How Long Before This Happens Here.....

[BillChaffey]

"Money is indeed the root of all evil"
I believe the quote is "The love of money is the root of all evil" There is nothing wrong with having money. What are you and your husband working for?
Whether you want to believe it or not, there are a TON of of people in this country who would rather have the Government support them in every way possible. Then take responsibility for them selves and go to work.
This is of course my own opinion although I doubt if I'm alone in this way of thinking.

 

[EnglishLady]

"Money is indeed the root of all evil"
I believe the quote is "The love of money is the root of all evil" There is nothing wrong with having money. What are you and your husband working for?
Whether you want to believe it or not, there are a TON of of people in this country who would rather have the Government support them in every way possible. Then take responsibility for them selves and go to work.
This is of course my own opinion although I doubt if I'm alone in this way of thinking.

Believe me I am not condoning ppl who want something for nothing ... enough of that happens in the UK with ppl coming in from all over the world and hitting benefits before they start looking for work


IMO money should not be a requirement for one's health, especially in this day and age where jobs are hard to come by.

As has been pointed out by Dieseldiva there are programs and charities that can assist ..... thank you DD

 

[layoutshooter]

Believe me I am not condoning ppl who want something for nothing ... enough of that happens in the UK with ppl coming in from all over the world and hitting benefits before they start looking for work


IMO money should not be a requirement for one's health, especially in this day and age where jobs are hard to come by.

As has been pointed out by Dieseldiva there are programs and charities that can assist ..... thank you DD

People can also get very low cost or no cost care at the medical schools. Doctors have to learn on real people at some point. Much of the care at VA hospitals is provided by student doctors. My surgery last year was done by a student. If it good enough for me it is for everyone else.

It is far easier to demand that someone care for you than doing the work yourself. Lazy and demanding is never good.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

When someone says the Catholic church, the first thing to come to most minds are priests molesting kids. Most people don't realize that a lot of the free hospitals are Catholic. But those too will be a thing of the past, because attendance/donations are down.

Woe to this country if we become a nation of atheists. Charity starts at home; but usually at the behest of the church.

 

[HarvOS]

England's policy of encouraged imigration has and will cause many problems. They see it now but it is too late. They can't send them all back. America claims diversity as a strength, but it has quite difficult for many.

The truth is that some cultures don't work which is why they left thier home countries in the first place. Now they have brought thier culture of failure to the UK and now dilute the common sense pool. Good Luck!

 

[EnglishLady]

BTW, Heaven is where the police are British, the cooks are French, the engineers are German, the administrators are Swiss and the lovers are Italian.

Hell is where the police are German, the cooks are British,
the engineers are Italian, the administrators are French
and the lovers are Swiss.

Actually ........

In the World's Best Restaurants for 2011, UK came 5th, USA 6th - France came in at number 9 closely followed by USA in 10th and 11th place.

 

[AMonger]

IMO money should not be a requirement for one's health, especially in this day and age where jobs are hard to come by.

So...doctors should be enslaved, forced to provide their services for free our far below their value, or receive appropriate compensation, but with others enslaved to pay the bill?

If you believe medical care is a right, to be provided without the receiver paying, you're enslaving or robbing somebody, somewhere.

AS far as guaranteeing health itself, no one can do that.

The answer to medical care for those that can't pay is charity or medical schools. I suspect a lot of expediters don't have medical insurance, so who knows what percentage of readers on this very board would have to go that route?

If medical care is too expensive, the main causes are the existence of other-than-catastrophic insurance, which drives up the cost; the litigious nature of society, which drives up the cost of malpractice insurance, which in turn is passed on to us in our doctor bills; and the fact that graduating doctors leave school with crushing, staggering med school debt, which they have to recover through passing the cost on to us. All of these are directly attributable to interference in the free market.

 

[tbubster]

"Codswallop", indeed!
Can anyone cite even ONE instance of people being told they 'deserve a certain standard of living' [other than minimal necessities]?
Because I keep hearing that, but the only examples I see are the messages to the upper class about all the things they deserve [luxury vehicles, Rolexes, gated living]..

