I forget where spoiler tags are cant see em on the thing could anyone take pity
Done. ~Kukri
Printable View
I forget where spoiler tags are cant see em on the thing could anyone take pity
Done. ~Kukri
Generally I follow the same lifestyle - however, buying/building a house without taking any debt is somewhat difficult (which is why we also have BIG debts now, a couple of months after buying a house).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Wow, gaelic cowboy, that's some messed-up formatting. The easiest "hide text and give me a button" tag is [ex]. I'll use it below, so that if you're confused, you can just hit "quote" on this post and see how it works.
Thanks man been years since I posted regularly on the board but now I am in college with the free WiFi why the hell not take advantage:beam:
He's still in favour of taxes ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I've never had a car-loan and I've always paid my cars in cash. And I'm a student.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Is this where I don't mention that the 3 cars I've owned is an '86 audi 80, '87 mazda 626 and currently a '92 toyota carina II?
Well, we're all being told off. I have listened to several economists recently pointing out that the rich are withdrawing a lot of investment funds which makes the problem worse by reducing liquidity. I have certainly reduced a great deal of exposure to the stock market and moved capital to safer havens. As noted earlier, we did take a very profitable but entirely surprising punt on bank shares before the bailout plan, but that will go some way to paying inheritance taxes in two countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I can see this is not the typical problem, but are politicians really expecting large fund-holders to stay in the market?
Anyway, I agree with Lemur - it'll be a very nasty day when responsible loans are called in - not least because by then, you won't need to pay them back to the hollowed husk of a finance system unless it be in sea-shells.
I can't say I'm entirely debt-free (I have a mortgage), but I have always paid off my credit cards every month and haven't had a car payment in 12 years. Could I be living in a McMansion with a BMW and an Escalade in the driveway? Probably, but I despise debt. My grandfather lived through the depression, and passed that experience to my father, who passed it to me. I've been railing on my SO to pay down her credit cards, she had a huge balance. Then I computed her annual interest charge and she saw the light.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
There is a huge amount of credit card debt out there, and that's probably going to be the next big problem. If the unemployment rate keeps going up, that debt (some securitized as well) will need a "bailout" too. The mortgage bailout is just a dutch boy running out of hands.
If a bailout is going to happen, I'd prefer one like this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
No way should the government be buying derivatives. Go to the source, and actually buy something tangible, instead of some virtual stock.
Hmmmm.... Just out of curiosity, how common are credit cards over there?
I've never had one, and I've only wanted to have one once really, when my paycheck was delayed a week....
The problem with that approach, Drone, is that it throws gas on a fire. Homeowners that are delinquent that have the government swoop in and pay their mortgage for them will not all of a sudden find religion. If anything, their neighbors may emulate their behavior. And the banks, that made the bad loans in the first place, won't learn either.
It's the same fundamental solution, it only differs on the methodology for the cash infusion.
As for Banquo and Lemur's comments, I agree that banks calling loans that they are servicing properly is unlikely. It's in their interest to leave that money in your hands (no pun intended). I'm just saying that it's a possibility, and one that's not as far-fetched as it might have been 3 weeks ago.
I still think that people are perhaps overestimating how much of this was single home owners and not giving consideration to the fact that a lot of people have ALREADY walked from investment homes they had mortgages on they knew they could never swing long-term. They wanted to just hang on for six months while the house increased in value 10 or 15% and then sell. Those people have already walked and I think even if all the remaining people trying NOT to walk away from a mortgage pulled in every resource and did the responsible thing, the crisis would still exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
(This is not to say, at all, that what you are doing is not very responsible and admirable, Don Corleone. I just think people like you were not the real source of this problem; you might have been part of it, but the greed and the belief that everyone could make quick short-term turnaround profits on this, not worrying about the long-term, was more of the source.)
