Is it to early to say i told you so about Obama?

124

Comments

  • Anon
    Anon Posts: 11,175
    I'm not talking about not having standards so I don't know where you get that from. I'm talking about not having 50 different sets of standards.
  • tybird
    tybird Posts: 17,388
    JB811 wrote:
    I'm not talking about not having standards so I don't know where you get that from. I'm talking about not having 50 different sets of standards.
    I suspect that a majority of states don't have or enforce emission standards for automobiles.
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    JB811 wrote:
    I'm not talking about not having standards so I don't know where you get that from. I'm talking about not having 50 different sets of standards.
    ...
    Then, you must not have an idea on what you said... when you said this:
    "He has also just sold out the auto industry by not having federal standards on emissions. How are the manufacturers supposed to meet so many possibly different standards?"
    ...
    There ARE Federal Emmission Standards set on auto makers. If a State like California wishes to exceed those standard levels... they can. This forces the auto makers into making a choice... either meet the higher standards set by California... or don't do business in California. G.M. and Ford don't eat those costs... the auto buyers of California do because we are partial to having cleaner running cars out here so we don't choke on the exhaust fumes.
    Bush revoked California's right to establish their own standards and Obama granted (or re-Granted) it.
    So, what's the problem? How does that 'Sell out the already troubled auto manufacturers'?
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • callen
    callen Posts: 6,388
    Cosmo wrote:
    JB811 wrote:
    I'm not talking about not having standards so I don't know where you get that from. I'm talking about not having 50 different sets of standards.
    ...
    Then, you must not have an idea on what you said... when you said this:
    "He has also just sold out the auto industry by not having federal standards on emissions. How are the manufacturers supposed to meet so many possibly different standards?"
    ...
    There ARE Federal Emmission Standards set on auto makers. If a State like California wishes to exceed those standard levels... they can. This forces the auto makers into making a choice... either meet the higher standards set by California... or don't do business in California. G.M. and Ford don't eat those costs... the auto buyers of California do because we are partial to having cleaner running cars out here so we don't choke on the exhaust fumes.
    Bush revoked California's right to establish their own standards and Obama granted (or re-Granted) it.
    So, what's the problem? How does that 'Sell out the already troubled auto manufacturers'?

    Having 50 different emmission standards is nuts....absolutely nuts. I assure you non-californians are subsidizing these wasteful extra costs. This all came about due to Dubya and his auto buddies being content with having the average mpg being the same for last 20 years. We simply need reasonable national standards.
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • Flutter Girl
    Flutter Girl Posts: 548
    JB811 wrote:
    RM291946 wrote:
    If he wants to do something right he would do a one time bailout....for the homeowners, not the banks. Pay off the homes that are behind and/or going into foreclosure.

    Worst idea I've seen. Bail out those that spent more than they could afford? Bail out the people that caused this mess? Reward them for not paying their bills? Laughable. Obviously you don't own shit, or you aren't paying your bills.

    You shouldn't assume things. We pay our bills. And I own my car. Paid it off 2 years early no less.
    sucky idea, but freddy mac and fanny mae are asking for another bailout. Makes more sense to bail them out by paying off the homes they've financed. At least then we know where the money went. What happened to all the money given to them already?

    It's a means to an end, and Clinton is the one who created the mess. Not the people. A lot of them were clueless. Can you really blame them cos they couldn't read the incomprehensable jargon in the contract, and couldn't afford an over priced lawyer to translate it into laymans terms?
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    RM291946 wrote:
    JB811 wrote:
    RM291946 wrote:
    If he wants to do something right he would do a one time bailout....for the homeowners, not the banks. Pay off the homes that are behind and/or going into foreclosure.

    Worst idea I've seen. Bail out those that spent more than they could afford? Bail out the people that caused this mess? Reward them for not paying their bills? Laughable. Obviously you don't own shit, or you aren't paying your bills.

    You shouldn't assume things. We pay our bills. And I own my car. Paid it off 2 years early no less.
    sucky idea, but freddy mac and fanny mae are asking for another bailout. Makes more sense to bail them out by paying off the homes they've financed. At least then we know where the money went. What happened to all the money given to them already?

    It's a means to an end, and Clinton is the one who created the mess. Not the people. A lot of them were clueless. Can you really blame them cos they couldn't read the incomprehensable jargon in the contract, and couldn't afford an over priced lawyer to translate it into laymans terms?

    you don't give folks much credit...I guess everyone who "purchased" a 300K home, with no money down, on an ARM were just too stupid to realize they were getting into something they couldn't pay for...I guess they were too stupid to budget...too retarded to understand...yeah, it's all the fault of jargon and Clinton....
  • Flutter Girl
    Flutter Girl Posts: 548
    inmytree wrote:
    you don't give folks much credit...I guess everyone who "purchased" a 300K home, with no money down, on an ARM were just too stupid to realize they were getting into something they couldn't pay for...I guess they were too stupid to budget...too retarded to understand...yeah, it's all the fault of jargon and Clinton....

    some are to blame for their own stitch, but for many, they didn't realise how much it would jump up. It started with a reasonable payment, then shot up to something beyond affordable. This is the fault of the lenders.

