But who is stopping people from Un-Locking this flow of money for themselves?
quote
Originally posted by 84Bill:
I spose that would be the people who have it?
Why would that be, Bill? What purpose would be served? You appear to believe that control of the economy rests in the hands of a wealthy class at the top of the social structure of the United States. These people make money by making money, that is, they rent money for business ventures or they put money into stocks with the expectation that those stocks will rise in value over some period. Since their income comes from the use of money, why would they limit their income growth potential by limiting the growth of the economy?
Why would that be, Bill? What purpose would be served? You appear to believe that control of the economy rests in the hands of a wealthy class at the top of the social structure of the United States. These people make money by making money, that is, they rent money for business ventures or they put money into stocks with the expectation that those stocks will rise in value over some period. Since their income comes from the use of money, why would they limit their income growth potential by limiting the growth of the economy?
The people who have the monie MAKE the decissions(not limited to corporations but govt as well) on how that monie is spent. If they decide that "it's too costly" to replace or redesign (for example) the POS Ford AXOD transmission then sales will take a dive because the car is not relyable.. it's a POS car. These decissions are based on numbers and not sense. Though the "decissions makers" IN THE SHORT TERM save the company billions in redesign costs and recalls, so instead they make that 4.5 mil bonus and cause the stock prices to rise a few points because they posted a quartly increase. In the long ter the company looses loyalty.. which switched to Camry.
Again..... Read
quote
One problem with this argument is that much "at risk" pay is not actually at very much risk at all. The typical grant of stock options will pay off even if it is a general bull market, rather than exceptional performance by the company itself, that boosts the value of the stock. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, among others, has advocated indexing options so that a stock would have to outperform the market or a peer index in order for the options to have value. The practice of repricing options when a company’s stock falls further weakens the relationship between executive pay and company performance.
Big raises for job-cutters There are other problems with the use of performance-based pay to spur corporate executives. The measures used to gauge performance are typically short term, raising the danger that executives will be encouraged to pursue short-term gains at the expense of the workforce – and of the company’s long-term performance. In fact, it’s not unusual for CEOs to receive big pay increases while their companies are laying off frontline workers. For example, American Express fired 3,300 workers in 1997. That same year, its CEO’s compensation package soared 224 percent, to $33.4 million. That figure includes $27 million from the exercise of previously-granted stock options. [quote]
Looks GREAT on paper but the reality is the money has gone into the stocks which is used by the company for the company and not the individuals who make that money, need the money and put that money directly back into the local economies.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 08-05-2007).]
[QUOTE]Originally posted by aceman: It shows that unemployment is about .6% different than before 9/11.
That really doesn't mean much because the economy has changed a lot since 9/11. There are too many factors to consider to say that servicemember deployment had no impact because unemployment is only 0.6% different. What are the impacts of the other changes as well? Tax changes? Outsourcing? Fuel prices? Hurricanes Rita and Katrina?
Pay for top executives soars CEO pay continues to set new records. According to Business Week’s annual survey of executive pay, compensation for CEOs of major U.S. corporations averaged $12.4 million in 1999, having increased sixfold since 1990. Last year alone, executive compensation rose an average of 17 percent. The average worker, in contrast, received a 3.5 percent pay increase. The chart at left shows how recent pay increases for top executives compare with those going to the average worker.
Sources for Chart: "Worker increase" is based on the wage and salary component of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Employment Cost Index for all civilian workers. "CEO increase" is drawn from Business Week surveys of executive compensation.
More reliance on stock options The composition of executive pay has changed markedly in the past two decades. In 1979, Lee Iacocca became the first prominent executive to receive a major portion of his pay in the form of stock options. Since that time, and especially over the past 15 years, the use of stock options has exploded. Long-term compensation (primarily in the form of stock options) accounted for 81 percent of average 1999 pay for the CEOs of the top 365 U.S. companies, according to Business Week.
Does "at risk" pay improve performance? Shareholder activists and groups concerned with corporate governance have generally favored stock options and other mechanisms intended to link executive pay to company performance. By putting a larger portion of pay "at risk," they argue, top executives will have an incentive to increase the returns on shareholders’ investment.
