the buyer is not intending to live in...and to crack down on all the liars that claim that they will live in the home when they are really buying it for flipping/renting/investment opportunity.

Banks are perfectly willing to lend right now. What they don't want to do is lend to people with no/little downpayment when the current mental state of the populace is that a person should not have to make payments on a home if the home has no equity. I'm not sure why people have that mindset, especially in a world where people routinely buy new cars that lose 25%+ of their value the moment they drive off the lot.

Agreed. Also insane is the ever increasing length of mortgages...10 year...then 15 years...then 20 years///then 30 years...and now 40 year loans are making their way towards becoming the new norm.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.