Economy
 

The problem, stated in 2:15.
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JTzMqm2TwgE?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JTzMqm2TwgE?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

Re: Economy
 

How about these two changes?

1) Treat ALL income as simple income. Long term capital gains, short term capital gains, gifts, inheritances and wages are ALL subject to the same tax rate. NO exceptions.

2) Remove the income ceiling cap on Social Security taxes instead of the current 118k$ and make ALL income subject to that tax.

Those two changes alone would generate a minimum of 250 Billion $ (and possibly more) of additional tax revenue.

But hey, maybe the government should stop OVERSPENDING for once. Get spending under control instead of burdening taxpayers with higher taxes just to pay for programs that are just a waste of freaking money.

Re: Economy
 

Solutions to the problem....:
Remove politics from equation; for example - no more campaign donations, instead every candidate from bob the homeless drunk to the super rich gets an equal amount of air time in the media.
Remove the idea that taxes are the solution; instead force all employees to have maximum wages that are based on the average wage of an employee of the company. Eg a 30 person company has average 12.4$ an hour, therefore no other employee is allowed to make more than 25$ in that company. Very simple - as the amount that the average employee gets paid goes up, so does the amount the above average employee does.

Re: Economy
 

Personally, I don't see how we can expect politicians to fundraise and NOT engage in self-dealing, fraud, etc. You cannot expect someone to spend 25-40% of their time asking people for money and then not be beholden to those people.

As it currently is, politics is for sale. Quite literally. I look at Blago and just laugh - his only problem was being honest about what politicians do.

This notion that money is speech -- it's those with money that created that -- Ta Da!! Surprise, surprise.

Everyone who can raise the required signatures to get on a ticket should be given a set amount of money to spend. No one should be allowed to solicit contributions for their campaign. You can't stop private groups from still forming to support politicians with ideas they agree with -- but stop the flow of money to and through the politicians themselves. Then it would become all about speech -- real speech, not who can pass who money under the table.

I want J. Bullworth to run for senante, I'd vote for him. Then if only Jed Bartlet could be President, lol.

Re: Economy
 

Here's a thought, and a great way to keep not so upstanding citizens from getting elected into public offices; don't pay them. They are public servants, not ruling lords. As such, they are not entitled to gross amounts of money to do a job that they professed to want to do. The only thing they should get paid is transportation. They should not be drawing a paycheck, and while I'm not sure that House and Senate reps get retirement checks, or severance pay, what ever it is that the PotUS gets at the end of their terms, if it's current policy to pay that, then stop paying it.

This will put people who want to serve the people in office to do just that, instead of serving their special interest groups. I view all politicians the same way, I don't care what side of the aisle they are on. They aren't doing their job to better my life, they are doing their job to better their own. This is all well and good, when you work at McDonald's, or Boeing, but when your job is to protect the quality of life of citizens, how much money your Insurance/Oil Company/Drug Company reps are paying you, publicly or privately...

Until something like this happens, our economy isn't going to improve, because in their eyes, the best way to improve it is to give themselves a raise, at our expense.

Re: Economy
 

I hear that in Australia, China is buying up FARMLAND everywhere to convert it into Coalmines?!?!?! Australia's Green party is getting hell for it. And no carbon taxes I bet.
China is taking advantage of ALL of our poor economies and buying up the planet.. its crazy...

China will mine coal in Australia, and sell it back to Australia... wow.

Re: Economy
 

<font color=plum>Cute video. Just a few major flaws in his presentation.

Of course, the solution is "Tax the super rich" rather than Congress actually choosing to NOT continuously overspend. The highest tax rate in 1980 was 70%. Personally, that is INSANE by any measure and I don't blame the super rich (or anyone else) for balking against it. That destroys the incentive for capitalism.

In 1980, only 10% of the population were super rich. That has grown to 20%. That means the number of super rich (and, thus the opportunities to [i]become super rich) have more than doubled. The percent is doubled, but the actual population numbers have increased, so 20% of current population is more than double 10% of 1980 population. In 70's and 80's, the status of "super rich" was reserved primarily for those that already came from money. While average Americans might become well off or even wealthy, very few had the opportunity to truly become "super rich" from humble beginnings. Bill Gates would never have reached that rank in the 70s.

Capital gains and other measures have always been tools for investors and the wealthy to use to reduce their tax burden. Laws could be changed now that our financial structures and opportunities have changed, but a tax rate of 35% on the super rich is still pretty reasonable, in my opinion.

The BIGGEST flaw in the presentation, though, is the assertion that the middle class does not have the power to borrow and spend money, which has led to an anemic recovery. That is just outright ignorance. One of the biggest reasons our economy is so bad is precisely BECAUSE the middle class was given MORE borrowing power than they could actually afford. They DID spend that money very freely and the economy boomed for awhile, UNTIL those loans started coming due and the middle class suddenly could keep up with ALL the payments they had incurred through reckless spending. THAT led to massive defaults on the bad loans which ultimately led to the gov't bailout of the banks and finance companies that made the bad loans.

No, the middle class can't afford to borrow NOW, that's because most of them still aren't able to pay for the money they borrowed in the past that led to the economic downturn.

I will concede that the super rich use their wealth to buy political favor and leverage. Of course, this has always been true in our economy, it just has become more blatant in the last few decades. Laws have been put in place to restrict and limit that influence, but there are always loopholes around those laws.

Still, it is easy for the lower and middle classes to blame all their ills on the super rich rather than accept the fact they are responsible for their own situations.</font>

Re: Economy
 

One of the first lessons I learned about finance, I learned when I was 11 or 12, and that is, you can't spend more money than you have. While the loan situation is blatantly obvious, simply levying taxes, or more taxes against the "super rich" isn't going to help. The Gov't will simply elect to spend that money too. Until they quit overextending our money to the point where they are, in a very real sense, stealing money from us to pay their debts there is no way to fix the economy.

I don't blame the super rich for the gov't cutting programs that are essential to me. I blame the gov't not being able to stop spending money they don't have, and then stealing money that I paid to them all my working life for my "retirement" to pay for highway construction that should have been paid for by gasoline taxes. That money evidently went to pay for Congressman A's lavish vacation, er, I mean international summit in Hawaii, or where-ever. Until these kinds of things are fixed, no amount of taxing will solve anything, because their vacations/summits will just become all the more expensive.

Re: Economy
 

Well, see you hear this alot especially when the tea-party types are talking about the debt they are suddenly concerned about - not lumping you in with them whackos at all btw, just made me think of them as an example.

At 11 or 12 this is a good rule of thumb for a kid to manage his pocket-money or what have you. But as we get older, we learn that finances aren't so simplistic in how they function in the world. Indeed, America is built on borrowing money to create something better. Mortgages for example. Only a very small percentage of the world has the money to purchase their house up front. The rest of us do indeed "borrow from Peter to pay Paul". Otherwise, we'd have nowhere to live. Or no cars to drive. Or credit cards. Or tabs. The list goes on. We're happy to take the risk of losing these things years down the line in exchange for the instant gratification of having them now.