One problem with this argument is that much "at risk" pay is not actually at very much risk at all. The typical grant of stock options will pay off even if it is a general bull market, rather than exceptional performance by the company itself, that boosts the value of the stock. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, among others, has advocated indexing options so that a stock would have to outperform the market or a peer index in order for the options to have value. The practice of repricing options when a company’s stock falls further weakens the relationship between executive pay and company performance.
Big raises for job-cutters There are other problems with the use of performance-based pay to spur corporate executives. The measures used to gauge performance are typically short term, raising the danger that executives will be encouraged to pursue short-term gains at the expense of the workforce – and of the company’s long-term performance. In fact, it’s not unusual for CEOs to receive big pay increases while their companies are laying off frontline workers. For example, American Express fired 3,300 workers in 1997. That same year, its CEO’s compensation package soared 224 percent, to $33.4 million. That figure includes $27 million from the exercise of previously-granted stock options.
Executive pay fuels income inequality The pay of the average worker has not increased at nearly the same rate as pay for those at the top, fueling the trend toward greater income inequality. A worker making $25,000 a year in 1994 would have earned $107,513 in 1999 if his or her pay had grown at the same rate as pay for CEOs. Had the minimum wage grown as fast as executive pay since 1994, it would be more than $18 an hour instead of its current level of $5.15.
U.S. out of step with rest of world CEO pay is much higher in the United States than in other countries. That’s true both in absolute dollar terms, and relative to pay for the average worker. According to Business Week, an American CEO earns 475 times as much as an average blue-collar worker. German CEOs make, on average, just 13 times as much as a typical manufacturing worker. The ratio in Japan is 11 to 1. The chart at left shows how pay for U.S. CEOs compares with that of their peers in other countries.
Statistics in Brief
High Performance Work Systems
Productivity and Growth
Executive Compensation
Employment in Major UAW Industries
Employment Situation
U.S. Light Vehicle Sales
Consumer Prices
International Trade
SEC Website
Noteworthy News
Sources: Business Week "Executive Compensation Scoreboard" (April 17, 2000 and past years); New York Times, "Report on Executive Pay: In the Options Age, Rising Pay (and Risk)" (April 2, 2000); AFL-CIO, Executive Pay Watch (www.aflcio.org/paywatch)
A non-scientific rant by the press designed to sell magazines and newspapers.
And there is no scientific data.. any data provided by a scientist is not to be trusted as fact. Statistics prove nothing and are not "complete" facts. Facts are used to formulate statistics thru complex calculations by the stripping of certin facts to outweight other facts which support the objective of the statistic. Statistics will show show the glass is either full or it's empty but the facts are that no matter how high the level is in the glass my head is always one inch under the water. So your scientific statistical facts though valid are not realivent to what IS happening... The economy is drying up.. the money is gone. The reality will set in eventually and when it does.. It will be too late.
quote
Originally posted by Toddster: A non-scientific rant by the press designed to sell magazines and newspapers.
and the data is way outdated. However it is accurate. corporate CEOs make an average of 3000 per hr. The average slob makes about 36.
Regardless of the data presented the article STILL remains valid. Corporations still make quartly profits by slashing, outsourcing jobs and increasing the workloads on workers (they call it economizing or restructuring) so the CEO can make is 5.4 mil bonus. That has not changed since this report was published in 2000.
Whats happening now is corporat buyups or buyouts. In order to keep profits up and stocks flowing companies are now selling off stock in "mergers." Comcast buys up Adelphia, AT&T buys up Bell and Cingular. This is a cover manuver for projected failing profits... Banks are merging... etc. This does not factor into the economy because it's a cover for a faltering economy, it makes the companies look like they are gang busters instead of gangs of companies going bust.. which is what is happening.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 08-05-2007).]
And there is no scientific data.. any data provided by a scientist is not to be trusted as fact. .. The economy is drying up.. the money is gone. The reality will set in eventually and when it does.. It will be too late.
Originally posted by JazzMan: Do you enjoy having the weekends off from work? Thank unions for that.