    Had Clinton never changed laws so that folk could get zero-down loans with relatively no background check, we wouldn't be in this mess.

    Plus, like I said, it's a means to an end. And end we very desperately need to come right now.
  • dharma69
    dharma69 Posts: 1,275
    Is it to early to say i told you so about Obama?
    If you have even half a brain, the answer is "Yes".
    "I'm here to see Pearl Jam."- Bono

    ...signed...the token black Pearl Jam fan.

    FaceSpace
  • audome25
    audome25 Posts: 163
    Can you really blame them cos they couldn't read the incomprehensable jargon in the contract, and couldn't afford an over priced lawyer to translate it into laymans terms?

    yes. a thousand times yes.
  • Flutter Girl
    Flutter Girl Posts: 548
    audome25 wrote:
    Can you really blame them cos they couldn't read the incomprehensable jargon in the contract, and couldn't afford an over priced lawyer to translate it into laymans terms?

    yes. a thousand times yes.

    so only lawyers and the people who can afford them should ever be allowed to buy a home. I dare you to go into the ghetto and announce that.
  • audome25
    audome25 Posts: 163
    audome25 wrote:
    so only lawyers and the people who can afford them should ever be allowed to buy a home. I dare you to go into the ghetto and announce that.

    are you some sort of tough guy? only people that can afford homes should purchase them, no exceptions. thats why people rent. lawyers and people who can afford them huh? thats a genius statement, if you're an angry adolescant.
  • callen
    callen Posts: 6,388
    RM291946 wrote:
    audome25 wrote:
    Can you really blame them cos they couldn't read the incomprehensable jargon in the contract, and couldn't afford an over priced lawyer to translate it into laymans terms?

    yes. a thousand times yes.

    so only lawyers and the people who can afford them should ever be allowed to buy a home. I dare you to go into the ghetto and announce that.

    Bought couple houses and knew exaclty what my payment and interest rate was. Its not difficult to figure out what you bring home and what you can afford. Yes there are some slimy lenders and some slimy financing schemes but one needs to do ones homework. Too many people live beyond their means....making $40K and buying a $25K automobile.
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • Flutter Girl
    Flutter Girl Posts: 548
    audome25 wrote:
    audome25 wrote:
    so only lawyers and the people who can afford them should ever be allowed to buy a home. I dare you to go into the ghetto and announce that.

    are you some sort of tough guy? only people that can afford homes should purchase them, no exceptions. thats why people rent. lawyers and people who can afford them huh? thats a genius statement, if you're an angry adolescant.

    I'm 28, and not a guy. My statement was to essentially say I dare you to go tell the poor they shouldn't buy homes cos they can't make heads or tails of the contract and can't afford a lawyer to put it in layman's terms. I'm saying if they can't understand all the terms of the contract, and can only depend on the lender who is telling you this is the loan amount and this is the payment and it will go up this percentage based on this price. It becomes confusing. If the lender is assuring them it will work out and they can afford it, short of affording a lawyer, they are left with trusting the lender and going ahead with buying a home, or walking away. I used to be a loan officer. I know full well how confusing the language in the contract can be for people and how heavily they relied on me to explain it to them. Had I been a bastard, I could have got a good many of them into the same mess a lot of other folk are in right now.
  • Flutter Girl
    Flutter Girl Posts: 548
    callen wrote:
    Bought couple houses and knew exaclty what my payment and interest rate was. Its not difficult to figure out what you bring home and what you can afford. Yes there are some slimy lenders and some slimy financing schemes but one needs to do ones homework. Too many people live beyond their means....making $40K and buying a $25K automobile.

    If they make 40k and buy a 25k car, they can likely afford it. Considering the payments are spread out over 5 years or however much it is these days.