I understand you make a larger point and that there's a context involved in that paragraph. There are concerns that this money may not be returned which is in some ways, a valid concern. But then, we have the same concerns when committing to a house for 25 years.

Re: Economy
 

Good point. EXCEPT that most mortgage holders are able to make their payments without additional borrowing (except for those that overextended on sub-prime mortgages). So the principal of NOT overspending applies EVEN if you ARE servicing a large debt whether it be a car, house, appliances or even credit cards. You spend what you can afford and that applies to assuming debt as well.

Re: Economy
 

<font color=plum>However, even adults should have the intelligence to borrow responsibly and not incur payments too high or too numerous for them to afford. While I might love to have a brand new car, I understand it simply is not possible. Even if I could get the loan, I would not be able to make the payments for the full term of the loan. Unfortunately, we just went through more than a decade of banks and financial institutes basically saying "It doesn't matter if you don't have the income or credit rating to afford these things, you deserve them, so we're going to give you enough credit to buy them anyway." And then reality finally hit that they couldn't afford the payments.

I have an aunt who is a compulsive shopper. She is over 60 yrs old and has to work two jobs just to pay her bills and - especially - her credit card debt. She often complains about having to work two jobs and how high her bills are, but then she never takes any steps to control her spending. To pay off her credit cards, she will invariably get a new card and have all the balances transferred to it so she only has one payment instead of two or three or four. When she got her second job, she said "I'm gonna put THIS money in savings and not touch it". That lasted until she got her first paycheck. She moans about how much debt she has, then turns around and says "Well my bff and I are going to Biloxi this weekend to hit the casinos." HELLO! How about SAVING that money and paying on your credit card debt? But she won't do it.

Several years ago, a coworker of mine had bought a brand-new mustang, which she could not afford. The dealership eventually repossessed and said she could have it back when she got her payments up to date. Her normal payment was around $450/month. By comparison, my HOUSE payment was about the same amount. She ended up having to pay over $600 to get her car back. She filed bankruptcy to get out of the rest of her debt. As soon as the court approved her bankruptcy, did she sit down and work on a financial plan to build her savings back up? NOPE. She said "Hey, NOW I can afford to go to the beach for a week" so she started planning a vacation instead.

Congress is the same way. They don't seem to have any concept of NOT spending money they don't really have and the general American consumer has become the same way.

Borrowing money may be a part of our society, but it seems very few people or politicians understand it still has to be done responsibly and that is what has put our economy in the crapper....not lack of taxes on the super rich. The super rich got that way because, unlike most others, they DID learn how to handle their money responsibly and invest it to create more money. </font>

Re: Economy
 

Cerek,
Perhaps the reason why the middle class is in this situation is because the super rich have as per the presentation NOT given the middle class a raise for quite a while. This raise that was not given is necessary inflation is causing the middle class to actually be making LESS than the previous year. With no raise, they are also of course less able to pay off the debts that they have incurred. Also, the money in a super rich persons bank is not being circulated among the population resulting in less things being bought than would otherwise be the case.

As for the Gov, bailout of the auto industry - they need to get a clue and build cars that people want to buy. The latest example of them being completely clueless is the creation of the Volt - which is a worse car than the prius in just about every single way imaginable. There is NO reason why we cant make quality affordable cars that people want to buy. A specific example is the Avion - a 100 mpg car that uses tech available from 1986. Yes thats right, we have a 100 mpg car, diesel not hybrid or electric from 1986 tech that no auto company wanted to build then or apparently now. Its just too bad that the economies of scale force them to charge 30k for a car that if built by the industry would likely be only 12-15k.

The bank bailout was mostly because of the housing bubble crash; in fact im pretty sure it was 1 house of a super rich person that caused the crash.

Re: Economy
 

Talk about a sense of entitlement. Sheesh

Middle class tax rates are at historical LOWS. A family of four in the exact middle of the income spectrum will pay only 4.7 percent of its income in federal income taxes this year, according to a new analysis by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. This is the third-lowest percentage in the past 50 years, after 2008 and 2009.


http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//4-14...rev4-15-11.jpg

Re: Economy
 

So your saying its ok that the super rich are paying themselves more in order to pay the middle class less because they arent paying as much taxes as previous years?
As per the presentation they are getting 20% more of the wealth. Now lets see, the middle class is paying 6% less taxes than prior years in order to lose out on 20%. Doesnt that seem remarkably silly? I would rather pay 6% more taxes and get 20% more in my paycheck, i would still be making more.

Lots of good information here on how greedy super rich bankers and hedgefunders created the housing bubble and popped it:
http://www.whiteoutpress.com/article...omic-collapse/

Re: Economy
 

That isn't what I said at all. What I simply pointed out was that the middle class currently pays taxes based on an histroically low tax rate to show the disparity between the existing tax rates.

By the way, the proposed cost for extending the Bush tax breaks for FY 2011 for the rich is estimated in various circles as somewhere between 36 billion $ and 90 billion $ with 70 billion $ being the most frequent number. But even if the upper estimate is accurate, that's less than 6% of the 1.4 TRILLION $ deficit projected for 2011. Yet according to that video, it's just the tax breaks for the rich that are responsible for the deficits and by extension ALL of our economic problems. Never mind that the cost for ALL of the tax cuts is estimated at 380 Billion $. And that total is ~25% of the total deficit. But hey it's ALL about the tax cuts for the rich. Talk about a load of BS! But it makes a great sound bite so lets just swallow that load of crap without questioning it.

And just to do the math for you, repealing the ENTIRETY of the bush tax cuts would STILL leave a deficit of over 1 TRILLION DOLLARS. Still think it's ALL about the tax cuts for the rich?

I will concede that the rich take great advantage of the capital gains tax rates. That's why I advocated doing away with those breaks completely and taxing ALL income as simple income. But that was based on leveling the playing field. That change ALONE would MORE than pay for extending the tax cuts for the rich.

There is actually a reason for allowing lower rates for Capital gains. That money typically comes from stock and bond investments which provide additional capital for business expansion. It's a direct economic stimulus. But in the interest of fairness, since most middle class folks can't take advantage of them, let's do away with them. Never mind that nobody is calling for the elimination of tax credits that benefit the middle class.

And it might surprise you that ~ 2/3 of the folks in that upper tax bracket (i.e. the folks actually benefiting from them) didn't think that extending the Bush era cuts for the rich was a good idea.

Re: Economy
 

Well, let's not gloss over the fact that they borrowed an unsurmountable amount to begin with, while asking someone to allow them to pay it back in fractions over many years. They ask for more money than they will ever have in their hands at one time - and they full well know it. Yet, still they do it. And this practice is so popular it's considered the American way. That's why I don't get why all the mortgage-owning teabaggers are against borrowing or debt. Maybe they are just against anyone else borrowing except themselves? Because very few of them look like renters to me.

