Sad day for America
in [Toyota]
|
From: Obveeus on 29 Mar 2010 09:22 "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote: > I don't think it is ethically or financially wrong to help those who > swindled by the banks (I mean the people who got mortgages that they could > not afford or were lied to - some people report that the agreed to a fixed > rate mortgage only to get a variable rate mortgage). 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). >> But at least now you are seeing why bailouts are bad. And any toxic >> government, company or individual in over their head with debt is >> eventually going to get washed out before a real recovery can occur. > > It depends on why they got underwater. Some people just bought at the top > of the market and then lost their jobs, got sick or something. 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. > However, people who were buying a $500,000 on $20,000 a year need to find > cheaper housing. 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. >> In the mean time, government is just pissing away wealth at a record >> pace. >> >> Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and now Ally ... debt for losers on the taxpayer. > > Actually, the US gov't is getting back a lot of bailout money. Seems that > a lot of banks don't want the US Gov't to own them. 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.
From: Obveeus on 29 Mar 2010 09:25 "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote: > When did GM go bankrupt? What evidence do you have? 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.
From: Obveeus on 29 Mar 2010 09:44 "Canuck57" <Canuck57(a)nospam.com> wrote in message news:T11sn.129273$2r7.97598(a)newsfe05.iad... > On 28/03/2010 7:05 PM, Dave wrote: >> >> >>> >>> Everything has gotten worse ever since Bush left office and the Dims >>> called him a dummy. What does that make those two bozos who are >>> destroying the economy and spending the county into bankruptcy to buy >>> votes, and the dummies like you think that's a good thing. LOL >>> >> >> I guess at your age it's easy to forget that Obama inherited this >> failing economy from Bush. > > Yep, we know Obama is a liberal and that means it is always someone elses > fault. If a bus drives over a cliff and the driver suddenly turns over the steering wheel to someone else as the bus plunges towards the ground, do you blame the new guy for the impact?
From: Obveeus on 29 Mar 2010 09:54 "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message news:moidnc4hSotLOC3WnZ2dnUVZ_o8AAAAA(a)giganews.com... > Obveeus wrote: >> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote: >>> While that is true, it's time to start judging Obama based on what he >>> has accomplished. The Cash for Clunkers program did little to help the >>> environment and made used cars more expensive. >> >> Mostly, it was a bailout program designed to hand money to the auto >> manufacturers...and most significantly to Ford since they made, by far, >> the most 'clunkers'. > > The money went to the owners of clunkers, not the car makers. The Cash for Clunkers program was designed to spur people to buy new vehicles when they would have otherwise NOT bought at all. The government 'cash' may have gone to the consumer (wink wink), but the purpose odf the program was to provide yet another form of bailout to the auto industry. > However, Ford makes cars people want to buy, so a lot of people bought > Fords with their money. Ford makes the cars that people most wanted to get rid of. The fact that many of them went back to Ford and said 'thank you sir, may I have another', is a really sad commentary on American consumers. Of course, if you wanted to get rid of an old Toyota you were likely out of luck since old Toyotas got such good gas mileage that you would have had to buy an electric/hybrid vehicle in order to see a 'clunkers' qualifying level of improvement.
From: Bob Cooper on 29 Mar 2010 10:13
In article <hoq89m$dst$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Obveeus(a)aol.com says... > > > > Many Democrats still won't admit this because they want to keep their > > equity-based 401k plans artificially inflated. > > 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. > 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. > > Those 401k plans were funded by off-shoring jobs and essentially > > destroying the American middle class. > > That's the legacy of both political parties, and Americans who were > > content to off-shore jobs as long as their 401k looked good. > > 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. > 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? > > Many Democrats - such as SMS - are perfectly happy to buy all their hard > > goods from foreigners, then whine about Republicans being the cause of > > America's economic problems and joblessness. > > 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. > Global economy and keeping one's own infrastructure and job market strong are not incompatible. Our politicians and policy makers couldn't manage that. > > Instead of ethics of work and save, and of family and doing "good > > works," this country turned into a nation of idolizing money above all > > else. > > In the '90's there began the practice of lionizing the wealthy as never > > before, even if they were scammers. > > 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. 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. |