    Doing your homework is one thing, but that's not always possible, and I've found all too often that attempts to research it only leads to more confusion for the buyer. It's getting better, thanks in part to some shows on hgtv that do explain it stupid simple for everyone watching. But that wasn't the case from the point Clinton enacted the laws allowing lenders to lend with no checks and zero down to the point the market began to crash. You say some slimy lenders...These lenders were popping up absolutely everywhere. Then you have the corrupt Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac, and Countrywide who led the pack..Far too many of the homes were sold with contracts that were purposefully confusing to the buyer. Especially when delving into the fuzzy math of interest rates and how much it will raise the cost after x amount of time. Even my boss, a mortgage broker, needed a mortgage calculator.
  • audome25
    audome25 Posts: 163
    they are left with trusting the lender and going ahead with buying a home, or walking away

    so walk away. if you don't get it, don't just nod yes. the irish managed it, so can everyone else..
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    RM291946 wrote:
    I'm 28, and not a guy. My statement was to essentially say I dare you to go tell the poor they shouldn't buy homes cos they can't make heads or tails of the contract and can't afford a lawyer to put it in layman's terms. I'm saying if they can't understand all the terms of the contract, and can only depend on the lender who is telling you this is the loan amount and this is the payment and it will go up this percentage based on this price. It becomes confusing. If the lender is assuring them it will work out and they can afford it, short of affording a lawyer, they are left with trusting the lender and going ahead with buying a home, or walking away. I used to be a loan officer. I know full well how confusing the language in the contract can be for people and how heavily they relied on me to explain it to them. Had I been a bastard, I could have got a good many of them into the same mess a lot of other folk are in right now.

    so, you're saying the poor are too stupid to purchase a home....

    interesting....
  • callen
    callen Posts: 6,388
    RM291946 wrote:
    I'm 28, and not a guy. My statement was to essentially say I dare you to go tell the poor they shouldn't buy homes cos they can't make heads or tails of the contract and can't afford a lawyer to put it in layman's terms. I'm saying if they can't understand all the terms of the contract, and can only depend on the lender who is telling you this is the loan amount and this is the payment and it will go up this percentage based on this price. It becomes confusing. If the lender is assuring them it will work out and they can afford it, short of affording a lawyer, they are left with trusting the lender and going ahead with buying a home, or walking away. I used to be a loan officer. I know full well how confusing the language in the contract can be for people and how heavily they relied on me to explain it to them. Had I been a bastard, I could have got a good many of them into the same mess a lot of other folk are in right now.

    Its not confusing. One page of the contract clearly states the purchase price, taxes, interest, terms and final payment. The borrower has to sign this document. Do agree some lenders aren't honest with their recommendation to borrower on what they can afford but again the home owner needs just a bit of sence to do the math. Income - Bills = ?
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • Anon
    Anon Posts: 11,175
    RM291946 wrote:

    You shouldn't assume things. We pay our bills. And I own my car. Paid it off 2 years early no less.
    sucky idea, but freddy mac and fanny mae are asking for another bailout. Makes more sense to bail them out by paying off the homes they've financed. At least then we know where the money went. What happened to all the money given to them already?

    It's a means to an end, and Clinton is the one who created the mess. Not the people. A lot of them were clueless. Can you really blame them cos they couldn't read the incomprehensable jargon in the contract, and couldn't afford an over priced lawyer to translate it into laymans terms?

    They caused this whole housing mess because they bought beyond their means. They thought it was more important to fill their houses they couldn't afford with plasma tv's they couldn't afford then park cars in them they couldn't afford. Now they are in foreclosure and are directly to blame for the falling house prices because anyone who actually does pay their bills and tries to sell a house has to compete with a neighborhood of foreclosures. I know from experience, I've had a house on the market for 15 months and it is priced for less than I paid for it, but I'm still current with my mortgage.

    Bail them out you say? I say fuck them, let them sink.
  • Flutter Girl
    Flutter Girl Posts: 548
    If you understand it that's great..I've personally never had a problem, even before I became a loan officer..But I am not saying only the poor are 'too stupid' to understand..I'm saying a good lot of people, no matter their income, can't understand, it's just the ones with more money can afford a lawyer. When it comes to interest rates and ARM's and figuring out how much the payments will increase, if you aren't being told the truth, a lot just don't understand it.

    audome, walking away goes back to what I was saying before. That would mean more poor people in apartments instead of being able to buy a home. That isn't fair to them cos owning a home, if done honestly, is better for them. They aren't forever paying rent and leaving nothing but rent to pay to their heirs. That makes it a lot more difficult for them to ever rise up out of poverty.

    You guys don't get it..You say let them fail. Let homeowners fail, let businesses fail (well that's not fair, it's not their fault people aren't buying), let banks fail, let the stock market fail...Are you even registering that whether we bail them out or let them fail, we are still the ones getting stuck with the bill for it? Look at the stimulus thread. I broke it down. It is far cheaper for us to bail them out than any of the other options.
  • Anon
    Anon Posts: 11,175
    You don't reward those that fail because of their own stupidity and irresponsibility.

Categories