As for overspending while servicing a debt, in these troubled times many are faced with losing their homes, and have no choice but to. They could stick to their guns, decide they cannot possibly do this, and live on the streets, taking comfort in the knowledge that they are debt-free. But what meaning does debt-free really have if you don't have a house or anything worth keeping in the first place?

Instead, many we see now are choosing to inscrease their debt, in exchange for immediate security. They ensure a bad situation does not go to worse and get to the point where their children and themselves are on the street. Reckless? If you consider doing what you need to do to protect your family and home. What choice do they have? If the bank offer you your house back on the condition you pay more in the long run, you take it and hope you and the economy, will be in a better position later. Thousands have compromised this way in the last few years. It's the reason they're not milling about on the streets.

Re: Economy
 

Not quite sure if we're talking about the same thing. If I have a shitty car, right now I know I cannot afford a better one. I just need a car - but I don't need 2 or 3. Or the best model of one.

If I have a 2 bedroom house, and I would really like a 4 bedroom house, I still have the foresight to know the timing is incorrect and I can get by without a 4br.

If I have NO car or NO house, I need to acquire them to function so I can get to work and then go home to sleep. My house could be a dingy little hovel, but its better than having none at all. My car could be the public transport system (depending on where you live) but it works for me right now.

Re: Economy
 

So under Obama, the tax rates for MC have diminished further. Would someone tell this to Fox News and the Tea Party please.

Re: Economy
 

True, the economy is screwed up for more reasons than those presented in the video.
Just a short list:
1) ceos decide to move jobs overseas depriving americans of jobs, this over an extended period is funneling money slowly out of the country leading to less skilled americans who are stuck in service industry jobs instead of manufacturing.
2) auto industry refuses to build high mpg cars which would make gas prices not have as huge an impact as they do.
3) education post high school is less about education and more about making a buck off students. Leading to many colleges where the cost of tuition exceeds the amount a student could expect to make on the job they are studying for by 3-5 years. Which of course means massive student loan debt. Really, 50k for a culinary school degree? ridiculous.
4) overseas wars which only seem to make other countries mad at us or create situations where we need to wage another stupid war. After all, america is who trained al queda in the first place. You may say we need to be proactive and not isolationist, but we could stand to stand down for a while - china is going to just buy america if we keep going down the toilet financially. Their defence minister is gearing up a bit more for war now since we gave them our economy over 30 years.
5) health care costs truly insane, leading of course to medical tourism since other countries can offer the same procedures for ALOT less, which of course is money going right out of the country again.

Re: Economy
 

I agree, and yet the video would have you think it's ALL about the tax cuts for the rich.

Jobs lost to overseas? Some of that is due to labor unions simply pushing wages to the point where overseas options are simply more attractive. Is it fair? No. But the US had lost its manufacturing base in a HUGE way a long time ago.

Student loans? I had student loans that took me more than six years to pay off so it's hard for me to be sympathetic on this one. I do have to admit though that the costs have escalated a lot, but so too have salaries. Perhaps not proportionately though.

Gas Prices? USA has some of the lowest gas prices in world - about half of Europe. Detroit sells what the market buys. How about the folks that insist on buying those Hog SUVs which only get 15 mpg and then complain about fuel costs? There are plenty of options for 30+ mpg cars. I will concede that the US lost it's market by NOT paying attention. And YES, the Volt is a huge fly-covered stinking POS!

Health Care? Is it reasonable to expect EVERYONE in this country to have health insurance? If so, add another 1 trillion dollars to deficit.

Actually good points on most of those GB.


So? Mortgage Loans are NOT insurmountable amounts UNLESS you overextend OR something changes your financial situation. I've already paid off ONE 30 year mortgage, and I'm on my second house and a new mortgage, and I'm not unique. Millions of people do it. In fact, it normally becomes easier to handle the mortgage as time goes on because the payments are fixed (ARMs excepted of course) but your income escalates over time.

I wasn't advocating being debt-free. You can't buy a house without assuming debt unless you're one of the unclean super rich and trust me THEY do NOT pay cash. But there is HUGE difference between being debt-free and managing debt responsibly! You don't see something wrong with people continuing to pile on debt when they are already over-extended? Or in overextending in the first case?

When did the concept of living within your means cease to have meaning? And that same principal should apply to the government.

Look, I get that SOME of the people we are talking about have been put into horrendous situations because of lost income due to unemployment. That's truly catastrophic and I am not to downplay those situations. But face it, not everyone is in the fix they are for those reasons.

Besides, this is more about the government overspending.

Oh geez. Look at the chart. Those nominal rates have been dropping since 1980. Obama is simply one of MANY presidents who have continued the trend. He hardly deserves a gold star for that. And they actually hit their LOWEST rate under, wait for it, BUSH in 2007!

Re: Economy
 

Perhaps unions were the reason why they move the jobs overseas - but its a very short sighted policy since those jobs are of course no longer paying americans and so it siphons money out of the economy. Government should have dissallowed this and instead forced the unions and the bosses to come to an agreement.

thats 3-5 years if you spent almost every penny earned towards paying back the loan; i know many people who have had their student loans 15 or more years because they have to of course pay for their mortgage, kids, utility etc.

Lowest gas prices in the world correct, but lets see...around 9.4 million barrels a day imported, times whatever the going rate is - lets say 100 bucks, so thats 940 million dollars a day leaving the country. Now 365 days a year...and we get somewhere around 340,000 million right? Well if the auto industry made 100 mpg cars instead of 30 mpg ones we would cut that by 70% or so.

I dont think everyone should have health insurance, instead i think everyone should have health care; cut out the middle crook. Just have gov run hospitals. We already have them, but theyre only for prisoners which one man apparently has taken advantage of recently.

Re: Economy
 

So? You need to go watch some of these teabagger interviews. I am stating something that might seem obvious to me, because alot of these people do not believe in any debt at all. Just driving the point home that most people have debt far beyond anything that could imagine being able to pay today.

Good, because I thought for a second you might be advocating being debt-free, like these nudnicks on the right who think it is feasable for a country or person to have no debt. The same people who cared nothing for the death 5 years ago as the economy was buckling before their eyes. As for overextending in the first place, well I spoke on this in my post. There are times this is warranted. Desperate times, like the ones we live in. We're not economists and we cannot speak to the ins & outs of it like we know how to fix it. If we really had the answers we would have much higher-paid jobs than we already do. But phrases like "lower taxes", "don't borrow from Peter to pay Paul" only sound logical to those who do not know any better. Like they know something we don't know, please. It's almost like those Jehovah witnesses who come to your door to tell you how misguided and mistaken you are, asserting that they know the answers but nobody else does.