Do you enjoy vacation time every year? Thank unions for that.
Holidays? Thank unions for that, too.
What, you want to go back to working 7 day weeks at leat 12-16 hours a day with no benefits, unemployed as soon as your body wears out, having never made more than the bare minimum to keep yourself fed and meagerly sheltered? If only there was a time machine, you could live out your dream of doing just that by going back a hundred years to live out your fantasy.
JazzMan
And this has what to do with todays facts? Are you just reaching for anything to argue about so you can post a point on the board? Tell us in your own words the bad things you know about unions today. I suppose the guys running the unions are saints just looking out for thier fellow worker. Wait they don't actually work with the regular guy do they. Kinda makes unions like a company. With its own self interest in mind. Since they already got the weekend and vacations sown up what is there to get now? They need to look like they are doing something or they will not be needed and people will wonder why they are paying these guys.
And there is no scientific data.. any data provided by a scientist is not to be trusted as fact.
So, "in fact", there is no such thing as gravity which exerts a force of 32 ft/sec^2 upon bodies on earth? Two hydrogen atoms don't combine with one oxygen to form water? That is what you said. But that reality takes away from what I was trying to get to earlier, which I'm not going back to because Bill isn't interested in "facts".
Let me mention something I know quite a bit about, the trucking industry.
"The number of wage and salary jobs in the truck transportation and warehousing industry is expected to grow 14 percent from 2004 through 2014, compared with projected growth of 14 percent for all industries combined. Growth will result in many job openings because the industry is so large. There also will be openings due to replacement needs for the large number of workers who will transfer to other industries or retire. Job opportunities should be especially good for truck drivers and diesel service technicians and mechanics.
One of the main factors influencing the growth of the truck transportation and warehousing industry is the state of the national economy. Growth in the industry parallels the movements of the national economy. As the national economy grows and the production and sales of goods increases, there is an increase in the demand for transportation services to move goods from their producers to consumers. During economic downturns, the truck transportation and warehousing industry is one of the first to slow down as orders for goods and shipments decline. Competition in truck transportation is intense, both among trucking companies and, in some long-haul truckload segments, with the railroad industry. Nevertheless, trucking accounts for the bulk of freight transportation. Warehousing is expected to grow faster than the rest of the industry, although many midsized firms are being purchased by others in attempts to consolidate." From http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs021.htm#emply
Why does this matter? Because stock growth and interest are intangible; socks, shoes, and food are not. The trucking industry is begging for people to work as longhaul truck drivers. The industry hauls real goods to real warehouses and real stores. A driver with three years experience and a good driving record can find a job anywhere in the country, making $40-$70,000 a year. If I started making phone calls Monday morning at 8 AM, I would have ten job offers by noon. This strikes me as a pretty good measure that the economy is doing very well, since producers of real goods don't produce them to have them sit in a vault and earn interest. In addition, everywhere I go, in any major city, I see warehouses going up to store these goods until stores can put them on shelves. Once again, the owners are not building these facilities to sit empty.
The economy is doing very well. If am individual isn't, perhaps he or she is not equipped with the skills to compete. That is a personal problem that Ford's CEO has nothing to do with.
Originally posted by heybjorn: So, "in fact", there is no such thing as gravity which exerts a force of 32 ft/sec^2 upon bodies on earth? Two hydrogen atoms don't combine with one oxygen to form water? That is what you said. But that reality takes away from what I was trying to get to earlier, which I'm not going back to because Bill isn't interested in "facts"..
Actually the theory was that all things HAVE gravity. that same 32 feet per second does not apply on the moon. It's not that gravity does or does not exists.. we know it does. The Theory of realitivty states that based on a given set of rules (such as time) that the outcomes are different depending on perspective or change realitive to the view of each observer.
Scientists can not even say for sure what a planet is.. Aparently no one told them so they just pick and choose.. Thats an asteroid and thats a planet. Ummkay.... any questions?
Theories are great to "play with" and you can do a lot of neat crap with them but theories are just the recipies for arriving facts.. change a few facts in the theory and the outcomes change... Thats a fact.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 08-05-2007).]
