Non Political Business Thread [Archive] - Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums

Abbie Normal

07-07-2009, 02:47 PM

Please check your political opinions at the door.

This thread is meant not to end up in the political board. I would like to discuss things related to business. I know it is hard to not add in political things into some of these stories, but please try.

I promise not to mention Obama and my opinion of his policies in any other post for this thread.

Consumers fall behind on loans at record pace
More fallout from a still deteriorating housing market

Soaring U.S. unemployment and a shrinking economy drove delinquencies on credit card debt to an all-time high in the first quarter as a record number of cash-strapped consumers fell behind on their bills.

Fallout from a still deteriorating housing market caused the rate of consumer loan payments at least 30 days late to rise to 3.23 percent in the January-to-March period from 3.22 percent in the 2008 fourth quarter, the American Bankers Association said.

Delinquencies were the highest since the ABA began tracking the data in 1974. Late payments on home equity borrowings set records, rising to 3.52 percent from 3.03 percent on loans and to 1.89 percent from 1.46 percent on lines of credit.

The rest of the story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31775881/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/

Thankfully, I don't have the financial problems others have. I carry a zero balance on my credit cards and my mortgage and car payments are made on time. I have been reading how saving is up and spending is down in America and that is a good thing. Have also read that many are paying down their credit card debt. I hope that America has learned their spending lesson. Will be interesting what will happen with all these delinquencies and the changes in bankruptcies.

How are you doing with your credit cards?

BlownCamaro

07-07-2009, 03:06 PM

Yea I signed up for one of Dave Ramsey's FPU classes. May seem stupid but he really helps make sense of quite a bit when it comes to finances. Sad thing is my wife and I know most of what he has gone over but just had no discipline. Ramsey really helps with that by showing how much money we were wasting.

His whole thing is about having nothing on credit. No credit cards, no car payments, and eventually no house payments. We have paid off a few things so far and have saved up more than we had in the past using his methods.
I would suggest it to those having financial issues, especially credit issues.

Abbie Normal

07-07-2009, 03:24 PM

BlownCamaro

07-07-2009, 03:41 PM

Too much to share =)

You can find a good chunk of it better explained that I could by googling Dave Ramsey Financial Peace University. Still not 100% of what he says but most of the meat n potatoes of it. Like debt snowballing, and things like how important it is to have a minimum of $1000 in savings (which I now have!) at all times so you do not rely on an "emergency credit card". Simple things really. Although you might find most of it online you will probably miss out on how to apply it to your life succesfully without getting in the program which is about 13 weeks long. Our local church is offering it, cost $100 and if you do not miss a single class you get your $100 back at the last meeting. So free! The kit we got includes all the lessons on cd, the instructional book, and several other things to help along the way.

Abbie Normal

07-07-2009, 03:57 PM

BlownCamaro

07-07-2009, 04:02 PM

Haha, Dave Ramsey would karate chop you in the face for suggesting this!

Homyrrh

07-07-2009, 11:30 PM

Solid thread idea. I'd always felt limited on the politics board because we couldn't discuss issues like these that were not immediately relevant to politics. Unfortunately, it's still a bitch that the WSJ, much like the Financial Times, keeps nearly all of its 'Business' articles under lock and key to all non-subscribers.

Abbie Normal

07-07-2009, 11:41 PM

Thanks. Some are good, some are not. I hope this is one of the good ones. A lot of business stuff going around these days. Oil is dropping nicely. I would like to get back some of my money from the so called experts for over estimating the demand that sent prices higher for no darn reason.

Homyrrh

07-07-2009, 11:49 PM

I'd be interested to see if any schomes are into small business, specifically whether any are actual entrepeneurs.

Abbie Normal

07-08-2009, 12:07 AM

I'd be interested to see if any schomes are into small business, specifically whether any are actual entrepeneurs.

I used to be an independent contractor for 4 years. Does that count?

Homyrrh

07-08-2009, 12:09 AM

In what occupation?

BlownCamaro

07-08-2009, 12:30 AM

I'd be interested to see if any schomes are into small business, specifically whether any are actual entrepeneurs.

I am currently in the end phase of shutting down my computer repair / website design business. It paid the bills for the last 2 years but I am 4 weeks away from my degree and I hope to be able to do better once I am done with school. Running a business is just so much more involved than you would think and I had some experienced help as far as accounting and things on the back end.

Sad to shut it down but it was a good experience for me.

Homyrrh

07-08-2009, 01:07 AM

I am currently in the end phase of shutting down my computer repair / website design business. It paid the bills for the last 2 years but I am 4 weeks away from my degree and I hope to be able to do better once I am done with school. Running a business is just so much more involved than you would think and I had some experienced help as far as accounting and things on the back end.

Sad to shut it down but it was a good experience for me.
Also in college, I'm immersing myself in affiliate marketing. A good friend of mine just started a web CMS (http://www.varident.com), due to open on 1 August. I'm out of school until 20 August, so I figured I'd help him. Capitalizing on the socializing of the web in a guerilla marketing effort like this will hopefully open doors and yield dividends further down the line; apparently a good number of college guys make more than a living off this type of venture.

Otherwise, hot damn, observing my friend who's working on his own start-up is tiring enough for me.

Darth Kenshin

07-08-2009, 01:43 AM

[SIZE="4"]
How are you doing with your credit cards?

what's interesting is a couple weeks ago, the limit on one of my credit cards was essentially cut in half. Used to be over $20,000, now it's down to $12,500. I called to ask why. Basically, they said because I always pay in full, and pay immediately, I didn't need such a high credit limit. And really, I don't. Not really sure why I had it in the first place (I'm a college student who lives at home... most of my monthly bills are in the $500-range).

I told a few people about it, and it turns out that credit card companies are doing this rather routinely to people who always pay in full, and are actually increasing the credit line to people in debt. This way, they can spend even MORE money they don't have, get further in debt, and credit card companies can rape them even more with interest charges. Utterly ridiculous.

Abbie Normal

07-08-2009, 09:33 AM

what's interesting is a couple weeks ago, the limit on one of my credit cards was essentially cut in half. Used to be over $20,000, now it's down to $12,500. I called to ask why. Basically, they said because I always pay in full, and pay immediately, I didn't need such a high credit limit. And really, I don't. Not really sure why I had it in the first place (I'm a college student who lives at home... most of my monthly bills are in the $500-range).

I told a few people about it, and it turns out that credit card companies are doing this rather routinely to people who always pay in full, and are actually increasing the credit line to people in debt. This way, they can spend even MORE money they don't have, get further in debt, and credit card companies can rape them even more with interest charges. Utterly ridiculous.

That is a great story. Credit card companies are basterds (i know, a). I can't believe they gave you that limit. Boy, did they try to trap you. A few months before I bought my house I lowered the limits on my two credit cards to $1000 each. A few months after I bought the house I asked for them to be raised to $2500 a piece. Neither card company would do it. I also pay off the balances each month. As it turns out I don't really need the increases. When I need to buy something big like furniture, the store has their own credit card. I get the awesome finance terms, pay it off and then cancel the account.

These are great days for people with great credit and some money.

BlownCamaro

07-08-2009, 09:45 AM

Screw credit. Once I get a few more things done I will just pay cash for everything.

Abbie Normal

07-08-2009, 10:02 AM

Screw credit. Once I get a few more things done I will just pay cash for everything.

You need credit though. Even if you don't use it you need it to have a better credit rating. A great credit rating will get you better prices on bigger things like loans for a house or car. Unless you have enough money, then by all means pay cash only.

810 credit rating here. Go me! In 2000, I was in the lowest tier.

BlownCamaro

07-08-2009, 10:11 AM

You need credit though. Even if you don't use it you need it to have a better credit rating. A great credit rating will get you better prices on bigger things like loans for a house or car. Unless you have enough money, then by all means pay cash only.

Naaa, even when buying a house you do not have to pay for it in full to get the best rates. Put down 25-30% and they do not even look at your credit scores. You get excellent rates even if you have no credit score what so ever.

Abbie Normal

07-10-2009, 02:56 PM

General Motors completed an unusually quick exit from bankruptcy protection Friday with ambitions of making money and building cars people are eager to buy.

Once the world’s largest and most powerful automaker, new GM is now leaner, cleansed of massive debt and burdensome contracts that would have sunk it without federal loans.

But GM, whose 40 days under court supervision was far shorter than anyone predicted, faces the worst auto sales slump in a quarter-century.

Very nice, but I still not buying any American car.

BlownCamaro

07-10-2009, 02:59 PM

Very nice, but I still not buying any American car.

Define American? BMW has plants here in the US, so does Toyota. All manned by American workers. Chevy has plants in Japan as well. Oh noes!

jolanar

07-10-2009, 04:09 PM

Abbie Normal

07-10-2009, 04:51 PM

Define American? BMW has plants here in the US, so does Toyota. All manned by American workers. Chevy has plants in Japan as well. Oh noes!

I am not buying a Ford, Saturn, GMC, Chevy, Buick, Caddy, Chrysler, Dodge, Mercury, Hummer, Pontiac, or a Lincoln.

I am happy Americans make some Honda and Toyota cars. If I had to drive a pick up truck for work, I would probably buy a Ford.

BlownCamaro

07-10-2009, 05:36 PM

Well the thing is, pretty much no matter what you buy, it is not what you think it is so saying you are not buying American or that you would never buy a rice rocket is kind of a moot point.

Abbie Normal

07-10-2009, 05:47 PM

Well the thing is, pretty much no matter what you buy, it is not what you think it is so saying you are not buying American or that you would never buy a rice rocket is kind of a moot point.

I have no idea what you mean. I am not buying a car made by GM or Ford or Chrysler.

RicochetShaw

07-10-2009, 05:58 PM

I am not buying a Ford, Saturn, GMC, Chevy, Buick, Caddy, Chrysler, Dodge, Mercury, Hummer, Pontiac, or a Lincoln.

I am happy Americans make some Honda and Toyota cars. If I had to drive a pick up truck for work, I would probably buy a Ford.

What about a Plymouth? Or Oldsmobile?

BlownCamaro

07-10-2009, 08:08 PM

I have no idea what you mean. I am not buying a car made by GM or Ford or Chrysler.

Just saying that there really is no "american" or "foreign" car anymore. So saying you would not buy one or the other makes no sense unless you have one specially made 100% foreign using foreign built parts. If not, your car is likely half foreign half american, no matter which brand you buy.

Nima

07-10-2009, 08:22 PM

Just saying that there really is no "american" or "foreign" car anymore. So saying you would not buy one or the other makes no sense unless you have one specially made 100% foreign using foreign built parts. If not, your car is likely half foreign half american, no matter which brand you buy.

An American car is a car made by an American car company. A Japanese car is made by a Japanese car company. The company that makes the car, rather than the location where the parts are built/assembled, is what is important.

BlownCamaro

07-10-2009, 09:47 PM

An American car is a car made by an American car company. A Japanese car is made by a Japanese car company. The company that makes the car, rather than the location where the parts are built/assembled, is what is important.

Not really. If Chevy builds a car in Asia, to me that is a foreign car. I do not care who owns X Company. Unless the parts and labor used to put the parts together are 100% American, it is not American. Hell I would take 90% parts/labor at this point.

Nima

07-10-2009, 10:01 PM

Not really. If Chevy builds a car in Asia, to me that is a foreign car. I do not care who owns X Company. Unless the parts and labor used to put the parts together are 100% American, it is not American. Hell I would take 90% parts/labor at this point.

So who designed the car, approved the design, chose how to manufacture the car, determined the quality standards of the car, certified the quality of the car, determined the price of the car, and sells the car to is less important than what country the car was assembled in? If Ferrari and Ford both have their cars assembled in Mexico do you consider those both "Mexican" cars?

I just wanted to point out too that the law disagrees with you.

BlownCamaro

07-10-2009, 10:09 PM

So who designed the car, approved the design, chose how to manufacture the car, determined the quality standards of the car, certified the quality of the car, determined the price of the car, and sells the car to is less important than what country the car was assembled in? If Ferrari and Ford both have their cars assembled in Mexico do you consider those both "Mexican" cars?

I just wanted to point out too that the law disagrees with you.

Point out all you want, but not that long ago, an American car meant a 100% American car. Yes when companies started outsourcing to Mexico and Asia those cars stopped being American cars. I dont give a fuck what the law says about it.

Abbie Normal

07-11-2009, 09:03 AM

Point out all you want, but not that long ago, an American car meant a 100% American car. Yes when companies started outsourcing to Mexico and Asia those cars stopped being American cars. I dont give a fuck what the law says about it.

What is wrong with you? Why are you arguing something so simple? Come down.

BlownCamaro

07-11-2009, 11:00 AM

What is wrong with you? Why are you arguing something so simple? Come down.

Because this is something that bothers me.

Homyrrh

07-11-2009, 01:59 PM

I've understood an American "car" to be of an American "brand". At least some of the Porsche Boxsters are handmade in Finland, but I'll be damned if I find someone who calls a Porsche anything but Germany's finest.

BlownCamaro

07-11-2009, 02:40 PM

Abbie Normal

07-11-2009, 06:45 PM

Well Koenigsegg is a handmade Swedish car but they use Ford engines (or have in the past anyway). They recently purchased Saab from GM so now they will be using probably be using Saab based engine designs.

Cars on the road now are just mutts.

Where does the money go?

Toyota, Honda: money goes to Japan
Ford, GM: money goes to the USA
Kai, Hyundai: Korea
VW, BMW: money to Germany

Other than that who care where the parts are made or the car assembled? All that matter is where the money ends up.

BlownCamaro

07-11-2009, 11:07 PM

Other than that who care where the parts are made or the car assembled? All that matter is where the money ends up.

And that is what the companies want you to think. Buy a good ol' GM because its American! No screw that buy a Nissan because its Japanese!