When the world stopped living within their means. When credit card companies arrived. When people see shiny things and buy them. It may be impractical but let's not pretend it to be uncommon, lol. People are slobs with their money. Slobs I tell you!

Oh Geez is right. Look at my post. I said under Obama they have continued to diminish. My request remains the same: please tell FOX News and the Tea Party this. The rhetoric is all about his elitist taxes that cripple the MC. That's why these MC people are all out there with whacky hats and signs that make no sense.

Re: Economy
 

I really don't care what the teabaggers think at all. Period. The teabaggers weren't in the original video and unless one of us is a closet teabagger who hasn't come out yet, exactly HOW is anything they say germane to this discussion? Does the fact that in your estimation the tea baggers have it wrong lend any special weight to the BS spouted by Mr Follow the dots in the video? Don't think so.

In all honesty, I really don't get your point about mortgage debt being insurmountable, and quite frankly I think it's wrong. I can tell you that 99.75% of all credit worthy mortgage holders do NOT think it's insurmountable. The other 0.25% might agree since that's the current default rate for non sub prime mortgages.

Okay, there are specific situations where overextending might be warranted for specific individuals. But the majority of people EVEN in this economy are NOT overextended. True there are more people in trouble but that is due primarily to the sub-prime mortgages and people who REALLY COULD NOT AFFORD TO BORROW THE MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE BEING APPROVED FOR MORTGAGE LOANS DUE TO RELAXED LENDING STANDARDS.

In April of 2011 the default rate for first mortgages fell from 2.16% to 2.09%. This is the lowest default rate since September of 2007.

That's ~98% of mortgages that are NOT in default. Granted, that's statistically about 9 times higher than the normal default rate of 0.25% for credit worthy mortgages. THAT's the impact of sub-prime mortgages. What's amazing is that the vast majority of the sub-prime mortgage holders manage to stay about water.

And what happens when the people who are lending you all this money start to say "Uhhh, sorry, no more - your credit is no good." Do you honestly think this debt merry-go-round can continue forever?

Nonsense. The majority of people can and DO live within their means - always have and probably always will. Not everyone certainly - there ARE some people who can NOT manage their money, but that's ALWAYS been true too.

Homeowners who took advantage of their equity and added a second mortgage through a strategic refinance in order to get cash for medical bills, home improvements, cars, and other large expenses have ended up in many cases with proportionally more debt than their homes are worth. While I can see the need to cover unforseen medical bills and possibly major home repairs, taking out a second for a car, vacation, swimming pool or some other "gotta have it item" is criminally stupid. THAT's overextending dude and it's NOT because the economy is tight. It's because of greed and stupidity.

It's not rocket science. If you can't afford it, don't buy it or splurge but then cut corners somewhere else. Most people manage their finances that way. Hey if an individual can't control their spending and goes hellaciously into debt, I really don't give a crap because it really doesn't affect me. When the GOVERNMENT can't control it THAT is different story.


This isn't about what FOX News and the Tea Party have said but rather the BS that was being spouted in the opening Video. I'm pretty certain that the guy doing the "follow the dots" isn't a tea bagger and probably doesn't work for FOX. It was just another rant blaming the tax cuts for the rich for the entirety of our deficit.

Re: Economy
 

If you don't care about teabaggers you should, as they are adding to the misinformation with the economy. Not to mention doing a stellar job of making the right-wing look bad. The chart you posted may educate them about taxes, is all. Please show it to them.

As for the video, take another look at the thread. People are discussing alot more than the content of the video. I personally am discussing the title "Economy", having watched the video and then responded to something RTB said. You then responded to my post, of which I responded to yours. See how this works? It's like following the dots.

How can you not understand something then think it's wrong? Or is it because you don't understand it that it becomes wrong by default? IRDK. Btw those figures are awesome.

Of course there are. As for the majority of people in this economy not being overextended, I think you are out of touch. But then, you go on to say there are more people in trouble now as if this is something entirely different.

When I originally said this you agreed that some borrowing was necessary - expected, almost. Now you're talking about infinite borrowing, which is different.

Many do, but many don't. People are silly with money. Credit lines etc. are the enablers to living beyond your means. There are far more of these people now than ever before.

These paragraphs I tend to agree with but the relevance escapes me, other than them being somewhat ancedotal in nature. I'll nod my head though, just 'cuz.

You don't see how someone blaming tax cuts for the rich has anything to do with teabaggers or Fox News? They take the opposite stance and are constantly arguing against this point in their rallies, talkshows, debates etc. Not sure how mentioning the opposing rhetoric from those nudnicks could be perceived as having no place here. Especially since you yourself are voicing your own opposing views. Not a huge leap to make here.

Re: Economy
 

<font color=plum>The teabaggers aren't adding any more misinformation than the guy in the video and those on the left that keep blaming the economy on the super rich.

And there is nothing wrong with having the goal of living debt-free, because it IS possible to do. You just have to realize you can't buy every shiny new thing that catches your eye.

My mom owns her house and both cars she drives - debt free. I also own the car I drive - bought and paid for. Aside from monthly bills, the only debt I have are my student loans (for getting my teacher license) and hospital bills due to my recent bad health. Until the first of April, my student loans were the only "debt" I had and I'm looking into ways to get the overall amount reduced. In the meantime, I can - and do - afford my monthly payments.

I did lose the house Princess and I bought to foreclosure, but there were a lot of factors that led to that; a renter who simply stopped paying rent, Princess refusing to help out with the mortgage when the payments got behind, and the real estate agent who (although she is a personal friend) only showed the house 3-4 times in 3 years.

Now there are some things *I* could have done about that situation, but didn't. In hindsight, I should have evicted the renter more than a year ago. I took her to court and won the judgment, but she promised to get the payments caught up (she was only 1.5 months behind at that time). So I gave her a second chance. Surprise, surprise...she never followed through and I was too soft-hearted to kick her and her kids out right then. Secondly, I could have listed my house on Craig's List and other sites myself to generate more interest. Would that have produced an offer on the house? No way to know for sure, but it wouldn't have hurt to try. The house we had was very nice and we dropped the price considerably over the years, but never had a single offer brought to the table, even after I switched real estate companies. So I lost the house and my credit rating has taken the hit for it, but that's the way it goes.

As for "needing" credit, I don't really. I've lived without a credit card of any kind for more than 5 years now and, even though I didn't have a steady job for more than 2.5 years, I'm still in the BEST financial shape of my life. Why? Because I don't buy anything I don't NEED.

The banks did help create the economy spiral with all the sub-prime mortgages and ignoring of bad credit rates, but the consumers bear the same amount of responsibility for buying things on credit (such as larger, fancier houses) than they could afford in the first place. You do NOT have to have a $500,000 home to have a roof over your head and there ARE alternatives out there. The housing market has been in the dumps for the last 3 years. I know because it started to crash right after we put our house on the market. But when that happens, you ADJUST to the situation. For us, it meant dropping the price of the house in an effort to keep it comparable to similar homes and keep interest generated.