You're not... The planets must be in alignment because aside from computer games that's another thing we have in common. Since I paid off my modest student loan in my mid 20s I have been debt free ever since and I also am the furthest thing from a millionaire. Furthermore the only time I have ever carried a balance on my credit card is when I forget to pay on time (I can be quite absent minded about such things). As far as our generation is concerned we are truly rare birds. For all my talk of the evils of Baby Boomers the fiscal irresponsibility of our fellow Gen-X'ers postively puts them to shame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I'm one of those rare Gen-X'ers who buys most of their food at the supermarket and cooks it at home. I rarely buy anything unless it's on sale, coupled with a rebate or for some reason is selling at an unusually low price. I also refrain from indulging in money draining frivolities like binge drinking at the local pub every Friday & Saturday, gambling or paying for snazzy tech I admire but would admittedly never use, etc. I chalk it up to being raised in no small part by my grandparents, members of the Depression era generation who turned coupon clipping and thriftiness into an art form. Being raised in a Greek household played its part as well... seriously, we rival Jews and Scots for our ability to squeeze the life out of an innocent penny.
I've squirreled away so much cash over the last 20 years that my mattress looks like it's about to give birth to a bank... Interesting that with the looming financial collapse my friends (who live paycheck to paycheck) who previously chastized me for my cheapness have toned down the sermons about 'not being able to take it with you' or 'living in the moment'.
Me too. I got raped by the 18% interest rates using a credit card here and there in college, and getting in trouble. (I was not out buying luxury dinners and electronics with it, I was buying stuff like books and little daily things when I didn't have time to take the bus to the bank for cash.) Since then I live off-debt, my one credit card gets zeroed every month.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
This part is off topic Spino but this made me really curious. I know this depends a lot on where you live, and everything. But for me, I never found myself, at least for one person, saving any significant amount of money grocery shopping as opposed to eating out. Especially when you take waste/loss/food going back before you eat it into account. I mean, if you go to some bulk membership place, yeah, you save money, but a single person usually can't store or eat all that before it's bad. I tried the buy and cook as a single person, and I just never saw any real savings. I mean you go and spend $7-9 for enough chicken for two meals, (or $20~ for a bigger bag I barely had freezer room for and would get frostbitten halfway through). Now, when money was tight I did live on mac & cheese, pancake mix (creative applications) and top ramen. You can live very cheaply that way, practically like a day laborer. But, you get black circles under your eyes and you're tired and hungry all the time. (I was totally broke my last five or six months of college, as soon as paycheck would come in, it would be gone for necessities.)Quote:
I'm one of those rare Gen-X'ers who buys most of their food at the supermarket and cooks it at home.
Another way you and I are alike. I have been teased and made fun of for years, called "Scrooge McDuck", because I always cash about half my paycheck and keep it out of the bank. That does mean, that I have an obscene amount of cash money hidden. People made fun, and made fun, and made fun. And now they're not anymore, in fact, now they're saying financial "planners" are telling people to keep about 25% of their money in cash, take it out of CD's, stocks, investments, and keep some on hand in case your bank is locked down for a week while the Feds take it over. No one's making fun of me anymore. :) But I've always had Cassandra syndrome, I haven't trusted the U.S. financial systems in years and I've been saying that I don't see how it can possibly stay stable the way it's running, and everyone called me an alarmist and ignored me for years.Quote:
I've squirreled away so much cash over the last 20 years that my mattress looks like it's about to give birth to a bank... Interesting that with the looming financial collapse my friends (who live paycheck to paycheck) who previously chastized me for my cheapness have toned down the sermons about 'not being able to take it with you' or 'living in the moment'.
Your logic is inadequate. I said something like Alice only likes apples, and Bob also likes bananas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
Bob might like apples, oranges and pears. Alice does not like anything except apples.