Originally posted by Toddster: THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END!
Thats true and for all of us.. a millisecond at a time. The real question is "when."
So the theory that world is coming to an end is an accurate statement, its a fact. It will. The trivial details as to how and why are speculitve and we can speculate ALL day long. Mean while back at the ranch and back on topic CEO salaries in the US far exceed those of workers both inside and outside of this country.
Bottome line Mega corps ARE buying up the faltering competition, housing IS on the decline and has been for some time now, Insurance rates ARE going up, food IS getting more expensive to buy, the big three auto sales ARE down, Inflation IS rising making it more dfficult for people to make it on te same income... Just the facts
That position is being filled by another individual who will be LAID OFF pending the return of the soldier which the company must provide a similar job to.
Then lets consider the Military Industrial COmplex that no longer needs to pump out or refurbish military hardware, software, weapons and make lead bullets. The unemployment rate combined with the money loss would be extreme. Congress tried to cut back spending on this not long ago but the unmentiond interesting FACT of the matter is they cant.. it would effectivly kill the economy.
Sorry for a late response, Bill. I was at work. Can you remember what a work day is?
No, Bill, I can go down the list of the Reserve unit that I deployed with and tell you how many out of the 50 had someone "backfilling" their job........FIVE!
10 of us were already active duty
5 were civil service. Their co-workers sucked up the workload. No replacements or temps.
1 was a dealership mechanic. His buddies got some nice overtime pay because no one replaced him.
1 was a school superintendent. The principal filled in for him.
12 were college students.
3-4 were already unemployed
5-8 or so were self-employed or contractors. They took it in the shorts.
The 5 that had temps fill in.........1 was a secretary. 1 worked for a tire factory. 1 was a factory worker (Not sure what he did). 1 worked for the telephone company. 1 worked for a construction company.
At the most, at any given time there are 50,000 Guardsmen and Reservists on active duty. They're on for 12-15 months, with a few exceptions. This ain't WWII were men and women went to war for 2-4 years time. We aren't ramping up the nation for a full scale war effort. We're not even coming close to Vietnam war efforts!!!! Ammo plants aren't in full swing. They're hiring a few temps, but not many. Some defense contractors are hiring some more workers, but that's not significant. Refurbishing our equipment???? Soldiers and civilians that already were doing this are currently doing this...No significant employment for that. Want to know where the armored steel came from when we were uparmoring our vehicles in Iraq???? Turkey. This war is boosting our economy, but not in the form of employment.
Originally posted by Spacewoman: Sorry for a late response, Bill. I was at work. Can you remember what a work day is?
Nope.... but.... I destinctly remember you being an ass hole. Thanks for jogging my memory
quote
No, Bill, I can go down the list of the Reserve unit that I deployed with and tell you how many out of the 50 had someone "backfilling" their job........FIVE!
Right.. And knowing what a dipshit you are I'm sure many of them lied. Ther jobs were filled unless they worked on the family chicken farm in Podunk tennesee you are probably right but if they work in a blue collar or white collar job chnace are very good their job was temoprarily filled
quote
At the most, at any given time there are 50,000 Guardsmen and Reservists on active duty.
Really? Last time I checked 41% were national guardsman or reservists. I dont know how many in total are there... and to be frank.. I really dont care anymore either.
As far as your numbers... It's bullshit, back them up with facts, give me the link.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 08-05-2007).]
When was the last time you checked on that 41% number? 2004? Because after that the Guard and Reserve dropped down to 30%. 139,000 troops over there. Even if your 41% number was correct, that's still about 50,000 troops. Bill, believe my numbers or not. I don't care. Let's see.......Who's got the right data.......The welfare unemployed wastoid or the guy sitting a Joint Service Command and has witnessed Guard and Reserve matters first hand. Hmmmmm, that's a tough one.
Can anyone find an article showing that there's an unemployment issue with temp employees taking over for deployed Reservists? The U.S. creates twice as many jobs over the year than the number of mobilized and deployed servicemembers.