It also meant shopping for a house we could AFFORD in the first place. We started looking at homes 2 years before we were actually ready to buy and, by doing that, we found the exact house we wanted for a price we could afford then (and now if we had stayed married).

We had an economic boon in the 90's due to the stock market. That and the greed of the 80's led the current generations to think they are SUPPOSED to have anything they see or want. And if they can't afford to pay cash, they'll just put it on the credit card. Other than the sub-prime fiasco, banks are NOT to blame for over-extending their credit. Yes, they offered them the means to do it, but the consumer still bears the responsibility for saying "You know what, I really can't afford to do that, so I'll just pass on your offer".

Even when I had a credit card, my balance was never more than $500. Why? Because I knew that was about the max I could afford to pay back.

As for gas prices, Euro has been paying prices this high for YEARS. I remember when we were complaining about gas being more than $1.50 per gallon and IW members in England were saying "We've been paying $3.50 per gallon for petrol for years". As Micah pointed out, American car manufacturers continue producing gas-hog vehicles, but that is only because American consumers insist on still buying them.

We also DID lose a lot of industries overseas. That is due to several factors as well, but the bottom line is the fact that it was cheaper to produce the goods in another country and ship them back here than to make them here in the first place. Unions don't bear all the blame for that, but they do bear some of it. The auto-workers in Detroit were making upwards of $75/hour and insisting on more several years ago. When a company can go overseas and find workers that will do the same job for $10-15/hour, that isn't a hard decision to make. The textile industries also left the country in droves during the 90's. That wasn't because of unions, though, because the textile workers certainly were NOT getting paid huge hourly wages.

On the other hand, several foreign auto companies are beginning to build factories HERE. Volkswagon is opening a huge factory in Chattanooga, TN and (IIRC) Mercedes is building a plant somewhere in the northern GA area. Those companies are discovering it cost less to build factories over here, but in more rural areas than in large urban hubs. Why? Because those rural areas are looking for jobs and offering companies big incentives to build there.

Still, the bottom line is the fact our own gov't is the worst "consumer" of all, never even considering the concept of NOT spending more money than you have. Their budget talks consist of "We spent this much last year and we need to increase that by this much due to inflation and other factors this year". They've already spent the money that MIGHT have come from the taxes on the super-rich, even though they never got it. And, yes, even a blind person should be able to see that China could literally "buy" the U.S. at any time now simply by calling in our debt to them. But do we try to reduce that debt at all? Not from what I've seen.

So the gov't acts like the general consumer. I see it, I want it, I have to have it. And if I can't afford it, then I'll just borrow the money to buy it. That is acceptable in ISOLATED or RARE instances, but it only works if you STOP the spending after buying that item and start paying off your the debt you just incurred. Instead, general and gov't consumers say "OK, I got THAT item, NOW I want this new item, which means I need to borrow more money for that."

The teabaggers aren't responsible at all for the current economy and, in fact, seem to be advocating the idea of actually living within your means. While it may not be possible for every person to live completely debt free, that doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate and sensible goal to work towards. But hey, don't let irrelevant facts get in the way of a good bashing session to muddy the waters.</font>

Re: Economy
 

<font color=plum>We also have VA hospitals that are run by the gov't. Ask any veteran you might know how well they think that system is working for them. Unless they live in the city where the hospital is located, they are looking at an all day commute and several hours wait for a routine doctor visit...and it is a different doctor each time they go. Services have to be scheduled months in advance (similar to the health care system in Canada) and they rarely see the same doctor twice when they go. Now the VA system DOES work well in some instances. My maternal grandfather was a WWII veteran (and former POW). he spent the last year of his life in the VA hospital and all of his care was free, but before he became terminal, I don't recall him ever going there for routine treatments or checkups.

I've said for years that some governments can operate effective health care systems, I just don't believe OUR government can do it. And gov't health care is NOT "free", it is paid for with higher taxes. Thus, the general public STILL pays for their health care out of their own pocket, it's just done indirectly in gov't run systems.</font>

Re: Economy
 

Socialized medicine should (and hopefully one day, will) be a Right. NO ONE should be financially ruined because of health. We should make medicine free, and not count the cost. I realize (and everyone else on this BB realizes it) that socialized medicine is paid for by increased taxes (your knee can jerk now), so please don't say that again.

Education should be free, or heavily subsidized. Until that happens I don't want to hear politicians OF ANY STRIPE, tell us about Education's Importance. Because they aren't putting their money where their mouth is.

Micah and Cerek: Good to see you back. The endless sea of right-wing BS over at the Oasis does get old, and here you will get lively debate.

Re: Economy
 

Governments are as much consumers as anyone else. There is no special cutoff for spending money that says private citizens are consumers and governments are not. The primary difference is where the money comes from. I punched a time clock for 30 years, and paid the government to tax me for it, and almost every aspect of my life. The government made their money off my work, and off the goods and services that I required to maintain my home and job. Groceries are taxed, my work truck was taxed, my fuel was taxed, my home was taxed, and yet, even after all this, multiplied by all the other working stiffs in my income range alone, the government can't spend within their means, even after tapping into money I paid them so that I'd have money when I was ready to retire: Social Security. Employers are even taxed for having employees. Unemployment insurance, and yet, the government can't spend within their means, but the economy's downfalls are due to private citizens?

No. It's entirely possible to live on credit w/out overextending your income. If I paid $500.00 a month rent, and got a loan for a house for $500.00 a month, I am both living on credit, and living within my means. I took the money I was paying to a landlord and started paying it to a bank to pay them for loaning me the money to buy a house. This is, however, what is wrong with our economy, the government decided that people needed to borrow more money to stimulate spending, and made it possible for people to do so. To me this breaks down to: Hey, we, the gov't, can spend more than we make and get away with it, we might as well allow the citizens to do so too.

Re: Economy
 

I want some of what Cerek's smoking.

Tax revenues were severely cut in the 80's on Retard Reagan's ignorant theory of trickle-down. Most of the spending increases (yes, tax rolls went down, spending went up) has been in the military, obviously, barring a slight dip when a very sensible President Clinton tried to start doing the downsizing we need.

Spending cuts are mathematically not possible of being the entire solution. So, when some idiot like the Orange Boner guy says tax hikes are not off the table, well he's not living in reality.

Re: Economy
 

So is their pay scale.

And, that is such a red herring. EVERYONE's taxes are at historical lows, which is part of the problem.

Re: Economy
 

<font color=plum>My knee isn't jerking at all. The left are the ones that keep lauding socialized healthcare as "free" healthcare and the general public tends to buy the rhetoric since all they see is that they won't have to pay directly when they go to the hospital. So, all I'm doing is stating a fact - there is no such thing as "free" healthcare; it has to be paid for - by the consumer - one way or the other.