Checking out the store circulars for weekly deals works for me and I use the supermarket cards to accumulate points that I can cash in to get free food when they have special deals. A few packages of chicken breasts or whole legs, a few packages of vegetables, etc. I scoop up as much as my freezer can handle and stuff it in there for use over the course of the month. I'm not a foodie so even now that I can afford to indulge my palate I generally eat the same thing every other night. To break up the monotony and take a brief vacation from cooking I usually eat out or order out once during the weekends.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
I was joking about hiding a ton of cash in my house. A mad money/rainy day fund hidden in the mattress is fine but keeping too much cash on hand is irresponsible in light of the interest (however small) it could be earning in a bank (hopefully a reliable one). I have a nice chunk of change tied up in Roth IRA's with a few high cap/low risk mutual funds with stellar track records but the bulk of my assets are liquid and are in CDs or high return savings accounts in banks that are not in danger of going belly up.
You're one of the people making fun of me! Stop it, stop it! ;)Quote:
I was joking about hiding a ton of cash in my house. A mad money/rainy day fund hidden in the mattress is fine but keeping too much cash on hand is irresponsible in light of the interest (however small) it could be earning in a bank (hopefully a reliable one). I have a nice chunk of change tied up in Roth IRA's with a few high cap/low risk mutual funds with stellar track records but the bulk of my assets are liquid and are in CDs or high return savings accounts in banks that are not in danger of going belly up.
I don't make a ton of money. And the cash I keep around does have a turnover where I use some of it for out of pocket expenses. So we're not talking about 600,000 in my mattress. Savings account interest though is a joke, to me. And CD's, well, I'm young enough that I don't like tying up my money for 6-24 months in an untouchable place. I like to keep my options open. I have less money (marginally) than someone with the same income as me who put it all in CD's or savings, but, I don't panic or stay up at night worrying what will happen if my bank crashes. It won't affect me for awhile, cash wise.
I cheated -- I married a professional chef. And we grow a lot of our veggies and fruit in our yard, so we get fresh stuff about eight months of the year for the cost of seed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
We bought a second freezer and have been harvesting/vacuum packing/freezing as much stuff as we can. Trying to stretch it out so that we're eating our own produce 12 months of the year.
any representatives who changed their vote based on her speech need to be deported.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Changed, no. But dragged kicking and screaming to vote for something they don't agree with, then have her fling pooh like that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
If this really had any effect on the vote, at all, then Republicans have no room to ever accuse anyone of petty partisanship and playing politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
But, I think it more likely they just didn't want to vote for it before re-election and used her as a scapegoat for the vote.
Come on. If George Bush had stated "And because the Democrats left the White House so woefully unprepared to prevent such an attack, and their failed foreign policy invited Al Queda to breed in Afghanistan, we must now go in and drive their Taleban hosts out of Kabul", do you really think a single Democrat would have voted for the Afghanistan resolution?
If I agree to go along with something I don't like, and somebody stands up and says "And by going along, you're admitting just how wrong and stupid you were for disagreeing in the first place", I'm going to take issue.
Now, I view the failed vote as a GOOD thing, so I don't feel a need to defend them. But I do think you guys are expecting an awful lot of people. They have to vote for something they don't like AND publicly lick Nancy's boots?
Like I said, I think she did it on purpose.
I find it very hard to believe that Pelosi's speech had a major imapact on the vote. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the big dividing line was between people who are up for re-election in tough districts and those who aren't. This was all about Congresscritters who were more afraid of you and me than they were of their own leadership. Which is as it should be.
Here's what kills me — it's possible that the bailout was a good plan. But nobody made a case for it. If we had a President whom more than 15% of the population trusted, it might be a different story. But hey, if you want us to fork over a sum of cash equal to the Gross National Product of the Netherlands, you have to make a case. You have to sway us.
Nobody did that, so tough on them.