Ya got NUTHIN', Bill. Run along now and go find Phranc to try to argue with.
Updated 12/8/2006 12:41 AM ET E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions |
By Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — The number of reservists and National Guard members who say they have been reassigned, lost benefits or been fired from civilian jobs after returning from duty has increased by more than 70% over the past six years. The sharp spike in complaints brought to the U.S. Labor Department reflects the extensive use of part-time soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, the largest call up of reserves since the 1950-53 Korean War.
DEPLOYMENT COSTS: Impact of police felt on street
About 500,000 of the 850,000 reservists and National Guard members eligible for duty have been mobilized since late 2001, said Maj. Rob Palmer, spokesman for a Pentagon office that tries to resolve job disputes.
Not all have been treated well by their employers when they return home.
After the 1991 Gulf War, "I was welcomed home with ticker tape," said Marc Garcia, a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserves. "This time, I get the door slammed in my face."
Garcia, a member of the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, has been called up twice since Sept. 11, 2001, once for Afghanistan and the last time for stateside duty.
Garcia, 44, had been a supervisor in the Miami office of the security bureau. When he returned to work early last month, he was given a desk job in Washington with no clear responsibilities, he said.
Last month, a judge in Atlanta ruled that the State Department violated Garcia's rights under a 1994 law, which requires employers to give returning reservists their old jobs or equivalent positions. The law was passed to address employment problems faced by veterans returning from the 1991 Gulf War.
The Labor Department said it handled 1,548 complaints from returning service members in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, up from 895 in the year that ended Sept. 30, 2001. About a third of the cases are resolved in favor of employees, the department said.
Those numbers don't reflect all the servicemen and women with problems. Many of the cases are settled before they get to the Labor Department.
The Pentagon received more than 8,000 complaints this year, nearly double the previous year, but most were resolved without further government action, Palmer said. Complaints range from being fired, losing chances for promotion or being reassigned to jobs with less pay or responsibility.
Retired Marine lieutenant general Dennis McCarthy, executive director of the Reserve Officers Association, a private advocacy group, acknowledged the deployments can be difficult for employers, particularly small companies. "That burden is an acceptable cost when it's compared to the value of reserve service to our country," he said.
Reserve troops' job woes increase Complaints, including firings, less pay, up 30% By Barbara Slavin USA TODAY
An investigation of the military's employer-support office last year for Denver magazine, by Maximillian Potter, argued that although it should be a "tremendous resource" for returning U.S. troops, it is "a bureaucratic mess, mired in incompetence, undermined by conflict of interest and accountable to no one."
A new report in February by the Government Accountability Office found that the Pentagon does not even know the scope of the problems reservists face when they try to go back to work. In 2005, one out of seven was thought to return jobless.
Under the 1994 law, there are about 12,400 formal complaints filed each year alleging that employers refused to give returning reservists and Guard members their old jobs. The GAO said Congress hears about 2,400 of those complaints.
The GAO report concluded that the Departments of Defense, Justice and Labor and the Office of Special Counsel have different ways of approaching the law and don't compare cases, one reason for the chaos and confusion. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is taking heat for the problems that returning soldiers face, oddly, is not involved in employee claims under the 1994 law.
An Air Force nurse with 32 years in the military, seven in active duty, and nearly two-dozen medals for valor and service was terminated from her civilian health-care job of 10 years when she was sent to Iraq for four months last year.
She is not alone. Increasingly, as reservists and Guard members return home after service in Iraq, they are finding their jobs were eliminated or their pay checks were smaller or promised promotions disappeared.
Last November, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management sent its annual report to Congress on veterans and disabled veterans working for the federal government. The press release said, "And by every measure, the Bush administration is living up to its commitment to make career opportunities available to soldiers, sailors and airmen." The report said the total number of veterans employed in 2005 out of a federal government work force of 1.8 million was 456,254. But the number of veterans newly hired in 2005 was only 5,000 more than the number hired in 2004.
That was also when 36 members of the Florida National Guard got letters, while serving in combat in Iraq, informing them that their jobs in a federal drug-interdiction program were abolished.
