Does no one accept responsibility any more?

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Grasshopper

This guy writes a post brow beating those caught in preditory lending schemes that should be illegal or who have lost their jobs to free trade marketeers who care nothing about America's working families....and I'm unChristian for calling him on it. Hardly. The man needs to feel the destitution...then he'll be more compassionate.

For example I know a sweet Apostolic couple who are loosing all they've worked for in this housing crisis. I'd never call them irresponsible and decry efforts to help them...especially when the lending practices were orginally shady on the back end. The problem is few understand how these lending schemes boarder on being illegal...and would have been before deregulation of the banking industry.

It is unchristian to wish much less PRAY bad on anyone!

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Rico

Baron, this all sounds good, but when the jobs in any given area don't pay much more than $7-$8 per hour, and someone has a family to feed in the midst of $3 a gallon milk, eggs that cost $2 a dozen, gasoline that costs $3-$4 a gallon, rising utility and rent costs, etc., then government assistance is more of a "have to" type of thing. It's real easy to just say "find a way out of that situation", but talk is cheap, Bro. Getting a degree to find a better paying job is always an option, but even in those situations government assistance is the only thing that makes it possible (grants, government backed student loans). There are no easy answers to solving the issue of poverty in this country.

I have had those jobs. When I got married in 1993 I was making $5 an hour. I was making $5.25 when my son was born, I didn't go apply for government assistance. It was hard, but you know what I learned from it. I got another job for $8 about a year later. I'm not making a fortune now, but I didn't take from others on my way to the place I am at. You got to get off your backside and do something.

Like it or not there will be changes to the current health care system.

Here’s McCain’s plan:

Take away the tax credits businesses receive for providing insurance and give a $2,500 tax credit to all employees. Without the tax credit businesses will not have any incentive to continue to carry employees so businesses will cut their contributions to their employee’s insurance. Employees will then have a choice…pay for their current insurance at FULL price without employee contribution or take their $2,500 tax credit to the market to buy their own individual plan. This presents several problems. In families where only one person works this credit will come nowhere close to paying for the plan needed to cover their family. People who are high risk (elderly and those with pre-existing conditions) will have to pay rates far higher than the $2,500 credit will cover. The government WILL NOT negotiate lower premiums for anyone but those on SSI or Medicare. Estimates are that the rate of the uninsured may increase by 20% in 4 years under his plan causing costs to skyrocket for those who think they can pay for individual plans. McCain’s plan will also deregulate the health insurance industry so that they can lend across state lines without having to meet mandatory premium standards in respective states. This is essentially the same as what happened with the credit card industry. Each insurance agency will only be bound by the state standards of the state in which they reside corporately. For example….Arizona is removing minimum premium and cost standards for health care…e.i…insurance companies could conceivably flock to Arizona and charge premiums and rates as they set corporately in spite of state standards like the mandated premium cap in states like New York. In other words…they’re free to charge you more.

Obama’s Plan:

Require that everyone carry health insurance. If you are a business and provide contributions for insurance you may continue to do so. Employees on your program may continue to remain. Employers unable to provide insurance due to cost will pay into the national system with a contribution and employees will have the option of buying their own plan on the open market or going with the public plan. The public plan is through private insurers. Essentially the public plan will extend the same benefits held by members of congress to policy holders. Their premiums will be negotiated at lower group rates allowing insurance agencies to essentially treat those in the public plan like government employees. Those who do not carry insurance policies will face a tax penalty to make sure they pay their contribution into the health care system to keep costs stable. The tax penalty will not hit those below poverty level.

Your vote will decide what your family faces in regards to health care. Vote wisely.

[DividedThigh]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I have had those jobs. When I got married in 1993 I was making $5 an hour. I was making $5.25 when my son was born, I didn't go apply for government assistance. It was hard, but you know what I learned from it. I got another job for $8 about a year later. I'm not making a fortune now, but I didn't take from others on my way to the place I am at. You got to get off your backside and do something.

my first job after getting married, 3.15 per hour, carter years , rampant inflation, boy did i learn to squeeze a penny, good point baron, dt

[Rico]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Honestly, I believe it was Bush that pushed for the deregulation so that "everyone could realize the American Dream of owning their own home." There may have been lobbyist, too. I am not studied in all this, and just have a vague knowledge of it.

BUT, I didn't need schooling to know that a adjustable loan has the potential of going up. In the end, the true fault (unless specific predatory lending practices are found) has to be laid upon the consumer. Its not the car salemans job to police my spending habits, and if I buy a car with an adjustable loan, and then later can't afford it, it is my fault for my spending habits.


I also have to wonder about those that are crying wolf, and still have cable tv, internet, and are not already on a very ridged budget. Also, most leaning companies will bend over backwards if you will just talk with them. My point is, the consumer has to take the majority of the responsibility on their spending. After all, they did not have to sign on the dotted line, and could have walked away at any time.

The problem is that these adjustable rate mortgages were presented to people in such a way that they could simply refinance before the rates jumped. Well, when it came time to refinance, a credit crunch had hit the industry, loans became very difficult to get approval for, and people started losing their homes. It very quickly turned into a vicious cycle that caused property values to drop, which created even bigger issues with people owing more on their houses than they were now worth, which made it impossible to refinance.

[DividedThigh]

good luck with that govt plan, they make a mess of everything they do, dt

[The Mrs]

Originally Posted by Rico

Baron, this all sounds good, but when the jobs in any given area don't pay much more than $7-$8 per hour, and someone has a family to feed in the midst of $3 a gallon milk, eggs that cost $2 a dozen, gasoline that costs $3-$4 a gallon, rising utility and rent costs, etc., then government assistance is more of a "have to" type of thing. It's real easy to just say "find a way out of that situation", but talk is cheap, Bro. Getting a degree to find a better paying job is always an option, but even in those situations government assistance is the only thing that makes it possible (grants, government backed student loans). There are no easy answers to solving the issue of poverty in this country.

This sentence caught my eye...and it struck me as funny that there are so many migrant workers coming here to work because they can't survive in their own countries.

Who's living in poverty, and why?

[DividedThigh]

rich is different to all people, just like poverty means something to all people, it has to have something to do with expectation and contentment, but i am not sure what, lol,dt

Bingo Rico, most likely if you own your own home...because of the industry's unscrupolous lending practices you most likely owe more on your home than what it's worth. The government should set standards to prevent this from happening...standards like the banking industry used to have.

Rico, have you studied how they sold those high risk mortgages on the international markets? It's a shame indeed and foreign investers are mad as Hades.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Grasshopper

Bingo Rico, most likely if you own your own home...because of the industry's unscrupolous lending practices you most likely owe more on your home than what it's worth. The government should set standards to prevent this from happening...standards like the banking industry used to have.

Rico, have you studied how they sold those high risk mortgages on the international markets? It's a shame indeed and foreign investers are mad as Hades.

Or as this thread started with, you could take responsibility for your own actions and quit crying because you made a stupid economic blunder.