Don, come on. The Democrats have been called out as everything from traitors to "wanting to extend therapeutic understanding to our attackers" to being against the troops. And that did not stop them from voting in significant numbers in support of all kinds of things Bush and his admin insisted were absolutely important or necessary for our security, even if they turned out to be bad laws in retrospect. Even when the Dems ever did try to put their foot down and say no on something the President wanted, his rubber stamp, lockstep Republican Congress just changed the rules of Congress and started threatening the nuclear option to cloture and silence any filibuster. And any Democratic led opposition or subcommittee meetings on any issue got banished to sub-basements. So let's not get into whose party plays petty politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Don't give me this garbage that the Dems vote lockstep against Republicans on petty grounds. It isn't true. Way more of our party has voted with Bush on things we wish they hadn't than we care to think about.
you vote on the issue. completely inexcusable for a congressman to do otherwise in this case. someone that was 1) cowed into voting for something they didn't want and then 2) flipped because mean ol' nancy gave a dime-a-dozen partisan speech is doubly reprehensible. i wouldn't want that type of person in charge of trimming my shrubs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
the case made for the bailout was astonishingly bad. your average cable news financial guru could have made a strong case in about 2 minutes of airtime (most of them did), but no one seemed to notice in congress that 80% of america 'don't want no bailout for wallstreet!'. the white house's only attempt, beyond having public enemy #1 get on tv, was to ask the news networks to stop calling it a "bailout" and start calling it a "rescue plan". can't blame them for thinking simple semantic tomfoolery would work, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Kogo: Never said Democrats voted along party lines against the best interests of the country. I'll actually give them credit for passing more resolutions than I would have expected them to (and probably more than they should have). But W didn't stand there like a gate-keeper and say "bow and admit you were wrong" on the way by either...
Big John: I'm not arguing that they're in the right. I'm arguing that it's human nature. Let me try putting it another way. Let's say your boss comes to you and says "alright, I've mismanaged the funds around here. In order to stay solvent, you're going to have to sign a document the HR manager will pass around in which you'll voluntarily take a 10% paycut". As the HR rep comes around, they announce "and by signing this document, you admit that you're lazy and stupid and only deserve 90% of what we're currently paying you".
Do you still think you'd sign?
Again, I'm happy the bill failed. I'm trying to get you guys to see that if you really wanted the bill to pass, you should be ticked at Nancy for failing to keep her fool mouth shut.
There are people besides Kush who wanted it to pass? *Doesn't know anyone*Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Maybe try blaming the President who basically ruined his own credibility and then went out and stumped for this without explaining it, and admitting the number was pulled out of thin air. Instead of blaming us that the case made for this bailout was so incredibly poor that 90% of the calls to Congressional offices were "hell no"s.
then we are talking past each other. i never said no one would have done it (though i am inclined to believe scapegoat argument much more, since i imagine those fragile dears hear similar talk everyday in congress). i simply said anyone that did change their vote not based on the issue but based on pelosi should be deported (and i was being kind, in that).Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
that's a weird and bad analogy. but if the choice is between accepting a smudge on your honor (which may or may not be deserved), and watching your livelihood collapse....Quote:
the Let me try putting it another way. Let's say your boss comes to you and says "alright, I've mismanaged the funds around here. In order to stay solvent, you're going to have to sign a document the HR manager will pass around in which you'll voluntarily take a 10% paycut". As the HR rep comes around, they announce "and by signing this document, you admit that you're lazy and stupid and only deserve 90% of what we're currently paying you".
Do you still think you'd sign?
i guess i think thick-skinned professional politicians are 1) thick-skinned enough to withstand a partisan tirade and 2) professional politicians enough to quickly seize a scapegoat when it presents itself.Quote:
Again, I'm happy the bill failed. I'm trying to get you guys to see that if you really wanted the bill to pass, you should be ticked at Nancy for failing to keep her fool mouth shut.
As many pundits have said... Nancy Pelosi gave a partisan speech. This is news, how?
Besides, there wasn't a darn untrue thing about what she said, but that's a whole other barrel of worms. I concede it wasn't politic, but it was still true.
And one from the peanut gallery
Its all because of testosterone
lets assume the worst for a moment. if testosterone is the root of the collapse of the world economy and ushering in of a madmax-style dystopia... that would be so super awesomely hilarious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Yeah, if it turns out to be true... or even vaguely true... I'll never see the Corleone checkbook again.
