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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't ascribe 401k's to political parties. It was the means to get
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.
Sure. They always think they're safe.
Part and parcel with "American Exceptionalism."
Personally, I never felt I was better than a Chinaman.
And here we are. Content?
Global economy and keeping one's own infrastructure and job market
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.
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.
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
I would advise everyone to stay away from taking financial advise from a
real estate agent says, as they are not particularly knowledgeable about
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.
...and at the time, that was correct. In fact, the banks were counting on
people refinancing every few years. Every refinancing cycle generates
numbers/income for the bank. that refinance also allows the borrower to pay
off all the unsecured debt they ammassed on their credit cards. The problem
is, eventually the whole industry reaches a point where home values no
longer go up every year. That point is reached when people aren't buying
anymore...a point where home values peak at the same time (and largely
because) unemployment also starts increasing significantly.
I don't really believe that to be the case, but if you do believe it then
the solution is to make people take a class and pass a test before being
allowed to own a home; just as is required for the license to drive a car.
I don't believe that, either. People are given the time to read. people
choose not to take that time of their own accord.
Yep. Consumers were lying to the banks about their income and their debt in
order to get loans that they knew they could not afford. They did this
because they saw everyone else that was buying 'over their heads' was
getting 'free money' through rising home values.
Another regulation that should be put in place for home buying is for people
to be required to submit several years of tax returns. The ability to buy
should be directly tied to the income that gets reported to the government.
If you are a small businessman that lies on your tax return so as to avoid
having to pay your fair share of taxes, then one of the penalties will be
that you cannot get the home that you can afford, much less the one beyond
what you can afford.
It is absolutely ridiculous that people can go in to get a loan and declare
themselves to have tice the income (or more) than what they claim on tax
returns...and then the government works to bail them out when they cannot
afford to make their mortgage payment.
I don't buy that...but then I also don't buy into the idea that people are
signing a piece of paper with the interest rate and the words 'ARM Adjustabe
Rate Mortgage' and the reset terms/timing written right on the page, but
they sign without reading any of it...and you still want to blame the bank
and claim that the people are not given the time to read it? Is there no
place for personal responsibility?
Insurance costs and tax rates are tied to the value of the thing being
insured/taxed. If the value of the thing rises, the costs to insure it and
pay taxes on it will also rise. I agree that there are likely people that
do not know this...one more reason to force people to take classes and pass
tests before being allowed to own land/home.
If by 'lied to' you mean that they lied to themselves. When people tell
themselves that their income is going to keep going up every year and they
will eventually be more comfortable they need to more honestly look at that
claim. If they plan to have kids or retire soon, for example, then they
need to realize that their 'income' will be going down, not up. ...and
anyone buying a home with the feeling that they can refinance in a couple of
years to try and catch up on their debt....well, those people are gambling
and they know it.
Unfortunately, yes, people have not actually become any more responsible.
The even bigger problem is that IF people became more responsible with their
spending, the economy will have even more trouble recovering...so there
isn't much incentive for the government, the banks, or the merchants to try
and encourage responsibility.
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.