The Denver magazine report told of a 53-year-old Marine, in the service for 29 years, who deployed for nine months in Kuwait and Iraq in 2002 and 2003.
When he got home, he was fired from his $88,000-a-year job in a firm where he'd worked for 19 years. He was allegedly told by the Department of Labor, where his commanding officer referred him, that he didn't have a legal case unless he heard somebody say he was fired because of his military service.
The officer, a lawyer, was so outraged that he fought for the Marine, who won $324,082 in U.S. District Court in Colorado. As of late last year, reporter Potter said the Marine was still looking for a job with health insurance for his family.
The National Committee of Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve says veterans with job problems should call one of its ombudsmen from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday at 1-800- 336-4590. Sometimes you can get a real person.
The betting is that there will be thousands of cases as returning reservists and Guard members try to reclaim their old jobs. The betting is that many will be out of luck.
amcfeatters@hotmail.com.
Copyright C 2007 Deseret News Publishing Co. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved
Whats that??? Didnt hear ya over the THOUSANDS of complaints about employers not honoring a federal regulation.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 08-05-2007).]
Bill, Where's the story about someone like you, say, being the temp and complaining that you became unemployed after that Reservist came home? That's the story I asked for. I swear I asked for that story. I know all about the Reservists coming home and having issues getting their jobs back. Doesn't mean they become unemployed and a worthless loser like you, Bill.
Originally posted by JazzMan: Do you enjoy having the weekends off from work? Thank unions for that.
Do you enjoy vacation time every year? Thank unions for that.
Holidays? Thank unions for that, too.
What, you want to go back to working 7 day weeks at leat 12-16 hours a day with no benefits, unemployed as soon as your body wears out, having never made more than the bare minimum to keep yourself fed and meagerly sheltered? If only there was a time machine, you could live out your dream of doing just that by going back a hundred years to live out your fantasy.
JazzMan
many folk born after WW2 dont know what working conditions were like. they maybe heard some stories. and, somehow think "that'll never happen again". nope. dont for a minute beleive that. a shop will pay its workers as little as possible. EVERYTIME. if a shop could hire your kid, and pay them $5 a week - it would. and, if your kid lost his/her hand while working - so what. that is reality. and, one shop does it - others will have to - in order to compete. you are not entitled to anything. get that thru your head. all of ya. from the bottom to the top. an owner is not entitled to anything either. mutiny can happen anywhere - doesnt have to be a ship. workers can come in one morning, and outright slit the owners throat. would not be the first time. this is why we have labor laws. standards. unions. discussions. a feeble attempt at fairness. so labor vs management does NOT become violent. because this is every mans livelyhood. you mess with it - and you do risk bodily harm - and possibly death. history shows this.
Nope.... but.... I destinctly remember you being an ass hole. Thanks for jogging my memory
Aceman ia an *** hole!?
HEY! WELCOME TO THE CLUB ACEMAN! There are over 14,000 of us on PFF who are now official members of "Big A** hole Naysayers According to Losers" (BANAL).
Your membership card and certificate may take a while as the printing presses can't keep pace with Bill's induction of new members.
Originally posted by JazzMan: Do you enjoy having the weekends off from work? Thank unions for that.
Do you enjoy vacation time every year? Thank unions for that.
Holidays? Thank unions for that, too.
What, you want to go back to working 7 day weeks at leat 12-16 hours a day with no benefits, unemployed as soon as your body wears out, having never made more than the bare minimum to keep yourself fed and meagerly sheltered? If only there was a time machine, you could live out your dream of doing just that by going back a hundred years to live out your fantasy.
JazzMan
Do you enjoy outsourcing? Thank unions for that, too.
Originally posted by Pyrthian: just a personality type they have much drive behind them
much the problem comes with the fact that many of the things discussed here have no actual "right" answer.
I appriciate your observation. However, that does not explain why they insist on treating people like dogshit because they have a different opinion. It seems they have this "it's the my way or highway" monolithic attitude, as if they lost the ability to understand anything that doesnt eminate from their own ******* . Theres a give and take but the give is usually nothing more than well digested piles of manure.