This is why we have so much shit outsourced now because companies have fooled you into buy American because the company has an american name and an office building here. Or vice versa. An American car is built by Americans with American parts. Same thing with foreign. Take the BMW X series, built in the good ol USA, not Germany.

You ask where the money goes for a GM vehicle, well if built in Japan, a large chunk of it goes to JAPAN and Japanese workers, not GM.

Abbie Normal

07-12-2009, 02:27 PM

And that is what the companies want you to think. Buy a good ol' GM because its American! No screw that buy a Nissan because its Japanese!

This is why we have so much shit outsourced now because companies have fooled you into buy American because the company has an american name and an office building here. Or vice versa. An American car is built by Americans with American parts. Same thing with foreign. Take the BMW X series, built in the good ol USA, not Germany.

You ask where the money goes for a GM vehicle, well if built in Japan, a large chunk of it goes to JAPAN and Japanese workers, not GM.

NO, IT DOES NOT. I am done reading or replying to any of your posts concerning this subject. GM IS AMERICAN! FORD IS AMERICAN! Nothing you will say or do will change that fact and I am still not buying them. You are wrong and I am not the only one telling you this.

BakeTheMooCow

07-12-2009, 03:04 PM

Can you guys calm down just a tad?

Keep cool, my babies.

Nima

07-12-2009, 03:20 PM

Isn't Joblo an MBA? Is anyone else on this board?

BlownCamaro

07-12-2009, 04:24 PM

NO, IT DOES NOT. I am done reading or replying to any of your posts concerning this subject. GM IS AMERICAN! FORD IS AMERICAN! Nothing you will say or do will change that fact and I am still not buying them. You are wrong and I am not the only one telling you this.

No, in your opinion I am wrong. That does not make me wrong. Sorry. You can deny where the money goes but that does not alter the fact that is does in fact go into the country in which the vehicles are manufactured. In fact GM was LOSING money per vehicle at one point so yes, all the money made from the vehicles produced in other countries did go to that country or laborers from that country. So go ahead and get you one of those nice American made BMWs, Mercedes, or VWs.

BlownCamaro

07-12-2009, 04:26 PM

Isn't Joblo an MBA? Is anyone else on this board?

Not I. Sorry. But I do try to keep my eye on the business world for future investment reasons.

Abbie Normal

07-13-2009, 02:24 PM

WASHINGTON - Unemployment is rising. Nest eggs are in tatters. Home values have tanked. And yet surprisingly, Americans are feeling less stress from debt these days.

Chalk it up to the power of positive thinking combined with people saving more, spending less and trimming debt to cope with the recession.

The upshot is that more people are optimistic that they'll eventually be able to get out from under a mountain of bills, a major factor behind the decline in stress from last year, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

Debt-related stress was 12 percent lower this year than in 2008, according to the poll. "People now have some optimism that the worst is behind them," said Paul J. Lavrakas, a research psychologist and AP consultant who analyzed the results of the survey.

The recession, the longest since World War II, is prompting Americans to take steps to get their finances in better shape. It's led to a newfound frugality that some believe will continue long after the recession ends.

"People are doing things that make them feel they are taking charge of their lives again," said Patricia Drentea, associate professor of sociology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who studies debt and stress.

Ironically, some of these changes — notably a more cautious consumer — could add to the national economy's stress. If Americans were to sharply cut back spending, that could prolong the recession and short-circuit any hopes for a recovery this year.

methodology THE POLL
The Associated Press-GfK Poll on debt and stress was conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media from May 28 to June 1, 2009. It is based on landline and cell phone telephone interviews with a nationally representative random sample of 1,000 adults, including 671 adults with credit cards and 942 adults with debt. Interviews were conducted with 800 respondents on landline telephones and 200 on cellular phones.

Digits in the phone numbers dialed were generated randomly to reach households with unlisted and listed landline and cell phone numbers.
Interviews were conducted in both English and Spanish.

As is done routinely in surveys, results were weighted, or adjusted, to ensure that responses accurately reflect the population’s makeup by factors such as age, sex, education, and race. In addition, the weighting took into account patterns of phone use — landline only, cell only and both types — by region.

No more than one time in 20 should chance variations in the sample cause the results to vary by more than plus or minus 3.1 percentage points from the answers that would be obtained if all adults in the U.S. were polled.
The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.8 percentage points for credit card holders and plus or minus 3.2 percentage points for adults with debt.

There are other sources of potential error in polls, including the wording and order of questions.

The questions and results for this poll are available at http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com.
• Print this
There was a stark break in the poll between Democrats and Republicans.

Democrats reported a big drop in their debt stress, while Republicans registered a sharp rise, a development political scientists attributed to the election of Barack Obama, which put the White House — and economic policy — back in the hands of Democrats following eight years of Republican George W. Bush.

Now 48 percent of those polled say the country is headed in the right direction, compared with just 18 percent who said that in 2008, the poll says.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31892817/ns/business-personal_finance/

I don't know who these people are asking who is stressed about debt or not, but I totally do not agree with this piece. I am doing pretty darn good, but I am still stressed. I lost over 50% of my 401K and on other investments (thank god for gold) and it will take years to get back to where I was. CA is in major trouble and eventually it will cost me dearly. Everyone I know worries about losing their job or money problems. The debt I worry about are on my loans (house and car). Like I said, I do pretty good, but I can't afford to lose my job or have business suck as much as it does. If the economy does not turn around it will lead to me losing too much money and then I have debt stress.

Abbie Normal

07-15-2009, 01:53 PM

The Recession Is… Over?
What America's best economic forecaster is saying

The article:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/206631

Please read this farce. The recession is not over. We bottomed out in most areas. The recession is over when all the indicators are showing growth again for at least two consecutive quarters. We have not seen this from any of the indicators.

Maybe they think by saying it is over, it will be over. We heard for months before the recession was officially named a recession that the economy was fine. To me, we are in a depression not a recession.

BlownCamaro

07-15-2009, 02:14 PM

Hahahah yea the recession is over. Man I am glad someone told me because my ass is still broke and jobless.

Abbie Normal

07-20-2009, 09:07 AM

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_great_american_bubble_machine

This story was put out by Rolling Stone about Goldman Sachs.

"From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression - and they're about to do it again "

It is a long, but great read. The last part has to deal with the Cap and Trade bill and the President. I am only telling you this, because I want to give you fair warning. This is supposed to be a non political thread. The other 5 bubbles have very little to do with politics.

The general idea of this piece is that Goldman Sachs is an evil company that makes tons of money for themselves by ripping us all off.

shoe1985

07-20-2009, 09:16 AM

The general idea of this piece is that Goldman Sachs is an evil company that makes tons of money for themselves by ripping us all off.

Not to burst your bubble, no pun intended, but every company is like this one. Wal-Mart is the same way. They force companies to outsource jobs to lower costs for them, or else that company will not have their products in WM. Face it, if your product is not in WM, chances are slim you will do well. Yes, there are some companies that do well, but if you are in WM, you are usually doing very well compared to those who are not.

We are all greedy. We want all the money, and screw everyone else over in the process of getting that money. I remember in college learning about teamwork, and using this idea to make the world a better place. Then, you enter the real world, and there is the idea of teamwork, but it is still about putting number 1 over first.

As for credit, in my opinion, if you can pay with cash, do it that way.

As for the recession being over, it could be, but we do not know it yet. It is like we did not really know we were in a recession until the middle of last year. Things are getting better, at a snail's pace, but they are. People are out shopping again. This past weekend, every store I visited was filled with shoppers. Restaurants were full, and waitresses were talking to each other about their big tips. Employment is usually the last thing to come back during a recession, and it will probably be for this one too. We have seen growth in many sectors, but the hope is this will continue, and then the unemployment will drop.

You have to remember, how many people on unemployment are really looking for jobs? I know at least a dozen people that are "searching" for jobs, but in reality are waiting for their unemployment benefits to run out before they start searching. They are being counted as unemployed too.

Trying not to get too political, one side will say one thing, the other side will say another. It is like when Bush was in office, Repubs said everything was going well, Dems said the opposite. It depends on who you are. Myself, I am doing very well, better than when Bush was in office. While friends of mine were doing well with Bush in office, and not so well now. Different policies effect everyone differently.

The biggest thing that could hurt any future growth is oil/gas prices. If gas goes up to $4 a gallon for an average, everything could go back to hell, which it probably would. Americans cannot afford the price to be that high. Of course, it could be that their lifestyles expect gas to be $2 a gallon. Considering how much wages have gone up since the 80s, along with everything else, $4 is probably where gas should be. Like I said, it doesn't fit with the lifestyles of today's society of buy buy buy, and not worry about how it will be paid for.

As for the stock market dropping so many points. Take into account how much of the market was inflated by consumer spending, or rather consumer credit spending. People were buying things they should not be buying because they really did not have the money to do so, but they did have a credit card, or more than one. Businesses were doing record profits, but wages really did not keep up with the spending people were doing. Sooner or later something was going to give. Well it gave, and people finally woke up to the real world. Credit is great, if you can afford it. People need to learn that you cannot have everything you want. Sometimes you have to learn that just the basics is fine. But, we live in a society that demands the best, and this is what caused the recession, in my opinion.

Sorry about the rambling near the end there. I find that I start going off in tangents when I get discussing these type of things.

Abbie Normal

07-20-2009, 10:12 AM

Not to burst your bubble, no pun intended, but every company is like this one. Wal-Mart is the same way. They force companies to outsource jobs to lower costs for them, or else that company will not have their products in WM. Face it, if your product is not in WM, chances are slim you will do well. Yes, there are some companies that do well, but if you are in WM, you are usually doing very well compared to those who are not.

I am no fan of Walmart, but there is a difference between Walmart and Goldman Sachs. Walmart is a completely different animal.

As for the recession being over, it could be, but we do not know it yet. It is like we did not really know we were in a recession until the middle of last year. Things are getting better, at a snail's pace, but they are. People are out shopping again. This past weekend, every store I visited was filled with shoppers. Restaurants were full, and waitresses were talking to each other about their big tips. Employment is usually the last thing to come back during a recession, and it will probably be for this one too. We have seen growth in many sectors, but the hope is this will continue, and then the unemployment will drop.

The media and government did not say recession until the middle of last year. Most everyone else knew we were already deep into the recession. The first clue should have been when the market was tanking. The media and Gov't did not acknowledge this as a sign of a recession until the market dropped from 14k to 9k.

While retailers are doing better, they are not making much profit. We all hope this is a good sign things are turning around and businesses will start hiring more, but this will not happen without profit.

You have to remember, how many people on unemployment are really looking for jobs? I know at least a dozen people that are "searching" for jobs, but in reality are waiting for their unemployment benefits to run out before they start searching. They are being counted as unemployed too.

Also, people who went from full time to part time work are not counted as unemployed. I call that a wash. The real unemployment numbers are over 10%.

Trying not to get too political, one side will say one thing, the other side will say another. It is like when Bush was in office, Repubs said everything was going well, Dems said the opposite. It depends on who you are. Myself, I am doing very well, better than when Bush was in office. While friends of mine were doing well with Bush in office, and not so well now. Different policies effect everyone differently.

No political please. The same thing could be said when Clinton was in charge. To me both Presidents benefited from all this fake credit problem we are dealing with now. The housing boom started during the Clinton years. By the way, Hillary was on the board of Walmart.

The biggest thing that could hurt any future growth is oil/gas prices. If gas goes up to $4 a gallon for an average, everything could go back to hell, which it probably would. Americans cannot afford the price to be that high. Of course, it could be that their lifestyles expect gas to be $2 a gallon. Considering how much wages have gone up since the 80s, along with everything else, $4 is probably where gas should be. Like I said, it doesn't fit with the lifestyles of today's society of buy buy buy, and not worry about how it will be paid for.

Did you read the whole story? Bubble 4 talked about this. The whole time gas was going up people like me were screaming why. The answer was the oil speculators. Guess who led that charge? Goldman Sachs. They made a lot of money off $4 a gallon of gas.

As for the stock market dropping so many points. Take into account how much of the market was inflated by consumer spending, or rather consumer credit spending. People were buying things they should not be buying because they really did not have the money to do so, but they did have a credit card, or more than one. Businesses were doing record profits, but wages really did not keep up with the spending people were doing. Sooner or later something was going to give. Well it gave, and people finally woke up to the real world. Credit is great, if you can afford it. People need to learn that you cannot have everything you want. Sometimes you have to learn that just the basics is fine. But, we live in a society that demands the best, and this is what caused the recession, in my opinion.

Sorry about the rambling near the end there. I find that I start going off in tangents when I get discussing these type of things.

While I do agree with what you said, Goldman Sachs (and others) made it all too easy for people to get their hands on easy credit. People were getting mortgages and second mortgages well above the value of the home they needed and used the extra money to buy shit. Shit they could not afford.

The point is we should be looking into companies like Goldman Sachs who are responsible for many of the recent financial problems we have had and take them out and beat them with a sledge hammer. We should look into them and if we find wrong doing, charge them, prosecute them, fine them and then put them out of business. This will not happen because companies like Goldman Sachs contribute too much money to both parties.

shoe1985

07-20-2009, 12:47 PM

Abbie, I agree with everything you wrote. These companies that led the current crisis should not be allowed to go free like nothing happen. If we were to have let them fail and go under, we could be talking unemployment numbers in the 20s, maybe even 30s. This does not even count the amount of money people would have truly lost.

The saying "Too Big Too Fail" is a saying we should never let companies have. Companies should not grow to the point where they are making the decisions to run our country, or take it under as these companies almost did.

As you mention, these companies, not just Sachs, donate a lot of money to these parties to persuade them to create laws to work to their benefit. No matter what happens, someone will not be happy with the way the country is being run. We all have opinions.

As for speculators, I don't blame them. We all want money, they are in the position to make it. If we could switch places with them, most would.