OBAMA CAUGHT SAYING ACORN AND FRIENDS WILL SHAPE HIS PRESIDENTIAL AGENDA - YouTube

Meet Joe Plumber/ Obama talks to Joe Plumber (FULL VIDEO) - YouTube

Barack Obama On Redistribution of Wealth - YouTube

Obama: Wealth Redistribution is Neighborly - YouTube

Redistribution of Wealth - YouTube

Note never hear the word deserve.However when the democrats start talking about wealth redistbution that is exactly what they are saying you deserve to have what the rich have.Dont think people dont take it this way just watch this last video.Thats exactly how most poor people take it.

Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!! - YouTube

And this one
Free Obama Money - YouTube

Not a video but you get the point if you read the story. Gotta love where she says "what do I do?She said earlier in the day I have no answers my family has been railroaded SOMEONE NEEDS TO PAY"Or how bout these people

http://beta2.tbo.com/news/news/2010/apr/21/homeless-mother-15-says-she-needs-help-justice-ar-49767/


Welfare Fraud Big Time in L.A. - YouTube

Simple fact when you repeayedly say the rich dont pay their share at the cost of the working class/poor.You are in fact saying the poor/working class deserve to have what the rich do Even if they dont want to work for it and in a sence tellin them they should not have to work for it.

There are hundreds of these videos/storys out there all you got to do is open your eyes and look for them.But I guess its eaiser just to keep beliving its not there fault.Again I will say if a person really needs the help on a temp basis then that fine.I got no problem with a helping hand up.I do however have a problem with a hand out.

 

[chefdennis]

Exactly what Amonger said....

 

[greg334]

Just to point out a couple things ...

health care issues here are completely different than in the UK. Without understanding the history, the culture or the needs of the population skews any and all arguments you are all making.

the issues with socialism there are different than they are here. Again without understanding the history, the culture or the needs of the population skews the argument you are making that Obama (blah blah blah) has caused or will cause these issues.

Regardless, the problems in England are caused by more than just socialist issues or the failure of any policies but more it seems that people are taking advantage of unrest and the reason behind Cameron's comments and orders.

By the way maybe some should take a subscription to BBC history.

 

[cheri1122]

What Clinton said to us, and what he said to the banks, are two different things. Basically, he told the banks to "Do what you have to to get more minorities owning homes." And they did. And we suffered for it. And we bailed them out.

It doesn't excuse the banks from departing from sound business principles, does it? Nor would they - they'd have screamed bloody murder at being told how to operate their businesses. [Just like they do now when they have to stop holding merchants over the barrel for accepting debit/credit cards.]
What the banks did was done in the interests of their profits: write risky loans and bundle them for resale. By the time the homeowner defaults, the original bank has it's money, and the loans have been resold numerous times.
Bank executives profited, then blamed a 'presidential directive' for their unethical behavior when the loans went south and the holder was left with a loss. Just like the insurance industry: create a smokescreen to cover their own part in the debacle, that's what business is as good at as politicians.
If you believe the banks' excuse, there's some oceanfront property.....

 

[greg334]

Cheri,
The way it worked is simple, the banks were told either they allowed sub-prime loans as part of their loan portfolio or the fed will withhold lending them money and the banking regulators would focus on them for 'extra audits' - it is that simple.

IF you really want to fix this issue, end sub-prime lending - end of the problem.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

If you believe the banks' excuse, there's some oceanfront property.....

That wasn't the banks' excuse. That was reality. They were threatened into complying. Of course, they took full advantage of this, to ensure they wouldn't lose anything themselves... subprime loans.

 

[cheri1122]

Cheri,
The way it worked is simple, the banks were told either they allowed sub-prime loans as part of their loan portfolio or the fed will withhold lending them money and the banking regulators would focus on them for 'extra audits' - it is that simple.