Those who keep calling for "free gov't healthcare" are no more informed or intelligent than the random teabagger that said "Tell the gov't to leave my Medicare alone".

I've also said before (again, many times) that I'm not opposed to a national health care plan and, in fact, it's one of the reasons I voted for Obama. While I seriously doubt the ability of our gov't to run an effective and efficient healthcare system, Obama's plan is the best option for one I've seen proposed for our nation so far. That doesn't mean it's a good plan, by any means. There are MANY inherent flaws in the plan, but any healthcare system will have to start somewhere and then be adjusted and tweaked by future admins as time goes along and Obama-Care can give the foundation to start building on. I still don't think it is a great idea and it will end up costing us more in the long run (both in higher taxes and restricted services), but if we're going to have a nationalized plan, we have to start somewhere.</font>

<font color=plum>You'll get no argument from me there. EVERY state in the nation is facing huge budget deficits because the federal and state governments always seem to cut education funding first. Teachers have worked for several years without any raises and face increasing lay-offs every year. Aside from the keen personal interest I have in education being better funded, it just makes fundamental sense as well. NO politician ever got elected by saying "I think we should slash all the money we're spending on education". Nope, not a one. To a man (and woman), they ALL say "I'll work tirelessly to insure better-qualified teachers educating our children in classrooms with fewer students so each child can get the more individual attention they deserve". That lasts until they get in office and start working on the budget (although our own State Governor DID fight the Repubs General Assembly tooth and nail to prevent the passing of a huge cut in education spending).

The reality is that ANY society that does NOT emphasize educating their population are doomed to eventually fail. Why our politicians cannot see this universal truth is beyond me.</font>

<font color=plum>No, here you guys have been having an endless sea of left-wing BS. It just seemed "lively" because you all agree with each other, with the rare exception of occasional interruptions from Felix and LoA.

The debates over at Oasis are generally based far more on actual data and statistics and less on rhetoric than the arguments here, but you're right that the lefties left Oasis so the conservatives have been left to debate issues among ourselves. And, like the core group here, we tend to agree on most issues, so the debates were usually pretty short-lived.</font>

Re: Economy
 

[QUOTE]How can you not understand something then think it's wrong? Or is it because you don't understand it that it becomes wrong by default? IRDK. Btw those figures are awesome. [QUOTE]

No what I can't understand is how you can continue to insist that mortgage debt is insurmountable when it simply isn't.

Look i get it that it's a HUGE amount for a loan, and assuming that much debt CAN be scary. But IT IS NOT INSURMOUNTABLE. The ability of the overwhelming majority of mortgage holders to NOT default on their mortgages should have been more than ample proof of that.

Not infinite and some creep is expected due to inflation but the government is adding debt WELL beyond that.

Since you didn't offer any numbers, I did some checking and the numbers were higher than I expected. (The following numbers are from 2011 unless otherwise noted)

The majority (~60%) of credit card holders pay their balance in full each month. However according to the Federal Reserve Bank, 40% of American families spend more than they earn. Okay that's just STUPID imho and the 60-40 ratio is lower than I expected. But it's nice to see that the majority of credit card holders DO manage their finances well. Surpisingly, TransUnion is reporting that in 2010 the number of credit card delinquencies actually went down by 17% despite the status of the economy.

29% of low and middle income households with credit card debt reported that medical expenses contributed to their current balances. (That's one of the situations where I maintained overextending was justified remember?). If you reduce the 40% by the 29% who had medical emergencies, the % who overspend is now closer to 28%. Still pretty high but closer to what I expected. That's better than a 2-1 ratio for those who CAN manage their money and those who can't.

And here's the icing on the cake - 60% say credit card debt is usually the result of bad decisions. 91% believe debt can be controlled by disciplined saving and spending. What a disconnect! 91% say they believe debt can be controlled and yet ~30% of them spend money they don't have. Talk is cheap.

Maybe the moral here is this: If you can't manage a credit card account, don't get one and don't blame the bank for issuing it to you. How about taking some personal responsibility for your own finances?

Now to mortgages:

The same principal of not spending more than you earn applies to taking out a home mortgage.

By definition, sub-prime mortgages are generally reserved for consumers who are deemed to be non-credit worthy. At least one measure of that is a FICO score below 640. For prime mortgages it is generally accepted that homeowners should not spend more than 36% of their income on housing costs (principle, insurance, taxes, and interest) and that mortgage to asset value ratio should not exceed 80% (i.e. 20% of purchase price applied as a down payment). In the case of subprimes, these restrictions are relaxed to allow some borrowers proceed with loan applications where that % escalated to OVER 50% in many cases AND where the mortgage to purchase ratio was allowed to reach 100% and in many cases incomplete or no documentation/verification of income and assets was conducted. This is a bit oversimplified in that many hybrid mortgages (FRM to ARM conversions) would also be classified as subprime. By 2005-2006, nearly one in six subprime variable-rate mortgages was originated with "low quality" underwriting, meaning they had little or no documentation and LTV ratios in excess of 95 percent.

Color me confused and call me Shirley, but the higher credit risks actually have relaxed restrictions on borrowing? How can that be?

Subprime mortgages come at a cost. The average subprime hybrid mortgage rates at origination were in the 7.3 to 9.7 percent range for the years 2001–2007, compared to average prime hybrid mortgage rates at origination of around 2–3 percent and 4 to 6% for FRMs. The increased mortgage rates reflect the increased risk of default for subprime mortgages. So by the very nature of the mortgagor's finances they are MORE likely to end in default. That's why the rates are higher.

According to research done by the Federal Reserve, almost 25% of all mortgages originated in 2006 and 14% of all mortgages outstanding in 2007 were considered subprime (which the Fed defined as loans made to borrowers with FICO scores below 620-660 and/or unable to make a 20% down payment). That's a HUGE jump from historical levels.

As of November 2010, consumers on average spend roughly 12% of their disposable, after tax income, to pay their mortgage obligations, personal loans and car loans and 15.2% if you add in home insurance, real estate taxes etc. However ~ 15% of homeowners are spending at least 50% of their income on housing costs. Is it any wonder then that historically 10% of those subprime mortgages go into default? That's overextending by a BUNCH!

But it's not entirely that simple.

An analysis of subprime mortgages shows that within the first year of origination, approximately 10 percent of the SP mortgages originated between 2001 and 2005 were delinquent or in default and the % of defaults was increasing slowly during that time frame. In 2006 and 2007 that percentage suddenly increased to 20%.

Part of that sudden increase is due to a worsening of the criteria associated with larger default rates, but the changes between the 2001–2005 and 2006–2007 periods were not sufficiently high to explain the near 100 percent increase in default rates for loans originated in these years.