As for retailers not making much profit, you do have to consider that even they are tightening their costs. To do this costs money too. The holidays will be a great indicator as to where we are headed leading into next year, which is only a few months away.

Abbie Normal

07-20-2009, 01:27 PM

Well said.

There are a lot of stories coming out these days about all the bad things Goldman Sachs has done and is trying to do. The wonderful :rolleyes: governor of my former state, NJ, used to be the head of Goldman Sachs. I hope he loses his re election.

Abbie Normal

07-26-2009, 05:41 PM

CAMARILLO, Calif. - The U.S. price of gasoline fell about 7 cents a gallon during the past two weeks to $2.49, for a gallon of regular unleaded.

That’s according to the national Lundberg Survey of fuel prices released Sunday.

Analyst Trilby Lundberg says it appears the rate of decline is slowing. The latest average price of regular gasoline is $1.51 below the price at the same time last year, which peaked at an all-time high of $4.11.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

The average price for a gallon of mid-grade was $2.62. Premium was at $2.74.

Jackson, Miss., had the lowest average price, $2.22 for a gallon for regular unleaded. Honolulu was the highest at $3.03.

This is good news for consumers. I forget where I heard it, but someone is predicting oil to drop to around $25 a barrel. If that happens, gas will drop to well under $1.00

Abbie Normal

07-27-2009, 10:30 AM

New home sales soar 11 percent in June
Largest monthly sales increase in nearly nine years, Commerce Dept. says

WASHINGTON - New U.S. home sales rose by the largest amount in nearly nine years last month, in another sign the housing market is finally bouncing back from the worst downturn in decades, the government said on Monday.

The Commerce Department said sales rose 11 percent in June to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 384,000, from an upwardly revised May rate of 346,000.

It was the strongest sales pace since November 2008 and exceeded the forecasts of economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters, who expected a pace of 360,000 units. The last time sales rose so dramatically was in December 2000.

Sales have risen for three straight months. The median sales price of $206,200, however, was down 12 percent from $234,300 a year earlier.
Also in msnbc.com business

Housing will do better, now that pricing is lower. What the media is not telling you is that many builders are finally selling out developments they started a few years ago. There are not nearly as many new developments popping up yet. When that happens it is time to celebrate new home sales numbers.

Mortgage rates are still super low at less than 5.5%. My rate is 5%. Go me!

shoe1985

07-27-2009, 11:00 AM

Abbie, any positive news will send oil prices up. The people in charge want it to be at least $70-$85 a barrel, if not higher.

The economy is coming back, at a slow pace. People have to remember, we stopped what could have been a huge disaster last Fall. It was bad, but it could have been much worse. The programs put out my Congress may not have been favored by the people, but they don't understand what would have happened if these "Too Big Too Fail" companies really did fail. Which is why they need to be smaller. That includes Goldmans, who I know you love.

People are saving at a time that they need to be spending. Where I live, we haven't seen a big increase in unemployment, but we are run in a way that makes our town like a small business. We get the work done, but we don't need to go overboard.

Abbie Normal

07-27-2009, 11:06 AM

Oil prices rose above $68 a barrel Monday as a rally fueled by an improving economic and corporate outlook extended into a third week, even while analysts warned that market fundamentals did not support higher prices.

By mid-afternoon in Europe, benchmark crude for September delivery was up 37 cents to $68.42 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. On Friday, the contract rose 89 cents to settle at $68.05.

Oil has rebounded from $58.78 a barrel earlier this month as stronger economic results from the U.S. and China boosted investor optimism.

I am blaming Shoe if gas goes up. :D

shoe1985

07-27-2009, 11:49 AM

I am blaming Shoe if gas goes up. :D

Thank you. I am waiting for it to hit double digits. I wonder where we would be if gas never dipped below $4 right now. I would say we would adapt, we always do.

I am shocked the stocks are not up better today with this news. I think most speculators are trying to get the market up, then sell high.

Abbie Normal

07-27-2009, 12:42 PM

Thank you. I am waiting for it to hit double digits. I wonder where we would be if gas never dipped below $4 right now. I would say we would adapt, we always do.

I am shocked the stocks are not up better today with this news. I think most speculators are trying to get the market up, then sell high.

You are wise. Don't be a stranger.

Abbie Normal

07-27-2009, 03:26 PM

Accusing Rent-A-Center of using collection tactics and charging fees just this side of a loan shark, Washington state is asking a judge to declare the practices illegal and halt them.

The allegations are another black eye to the business of renting furniture, electronics and appliances to those who can't otherwise get credit or afford to buy at a regular store.

Instead, those who go to Rent-A-Center and its competitors can get items for what might seem to be an affordable payment that ends up costing them many times the actual price.

Rent-A-Center markets itself as giving opportunity to those who wouldn't otherwise have a chance to get the items it leases and is using the popular retired basketball star Ervin "Magic" Johnson in television spots.

Some examples of what Washington officials say certain items cost consumers who were making weekly payments (payments can be made weekly, biweekly or monthly):

$6,594 for a used television
$3,585 for a refrigerator
$4,073 for a laptop computer

Washington state Attorney General Rob McKenna is taking Rent-A-Center to court to try to get the company's collection tactics and rental contracts declared illegal. McKenna asserts Rent-A-Center goes after those who owe with a vengeance -- coming to their homes, threatening customers, their children and harassing relatives and neighbors.

"While companies certainly have the right to collect on outstanding debts, state law, along with the most basic standards of common courtesy, dictate how companies may collect on those debts," McKenna said in a statement. "Attempting to kick doors down, calling the debtor's friends and relatives, and scaring their children aren't included in those basic standards."

Rent-A-Center Vice President Xavier Dominicis said the company is getting a bad rap and that the tactics alleged are neither permitted nor tolerated.

"We have a very exacting and exhaustive collection policy in place," he told WalletPop. "We have zero tolerance for non-compliance. We wouldn't allow anything like that. We probably have a more stringent policy about collections that we need to have."

Dominicis said the "much-maligned" rent-to-own business has a place and its success shows that. The complaints, he said, represent a tiny fraction of the company's overall business.

"We make life manageable for everyday Americans," Dominicis said. "It's a week-to-week program so there is no debt. It's a program that has proven very helpful to everyday Americans particularly in a sour economy."

He said many of the calls to customers' homes are to determine whether they intend to keep renting the items. Only 5 percent of all customers, Dominicis said, make every payment and purchase products at the oft-cited extraordinarily high prices.

McKenna's office used the example of Carol Hammons, who said she stopped paying Rent-A-Center to protest renting her ripped and broken furniture. In a sworn statement, the woman said Rent-A-Center employees came to her home, where two girls were watching Hammons' 11-year-old autistic daughter. The employees, she said, refused to leave, told the girls she would be arrested and then told her neighbors personal financial information and accused her of passing bad checks.

The state accused Texas-based Rent-A-Center, which has more than 3,000 stores nationwide, of using abusive language and profanity in its collection efforts -- including referred to customers as "ghetto trash," "deadbeat," and "thief," among others.

Washington officials said Rent-A-Center employees have demanded money from babysitters and others when the customer isn't home, pounded on doors, peered through windows and told children their parents would be thrown in jail if they don't pay up. When challenged by consumers that what they're doing is illegal, Washington officials said Rent-A-Center employees have responded that collection laws that forbid such harassment don't apply to them.

"Because of a loophole in state and federal laws that apply to debt collection, Rent-A-Center employees believe they can use harassing tactics to collect from renters who are late on their payments." Assistant Attorney Jim Sugarman said.

Pay your bills and you won't have these problems. Everyone knows what you get when you buy from Rent A Center. They need the money to stay in business and I am quite sure asking nicely for the money is not something that works. The smart thing to do would be to not buy it so fast and save up for it at a regular store, but no said their customers were smart.

shoe1985

07-27-2009, 03:33 PM

What happens if an item at Rent A Center breaks? I am sure this happens many times when people bring them back. They need to replace them.

The biggest thing Abbie is that you said people should save up to buy it from a regular store. Are you sure you are an American? I was on this one website a few months ago that felt you shouldn't have to wait or save up for something, you should be able to get it. Yes, then once the bill comes, you don't have the money, you shouldn't have to pay for it.

I remember growing up as a kid, if I wanted something and did not have the money, I would do chores around the house, mow the neighbors lawns, and other things until I could afford the item I wanted. What happened to those days? Now, kids tell their parents I want a computer, parents drop to them. Which translates into the problems we have with debt and people not paying their bills. Nobody earns anything anymore, they are given it. Well, as we saw, those people found their debt building and building, only to bring them down.

Of course it is Rent A Center's fault, they are the business.

Abbie Normal

07-27-2009, 04:30 PM

What happens if an item at Rent A Center breaks? I am sure this happens many times when people bring them back. They need to replace them.

Depends what the item is. If you are speaking about a tv or stereo, Rent a Center will replace the item and either return it to their vendor or get it repaired.

The biggest thing Abbie is that you said people should save up to buy it from a regular store. Are you sure you are an American? I was on this one website a few months ago that felt you shouldn't have to wait or save up for something, you should be able to get it. Yes, then once the bill comes, you don't have the money, you shouldn't have to pay for it.

Cute. That is what happened with millions of people who bought houses and cars.

I remember growing up as a kid, if I wanted something and did not have the money, I would do chores around the house, mow the neighbors lawns, and other things until I could afford the item I wanted. What happened to those days? Now, kids tell their parents I want a computer, parents drop to them. Which translates into the problems we have with debt and people not paying their bills. Nobody earns anything anymore, they are given it. Well, as we saw, those people found their debt building and building, only to bring them down.

We are an immediate gratification people.

Of course it is Rent A Center's fault, they are the business.
Sarcastic? Aaron's is the exact same way.

shoe1985

07-27-2009, 04:58 PM

My point Abbie, yes the last part was me being sarcastic, is that we, the consumer, like to point the blame on others. We believe we should get now without waiting. When a problem occurs, it must be someone else's fault.

I have a friend who had a decent job, well, he thought he was making incredible amounts of money. He went and bought a huge house, fancy car, everything big. Well, he was paying his bills, then he got into an accident and could not work for a duration of time. Well, those bills went into default, and his credit dropped big time. Now, he lost his job because of being laid off, and struggling to get back on track.

Myself, I try to pay everything off if I can. I do have bills, we all do, but if I can't afford to buy something, I wait until I have the money too. Of course there are things you can't pay at once (house, car, and other things), and you take loans out. But, that does not mean you buy the best of everything.

Our economy the last 10 years has been based on charging everything. How can companies expect to earn huge profits if people are not charging? They can't, and they need to lower expectations, and in the process, job cuts.

Abbie Normal

08-04-2009, 12:54 PM

updated 7:55 p.m. ET, Mon., Aug 3, 2009

WASHINGTON - The recession is starving the government of tax revenue, just as the president and Congress are piling a major expansion of health care and other programs on the nation's plate and struggling to find money to pay the tab.

The numbers could hardly be more stark: Tax receipts are on pace to drop 18 percent this year, the biggest single-year decline since the Great Depression, while the federal deficit balloons to a record $1.8 trillion.

Other figures in an Associated Press analysis underscore the recession's impact: Individual income tax receipts are down 22 percent from a year ago. Corporate income taxes are down 57 percent. Social Security tax receipts could drop for only the second time since 1940, and Medicare taxes are on pace to drop for only the third time ever.

I see higher taxes coming out of a paycheck near you. This is a sure and true sign that the recession is far from over. Hitting bottom does not mean over. Growth means over.

Abbie Normal

08-04-2009, 03:50 PM

WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is predicting swift approval for an extension of the popular "cash-for-clunkers" program, which is rapidly running out of money after surging demand from consumers eager to purchase new cars with federal help.

Senate approval of a House-passed measure would send a $2 billion extension of the program to the White House for President Barack Obama's signature.

Reid spoke outside the White House Tuesday at about the same time that Sen. Jim DeMint, a conservative Republican from South Carolina, told reporters he would not seek to block the legislation.

This program is the equivalent a very long Black Friday sale. Americans are very smart shoppers and this is a great deal. We buyers know if we wait the retailers will feel the pain and drop their pants on the price.

No more cars are being sold as a result of this program. The sales will be up as long as we the people are paying for out our rebates through taxes. After the program ends, sales will drop. One part of this program is just so people can say the economy is turning around and doing great. I am not buying it.

I like the tag line: Trade in your shitty American gas guzzler for another shitty American car company that might be part owned by the American people.

shoe1985

08-08-2009, 10:24 PM

Abbie, first on the taxes thing. I posted this on the politics thread too. We can add small taxes to certain goods, take snacks, add a 3 cents tax, it would equal out to over $20 billion in tax revenue. People wouldn't really care about this. Add a similar soda tax, like 3 cents. Once the deficits are down to a better level, take the tax off because by then things should be better. People love their junk food and drinks in this country. They will get that over healthy stuff. Tax problem solved.

As for the cash for clunker deal, I love the program. Many people I know have traded in their gas guzzlers for smaller vehicles, or even new SUVs getting better mpg. This will allow the American consumer to have more money to spend on other things, resulting in spending elsewhere, which will then create demand, then create jobs. Then the government will see an increase in tax revenue because of the sales tax on items, and the more people buy, the more revenue the government gets.

I read that the average increase for these trade-ins is around 9 mpg. Which may not sound like a lot for some people, but it is a decent increase. That is 9 less miles to worry about, and adds up quick.

Sure, you could say it is a bad thing. But, right now, people don't have the money to spend because gas prices is on the rise again. If we can defer this somehow, it will allow for people to have more money to spend elsewhere. This is the goal, getting people to spend money on other things. If we are spending our money on only gas, how can we get the economy moving again? Our economy is based on consumer spending.

The car dealerships near me are actually running out of vehicles, and ordering more. There is a big demand because of this program. Yes, it is a quick fix for the auto industry, but in the long term, it is a good thing.

