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.
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
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
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 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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.