In a market with rapidly rising prices, mortgage contracts that cannot be sustained can be terminated through prepayment or refinancing. Borrowers can change houses and mortgage contracts easily in a booming environment, and defaults do not occur as frequently as they would without the boom. Because of this ability to dispose of unsustainable mortgages, signs of the crisis brewing between 2001 and 2005 were hidden behind a “mask” of rising house prices.

Part of the boom was fueled simply due to the easy availablity of credit. Outstanding mortgage debt increased by a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 9.2% - more than 50% higher than the 6.6% CAGR for commercial real estate. That demand artificially fueled a price run up that was simply not sustainable. Every boom has its bust, and by 2006 the housing market started to decline. When the market collapsed however, many borrowers were left with negative equity.

Once house price appreciation slowed considerably (and turned negative in many locations) and underwriting subsequently tightened considerably, homeowners were less able to refinance or sell their homes, leading to increased risks of default.

A new study from VantageScore, Fico score’s main adversary, revealed that in regions with only high home depreciation, the SP default rate increased 44 percent. What dropping house values it became a strategic option for many subprime mortgage holders to simply default on their loans. They had negative equity and have less incentive to remain current on their mortgage payments. They saw default as simply a way of getting out from under a bad investment. And the increase in defaults for home depreciation outstripped the increase in defaults due to economic issues (e.g. unemployment) by almost 2-1. However the combination of the two factors was DEADLY. Subprime defaults increased by over 340% in areas where BOTH factors were in play.

So while the base historical rate for subprime defaults is more closely tied to the financial well-being of the borrowers, the sudden increase is more due to the current economic downturn AND the collapsing housing market. The subprime crisis didn't fuel the economic collapse but rather it was driven by the housing market collapse and accelerated by rising unemployment.

Re: Economy
 

I don't think we are on the same page here. It is insurmountable at the time of acquisition. Which is why you work out a payment plan, which and in turn is why America utilize mortgages as a way of life because this proved so popular. Which is (again) why I say it is silly to believe "You can't borrow from Peter to pay Paul" when the majority of people do this every day. Not sure how this is complicated. We borrow amounts we can in no way shape or form afford right now and set up a plan with someone who allows us to pay it back in fractions. Insurmountable then becomes manageable because we used a mortgage. We ask someone to do us a favor and pay the other guy off in full, while we pay this guy in monthly integers.

I also question this new statement about the "overwhelming majority" not defaulting on loans, especially in the last few years with the market crisis. "Overwhelming" suggests like 80% to me. I'd go with (at the least) an underwhelming amount similiar to the 60/40 below, personally.


But you yourself say such scary debt is not insurmountable (and you do it with caps lock on).



Good thing you did the research here - clearly you were off on this as you dismissed my assertions as "Nonsense". While I personally think the numbers to even be a little higher, I will run with these ones for the sake of argument, because it is still a staggering amount. 40% - almost half of them. You'd now agree that this is a disturbing statistic, close to half of the people living beyong their means.

Re: Economy
 

I want some of what YOU are smoking.

Most of the spending increases in Defense? Utterly incorrect dude. Based on % of GDP, Spending on Education and Health care and Pensions have surpassed Defense spending. That's not a bad thing but at least get the facts right.

Defense spending rose to 42 percent of GDP in 1945. But after the war it never returned to previous levels. From a low of 7.33 percent of GDP in 1948 it doubled to 15 percent at the height of the Korean War in 1953, and was maintained at about 10 percent during the peak of the Cold War through the end of the Vietnam War. During the Reagan era, rose from 5.6 percent of GDP in 1979 to 7 percent of GDP in 1986. The Bush buildup from 3.6 percent in 1999 to 6 percent in 2010. The plans of the Obama administration show a reduction in spending back to 4.6 percent of GDP by 2015.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...efense_100.png

Government spending on education has expanded from about one percent of GDP in 1900 to 7 percent in the second decade of the 21st century.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...cation_100.png

Government did not intervene significantly in the provision of health care until the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in the mid 1960s. Since then government health care has increased to around 7 percent of GDP.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...thcare_100.png

Government health spending breached two percent of GDP in 1970, three percent of GDP in 1980, and four percent of GDP in 1991. Spending breached five percent of GDP in 1995, six percent in 2007, and seven percent of GDP in 2009.


I think you meant Boehner said that tax hikes WERE off the table.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...ikes-are-table

Spending under Clinton grew 3.29% YoY
Spending under Bush grew 6.61% YoY
Spending under Obama is expected to Grow by 6.71% YoY (according to White House projections).

Obama's campaign promise: "No family making less than $250,000 will see 'any form of tax increase.'" Yet by your own admission, tax hikes HAVE to be part of the solution. So it's just Boehner that isn't living in reality? Or is it simply the RICH that you want to tax?

Tell you what, when Obama starts making REAL cuts in spending, THEN you can start grousing about BOTH Obama and the Republicans holding firm against tax hikes. Until then, STFU.

Re: Economy
 

Would you just look up the definition of Insurmountable? It means simply something which is "incapable of being overcome". "incapable of being surmounted, passed over, or overcome; insuperable"
It doesn't specify time frame nor does it specify means. The fact that mortgage loans can and are paid back regardless of whether it is over time or due to sudden cash windfalls means they do not represent insurmountable debt. Got it?

I'm sick of arguing over semantical BS like this.

That comment was made with reference to mortgage debt. Please check the context of my statements. Whether US government debt is insurmountable or not is beyond me. The fact that it continues to escalate at alarming rates IS scary though.

Go back to my earlier post. The current default rate for all home mortgages is ~2% to 2.5% percent. That means that ~98% are NOT in default. The 99.75% represented PRIME mortgages only. Sounds like an overwhelming majority off to me.

Here's a link:

http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-...our-years/229/

And an excerpt from it (2011):

In a rare bit of good news for the housing market, fewer Americans are walking away from their mortgages, according to recent data from S&P/Experian. The latest numbers indicate that between April and May, the rate of defaults on first mortgages fell from 2.16 percent to 2.09 percent, while the percentage of defaults on second mortgages fell from 1.51 to 1.42 percent.

You think those numbers are wrong? Look them up yourself then.

And almost a third of those are due to catastrophic medical debts. That's NOT exactly the same as living beyond your means.

Approximately 33% of all credit holders hold less than 10K credit debt, with the median outstanding balance $2,254. 13% carry balances over $10,000 (median balance: $17,366). Only 1 household in 50, 2%, carry more than $20,000 in credit card debt. Now what's sadly lacking in those raw numbers is some context as to what percentage of income that debt represents. Without that context, we really don't know whether those numbers are truly disturbing or not.

Here are the breakdowns by income brackets (now if I can just find the income ranges those represent):

Less Than 20th Percentile: $855.30
20th – 39.9th Percentile: $1,896.20
40th – 59.9th Percentile: $2,632.20
60th – 79.9th Percentile: $3,103.90
80th – 89.9th Percentile: $4,573.50
90th – 100th Percentile: $6,303.40


Again if you don't like the numbers I found - so look them up yourself.