IF you really want to fix this issue, end sub-prime lending - end of the problem.
I've heard that too, but have never seen any proof or facts to support it, so I just read a couple articles on subprime lending, and nowhere is the government implicated in the banks' decisions. Like the insurance industry, it was a rate war for customers, except instead of cutting rates, the banks lowered their standards. [And denied they were doing it - why would they lie if the govt forced them to do it?] Read 'Why subprime lenders are in trouble', Bloomburg Business Week, March 2, 07, and 'Subprime trail of deceit', Cleveland Plain Dealer, may 11, 08, and it's pretty clear the banks weren't 'pressured' or 'threatened' to lower their standards, they were just plain greedy.
And just like the insurance industry, they blame their misdeeds in pursuit of greater profits on someone else.
I'll believe it when someone can provide facts, but until then, it's just another 'big lie' by big business.
If we really want to fix the issue, we'd find ways for working people to earn enough to save for a down payment, and make the mortgage, like our grandparents did.

 

[greg334]

The proof is there, you have to dig for it.

There is no fallacy that this was only on the part of the bankers as much as the fallacy that forced people to sign on the line to get the loans in the first place. In many cases personal responsibility should be the first thing that is repeated to those who are claiming "I didn't know" or "it isn't my fault".

As for insurance companies and profit, I think no one is speaking about how they work or why they need to have more money that other businesses need to operate.

 

[dieseldiva]

Some wit on the subject from Mark Steyn....

 

[cheri1122]

The proof is there, you have to dig for it.
Actually, I don't. The folks who say it should be able to prove it when challenged, but you can't. I cited 2 articles that explain the issue, neither of which even hints at government coercion, so where's the proof that it existed? Plain old common sense says the banks wouldn't lie about lowering their standards IF they'd done it in response to government pressure, yet they lied when the default rate skyrocketed.

There is no fallacy that this was only on the part of the bankers as much as the fallacy that forced people to sign on the line to get the loans in the first place. In many cases personal responsibility should be the first thing that is repeated to those who are claiming "I didn't know" or "it isn't my fault".

I consider myself pretty good at critical reading, and I can't make sense of the legal gobbledygook in which contracts are written - what chance does an unsophisticated person with little education have against a system designed to force them to accept the banker's 'word' for the terms they're agreeing to?
When those folks say they didn't know, they're not making excuses, they truly didn't know. And the bankers knew it [counted on it, in fact]. You can blame the poor dumb hopeful folks who thought they could buy a house, but I blame the educated folks who had a moral and ethical obligation to ensure that the buyer understood what an ARM can do, but they assured them it would be fine, here's the pen.


As for insurance companies and profit, I think no one is speaking about how they work or why they need to have more money that other businesses need to operate.

 

[tbubster]

The proof is there, you have to dig for it.
Actually, I don't. The folks who say it should be able to prove it when challenged, but you can't. I cited 2 articles that explain the issue, neither of which even hints at government coercion, so where's the proof that it existed? Plain old common sense says the banks wouldn't lie about lowering their standards IF they'd done it in response to government pressure, yet they lied when the default rate skyrocketed.

There is no fallacy that this was only on the part of the bankers as much as the fallacy that forced people to sign on the line to get the loans in the first place. In many cases personal responsibility should be the first thing that is repeated to those who are claiming "I didn't know" or "it isn't my fault".

I consider myself pretty good at critical reading, and I can't make sense of the legal gobbledygook in which contracts are written - what chance does an unsophisticated person with little education have against a system designed to force them to accept the banker's 'word' for the terms they're agreeing to?
When those folks say they didn't know, they're not making excuses, they truly didn't know. And the bankers knew it [counted on it, in fact]. You can blame the poor dumb hopeful folks who thought they could buy a house, but I blame the educated folks who had a moral and ethical obligation to ensure that the buyer understood what an ARM can do, but they assured them it would be fine, here's the pen.