Because regardless of whether testoserone leads to riskier financial behavior or not, there is unparalled evidence, through millenia of study, that shows that estrogen plants the phrase "I told you so" on the lips. :laugh4:
So here I was watching MSNBC, where they were interviewing Senators about the new bailout bill when I hear one mention one of the good things in the bill is subsidies for "alternative energy". What???
So I do some googling around, and yeah, it looks like the Senate has still never seen a bill that they aren't willing to tack pork onto.
Quote:
Here are some of the special-interest provisions that are now part of the Wall Street bailout legislation. The bill started at 3 pages, grew to 106 pages, and is now 451 pages.
* Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)
* Wooden Arrows designed for use by children (Sec. 503)
* 6 page package of earmarks for litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident, Alaska (Sec. 504)
* Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Section 308)
* American Samoa (Sec. 309)
* Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)
* Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)
* Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
* Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
* Railroads (Sec. 316)
* Auto Racing Tracks (317)
* District of Columbia (Sec. 322)
* Wool Research (Sec. 325)
Fine work. That ought to just about kill it for good.
Best input I heard all day was Barney Frank, after someone off-screen observed that failing banks were being bought up by other banks, and the stock market was apparently recovering from the first "No Bailout" vote, and Warren Buffett was buying up tons of GE stock (paraphrasing; he trying to be sarcastic) "Well, good, maybe I should just go home for the rest of the year!"
Fine advice, I think.
-edit-
I googled youTube for the clip, but haven't found it yet; I thought I saw it on CNN.
Most of that list isn't pork. Pork is like, funding for a sewing club. Not mining safety equipment or railroads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
No it is pork.
When the amendment has nothing to do with the act and it is there purely to buy the vote of the Rep who then uses the amendment to buy votes for themself.
If it was an act for say a decrease in mine taxes with an amendment for mine safety it would not be pork.
You are right. I think the common perception, though, is that pork is sheer waste. Whenever politicians trying to rile up a crowd against pork bring it up, they mention things like "genetic testing on polar bears." They don't mention that a lot of important things tend to get included through what is technically pork too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
And, getting about 400+ people to all vote on something just cause it's the right thing to do.... eh well none of us are children anymore are we? :) We could get serious about campaign finance reform so that politicians didn't have to spend half their terms fundraising for the next re-election campaign, and suckling up to special interests and corporations. But no one, in general, seems enthusiastic to do campaign finance reform, least of all the ones most benefitting from it.
Here's an article from the AP that touches on a similar theme:I heard an (unconfirmed) figure that claims the unrelated addons to the bailout bill could themselves top $100 billion over 10 yrs. Bear in mind, the bill still has to make it through the House, where the members will no doubt want their taste too before they'll promise their votes. :sweatdrop:Quote:
The White House and congressional leaders already have made up their minds. Confronted with the defeat of an earlier measure in the House this week and increasingly urgent warnings of economic hardship, they've begun rounding up votes the old-fashioned way.
They're buying them.
A revised bailout bill includes tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks for the middle class, for homeowners who don't itemize their deductions, and for property owners in Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming.
Add on the $3 billion funding dollop for rural school programs over the next five years. And another $8 billion over the same period in disaster aid, much of it for Midwestern states. And toss in unrelated legislation, far-reaching in its own right, requiring insurance plans to provide better benefits for mental health.
Pork and/or unrelated add-ons = buying votes. Unfortunately that seems to be the system we are stuck with.
As unpalatable as paying for the sins of others may be for those of us that didn't foolishly buy more house than we can afford or leverage the family budget beyond the max with credit card debt for material bling bling; in other words lived within one's means...I guess the one saving grace in this mess is that we are in a much better position to weather this storm, and in the long run should even profit from it.
All this pork that has been added to the bill to get it to pass makes me thankful I live in a Parliamentary system... things get done because the party is (Almost always) unified.