Re: Economy
 

My definition is the same ("incapable of being overcome". "incapable of being surmounted, passed over, or overcome; insuperable"). Just because a time-frame is not mentioned in the definition does not mean one cannot be applied. You surmount the presently insurmountable by finding a different route or method to do so. (i.e. a loan) which then makes this goal realistic, achievable.

If you're sick of arguing semantics then don't start nit-picking imo.

I'm aware of the context. You then concede that it is "beyond you" and agree it is "scary". By your own admission there are similiarities, is all. Which is why I thought I would bring it to your attention as you spoke about debt once more.


Nice try heh. How about you go back to my earlier post - you just quoted from it. I said "last few years" not this year, sir. The link talks about this year the market is looking good and almost back to where it was in 2006 and 2007. It alludes to obvious issues between then and now, but makes no numbers because it is talking about the current "good news" in 2011. Which is awesome don't get me wrong. But I clearly referred to the crisis over the last few years. Not today.

I did the work for you. Here's what I said.

Again last few years, as opposed to April and May of this year.

Re: Economy
 

<font color=plum>This is what <font color=yellow>SW</font> does. He makes statements, then turns the responses of others around and adds his own spin, then turns his own words around to say he didn't really say what you thought he said in the first post. Since he can't really refute your argument, he turns it around to mean something he can refute. Oh....and then declares himself the "winner".

There's no real logic to it, but once you realize that, it can be amusing to see what he comes up with next. :laugh2:</font>

Re: Economy
 

of course gov, run healthcare would cost money. Its a terrible idea to have health insurance companies making money off of people. I dont think we should get rid of the current hospitals - i just think that instead of trying to pay an insurance company to pay overpriced hospitals that we would be better off just having the gov. run a few hospitals. So those people who can afford to go to the capitalist hospitals can go, and those who cant possibly afford that can go to the gov. run ones - and yes, there may be a long wait and it may be inconvenient, but its better than no treatment at all.
Hospitals in general need an overhaul i think, you dont need any doctors or admins etc making more than 50k a year; if the work load is so much that you feel its justified, then instead hire more people. With one 400k doctor you could instead get 8 doctors.

Re: Economy
 

Those 2011 current numbers are not that far off the 2007 peak and fairly representative of what default rates look liked back in 2001 thru 2007 and after. In April 2007 the mortgage default rate hit what was at that point an all time of high of 2.87%.

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusin...10009716.shtml

Default rates continued to climb and subsequently maxed at ~3% later that same year before falling slightly into 2009 and then increasing again. In 2010, a report released by First American CoreLogic showed the foreclosure rate in the US increased in January to 3.19 percent, an increase of 60.3 percent from a year ago (2009) when the national foreclosure rate was 1.99 percent.

http://realestateinvestordaily.com/f...inues-to-rise/

The rate has then declined back to the numbers I used for 2011.

http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-...our-years/229/


So those 2011 current numbers are not that far off the 2007 or 2010 peaks and are slighty higher than default starting in 2001 and continuing into 2011. So as much as you might THINK the default rate was more like 40% or even 20% it simply isn't true. Even the deliquency rate never got much over 10% for any protracted period.

But nice try at obscuring the truth thru nitpicking the time frame of the discussion over the mortgage default rates. Whats even MORE curious is that you had NO problems with accepting the credit card debt 60/40 numbers which were based on 2011 numbers as opposed to being "from a few years back". That wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that CCD numbers fit your pre-conceived notions and the default rate numbers don't?

If you don't believe them go check out the numbers yourself. Just make sure you don't mistake delinquency rates (one missed payment 30 days in arrears). or serious deliquency rates (90 days overdue) for default/foreclosures rates. Delinquency rates simply represent overdue payments - NOT foreclosures. Oh and PLEASE try to include a link. Unfortunately a large number of reporters couldn't properly distinguish between deliquency rates and default rates. They aren't the same thing. It's SO helpful in trying to support your conclusions.

Re: Economy
 

<font color=plum>Having to wait several weeks or months to see a doctor is not better than no treatment at all, because the end result can be the same thing. I've been having some recent health issues that are (apparently) indirectly related to my Crohn's disease. When I went to see my local doctor (actually a PA), she recommended I go see a new gastroenterologist she was familiar with and gave me a referral. He works in a LARGE office and the soonest I could schedule an appointment with him was two months, but I needed to be seen now. In fact, I ended up in the hospital twice and the E.R. twice during the time it would have taken to see the new doc. So I ended up making an appointment with another doc in the same practice and got seen in a couple of weeks instead of two months.

I had developed a very deep abscess, which required X-Rays and CatScans for the docs to get a better idea of just how serious it might be. Being put on a waiting list for 5-12 months was, again, not a feasible option, since the problem could have become much more serious and even life-threatening in that time.

The main selling point behind Obama Care is to give competition to private insurance carriers. However, the competition already exists, IF the gov't would allow private carriers to compete across state lines for health insurance like they do for property and casualty (Notice all the commercials for auto insurance companies offering lower rates than their competitors?) But the gov't doesn't allow health carriers to compete across state lines. If they did, the competition would take care of itself.

Another big selling point was that we needed to get private health carriers OUT of health care equation. I said long before this came about that, once a national plan became inevitable, the insurance companies would make sure they got their slice of the national pie...and did they ever. Now the gov't has declared health care will become mandatory for everyone over the next few years. That's the very definition of having your cake and eating it too, because some people could (and did) simply choose NOT to buy health insurance at all and take a chance on not getting sick. Now the insurance companies don't have to worry about that. I know this point is being challenged, but it was still in the original plan and I don't know that it has been eliminated.

Finally, Obama and others kept using the figure of "40 million Americans" that could not afford health insurance as one of the reasons we needed a national plan. Even though that number was grossly inflated (the real figure was closer to 15 million, but we'll still use the 40), it actually weakens the argument for national health care. Why? Well, we can assume these 40 million uninsured Americans will be the first ones added to the national plan, but guess what? They STILL won't be able to afford the premiums, which means you automatically have 40 million policies that have to be subsidized by the taxpayers.

Oh yeah, part of that 40 million were illegal immigrants and Obama assured us the national plan would NOT be extended to them. Once again, I said that just means that he will use this as an excuse to simply "legalize" them arbitrarily and make them citizens....and that is exactly what he has proposed doing.

Those are just a few of the biggest flaws and misinformation regarding ObamaCare. There are many others that affect the average citizen on different levels, but this should be enough to illustrate my point.

Now, again, if we have a TRUE competition among ALL health insurance carries (both public and private) then I agree it could stimulate some real competition between the carriers, but ONLY if the private companies are allowed to compete nationwide, just like ObamaCare can. Otherwise you have a monopsony with one provider (the gov't) effectively controlling the market for a good or service.</font>