I wouldnt really care but much of this manure they hurl is completely unnecessary and uncalled for.
Maybe you would understand this if you were accused of being lazy or had a few threads started about claiming you and your harmless friends sold meth to kids.
I really dont give a rats ass about why they are the way they are, just that they are scumbags and not worth the space the occupy in life, they somhow feel above everyone else. The fact is if they were to die tomorow, nothing would change. They are just another meatsicle no different than anyone else.
... the problem comes with the fact that many of the things discussed here have no actual "right" answer.
What? The difference between a growing economy where everyone who wants a job or to create a business has the opportunity and a depression is not a "right" answer? Sure is, and the right answer is not depression.
There is no right answer between the question of a communist economy, which is no economy and has no private property rights, and a capitalist economy with property rights which provides the opportunity for home ownership? Yes, there is.
Originally posted by 84Bill: I appriciate your observation. However, that does not explain why they insist on treating people like dogshit because they have a different opinion. It seems they have this "it's the my way or highway" monolithic attitude, as if they lost the ability to understand anything that doesnt eminate from their own ******* . Theres a give and take but the give is usually nothing more than well digested piles of manure.
I wouldnt really care but much of this manure they hurl is completely unnecessary and uncalled for.
Maybe you would understand this if you were accused of being lazy or had a few threads started about claiming you and your harmless friends sold meth to kids.
I really dont give a rats ass about why they are the way they are, just that they are scumbags and not worth the space the occupy in life, they somhow feel above everyone else. The fact is if they were to die tomorow, nothing would change. They are just another meatsicle no different than anyone else.
I've seen the threads.
they just be very hard-lined. I expect, for what they do to get by, they have to be. I'm sure there is a pleasant person in there, if met in the right situation. talking politics rarely brings out the best in folk.
Originally posted by Pyrthian: I've seen the threads.
they just be very hard-lined. I expect, for what they do to get by, they have to be. I'm sure there is a pleasant person in there, if met in the right situation. talking politics rarely brings out the best in folk.
Just seems to me that being human is a political debate anymore, some are for it and some are for regulating it which means someone must be appointed to the position of dictator. Compassion and empathy are viewd as a weakness and those individuals I refered to seem to lack it.
Me me me me me me me me me me mine mine mine mine mine mine....
Originally posted by Turddster: ..cried the drug addict with no job, who lives with mommie, owes back child support and bites that hands that feed him.
Well, I was hoping Bill would rant himself to sleep so I could carry on the discussion in an intelligent fashion with the rest of those interested in this topic but it appears Bill is taking uppers and as such is dominating yet another thread to the point of driving serious posters away. I just get tired of his "my misery is everybody else's fault" crap.
Despite all the good news there is, as I stated earlier some bad, Housing in particular. Housing starts are way down and new building permits are too. More over, many lenders in the secondary market are going belly-up. Just this weekend the rate for Jumbo Loans jumped 2.5% You can still get a great rate for conforming loans but essentially the lenders are making prime borrowers pay for their mistake in funding so many subprime loans at 100%. Foreclosures are up and the problem does not look like it will get better soon.
I hope this helps tighten lending guidelines. The lenders in their zeal to meet unrealistic projections turned the other way when it came to funding these questionable loans. Now the market is paying the price for their lack of discipline.
This is SURE to have an impact on the stock market over the coming 4 weeks. Watch for the DOW to tumble between now and September.
Still talking.. rant rant rant complain complain complain.. snip:
Jesus christ... the turd just wont go away no matter how much I flush
There more than one person on this planet and unfortunatly you have to share it... That include opinions... So please feel free to go back to playing with yourself in front of a mirror
Jesus christ... the turd just wont go away no matter how much I flush
There more than one person on this planet and unfortunatly you have to share it... That include opinions... So please feel free to go back to playing with yourself in front of a mirror
Still talking..and still contributing nothing, eh Bill?
You can still get a great rate for conforming loans but essentially the lenders are making prime borrowers pay for their mistake in funding so many subprime loans at 100%. Foreclosures are up and the problem does not look like it will get better soon.