Good grief. :wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Financial disaster looms over America, and these special interest-bots spend their time porking up the bill.
I did not fully understand what Americans meant by 'pork' until just now. My oh my.
Gah! Americans should get on their horses, ride to Washington, and hang the lot of them on the nearest trees.
Have the US started to question their political system yet?
No?
Ok, I'll check back later:)
We always question our political system. The real question is "when are we going to do something about it?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
That's a tall order when you consider that our nation's elected leaders come from the same tide pool that spawned their constituency. The percentage of Americans who exhibit any semblance of common sense is shrinking with every passing day. I daresay such folks are clearly in the minority nowadays.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
If any action is taken by the populace it will be too late to save the existing system. Historically the mob has a bad tendency to take action only when the crisis has proceeded beyond the point of no return.
Bailout passes in Senate.
Looks like it's gonna get passed in the House, too. I hope there's a bloodbath come November.
In all my haste to disseminate doom & gloom predictions and launch tirades against my favorite generation in this forum I forgot to mention this sweet little gem which was recently passed by Congress and signed by the President...
In the midst of reckless spending spree of the last six months I present to you the $25 billion dollar 'not a bailout' subsidy bailout for US automakers...
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The former Boeing chief executive rejected the argument that Ford had focused too heavily on larger, gas-guzzling vehicles and failed to anticipate the developing trend towards smaller cars.
"We weren't pushing these larger vehicles, we were just building what our customers wanted," Mulally said.
Ya, blame your misfortunes on the customer you short sighted ninny.
Remember kids, it's not a gift... it's a loan which will help these private corporations meet those emissions standards they knew were coming down the pike for an eternity. That's all well in fine but you gotta love our elected leaders for being so quick to fork over another check backed by funny money.
And now Louis you also understand the true meaning of the term "buypartisanship".Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Pork is nothing new to get a bill passed. It's tradition going back to the beginning of the country. If we want to get angry about pork, don't get angry at the system. The system is just doing what the voters allow it to do. Blame the fact that 90% of people out there are far more concerned with American Idol and picking up a latte before work than checking the papers (past headlines) to see who's voting on what, and vote in or out the relevant Congresspeople accordingly. Most people don't know, and don't care. And wouldn't change how they live or think or vote even if they did know.
Well, I think, in the US, the concept goes back to the 1800's, but if the people who were complaining about pork-barrel legislation then had an inkling of how blatant it would be today, I suspect they would've dropped dead on the spot. :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
Well cutting pork is the cornerstone of McCain's economic plan. And he couldn't get the Reps on board to vote for a bill he stumped for, but they will vote if pork is added affecting the AMT tax and such.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Does this pass the smell test? :)
Actually, no it doesn't. The AMT hasn't been adjusted for inflation in it's 38 years, so you listing it's adjustement as "pork" smells pretty bad. The original AMT only covered 155 households, BY DESIGN. Now approximately 20% of all households qualify. It's not supposed to be another "gouge the not-so-rich, but richer-than-me" kick to the groin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
The IRS themselves have identified it as the single worst thing about the U.S. tax code. Last year, the exemption was passed on 12/20/2007, requiring the IRS to reprint and redistribute the 2007 IRS tax forms, to the cost of about $40 million.
I will agree with you that it has nothing to do with the financial bailout bill, but it's not pork. Paying people $3.5million to study wool modification, that's pork. Silly me, i thought we had the spinning wheel nailed down, oh I don't know... 3000 years ago?????
Well, if we're defining pork as just "things I don't like", then yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Aren't there hyperpluralist provisions like "Tax breaks for people who buy BMW hybrid vehicles"? I know there are some rediculous ones.
I think its time we all followed this man's example. :clown:
Yes, it could be the beginning of a new Fed monastery policy. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
sinfest puts the finger in the wound yet again
EDIT: Put in spoiler tags because the cartoon contains language that breaks forum rules. BG
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
:laugh4::7ninja:
ba zing!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregoshi