Originally Posted By barboy Thanks RT for your response---I'll be back to talk some more later today.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I'm afraid our 'American' DNA has changed. < according to Wall-E it has, and I am not sure just how far off Wall-E's vision is
Originally Posted By fkurucz <Then you get two part-time jobs. Having one part-time job doesn't mean you can't get another.>> That's what a lot of people are doing, or trying to do. Of course, with two part time jobs there are often scheduling problems, no benefits, lower hourly pay, etc. Two part time jobs <> 1 full time job.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<Tell that to my ex-sister in law's father, who came here from Cuba and would regularly walk up and down grocery isles because he was amazed at the choices we were given.>> Cuba is not a 3rd world country, it is communist (2nd world). A better comparison would be Mexico. Plenty of choices in the super market aisles in Mexico City.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<<Anyone who would even THINK about getting a home loan with less than 10% down is a freaking idiot in the first place.>>> Its the lenders who are the fools. Not requiring a down payment only invites mortgagees to walk from mortgages when the house is worth less than the mortgage. The higher the down payment (the more "Skin" the borrower has in the game) the lower the risk to the lender.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<When gambling it's best to do it with other people's money.>> Especially in states where mortgages are non recourse loans.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<You live in affluent community, you own TWO automobiles (at least one of which is Benz) and you're actually going to post that you're hurting?>> I think that Spirit's point is that that through hard work he was able to reach a certain standard of living, which is now under threat.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<She got a ROCK bottom rate on a Foreclosure and is putting about 5% of the total home loan into renovation. She will MOVE IN with about 30% equity. She is putting down ZERO and I totally agree!>> That's assuming that the house's value won't continue to drop. If it does she could very well end up with negative equity. She could very well end up being a knife catcher.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>>***Furthermore the borrowers submitted bonafide documents in the form of tax returns and payroll stubs--- thus, no fraud.*** No Doc Loans were being touted as "an easy solution" by lenders all the way up until most of them were bankrupt or nearly so. I even wrote about it here on LP, with links to their advertisement pages (which were quite amazing..."no docs, no money down, no problem", that sort of thing).<<< Well sure, how else can buyers afford houses with prices that are more than the traditional 3-4x times heir annual income. Of course we all now know that these voo-doo loans don't work in the long run.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<Surely no one, regardless of the market, could EVER think negative amortization was a good idea.>> Just 2 years ago a LOT of people though it made sense. After all, real estate prices only go up (and in double digits of course) and only the "little people" work for a living. "Players" make "sweet deals". At least back in 2005.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> You know it wasn't that long ago that a bunch of mindless phonies or show offs ran to WalMart and bought up its stock of US flags and bumper stickers to show their US patriotism(not me--- I burned mine right in front of those fakes). << Ohhhhhh! I just love it when you talk tough like that! It just makes you seem sooooooooo MANLY.
Originally Posted By NikkiLOVESMickey davewasbaloo- I cannot possibly disagree with you more when you say that the dire straits of some the poor in my area are the fault of the government. In regards to those people protesting because the government decided to bulldoze their projects, the government has offered a solution: mixed income housing which would be available to them. That wasn't good enough. In regards to the gentleman at Charity Hospital who was only interested in getting his trigger finger back - please explain to me how he and his attitude is a result of the government? Why should I support women who have given birth to four children by four different fathers? Why should I support a woman who is living rent free in an apartment post Katrina, who is also receiving government assistance, who only works 30 hours a week in a parking lot because "too much money scares her"? And let's not forget about when the government made the Superdome a shelter for Hurricane Georges in the late 90s. People showed up without food or clothing and we're angry because they didn't have anything to eat. THEN they got angry because they were fed hot dogs. The kicker was that when the storm had passes and people were allowed to return to their homes, people stole furniture from the Superdome - couches, chairs, etc. After Katrina people from the projects were offered FEMA trailers. A man actually got on TV and said that wasn't good enough because he refused to live in a trailer. Are we supposed to put them up in mansions when those hardworking people who lost their homes are living in trailers? The problem is that the government has coddled these people for far too long, which is why they won't go out and pull themselves up - why should they when they can get government money for free? I have no problem with the welfare system as long as it is used to help those truly in need, not someone who is too irresponsible to use birth control or too lazy to get a job. I'm tired of coddling people who WON'T work. And please don't tell me that they need someone to help them find a job; businesses all over this city are advertising for employees. All you have to do is walk down the street to find a job. A friend of mine grew up in the projects and decided that life wasn't for her. She studied, earned a scholarship to college and worked two jobs while in college (one as a night manager at McDonald's). She's now a certified CPA who is running one of the departments at the medical center. I'm not saying it's easy to do what she did, but if you want to make a better life for yourself badly enough, it can be done. It would be a cold day in hell before I lost my job and sat on my butt saying that my time was worth more than $7/hour, regardless of whether people were prejudiced against me because I have a college education. I'm not there to make friends, I'm there to make a living. I'm not going to throw myself a pity party because I don't have friends at work. If you let that get in the way of your making a living, then you need to grow up and refocus your priorities. <<I think that Spirit's point is that that through hard work he was able to reach a certain standard of living, which is now under threat.>> Which makes me even more angry. People who are hurting are people that can't put food on the table or pay their bills, not someone who can't afford to pay for a tee time at the country club.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Nikki,I hope people take your points on the issues in your home town seriously. One of our best friends here were born raised in New Orleans ( they have been here in Chicago the last 6 years due to a job relo ) - most of their friends and relatives live there yet, and their oldest son lost his small bistro to the storm ( had only been open 6 months) - They feel exactly as you do almost point for point on the N.O situation and who is/ isnot to blame ( when there is actually blame to be laid) - I always feel people closer to the situation have a better perspective thanks for sharing.
Originally Posted By NikkiLOVESMickey Thanks vbdad and MPierce. I'm not a "let's bash the poor people" person. I was watching a story on Dateline a few weeks ago that spoke about a women who was living in a hotel with her four small children because, after battling cancer, she couldn't afford a home. I feel for people like that, as well as for people who have lost jobs, etc. and have fallen on tough times; I believe they should be helped. I absolutely cannot agree with providing welfare to those who make their situations worse by continually getting pregnant and/or refusing to work. If you're trying to improve your situation but are still having problems, then by all means you deserve federal assistance. But I've driven through parts of this area where there are far too many able- bodied people sitting on the stoops of their government-subsidized homes in the middle of the afternoon when they should be working. It's downright disgusting, especially when I think that part of my tax dollars go towards helping those people relax while I'm working my butt off.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I need to come back to this, but I am off to work. I think the point is we are on the same page. Just explaining it different. Look up "time dollars" it is based on contributions to society = rewards. Also it is about aspiration settings, showing people there are other ways and using your cpa friend as a mentor for those in the projects. All of these things are government initiatives. You have not offered solutions, just rebuffed alternative methods for change. And vbdad, while being near ofers local perspective it can also offer local prejudice to. I too hate the abuses. That is why I work on step changes, and we are starting to see it. I have worked in social reform and development now for 15 years. This stuff works, but the US does not do it - even though time dollars are an American concept. When I get time I will try to write at length.
Originally Posted By dshyates "I'm not a "let's bash the poor people" person." These kind of disclaimers are usually telling.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 < have worked in social reform and development now for 15 years. This stuff works, but the US does not do it - even though time dollars are an American concept. When I get time I will try to write at length< Having worked in International OD now for 9 years I am interested in your insight. I am somewhat familiar with the Institutre for Economic andSocial Reforms in Euro. However understand the major American corporations are not AT ALL interested in those types of goals.The social changes beinglooked at there might as well exist on Mars for the executive teams in the US.
Originally Posted By dshyates You don't think the American CEOs are going to tricle down their 100s of millions of dollars to their employees without a fight, do ya? I think its time for a new union revolution in this country. They will get all pissed off and move what jobs they can overseas. But they can't take them all. And if they do, F*** 'em. They won't sell a single of what ever they make in this country.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>You don't think the American CEOs are going to tricle down their 100s of millions of dollars to their employees without a fight, do ya?<< The level of greed at the top is simply astounding. But now that the American consumer can't just HELOC his house for the umpteenth time to buy stuff anymore it will be becoem very apparent that the American consumer isn't wearing any clothes. Corporate America can no longer expect us to continue borrowing to keep the mechine running. Its over.