We can discuss the short term problems with these programs, but think about what happens in 5, 10, or even 15 years from now. Will these programs have helped or hurt the country? Gas prices could be at $5 a gallon. Wages are not going up. Imagine paying over $100 for gas every week. And you know prices will go up on all goods, and your paycheck is gone on just the basics. These programs may sound stupid now, but think long term, and they are not so stupid.

BlownCamaro

08-08-2009, 10:28 PM

shoe1985

08-08-2009, 10:35 PM

I thought the Nobama administration promised no new taxes on the middle class yet every tax increase he mentions seems to affect the middle/lower class more than the upper? Just curious because it seems like he is full of fucking horseshit on pretty much anything he promises.

I have no problem paying taxes, if the money is being used correctly. I have no problem with them paying for roads, infrastructure, or helping schools. I am not a fan of proving more money for welfare programs though. I do understand that those are the people who will spend first, which does help the economy more than say tax cuts.

The upper class is seeing higher taxes. But, they are also getting tax cuts in that they are taking on many of the new programs allowing for those tax cuts. I know one company near me got a huge tax cut for making their whole building run off of solar panels. They have installed so many energy star products too, meaning even less energy needed from those panels, and more going back onto the grid.

But, there are many programs out there, just not advertised, providing tax cuts. You just have to look.

If you did not vote for Obama, you probably hate what he is doing. If you did, you are probably in favor of what he is doing. I am in the latter. He is doing what I expected him to do. If you don't like it, well, in 4 years, vote for someone else. In the elections next year, vote for someone else.

But, if you want real change, vote independent because Republicans and Democrats are very similar.

You should be quite happy though, your state got a Kia plant, bringing in many new jobs that are paying well.

Abbie Normal

08-08-2009, 10:53 PM

I have no problem paying taxes, if the money is being used correctly. I have no problem with them paying for roads, infrastructure, or helping schools. I am not a fan of proving more money for welfare programs though. I do understand that those are the people who will spend first, which does help the economy more than say tax cuts.

I have a problem with all the taxes and fees. It is too much and it is never enough. More is always being asked for. Where do we draw the line? There is a tax on gas to fix the roads, but then they have and raise tolls on certain roads and bridges. Why do I need to pay for the same things over and over and over again. And since when does the government run any program properly? Most of the taxes that have been put into place should be able to support all the things they need to do. If taxes need to be raised, so be it. I do not like all the new and sneaky taxes and fees.

Abbie Normal

08-08-2009, 11:02 PM

Abbie, first on the taxes thing. I posted this on the politics thread too. We can add small taxes to certain goods, take snacks, add a 3 cents tax, it would equal out to over $20 billion in tax revenue. People wouldn't really care about this. Add a similar soda tax, like 3 cents. Once the deficits are down to a better level, take the tax off because by then things should be better. People love their junk food and drinks in this country. They will get that over healthy stuff. Tax problem solved.

As for the cash for clunker deal, I love the program. Many people I know have traded in their gas guzzlers for smaller vehicles, or even new SUVs getting better mpg. This will allow the American consumer to have more money to spend on other things, resulting in spending elsewhere, which will then create demand, then create jobs. Then the government will see an increase in tax revenue because of the sales tax on items, and the more people buy, the more revenue the government gets.

I do not like the idea of extra taxes for things that the government deemed bad for me. It is not a good way to base your income for projects. This is a primary reason why states and Fed are so broke today. It is not legal for the government to try to run everything. Capitalism rules!

Sorry, I do not believe in a federal program that is not open to everyone such as this. If I own an older car, but gets good gas mileage, I should be able to get the rebate as well. This is helping out selfish or stupid people and I don't like it. I do not like that I paying to help out people once again. The money I might save in lower gas prices due to lower demand is off set by the higher prices I had to pay over the last few years, due to higher demand, because of them. It is a wash. I don't buy the environment response.

At the end of the program (which we can not afford), sales for cars will go down. This is a short term fix to a long term problem. The solution is not to put people back into debt by buying a new car. This is how we got into this recession mess in the first place.

shoe1985

08-08-2009, 11:03 PM

I have a problem with all the taxes and fees. It is too much and it is never enough. More is always being asked for. Where do we draw the line? There is a tax on gas to fix the roads, but then they have and raise tolls on certain roads and bridges. Why do I need to pay for the same things over and over and over again. And since when does the government run any program properly? Most of the taxes that have been put into place should be able to support all the things they need to do. If taxes need to be raised, so be it. I do not like all the new and sneaky taxes and fees.

The gas tax was never enough to pay for road repairs. For a long time, at least where I live, there was very little road repair. Of course there was a lot of scandals going on, lots of people quitting. When roads were getting repaired, you would have 10 people "working," you know, 1 guy filling a pothole, everyone else watching. With the stimulus money, everyone is working now because there is usually about 3 or 4 people on a job, spread in many areas. I can drive my car and not worry about it hitting a giant pothole forcing me to get it repaired.

These repairs should have been made when we had a surplus. Instead, that money was used to rebuild Iraq. Maybe we should attack our own country, then rebuild it. The Republicans would then be behind it.

I am running for President in 2012. I will have the military attack us, then say, we need to rebuild. Everyone will then support me.

But yes, taxes do suck. But, nothing in life is free. Elections are next year. If you are not happy with the way the country is being run, vote for Independent. It will be the same with Reps and Dems. Real change is voting Independent, something many people don't get.

Abbie, I am now putting a tax on you. Every time you post, you must pay me a tax of $1.

Abbie Normal

08-09-2009, 09:20 AM

The gas tax was never enough to pay for road repairs. For a long time, at least where I live, there was very little road repair. Of course there was a lot of scandals going on, lots of people quitting. When roads were getting repaired, you would have 10 people "working," you know, 1 guy filling a pothole, everyone else watching. With the stimulus money, everyone is working now because there is usually about 3 or 4 people on a job, spread in many areas. I can drive my car and not worry about it hitting a giant pothole forcing me to get it repaired.

These repairs should have been made when we had a surplus. Instead, that money was used to rebuild Iraq. Maybe we should attack our own country, then rebuild it. The Republicans would then be behind it.

I am running for President in 2012. I will have the military attack us, then say, we need to rebuild. Everyone will then support me.

But yes, taxes do suck. But, nothing in life is free. Elections are next year. If you are not happy with the way the country is being run, vote for Independent. It will be the same with Reps and Dems. Real change is voting Independent, something many people don't get.

Abbie, I am now putting a tax on you. Every time you post, you must pay me a tax of $1.

You bastard! ;) And what are you going to do with my money?

There is plenty of money made from the gas tax. 18.4 is the federal rate.

State rates. Most are in the 20's
http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp

This is made on each gallon of gas sold. Many states take the money and put it in the general fund and not where is was intended. I am not sure what the fed is doing with all the money they make, but it is not going where it should be.

shoe1985

08-09-2009, 02:22 PM

You have to remember how many people are employed to fix the roads, they are not making minimum wage either.

As for your money, I am sure I could find something fun to buy.

Abbie Normal

08-09-2009, 02:51 PM

You have to remember how many people are employed to fix the roads, they are not making minimum wage either.

As for your money, I am sure I could find something fun to buy.

Bastard! :D Spend it on liquor and cheap women!

I remember how many people are employed to fixed the roads and it makes me sick. This should not be a government run thing. This should be private.

I also believe these people and teachers and cops make way too much money. If I were in charge, no raises for at least 10 years until the rest of working people in the private sector catch up.

shoe1985

08-09-2009, 03:12 PM

Teachers and cops don't make anywhere near enough money. These are occupations I would never take. I have a friend who teaches, and it is one of the hardest jobs. She teaches 2nd grade, and the parents think they know everything. The parents think their kids are the best, and when they don't get an A, which they shouldn't, they flip. She has had so many meanings with parents and the principal. Then trying to control the classroom, not as easy as you think.

As for a cop, you never know if you pull someone over what will happen. That person could have a gun or knife ready, or something else.

But, I guess the employees at Wal-Mart should be making $20 an hour because that is job only they can do.

Although, some areas, cops and teachers do make a lot of money. But for the majority, not so much. I live in Pa, and where I live, teachers do make decent money, but if you got to other areas, they are lucky to start out making $20,000 a year.

No matter what, someone will complain if someone else makes more money than they do. Which is why you go to college, get a skill, and hopefully, advance within a company, or start your own.

If we want to discuss a job that pays too much we could consider welfare.

As for you money, I "promise" I will not waste it.

BlownCamaro

08-09-2009, 03:20 PM

I have no problem paying taxes

Hey I have no issue paying taxes either but when you are promised multiple times that there will be no new taxes and then you get hit with NEW TAXES, it is hard to respect a lying asshole who not only lies but does it right to your face with a shit eating grin.

Had he promised not too many new taxes, I could not honestly gripe too much but being flat out lied to by the savior of the democratic party just makes me loathe the Democrats even more.

I do agree about the independents though, too bad none have come forward to offer any challenge worth paying attention to. I only have 7 years before I hit 35 so maybe I will give it a shot myself!

shoe1985

08-09-2009, 03:30 PM

Every politician lies, plain and simple.

The way you loathe Democrats, I do the same with Republicans.

I really hate the Independents right now. They have the perfect opportunity to do something right now, but they are just sitting on the sidelines. Someone could get their name out there, and generate a lot of support. No wonder why they will probably never win the Presidency, they lack the work ethic to do anything.

Abbie Normal

08-09-2009, 03:39 PM

Teachers and cops don't make anywhere near enough money. These are occupations I would never take.
There are many jobs you would not take, but that does not mean they deserve more money. Everyone saying they do not make enough enough is the knee jerk reaction. I am not saying they have easy jobs, but they are not any harder than most other jobs.

I have a friend who teaches, and it is one of the hardest jobs. She teaches 2nd grade, and the parents think they know everything. The parents think their kids are the best, and when they don't get an A, which they shouldn't, they flip. She has had so many meanings with parents and the principal. Then trying to control the classroom, not as easy as you think.

What your friend has to deal with is part of the job. In my job, I have to deal with all kinds of crap too, but that is the job. Since I have kids in school, I can tell you that teachers think they know everything. I have to reprogram my kids almost everyday when they come home and tell me that the teacher told them liberal crap.

If she does not like the issues that come with the job, then she can quit. Jobs are hard from everyone. She won't quit because the perks are crazy good. Summers off, pension, awesome health benefits, job protection. She benefits are way better than mine and yours.

As for a cop, you never know if you pull someone over what will happen. That person could have a gun or knife ready, or something else.

Yes true, but chances are nothing will happen. A very small percentage of cops ever are in a life and death situation. I am sorry, but some jobs have to have a value on how much they get paid. Cops in general make too much money. My friend back in NJ is a cop and he makes $70k a year. He is a fucktard. His dad was a cop and that is why he became one. He makes $70k a year, just to write tickets, because he works for the town we grew up in where nothing happens, but high taxes. The woodshop teacher at our high school make $80k a year!

Cops and teachers when you add their benefits to their salaries, they make too much money.

Although, some areas, cops and teachers do make a lot of money. But for the majority, not so much. I live in Pa, and where I live, teachers do make decent money, but if you got to other areas, they are lucky to start out making $20,000 a year.

No matter what, someone will complain if someone else makes more money than they do. Which is why you go to college, get a skill, and hopefully, advance within a company, or start your own.

If we want to discuss a job that pays too much we could consider welfare.

As for you money, I "promise" I will not waste it.

FYI
http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/PA/swzl_compresult_state_PA_LG12000003.html

I do not know the cost of living there, but a married couple one who is a cop and one who is a teach should not be able to afford a brand new house ($300k value), two brand new cars and two or more kids plus vacations and all the other usually stuff married couples have and do. There are two civil servants and they should not be making enough money to be considered upper middle class. Two civil servants should be no higher than middle middle class.

shoe1985

08-10-2009, 09:58 AM

Different locations do pay more. If you live in a shitty area, wages won't be high compared to an upscale area.

The things teachers put up with are part of the job, but how would you like to teach 20-30 kids everyday. Then be told that these kids are perfect, and should pass for handing in crap, which happens all the time. You could always home school your child, and teach your way.

In my opinion, we need to push education more on kids. In most countries, the children can speak 2 languages fluently, in America, we speak one, barely. No wonder why our job market sucks, we are way too far behind. But, it is wrong for Democrats to say, "Hey, lets try to fix this by upgrading everything to meet the demands of today's society." Instead, we will bully our way through, and we are right, you are wrong. Too bad, America is falling behind China now.

Darth Kenshin

08-10-2009, 01:52 PM

Cops and teachers when you add their benefits to their salaries, they make too much money.

Teacher salaries are primarily based on individual District budgets. There's no way any one can say "they make too much money" or "they don't make enough money" because it varies tremendously by budget. Some teachers are overpaid. Some are brutally underpaid. And in NCLB states, there are political issues at stake. If a school fails to make Adequate Yearly Progress, their federal funding could be pulled, which can hurt what teachers make. And of course, in bad areas, it's VERY hard for teachers to ever become tenured. They may only get to step 2 or 3 before being replaced. So even if a top salary (say, step 20) is something you think is too high, the fact is due to budget constraints, very few teachers ever actually make it that far. It's also becoming easier to fire teachers with tenure, especially if there are budgetary problems. A district near me has a lot of senior citizens, so it's very hard for them to ever get budgets approved (public budgets are voted on by the citizens). They ended up scrapping their entire Industrial Arts program, and teachers who were tenured were let go.

Then there are schools that operate independently (Charter schools, Parochials, etc.). Again, what they can give their teachers depends on things like donations and such. It's impossible to make a blanket statement for teachers. I don't know anything about cops. I only know about teachers cause I'm in a Master's program to become a teacher, so I've had to do a lot of research on salaries and teacher benefits.

Abbie Normal

08-10-2009, 05:00 PM

I can't believe I did not think of this until now!

In regard to the cash for clunkers rebate program. If I wanted to buy a new car and get to take advantage of the program, but my current cars do not qualify, just buy some cheap piece o shit car that does qualify. All you need to do is make sure the person owning it before you had it registered and insured for the last year. So you can't buy one from the junkyard, but you can buy a piece o shit from someone, even if it does not work. I have AAA. I tow it there and get my money.

The Rules
* Your vehicle must be less than 25 years old on the trade-in date
* Only purchase or lease of new vehicles qualify
* Generally, trade-in vehicles must get 18 or less MPG (some very large pick-up trucks and cargo vans have different requirements)
* Trade-in vehicles must be registered and insured continuously for the full year preceding the trade-in
* You don't need a voucher, dealers will apply a credit at purchase
* Program runs through Nov 1, 2009 or when the funds are exhausted, whichever comes first.
* The program requires the scrapping of your eligible trade-in vehicle, and that the dealer disclose to you an estimate of the scrap value of your trade-in. The scrap value, however minimal, will be in addition to the rebate, and not in place of the rebate.

shoe1985

08-10-2009, 05:39 PM

Abbie Normal

08-10-2009, 06:22 PM

Not true Abbie, maybe so in other states though. I had a friend who tried to do what you were proposing, well, he got to the car lot, and they said he must have owned the car for over a year.

Also, for a junk car, if you read what you wrote, they must be insured for a full year. I doubt a car from a junk yard has been insured for the full year.

Sorry Shoe, you misread something. I said you can't buy one from the junkyard and I did say that you could turn in a car you just bought from someone else as long as they insured and registered it for the last year. The rules do not state that there must be one owner during the year.

shoe1985

08-10-2009, 08:23 PM

Abbie Normal

08-10-2009, 08:25 PM

Yeah, I read your post quickly, mostly skimming through parts.

I love the program. I love the idea of getting rid of old vehicles that get low mpg, or even new ones. Gas prices are not going down anytime soon, and we need to think about the future.

I guess we disagree. I don't mind people getting new and better cars. I just don't want to help to pay for them. Sounds to me like big brother telling us how to live our lives.

shoe1985

08-10-2009, 08:45 PM

We have to push people to do stuff. But, it is helping everyone when you think about it down the road.

Abbie Normal

08-10-2009, 08:53 PM

We have to push people to do stuff. But, it is helping everyone when you think about it down the road.

I've heard that before. I do not think it helps anyone in the long term. The last thing most americans need is more debt. The effects of less demand for oil will not be nearly as dramatic as one might think. This is just a lame attempt at a fake recovery. Get some good numbers and good feelings and poof everything will go back to normal. I don't think so.

shoe1985

08-10-2009, 09:07 PM

I've heard that before. I do not think it helps anyone in the long term. The last thing most americans need is more debt. The effects of less demand for oil will not be nearly as dramatic as one might think. This is just a lame attempt at a fake recovery. Get some good numbers and good feelings and poof everything will go back to normal. I don't think so.

If people have more money in their pockets, they can buy other things. If gas goes back to $4, as it will one day soon, it will be last year all over again. People will have to make choices: gas or rent or other things? Well, they need gas to get to work, so that takes a big cut out of their budget.

This way, if gas was to go to $4 say tomorrow, people are in better position now because it won't be as devastating as say it was a month ago. Why? Because, people have vehicles getting at least 9 mpg more.

The economy is rebounding, very slowly, but coming back. I don't think it matters who is President, we are in a rebounding state no matter what for a while. We need people to spend, but spend wisely. Which is key for the recovery to truly work, and keep that recovery going.

No matter what, we will all disagree about how our tax money is being spent. Some see it as wasteful spending, others see it differently. Some programs benefit some people, but not everyone, so, it is then considered waste. So, what is really pork? I keep hearing how food stamps is waste/pork, but tax cuts are not. So, food stamps get spent immediately, while those who get tax cuts usually save the money. Couldn't that be more of pork if it really isn't benefiting the economy right now? Everyone has an opinion, nobody is wrong. Which is why we have different parties fighting for certain groups. They try to push the agendas for those who voted for them.

The people complaining about Obama probably didn't vote for him. They didn't like his vision, and hate it now that he is pushing it through. Those same people were happy with the way Bush ran the country. While the opposite people hated the way Bush ran the country, and wanted someone else in charge. Again, nobody is wrong, just different people.

Either way, I am spending your post tax as soon as I get the money. I see a nice computer I want.

Abbie Normal

08-10-2009, 09:26 PM

non political please.

Gas will not go up to $4 bucks a gallon, because we will not need as much for heating oil. Remember the earth is hotter now. :)

shoe1985

08-10-2009, 09:35 PM

Not sure about where you live, but next year the cap comes off electricity, and our great Governor Rendell isn't looking to renew the cap, or however it works. Great sentence. Gas will be the least of our worries by then, but it is on the rise again with each positive news on the economy.

The barrel price is around $72 right now, and there are predictions of solid earning numbers for this week, it could hit $80 soon. That means the price for gas will rise, even with the huge supply we have right now. Opec will just cut more drilling.

As for the earth being hotter now, the water temperature is warmer than normal.

Goodness, I am going to be rich from your posting. I could probably invest in the best alienware computer.

See, taxes are not always bad.

Abbie Normal

08-10-2009, 09:48 PM

shoe1985

08-10-2009, 10:11 PM

I am planning on declaring bankruptcy in order to avoid paying you.

Gas will not go above $3.25. The White House will not allow it to happen. If the health care bill does not go through and if gas goes up to over four a gallon someone will not be in the white house come 2012.

Oil is at $70.60 right now.

Oil has been all over the place the last few weeks. It has been in this $70-$72 area. Like I said, if the news for earnings is positive this week, expect it to be, well near $75 a barrel. Oil has been crazy, so, it is all speculation, which is the way the stock market works.

Where I live it has been $2.64 for the last past week.

The White House can only do so much, which is why they are pushing fuel efficient vehicles. All I hear from Republicans, I won't go to political on this rant, is why? Why develop smaller vehicles, we don't want them. Well, when gas hit $4 before, what did you buy? Smaller vehicles. I see it hitting $3, but demand is not there. OPEC wants it about $10 higher, the barrel price that is.

If I had a clunker, I would trade it in for a newer vehicle. I was able to afford $4 a gallon for gas, but most people were not. I would say a majority were not. The previous administration did really nothing about it, Bush didn't even know it was at $4, or he was acting dumb.

For me, I want people driving vehicles that get better mpg. We have the technology, and there is no reason someone drives something that gets less than 20 mpg. You can disagree, that is fine, that is what is great about this country.

I don't support drilling because it does nothing to slow down our consumption of oil. I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but rather someone who likes to think about the future.

Take the bailouts, if we did not do them, our country would probably have a huge unemployment. Think 10% is a high number, not there yet, well, it would probably be in the 30s, maybe higher. The government would be completely broke. There is no way the FDIC would have been able to cover everyone that lost their money in the banks. The Dow Jones would probably be lucky to survive, the stock market would be done for.

I will say this, Bush and Congress saved what could have been much worse than the Great Depression. Republicans will disagree, which is fine. But, they would be at the front crying that they lost everything, and why didn't someone do something to prevent it.

I hate the deficit growing, but I understand why it has too. Hopefully, after all the spending is done, it will be able to drop at huge numbers. The biggest amount of money needed is always the creation stage.

I do wish we had more parties in Congress tossing out ideas. I do not like one party rule, which is pretty much what is happening now, and I am a Democrat. Debating is the best solution to any problem. Bitching and complaining does not solve anything. Saying something is stupid does nothing, give your opinion as to what should be done. Right now, Dems are trying to create a good plan for health care, Republicans are putting down everything. They don't want anything to change.

We have a huge crisis right now. It isn't really a health care crisis, but a payment crisis. I was listening to this radio channel today, not sure which one, and they were discussing this. People don't want socialized medicine because it would mean someone would determine whether you live or die because they decide if you get surgery or medicine. Well, isn't that what is happening now? Insurance companies determine that.

Insurance companies are making billions in profits, while letting people go without their meds or surgeries to have better lives. This needs to change. Doctors spend more time on the phone to get things moving, when they should be spending more time with patients.

I don't think we need massive reform, but rather reform the problems we are facing, starting with the insurance companies. You can disagree with my opinion, that is fine, I don't care because it is my opinion. This is what should be happening in Congress right now, instead, it is just bickering. Debating is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Abbie Normal

08-10-2009, 10:25 PM

For me, I want people driving vehicles that get better mpg. We have the technology, and there is no reason someone drives something that gets less than 20 mpg. You can disagree, that is fine, that is what is great about this country.

Me too, but I don't want to help pay for others to smarten up.

I don't support drilling because it does nothing to slow down our consumption of oil. I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but rather someone who likes to think about the future.

Drilling would make OPEC hesitate cutting production to raise prices. It is more of a power play to me.

We have a huge crisis right now. It isn't really a health care crisis, but a payment crisis. I was listening to this radio channel today, not sure which one, and they were discussing this. People don't want socialized medicine because it would mean someone would determine whether you live or die because they decide if you get surgery or medicine. Well, isn't that what is happening now? Insurance companies determine that.

No, for the most part, it does not happen now. Exceptions are not the rule. I do not want the government to run health care. I want it to stay privatized and I want the government to oversee it.

Insurance companies are making billions in profits, while letting people go without their meds or surgeries to have better lives. This needs to change. Doctors spend more time on the phone to get things moving, when they should be spending more time with patients.

Insurance companies and all these paperwork companies are the problem. The government should do something about these people, because they are the problem of why costs are so high. Creating another level of paperwork is not the answer.

I don't think we need massive reform, but rather reform the problems we are facing, starting with the insurance companies. You can disagree with my opinion, that is fine, I don't care because it is my opinion. This is what should be happening in Congress right now, instead, it is just bickering. Debating is a good thing, not a bad thing.

What is being proposed is a massive reform. Debating is not what is happening. I just want the people voting on the bill to read and understand what they are voting on.

shoe1985

08-11-2009, 04:30 PM

Abbie, I was ready for you to give a different side, then say I am right, you are wrong. You are making this topic hard.

Abbie Normal

08-12-2009, 03:32 PM

Not sure what you mean by that. With most things like this there is no right or wrong, only matter of opinion.

Abbie Normal

08-13-2009, 03:06 PM

WASHINGTON - Retail sales disappointed in July and the number of newly laid-off Americans filing claims for unemployment benefits rose unexpectedly last week. The latest government reports reinforced concerns about how quickly consumers will be able to contribute to a broad economic recovery.

"There is really no positive spin to put on these numbers," Jennifer Lee, an economist with BMO Capital Markets, wrote in a research note. "The U.S. consumer remains very weak. The jobs situation, while slowly improving, is still dismal."

The Commerce Department said Thursday that retail sales fell 0.1 percent last month. Economists had expected a gain of 0.7 percent.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

While autos, helped by the start of the Cash for Clunkers program, showed a 2.4 percent jump — the biggest in six months — there was widespread weakness elsewhere. Gasoline stations, department stores, electronics outlets and furniture stores all reported declines.

The July dip was the first setback following two months of modest sales gains. Excluding autos, sales fell 0.6 percent, worse than the 0.1 percent rise economists had forecast.

Households are working to pay down debt and add to savings, longer-term trends along with little job growth making it "probable that the U.S. consumer will not be much of a help during the early stages of the economic recovery," Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist at consulting firm MFR Inc., wrote in a note to clients.

The Labor Department said initial claims increased to a seasonally adjusted 558,000, from 554,000 the previous week. Analysts expected new claims to drop to 545,000, according to Thomson Reuters.

The number of people remaining on the benefit rolls, meanwhile, fell to 6.2 million from 6.34 million the previous week. Analysts had expected a smaller decline. The continuing claims data lags initial claims by one week.

The four-week average of initial claims, which smoothes out fluctuations, rose by 8,500 to 565,000. That reverses six straight weeks of decline.

A weak job market hurt sales last month. Gas station sales plunged 2.1 percent in July, due more to falling pump prices than weak demand. Excluding that drop, retail sales would have posted a modest 0.1 percent increase.

Department store sales fell 1.6 percent and the broader category of general merchandise stores, which includes big chains such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Target Corp., posted a decline of 0.8 percent.

Wal-Mart on Thursday reported virtually flat second-quarter income compared with a year ago, but the results beat Wall Street expectations and the world's largest retailer raised the low end of its profit outlook as a series of cost-cutting moves draw frugal shoppers away from rivals.

Still, the July weakness in overall retail sales highlighted worries about the potential strength of the recovery from the recession. Consumer spending accounts for about 70 percent of total economic activity.

"Households are in no position to drive a decent economic recovery," Paul Dales, U.S. economist at Capital Economics, wrote in a note to clients.

I don't know why they say it was a surprise drop. So once piece of good news for one week and the recession is over? Bullshit. The recession is not over and look for it to continue in 2010. Things are getting better and we have hit bottom for the most part, but things will be stagnant for months. Spending will be down until at least the end of the year. Cash for Clunkers is not going to save the economy. It will only serve as a blip on the economic screen. Once it is over, auto sales die.

shoe1985

08-13-2009, 04:46 PM

I do think the recession is over, but I feel it is going to be a long recovery. Many people I know are spending, but making sure debt is paid for first. Many people had their debt catch up to them, and want it paid off in case something else happens.

It is amazing how we let things keep building up and up, debt I mean, and how it has brought this country down. I do think to move forward, we have to numbers to be much lower for a couple of years. People want to pay off debt, so, that means less buying of new things.

You know Abbie, I love watching these news stories. Last week the recession is over, the next week, those same people are saying we are in for more bad times. I don't think anyone has a clue.

Abbie Normal

08-13-2009, 06:42 PM

You know Abbie, I love watching these news stories. Last week the recession is over, the next week, those same people are saying we are in for more bad times. I don't think anyone has a clue.

Truer words were never spoken.

shoe1985

08-13-2009, 08:42 PM

Truer words were never spoken.

I have really given up listening to anything spoken by anyone on these news channels. Fox News is about putting down Democrats. CNN is the same with Republicans. MSNBC is clueless, I don't mind CNBC, but not so much anymore. CBS and ABS, well, they haven't done much in years. What happened to the News?

Abbie Normal

08-13-2009, 09:21 PM

I have really given up listening to anything spoken by anyone on these news channels. Fox News is about putting down Democrats. CNN is the same with Republicans. MSNBC is clueless, I don't mind CNBC, but not so much anymore. CBS and ABS, well, they haven't done much in years. What happened to the News?

The news channels (networks) are almost all owned or at least in bed with major corporations. These corps now run the news and everything that is done is done so for the financial benefit of profit for the corp.

Politicians are run by corporations.

Corporations now run the world.

Nothing is done to help the people. It is all done to help bring in profit for the winning corp. Any wonder why all these big corps received bailouts. Did anybody bother to ask where all the money they made during this latest boom went?

All we need to do is follow the money up the rat whole to see where is comes from and then destroy that place.

Abbie Normal

08-17-2009, 04:03 PM

By John W. Schoen
Senior producer
msnbc.com

John W. Schoen
Senior producer

What happened to all the optimism?

Less than a week ago, many people were celebrating the beginning of the recovery. The Federal Reserve itself claimed the economy is “leveling out.”

Now some investors and market watchers say the stock market may have overestimated the prospects for an economic rebound — and share prices could be due for a bigger pullback after a 50 percent surge since March.

"The market has gotten way ahead of the reality on the ground,” Pimco's Mohamed El-Erian, co-chief executive officer of the largest bond fund manager in the world, told CNBC Friday. "We are yet to see a durable and sustainable recovery, but the market has gotten ahead of the process by pricing that in."

On Monday, some investors echoed those second thoughts, sending stocks 2 percent lower and stalling a rally that had pushed the market up 15 percent since mid-July.

The initial exuberance followed economic data over the past few weeks showing that one of the worst recessions since World War II many be ending. Job losses slowed in July. Many forecasters believe the U.S. Gross Domestic Product will likely turn positive again in the third quarter after steep declines since the recession began in Dec. 2007.

The relentless retreat of housing prices seems to be slowing. And massive infusions of government cash — the $787 billion economic stimulus package, the $700 billion bank bailout and the Federal Reserve's $1 trillion intervention in the financial markets — seem to be having the desired effect.

The government-led effort may have stopped the bleeding. There is less evidence that the second phase of recovery is taking hold, however, said Barbara Marcin, who manages the Gabelli Blue Chip Value fund.

"That (government intervention) is supposed to jump start the real economy and start consumer spending,” she said. “In previous recessions with stimulus programs, autos and housing get under way, they start to create a little confidence, banks start to lend more, consumers start to borrow more and the second part takes off. I don't think there are any signs of that. I think we're six or nine months ahead of ourselves.”

Stock investors also have been encouraged by the latest round of quarterly corporate earnings reports, which came in stronger than expected. But a closer examination shows much of that profit came from cost cutting — laying off workers — and then selling off inventories to meet limited demand.

That’s not a formula for long-term growth. For that, consumers need to get back to levels of spending not seen since the economy began contracting 18 months ago. But consumer confidence readings fell sharply in July, indicating a pick-up in demand isn’t imminent.

For now, consumers face a number of burdens that may crimp their spending for some time.

I will tell you what happened. Nothing happened. This is just like 2 weeks ago when I said that the recession is not over and there have been few real signs it will be over anytime soon. This is now a new knee jerk reaction to the last couple down Wall Street days. We will see things go up and down, but much more stable than we saw over the last year. Things like all the stimulus money needs time to works its way down to the people. It takes time for people to go back to work. Then it takes time for people to have confidence in their financial world before they start spending.

What we do not need is more bullshit programs (cahs for clunkers) urging people to go into more debt. We need lower taxes across the board to achieve real growth and only then will be get out of this recession.

Many companies might be doing business, but not as profitable as they need to be. Profit is what Wall Street is looking for and what drives our economy.

Darth Kenshin

08-17-2009, 07:57 PM

Politicians are run by corporations.

Corporations now run the world.

Nothing is done to help the people. It is all done to help bring in profit for the winning corp. Any wonder why all these big corps received bailouts. Did anybody bother to ask where all the money they made during this latest boom went?

All we need to do is follow the money up the rat whole to see where is comes from and then destroy that place.

It's funny you say that, because when the auto industry was in trouble, I remember reading about all the things the UAW were asked to give up. Even though they had contracts, the rationael was they industry was in so much trouble, sacrifices had to be made. Yet, when huge companies got bailouts and paid ludicrous bonuses to top executives, they justified by saying... yup, it was in their contract. It's ridiculous how elitist this whole thing became. The unionized workers, struggling as is, are asked to cut back their pensions and other things that they were contractually given, yet God forbid AIG slashes their executive compensation plan.

Abbie Normal

08-17-2009, 09:01 PM

It's funny you say that, because when the auto industry was in trouble, I remember reading about all the things the UAW were asked to give up. Even though they had contracts, the rationael was they industry was in so much trouble, sacrifices had to be made. Yet, when huge companies got bailouts and paid ludicrous bonuses to top executives, they justified by saying... yup, it was in their contract. It's ridiculous how elitist this whole thing became. The unionized workers, struggling as is, are asked to cut back their pensions and other things that they were contractually given, yet God forbid AIG slashes their executive compensation plan.

Good thoughts. I agree with most of what you said, but one thing. UAW should have been cutting back the pay and benefits of their members years ago in exchange for profit sharing or more profit sharing. The cost to make an America car is too high when compared to imports. Need to be more competitive.

shoe1985

08-17-2009, 09:02 PM

I will tell you what happened. Nothing happened. This is just like 2 weeks ago when I said that the recession is not over and there have been few real signs it will be over anytime soon. This is now a new knee jerk reaction to the last couple down Wall Street days. We will see things go up and down, but much more stable than we saw over the last year. Things like all the stimulus money needs time to works its way down to the people. It takes time for people to go back to work. Then it takes time for people to have confidence in their financial world before they start spending.

What we do not need is more bullshit programs (cahs for clunkers) urging people to go into more debt. We need lower taxes across the board to achieve real growth and only then will be get out of this recession.

Many companies might be doing business, but not as profitable as they need to be. Profit is what Wall Street is looking for and what drives our economy.

What really needs to happen is we need to produce again. What do we make? Pretty much nothing, and this is why China has been doing so well. Why is it that when we mention companies coming back to produce things here, they throw a huge fit? Because, that is the real bread and butter.

The cash for clunker program was a great program because, like I said before, it is getting gas hogs off the road, and getting more fuel efficient vehicles on. This will put more money into the pockets of people, allowing them to pay off debt, and then get back to spending again. Gas prices are a major concern for the future, and either we take the steps now to be prepared, or we sit on our hands and find ourselves complaining about the high prices, like we did when gas hit $4 a gallon.

Like we discussed before also, this week we are in bad shape, next week we will be fine again. We keep going back and forth. Nobody said we would not have problems with this recovery. Things are not going to be fixed overnight. This is going to take months, maybe years, to truly fix and get things back in order. This is what happens when we let people screw everyone over, and then nobody wants to take blame. I agree with what you wrote that is in this direction.

The stimulus money does not go into full effect until next year, election time of course.

As for taxes, I don't believe they need to be cut. As we discussed before, again, tax cuts have been proven not to do as much as we think they do. If anything, the food stamp program does more. When people are given a tax cut, they take that money, pay off more debt, and save. While those on the food stamp and welfare program spend, spend, and spend. What does the economy really need right now? Spending, and lots of it, but not to drive up crazy debt like we saw recently.

Other things that need to be done is controlling the slashing of jobs. I could name one way to do this: control piracy of media. Take the music industry for example, here is an industry that used to employ thousands, maybe millions, of people. Today, it is low thousands. Why is that when there are so many potential revenue areas compared to say 10-15 years ago? Because, nobody buys music anymore. We all listen to music, and I am sure many of us bought it. We did go from one of the biggest decades of record sales, to one of the lowest sales era ever. This has seen stores close, which would happen either way because technology has evolved to digital media.

Take the TV industry as a second example. Ad spending is down drastically. Have people stopped watching? Not one bit. They now download their shows from a torrent site, removing the ads, which pay for the shows, and they are not counted as being a viewer. Even if they were counted, somehow, they are not watching the ads, and this means advertisers will not be willing to spend huge amounts of money to air their ads during the shows.

The movie industry may be showing good profits, but in reality, less people go to the theaters. Also, DVD sales are down too. Why? Because you can download a full movie in about an hour or less, burn it on a DVD-R, and watch it at home. Why pay $20 or more, when the quality is about the same? Do people watch special features anymore?

These industries used to take risks on new acts, writers, shows, but not so much today. Now, it is about getting quick profits through more than likely hit acts, remakes, and cheap shows. Look at a show like Lost. Everyone I know talks about the show, but very few watch it first run. They are too busy catching up on the shows they downloaded from the previous night.

Then we have the newspaper and magazine industries, which probably won't be around 20 years from now. Why? Because technology has evolved that why read today's news tomorrow, when you can get it instantly?

Another example: the Iphone. This little device does everything. It has a book reader, GPS, internet browser, MP3 player, games, and on and on.

My point you ask? Technology is slashing jobs left and right. Will we recover? Yes, but if we are not making stuff, we could consider our current unemployment as full employment. We could then consider Wal-Mart as another example of why the economy sucks. Why shop at a mom and pop shop that pays their employees more money, when you can get the same product at WM for less money, which of course comes with lower wages?

We put ourselves in this position, and then ask how do we solve these issues. Well, it is simple. We have to change and get back to the basics again. We want big stores, but those big stores come at a price for the American worker, lower wages. We want to have free reign of downloading stuff online, but don't consider the consequences of our actions. I had a friend who heard about one label laying off a bunch of their workers, felt sorry about it, while downloading the latest album from his favorite artist from that label. I wonder why that company got rid of people?

Commonsense?:confused:

shoe1985

08-17-2009, 09:04 PM

Good thoughts. I agree with most of what you said, but one thing. UAW should have been cutting back the pay and benefits of their members years ago in exchange for profit sharing or more profit sharing. The cost to make an America car is too high when compared to imports. Need to be more competitive.

There is another problem, imports. How do we compete with foreign companies that are able to hire workers at a fraction of cost of what Americans workers are paid? Maybe it is time to lower the minimum wage to become competitive again. Maybe have it around $5 or less. This would help many businesses, and there would be no need for tax cuts.

shoe1985

08-18-2009, 02:24 PM

So today it was announced that GM is bringing back employees to work because they can't keep up with demand. Some companies are reporting earnings that are better than expected. Amazing, yesterday everything was crumbling, today, we are back on recovery.

Abbie Normal

08-18-2009, 03:19 PM

There is another problem, imports. How do we compete with foreign companies that are able to hire workers at a fraction of cost of what Americans workers are paid? Maybe it is time to lower the minimum wage to become competitive again. Maybe have it around $5 or less. This would help many businesses, and there would be no need for tax cuts.

Minimum wage should be left up to the states not the Fed. We should also repeal NAFTA. Tariffs are also useful, but since we had to borrow so much money from China, we can't make much money from them. Breaking unions would also be a good thing. Unions have outlived their usefulness.

So today it was announced that GM is bringing back employees to work because they can't keep up with demand. Some companies are reporting earnings that are better than expected. Amazing, yesterday everything was crumbling, today, we are back on recovery.

And what happens when demand goes back down when the Cash for clunkers programs runs out? Short term, fake gains.

shoe1985

08-18-2009, 04:12 PM

Minimum wage should be left up to the states not the Fed. We should also repeal NAFTA. Tariffs are also useful, but since we had to borrow so much money from China, we can't make much money from them. Breaking unions would also be a good thing. Unions have outlived their usefulness.

Isn't NAFTA up for renewal soon? I honestly have to look that up. It is a good program, but it is terrible for competition. As for minimum wage, we have to be competitive, and higher wages does not make us competitive when we have other workers making less than we do, offering the same products for a lower price. Lets see I can buy this toothbrush made in America for $5, or this one made in China for $2. Which one should I buy? Same toothbrush, just different pricing.

I am one of those people that feel unions can be good in that they get benefits for the workers, but today's unions are out for themselves. But, being that we are now part of a global economy, we have to expect less, and to do more. Hahahha, like that will happen.

And what happens when demand goes back down when the Cash for clunkers programs runs out? Short term, fake gains.

What happens when gas prices go back up? Can we continue driving the vehicles that get less than 18 mpg? This was a program thinking about the future. Yes, it is short term for the automakers, but long term for the owners.

It is similar to the Bush years when the stock market was inflated. Or when everyone was selling houses. Sooner or later it will hit them that not everyone can sell houses and expect to make money. This program has many benefits, more so long term rather then short term. The automakers are getting rid of many vehicles, allowing themselves to build up capital again. This capital should be used to design even better fuel efficient vehicles, and better vehicles all around. Sales will dip once the program ends, as expected. We are getting people working again, and that means they will spend, this will in turn create demand, and people will get jobs, allowing the economy to once again grow. Simple economics.

Also, this will help keep more money in the pockets of consumers, who will then have that money to spend on other things, as I mentioned before. If people are not spending their paychecks on gasoline, they have money to spend, as we saw in the past 10-15 years. When gas hit $4, the housing bubble burst, banking bubble burst, auto bubble burst, along with the bubble of spending. Why? Because gas took all the money. If people have money to spend, they will do it. Right now, people are trying to get back on their feet, and once they do, thanks in part of paying less for gas, they can pay off bills, and buy again. Just hopefully they don't go back to gas guzzlers again.

Abbie, I am upset you didn't give a quote to my long rant I gave on piracy. I thought I made excellent points on how this is not helping the economy either. Nobody ever gives a strong rebuttal when I say these things because they know it is true.

Abbie Normal

08-18-2009, 07:20 PM

I am one of those people that feel unions can be good in that they get benefits for the workers, but today's unions are out for themselves. But, being that we are now part of a global economy, we have to expect less, and to do more. Hahahha, like that will happen.[/quote

Unions had their place in society over 100 years ago. With all the laws we now have we do not need unions.

[quote]What happens when gas prices go back up? Can we continue driving the vehicles that get less than 18 mpg? This was a program thinking about the future. Yes, it is short term for the automakers, but long term for the owners.

As oil is dropping everyday for the last couple weeks. :rolleyes:

Riddle me this. Why couldn't these people just spend the extra $4500 to get a car that was fuel efficient? Why is it that people are still buying brand new SUV's that are getting less than 5 mpg better than the one they traded in? Why is it the governments job to help people buy a new car? Lastly, what is going to happen to all the car dealerships that fronted the money for the rebates and are now being turned down when they try to get the money back?

The future my ass. This is just a bullshit PR move to make the numbers come out so we think the recession is over.

Abbie, I am upset you didn't give a quote to my long rant I gave on piracy. I thought I made excellent points on how this is not helping the economy either. Nobody ever gives a strong rebuttal when I say these things because they know it is true.

I read it, but do not remember most of it. Sorry. It is the same crap I hear all the time and I have no sympathy for any companies in the music or movie business.

And piracy does help the economy. This is how I will use your own logic for the cars for cash program against you. If people are not spending as much for music and movies they have more money to spend on taxes or fees or tolls or other crap. They will need the extra money if gas goes up to $4 a gallon again. Take the rest of your reasons you love cash for clunkers and apply it here. Piracy does not help the companies or people that make the things, but it helps lot of other people and they are called the black market and those people need to eat too dammit. It would be smarter if the USA just did something about China who is breaking all the copyright and trademark laws by replicating everything and selling them here. Start there before busting some college kid for downloading songs illegally.

shoe1985

08-18-2009, 07:49 PM

As oil is dropping everyday for the last couple weeks. :rolleyes:

Riddle me this. Why couldn't these people just spend the extra $4500 to get a car that was fuel efficient? Why is it that people are still buying brand new SUV's that are getting less than 5 mpg better than the one they traded in? Why is it the governments job to help people buy a new car? Lastly, what is going to happen to all the car dealerships that fronted the money for the rebates and are now being turned down when they try to get the money back?

The future my ass. This is just a bullshit PR move to make the numbers come out so we think the recession is over.

If people are not pushed, they will not change. This is 100% for Americans. It is the government's job to make sure the country is running smoothly. Oil was above $70, now it is below, but it moves up and down all the time. As we discussed before, once the economy is in the clear, it will be moving up and up and up. Gas prices will go along with this, and we will be back to where we were last year. :mad: Not opinion, truth.

Come see me once the recession is over, and oil is above $100, and is on its way to $150, maybe even $200. This administration can't control supply and demand, unless people are forced to buy fuel efficient vehicles, then they can afford to pay for $4, $5, or even more for gas.

I read it, but do not remember most of it. Sorry. It is the same crap I hear all the time and I have no sympathy for any companies in the music or movie business.

And piracy does help the economy. This is how I will use your own logic for the cars for cash program against you. If people are not spending as much for music and movies they have more money to spend on taxes or fees or tolls or other crap. They will need the extra money if gas goes up to $4 a gallon again. Take the rest of your reasons you love cash for clunkers and apply it here. Piracy does not help the companies or people that make the things, but it helps lot of other people and they are called the black market and those people need to eat too dammit. It would be smarter if the USA just did something about China who is breaking all the copyright and trademark laws by replicating everything and selling them here. Start there before busting some college kid for downloading songs illegally.

If people have free reign to download freely, it will expand to stores, and then nobody will feel any reason to buy anything. It is funny how you are in a thread that you started about business, and how you, like everyone else, wants the economy to improve, how that possible if people are destroying industries that employ many people?

Consider this, during the 90s when we had the awesome boy bands ;), we saw these businesses doing great. They were employing many many many people. Once Napster came along, those many many many jobs went bye bye. How are people supposed to pay their taxes, tolls, and other crap you mentioned if they have no job to pay them with? Yes, lets destroy jobs, then come on a message board and bitch about having no good paying jobs.

This is the thing I love about people :rolleyes: , they bitch and complain about the lack of quality jobs, but have no problem screwing over the companies that do pay.

We seem to agree on many things, but getting the economy moving is not one of those things. You fall in this idea that tax cuts help the economy. Well, how does giving people tax cuts help the economy, when those people save the money? It doesn't. What does work is exactly what this administration has done, put the money into the pockets of people that will spend. Our economy is based on 70% spending, when it should be closer to 60%, maybe lower. What needs to be done, and what China has learned, is bringing manufacturing back. The problem is that this will not happen for many reasons. Blame high taxes, but nobody complained about paying more during the 90s. It was during the previous administration that gave tax cuts for these companies that outsourced, that these jobs really began to move overseas. Now if we try to tax those companies for outsourcing, it is seen as being bad business practices and protectionism.

Do Americans really want jobs or do they want to bitch about how bad things are? I think it is the latter. Nobody wants to plan for the future, but rather live in the now. Things are going to get better, it takes time. If we do not build a foundation for the future now, we will be in the future asking why we did nothing to prepare for the higher prices. Wait till the cap comes of electricity next year. I can't wait to see the faces on people once they see their electricity bills. Yes, lets not prepare for the future, then wonder why we can no longer afford things. Oh well, it is America. :)

This is nothing against you, Abbie. I just remember last year when nobody thought gas would hit $4 a gallon. It did, and they freaked. They saw everything crash on them. We took a surplus that should have been used to get our country better prepared for those things last year, and squandered it on a war that should have never occurred. So, I live in this world were I believe we need to plan better for the future. Saying things won't happen, when they will, is stupid, and we need to get prepared now.

Abbie Normal

08-18-2009, 08:06 PM

If people are not pushed, they will not change. This is 100% for Americans. It is the government's job to make sure the country is running smoothly. Oil was above $70, now it is below, but it moves up and down all the time. As we discussed before, once the economy is in the clear, it will be moving up and up and up. Gas prices will go along with this, and we will be back to where we were last year. :mad: Not opinion, truth.

Come see me once the recession is over, and oil is above $100, and is on its way to $150, maybe even $200. This administration can't control supply and demand, unless people are forced to buy fuel efficient vehicles, then they can afford to pay for $4, $5, or even more for gas.

I would think gas being $4 a gallon would be enough of a push to want to buy a more fuel efficient car, but it wasn't.

I could go into a whole another rant off of what you said, but instead I am just going to say that this is a sad day for America and this socialist thinking will not last more than 4 years.

shoe1985

08-18-2009, 08:10 PM

I would think gas being $4 a gallon would be enough of a push to want to buy a more fuel efficient car, but it wasn't.

I could go into a whole another rant off of what you said, but instead I am just going to say that this is a sad day for America and this socialist thinking will not last more than 4 years.

If the economy is back, we could be discussing another 4 more years of Obama. If not, I hope an Independent steps up and does something to take charge. The only Republican I would put my trust in to get this country moving again would be Ron Paul. I love his crazy ideas, and it is what this country needs. Someone with real change.

shoe1985

08-18-2009, 11:17 PM

I figured out why you disagree with me, Abbie. If Obama succeeds, it will mean that your Republican lifestyle may have to change too. It may mean that new ideas will surpass the days of old.

I was on a message board once that said we should separate Dems and Repubs in the USA. Who do you think would survive? Well, Dems would because Repubs are greedy people. They would pull out their guns and shoot each other. While the Dems would survive because they would work together to succeed.

You don't like the cash for clunker program because it might mean that those gas guzzlers that Repubs. love, might have to go away, replaced by vehicles that won't use as much gas. Then a state like Alaska, which counts on oil for many of its funding money, will take a big hit. Even Texas would too.

I keep hearing how Repubs. keep pushing this idea of a death panel in the health care bill, funny. It really is when we already have that. You know how if you need a certain surgery, lets say a heart transplant, a board and your insurance company will consider whether you should get one based on many things, like age.

The Repubs. are saying they will not vote on a bill if it contains this, this, and this. So, Dems are supposed to give up everything in this bill, but Repubs. are not?

I hope the bill passes without Republican support, and it succeeds, this way we truly do change. I hope by next election year the economy is recovered. The reason you do not want to believe the recession is over is because you are afraid that the policies put into effect by this administration are working, and you don't like them.

That is why you disagree with everything I wrote. I could easily write why things are going to work, but you will discount them because they go against what you believe in. You don't want politics in this discussion, but it won't happen because your political views come into play. You know gas prices will go up again, and instead of planning for it now, you are like most Republicans that would rather wait for that day to come. Then you will blame everyone around you for the gas guzzler you drive.

Yes, people should have purchased more fuel efficient vehicles, but who would have predicted gas prices to hit $4? This is why you push Americans to get vehicles that get better mpg. In the short term, with lower gas prices, we may think it is pointless, but think long term for once. I know, Republicans are too busy living in the now, and not tomorrow. This explains why the country got to where it did.

No matter what, we can sit here and go back and forth voicing our views, but it won't solve anything. We are trying to force the other to think we are right. We have our views, and that is what we stand by. I don't agree with everything this administration has done, but I do like the direction they want to go, if allowed to go there, and it is not all socialism. We are lead to believe we are a capitalist country, well, we are not. We have a little bit of everything, and we make it work. At times we go off track, which is why we make changes to get back on track. In the end, we will be fine, we always are.

Abbie Normal

08-18-2009, 11:31 PM

Shoe, stop! Please keep this business in nature and not political. I read one line into your rant and I stopped.

I disagree with a lot of what you said, because I believe government is making too many laws to interfere with my personal freedoms. Government has way too many spending programs that only lower income people can take advantage of. I want people to stand on their own and stop all the hands outs. I want government to get much smaller, not larger.

I don't want tax money to be given to people buying new cars.
I don't want the government to run something as huge and expensive as a health care program and putting important decisions like health in the hands of politicians that are bought and sold.
I want lower taxes.
I want the USA to close hundreds of military bases all over the world.
I want to stop borrowing money from China.
I want the government to stop helping big corporations while killing small businesses.
I want the government to lower the trade deficit.
I don't want to live in a socialist country.
I want the government to stop trying to kill the free market system we have.
I want the government to stop telling businesses they have to make high risk loans.

And most of all, I want the government to stop telling me what is good and moral when many of them are not good or moral themselves. I want them to stay out of my life and give me back my freedom of life, liberty and my pursuit of happiness.

shoe1985

08-19-2009, 10:46 AM

Abbie, finally, something we can agree on, spending programs. See, I see these programs as short term, used to solve long term problems, but doing so now. We can disagree, fine, we can do that.

I want many of the same things you want.

I am a big supporter of pushing to make big business, smaller. We discussed Wal-Mart, who I believe is a monolpoly. They are too big. When you can come to a town, lower your prices to the point that even you do not make a profit on that store, and take other businesses down, is not right. This is a monolpoly. What happens when this company finally fails?

What you keep talking about with this socialist country stuff makes no sense. We are not a 100% capitalist country. We have a mix of everything, which is why we work so well.

What you also described that you do not want was basically our last administration. Remember, this was the administration that began taking away rights, pushing us to borrow huge amounts of money from China to fund 2 wars, 1 that was not needed. Taking a surplus, and giving it to the rich, while the lower and middle class were left to struggle. The same people that pushed for big business to get bigger.

My last political comment:
We have a long ways to go before our country is back to where it was when Bush took office. When he took office, we had a small recession, nothing to get worried about. He had a surplus. We had jobs paying money. Taxes were high, but nobody complained. NAFTA was working like it should. Then he took office, companies ran from this country because they were getting tax cuts when they moved overseas. We got attacked because he did not see any reason to go after Bin Laden.

Amazing how everyone came together after 9/11, but during this recession, everyone is attacking each other. We should be coming together to solve the problems at hand. Instead, everyone is fighting. How things have changed.

Darth Kenshin

08-19-2009, 11:42 AM

I don't want to read through all the political stuff going on, but I will say this: given our current deficit, I can't see how lowering taxes is a good idea. Individual income taxes comprises almost 50% of Government revenue. I don't see how a Government in debt can afford to slash it's most consistent revenue stream. The only way it could happen is if the Government got new revenue streams, such as controlling corporations. Russia, for example, has very low individual tax rates, but that's because its Government doesn't need taxes as a source of income, since it runs companies like the oil monopoly Gazprom. So as much as I would love to see lower taxes, it doesn't seem plausible at this point in time

shoe1985

08-19-2009, 11:51 AM

Once people begin spending again, tax revenues will increase. Which is why Obama and company don't want to raise taxes on middle income earners. The money would come from the spending. Which is why they are pushing to get people to spend. This would then create jobs, and create more tax revenues. It can get complex.

Abbie Normal

08-19-2009, 01:19 PM

Darth Kenshin

08-19-2009, 04:36 PM

What is wrong with making government smaller and lowering costs? I would start with slashing the military budget and dissolve the Department of Homeland Security. I am willing to put more people on unemployment from the public sector to lower costs.

Dude, I agree with you 100000%, but I don't think it's plausible right now (key phrase). I don't want to take this in a political direction, but considering the state of our international affairs, do you honestly think slashing the military budget and dissolving Homeland Security can really be explored? In a more stable time, perhaps, but now... I can't see it.

shoe1985

08-19-2009, 04:39 PM

What is wrong with making government smaller and lowering costs? I would start with slashing the military budget and dissolve the Department of Homeland Security. I am willing to put more people on unemployment from the public sector to lower costs.

I believe we all want a smaller government. But, right now, it is not possible. When you enter a bad recession, it is expected that government will step up and get the country back on track.

How does putting more people on unemployment solve anything? Just curious.

Abbie Normal

08-19-2009, 07:55 PM

Dude, I agree with you 100000%, but I don't think it's plausible right now (key phrase). I don't want to take this in a political direction, but considering the state of our international affairs, do you honestly think slashing the military budget and dissolving Homeland Security can really be explored? In a more stable time, perhaps, but now... I can't see it.

A lot of the military budget spending is on future weapons and research. That can be drastically cut right now. I also think if Obama said he was going to start closing bases that would be a good thing for the USA. Many countries will take that as a sign we do not want war 27/7/365.

Or are you saying that there are people in the world that mean to do harm to the people of the United States? If you say yes, you are agreeing with Bush. I don't want to see you do that.

Abbie Normal

08-19-2009, 08:34 PM

Sorry this is long, but important.

NEW YORK - The rules your credit card company operates by will start getting much clearer on Thursday. But just because you'll know what they're up to doesn't mean you're going to like what you learn.

Beginning Aug. 20, credit card issuers will have to give clients at least 21 calendar days to pay monthly bills and will have to warn consumers 45 days in advance of major changes in conditions, under provisions of a law signed in May by President Barack Obama.

Currently, credit card issuers have to mail bills at least 14 days in advance and provide a 15-day notice of changes in terms.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

These small changes come ahead of more sweeping regulations that will take effect starting in February. Those touch on matters ranging from mandating reviews every six months of accounts that have had rate hikes to limiting the credit that can be offered to students.

Card companies have been gearing up for the new landscape for months, mailing consumers a spate of warnings about fee and interest rate changes. If the notices already sent are any indication, consumers may not be happy about much of the new information they receive.

Citi, for example, is in the process of informing some cardholders that it will institute an annual fee, about $30, on certain accounts.

And American Express Co. recently sent out notice it will eliminate over-the-limit fees on its consumer credit cards in October. They were dropped in response to a provision in that law that, starting in February, requires card companies to offer a way for customers to agree to pay each time a transaction triggers such a fee.

But the good news from Amex stopped there.

Increases in interest rates
The letter Cynthia Vancho received last week from Amex informing her of the fee elimination also included notice that the interest rate on her card will jump to 10.24 percent from 6.99 percent. If she makes any late payments, the rate will shoot up to 27.24 percent.

And while overlimit fees are gone, Amex changed its fees for making late payments to $19 for balances under $250, and $39 for balances over that line. The prior fees were $19 for balances under $400, and $38 for balances over $400.

Vancho, who lives in Pemberton Township, N.J., sees rate and fee increases as penalizing good customers who did nothing wrong. "They're taking advantage of the situation," she said, maintaining that the hikes are being made to offset the cost of complying with the new rules. "I find it unfair for people who pay on time, pay over what is expected of them monthly and are basically good clients."

Amex spokeswoman Desiree Fish acknowledged the regulations played a part in recent rate and fee hikes. "The reason why we did it is to be responsive to the business and economic environment, which obviously included the recent regulatory changes," she said.

The company started changing rates and fees in November. Rates on certain credit cards like its Blue and Optima cards have risen on average 4 percent, while co-branded cards like airline miles cards are up an average 2 percent. "It's just part of the plan changes over the past few months that we've been making," Fish said. Citi spokesman Samuel Wang said in an e-mailed statement the new annual fees "also reflect the dramatically higher cost of doing business in our industry."

American Express and Citi are not unique. A survey by the Pew Charitable Trusts of nearly 400 credit cards offered by the 12 largest issuers in the country found that rates have gone up on average 2 percent since December. Banks are making the moves in response to an array of factors, including the regulatory changes and a spike in the number of accounts that have slipped into default as the unemployment rate has risen, said Nick Bourke, project manager of the Pew Safe Credit Cards Project.

"They're trying to manage a lot of uncertainty, because they don't know what this market is going to look like once this law takes effect," Bourke said. "And they're trying to preserve a very profitable business."

Easier-to-understand contracts
Bourke is among the industry observers who think the new law will benefit consumers.

"The things that people look at when they're looking at a credit card are: What's the interest rate? What are the rewards? And is there an annual fee?" Bourke said. Problems cropped up because banks started incorporating things consumers didn't expect, like overlimit fees and surprise interest rate hikes. "I think the transparency that the law brings will end up saving people money," he added.

Many elements of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act were actually echoes of regulations the Federal Reserve crafted last year that will take effect in July, noted Gene Truono managing Director with BDO Consulting, who previously worked for both Chase cards and American Express.

The aim of all the new rules is to make credit card contracts easier for consumers to understand. Previously, the disclosures on most credit card contracts were "not comprehensible to the average consumer," he said.

In that sense, things like the requirement coming in February that banks spell out on a statement how long it will take to pay off a card making only the minimum payment, and how much interest that will cost, are bound to help consumers manage their credit better, Truono said.

"It passes what I call the 'Dolores Test,'" explaining that Dolores is his octogenarian mother. "If most consumers read them and can actually understand them, it really does have the intended effect."

Nevertheless, while the new regulations will curtail most of the practices the credit card industry has been criticized for in recent years, Truono said consumers must still stay on top of their accounts, adding, "The disclosures are only as good as the consumers who actually read them."

Do yourself a favor and don't carry balances on your credit cards. You are not getting a bail out.

Abbie Normal

08-19-2009, 08:36 PM

hmm dup post

Abbie Normal

08-19-2009, 08:37 PM

UBS to divulge more than 4,000 account names

WASHINGTON - Looking to hide a few million from the taxman? Switzerland might not be your best choice anymore.

The U.S. and Switzerland detailed an agreement Wednesday for the IRS to receive information on thousands of accounts in banking giant UBS AG — accounts suspected of holding Americans’ undeclared assets.

The agreement breaks through the famed Swiss tradition of banking secrecy and is expected to prod thousands more UBS clients in America to voluntarily disclose their financial details to the Internal Revenue Service, lest they be pursued later.

“This is no mere keyhole into the hidden world of bank secrecy,” said IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman. “This agreement represents a major step forward with the IRS’ efforts to pierce the veil of bank secrecy and combat offshore tax evasion.”

Shulman said the accounts held $18 billion at one time, though many have since been closed.

The Swiss, known worldwide for keeping bank accounts secret, said UBS had no real choice in turning over the names.

Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf told a news conference in Bern that the deal lifts the threat of criminal prosecution, which not only would have endangered the bank’s existence but would have dealt a severe blow to the Alpine nation’s economy.

“There was no alternative to this solution,” she said.

The agreement is part of the Obama administration’s stepped-up efforts to go after wealthy tax dodgers hiding assets in offshore accounts, an initiative that promises to yield many more prosecutions, Shulman said.

UBS has an estimated 52,000 accounts held by U.S. customers. The IRS chief said the 4,450 accounts being identified were the ones most suspected of containing undeclared assets. Many of the rest are held by people who have complied with the law and paid their taxes, he said.

Tax experts said the agreement should terrify Americans who had been able to hide assets in offshore accounts for generations with little fear of being caught.

This list will be bigger than the MLB steroid list.

Abbie Normal

08-20-2009, 11:29 AM

WASHINGTON - More than 13 percent of American homeowners with a mortgage are either behind on their payments or in foreclosure as the recession throws more people out of work, the Mortgage Bankers Association said Thursday.

The record-high numbers in the report are being driven by borrowers with traditional fixed-rate mortgages, rather than the shady subprime loans with adjustable rates that kicked off the mortgage crisis. As of June, more than 4 percent of all borrowers were in foreclosure and about 9 percent had missed at least one payment.

One in three new foreclosures between April and June was from a prime, fixed-rate loan, up from one in five a year earlier. Last year, subprime adjustable-rate loans caused the largest share of foreclosures.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

The worst of the trouble is still concentrated in California, Nevada, Arizona and Florida, which accounted for 44 percent of new foreclosures in the country. Nearly 12 percent of all loans in Florida were in foreclosure, the highest in the country, followed by Nevada at 9 percent.

"Clearly we have not seen the bottom in Florida," said Jay Brinkmann, the trade group's chief economist.

President Barack Obama has pledged to fight the problem, but its foreclosure prevention program, known as "Making Home Affordable," is off to a disappointing start. As of July, only about one in 10 of eligible borrowers had signed up.

The success of the program depends on the economy stabilizing. The number of first-time claims for unemployment benefits rose unexpectedly for the second straight week, the Labor Department said Thursday.

The number of new jobless claims rose to a seasonally adjusted 576,000 last week, from a revised figure of 561,000. Wall Street economists expected a drop to 550,000, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters.

This is not good.

If the government really wants to help people in states like CA they should not just give away money or re do loans the way they have been doing it. What they should do is allow people to re do loans for the new lower values of their house. Many people bought their houses at such inflated values (like me) and now the houses are worth like a 1/3 less. This will make it harder to resell your home at a profit. Property taxes should also reflect the new value of homes. This screws over the banks, but better to have people paying than not.

I bought my house cheap after the market dropped, but it has still lost value.

Abbie Normal

08-20-2009, 11:32 AM

WASHINGTON - The number of first-time claims for unemployment benefits rose unexpectedly for the second straight week, a sign that jobs remain scarce even as other data show the U.S. economy is stabilizing.

Many economists expect the economy to grow at a modest pace in the second half of this year, bringing an end to the longest recession since World War II. But jobs are likely to remain scarce and many analysts worry that persistently high unemployment could cause consumers to hold back on spending, threatening a recovery.

The Labor Department said Thursday the number of new jobless claims rose to a seasonally adjusted 576,000 last week, from a revised figure of 561,000. Wall Street economists expected a drop to 550,000, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters.

Stabilizing does not mean jobs are being created with proof with an increase in first time filers. Economists know nothing. If they knew anything, they would have known how much trouble we were in before the recession started. They should all get a new career.

shoe1985

08-20-2009, 03:08 PM

This is not good.

If the government really wants to help people in states like CA they should not just give away money or re do loans the way they have been doing it. What they should do is allow people to re do loans for the new lower values of their house. Many people bought their houses at such inflated values (like me) and now the houses are worth like a 1/3 less. This will make it harder to resell your home at a profit. Property taxes should also reflect the new value of homes. This screws over the banks, but better to have people paying than not.

I bought my house cheap after the market dropped, but it has still lost value.

Just like anything in life with value, it goes up, it goes down. Remember, most of our parents bought their homes for $20,000, maybe a little more or less than that. I know the home I lived in growing up cost my parents $30,000, and it is what a $100,000 home is now. My parents sold it for $125,000 a couple years ago, so, they made a healthy profit. If you bought a home in the last 5-10 years, you were buying an inflated price that you could say was matching the current times. Now, times have changed, and prices don't match what they used too. It is like anything else with value. It sucks, but it is how it is.

Stabilizing does not mean jobs are being created with proof with an increase in first time filers. Economists know nothing. If they knew anything, they would have known how much trouble we were in before the recession started. They should all get a new career.
I feel like we need to take you back to econ 101. The job sector is always the last to come back after a recession. We are in for a long haul before we begin to see high job creation. We could consider the current unemployment as full employment for a long time. Considering the amount of jobs that were eliminated was due to many reasons. Many jobs are catching up with the times, newspapers anyone? I know of at least 5 that closed up in the last 2 years. I have seen about 6 or 7 record stores close up in the same amount of time. We are eliminating jobs that no longer play a role in our future, and this is going to hit our job market hard.

If it can be done online, we will begin seeing more cuts soon because online usually means for free.

Abbie Normal

08-20-2009, 04:40 PM

[QUOTE=shoe1985;3099397]Just like anything in life with value, it goes up, it goes down. Remember, most of our parents bought their homes for $20,000, maybe a little more or less than that. I know the home I lived in growing up cost my parents $30,000, and it is what a $100,000 home is now. My parents sold it for $125,000 a couple years ago, so, they made a healthy profit. If you bought a home in the last 5-10 years, you were buying an inflated price that you could say was matching the current times. Now, times have changed, and prices don't match what they used too. It is like anything else with value. It sucks, but it is how it is./QUOTE]

I agree. I say my idea is better suggestion than what is currently being done.

Technically, I think there should be a nationwide class action suit against all the companies that caused (the recession) housing to artificially increase so much, but that would be like suing ourselves, since they would just get another bailout to pay us back.

shoe1985

08-20-2009, 05:10 PM

The bailout was term used to describe what is really a loan. Most of the companies have already paid back the money. If anything, we are going to make a profit in the end because we were given stock in some of these companies, and when we do sell that, it should be more than what we paid.

If were to sue those who caused the recession, we could be part of that lawsuit. You have to remember, it was many bubbles that went boom, and bursted. It wasn't just banks and financial institutions. It was many different things and people.

I never did get why people complainined when we were going to put a cap on how much these companies were giving their workers. Lets see, you were given money, taxpayer's money, you should be working your ass off to get the company back into shape, and paying that money back. The last thing on your mind should be a bonus. Yet, people felt these people deserved the money. Umm, no. They almost took our economy down with their brilliant ideas, and you want to be rewarded? You got your company saved because we could not face what would have happened to everyone if we did not.

I bet someone is happy. The Cash for Clunkers program ends Monday. The average change of mpg from vehicles traded in to new vehicles was 9 mpg, unless it changed. That means you get an extra 9 mpg of gas compared to your previous vehicle. I wish I had a clunker now.