As for insurance companies and profit, I think no one is speaking about how they work or why they need to have more money that other businesses need to operate.

here you go


Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending

Community Reinvestment Act


Explains it some pretty good.The reason all this started was when a bank wanted to open a new branch they had to apply for FDIC insurance for that branch.This is where the games started.Groups like ACORN could file complaints under the CRA saying the banks was not making enough loans to low income people,and it would hold up the new branch getting the ok to open from the FDIC.You see each branch had to make so many CRA loans each year or they faced losing their FDIC rating.With out the FDIC rating they are not allowed to stay open.What it amounts to is government exortion.

As far as people not being smart enough to understand what the loan contract really ment there was something they could have done.When I was ready to close on my house I paid $250 to a real estate lawyer to look over the paper work to and explain anything I did not understand.Be for you say some of them might not of had the extra few hundred dollars for that,well then what made them think they could afford a 100,000 200,000 or 300,000 dollar home in the first place.

Hope that helps

Also bloomberg business Is owned my michael Bloomberg.I would be careful of trusting anything from them.While the country was going down the drain in 08-09 Michael bloomberg moved up 17 spots on Forbes billionaires list.He was a life long democrat untill he decided to run for mayor of new york when he "switched partys" to republican because he knew he would lose if he ran as a democrat.To win a third term he then switched partys again.He is also one of Obama's golfing buddys.Just saying thats all

 

[skyraider]

What Clinton said to us, and what he said to the banks, are two different things. Basically, he told the banks to "Do what you have to to get more minorities owning homes." And they did. And we suffered for it. And we bailed them out.

It doesn't excuse the banks from departing from sound business principles, does it? Nor would they - they'd have screamed bloody murder at being told how to operate their businesses. [Just like they do now when they have to stop holding merchants over the barrel for accepting debit/credit cards.]
What the banks did was done in the interests of their profits: write risky loans and bundle them for resale. By the time the homeowner defaults, the original bank has it's money, and the loans have been resold numerous times.
Bank executives profited, then blamed a 'presidential directive' for their unethical behavior when the loans went south and the holder was left with a loss. Just like the insurance industry: create a smokescreen to cover their own part in the debacle, that's what business is as good at as politicians.
If you believe the banks' excuse, there's some oceanfront property.....

GREED,GREED,GREED,GREED,GREED,GREED,GREED...............

 

[greg334]

I consider myself pretty good at critical reading, and I can't make sense of the legal gobbledygook in which contracts are written - what chance does an unsophisticated person with little education have against a system designed to force them to accept the banker's 'word' for the terms they're agreeing to?

Cheri,

I think you would get this -

you pay $560 a month with that interest rate for 36 months.

At the end of 36 months, you will see an increase to $700 a month UNLESS the interest rate increases above 6.5% than you pay what the chart says you pay - if it increases to 7% then you pay $780 a month.

My cat got it, what's wrong with people who can't get what is explained?

When those folks say they didn't know, they're not making excuses, they truly didn't know. And the bankers knew it [counted on it, in fact]. You can blame the poor dumb hopeful folks who thought they could buy a house, but I blame the educated folks who had a moral and ethical obligation to ensure that the buyer understood what an ARM can do, but they assured them it would be fine, here's the pen.

NO MATTER WHAT ...

I blame the person who signed the contract.

NO ONE ELSE.

No matter how someone wants to place the blame on others, the person who signs has a moral obligation and regardless what their education level is, they seem to think that they won't be brought to task for the agreement they made and when they are, they cry about it.

See Cheri it is easy, no one forces anyone to take a specific type of loan or even buy a house, they are not under any obligation to do anything but they choose to, so when they put their signature on that paper work, they now have an obligation to fulfill.

With all the programs and free services out there for the past 40 years, advice and doing Due Diligence can't be excused.

Instead of blaming the bankers or whom ever, why don't you blame congress for allowing sub-prime and variable rate loans to even exist. IF we can't get along on traditional lending where risk is a factor, then we are in a sad state.