OT: Health insurance

Page 8 of 11  
On Monday, August 19, 2013 6:16:06 AM UTC-7, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

,...massive snippage...>

Classic un-Constitutional argument for vouchers. Classic attack on the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Instead of fixing the public schools -- which is happening in some jurisdic tions, but not nearly fast enough -- throw them completely into the trash. Effect: relegate the disadvantaged to an even worse "education" than they r eceive now -- while the more affluent get the goodies.
This country was founded on separation of Church and State, Vouchers are a n excuse for sending your children to a religious school where they can be inculcated in whatever belief system you subscribe to.
Which sometimes, disastrously, means not only failing to teach critical th inking, but actively suppressing the child's ability to think, analyze, spe culate, IOW, use his/her God-given brains.
Which in turn too often means that the child grows up to be a bigoted adult who participates in society only from an ignorant, blinkered perspective.
Keep public schools secular. Parents have plenty of ways to influence thei r children in their choice of belief systems (religions). Houses of worshi p. Books. Parochial institutions. And on and on.
Instead of being grateful that America is a country where you can practice your religion freely because nobody can tell you what to think/believe, som e misguided people want to junk our treasures and turn us into a theocracy.
For just one (citing only the Islamists* because their theocracies are such a current world menace)-- try doing some research into what the Islamist s chools, religious leaders, and politicians ARE TEACHING THEIR CHILDREN. E asily acccessible on-line. Unbelievably horrifying.
Is that what you want your children to become?
Schools must be kept secular. Respect the Constitution. Instead of workin g to turn America into a theocracy, use some of your passion to IMPROVE THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS! Every child, rich or poor, is entitled to the best.
HB
*Islamists are the extremists; ordinary Muslims just do their own thing wit hout attacking others).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

actually it's the conservatives that are afraid that in giving the masses a better education might give them the idea that such things as early voting are good ideas, or that they might not approve the regional oligarchies.
the real flaw with vouchers is that it's just another method of funneling more money to the wealthy and still keeping the masses uneducated: how long before the free market raises the price of admission and the "rich" that could always afford it just chuck in the difference while the "masses" are still stuck where they've always been stuck?
I mean, in that particular free market just what are the forces that would tend to lower the cost of admission?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 3:03:28 PM UTC-4, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:

Take a course in economics 101 and you'll learn.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

lack of answer noted...as I expected
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Clearly a load of nonsense. Just look at which groups are on which side of the issue: who is it that wants to keep low-income children trapped in failing public school systems, and who is that want to give them a way out?
Hint: it's not the conservatives who are trying to keep these kids from getting a decent education.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

that's just their "public" persona. why educate the masses that you need to provide labor for your oligarchy? not to mention all the money they make from building sub-standard schools, publishing text-books and selling all those school supplies
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Madylyn Murray O'Hair would disagree. If she were able. Since she can't, I will :)
--

dadiOH
____________________________
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Government represents all the people. Prayer at government places is almost invariably Christian; oh, they might toss in a rabbi once in a while, depending on the location but at best it is Judeo-Christian.
What of the atheists like me? What of the agnostics like my wife (she is really an atheist, just too chicken to say so)? Where are the Buddhist prayer wheels? And the animists? Who speaks for them? What of Madam Pele? I don't see those government folks sacrificing a bottle of gin for her (not in public at least) or even sticking a ti leaf under a rock.

That's because they are non-profit, spending what they get for the public good. As far as churches being non-profit, that's fine with me as long as they also spend it for the public good regardless of affiliation of the beneficiaries; anything else other than donations, tax the suckers!

Fortunately. But there are many that would disagree with you, they consider it to be a Christian nation. Under god, yet.
--

dadiOH
____________________________
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


My general thoughts...
1. They stretched things more than a rubber band, e.g., "2) the vouchers were given to the parents"; they didn't think that the money was eventually going to wind up with a school?? They could skip a school and opt for a new TV?
2. Just more affirmative action (of which I also don't approve)..."providing educational assistance to poor children in a demonstrably failing public school system".
3. Although they said, "4) parents who received vouchers were not required to enroll in a religious-based school", better than 90% did. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... ____________________

Dozens of wrongs don't make a right. BTW, what are you doing that so severly screws up word wrap? _________________________

Yes

I saw nothing that even *hinted* at that.

It seems I have been misinformed. I thought it was the conservative republicans that were rich.

Of course they have a choice; all they have to do is pony up the tuition. Ditto the poor white families. ___________________

Umm, because they are PUBLIC? _________________

Better to fix the schools that need fixing. Not all that hard...teachers that can teach, kids that want to learn. _______________

No it isn't But the net result is that government IS subsidising religion. ____________________

Wait.

And why are they failing?
--

dadiOH
____________________________
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

most states aren't? so you think California is the only state that is piled trader4 in debt? LOL

but then look at all the others that didn't
It's not that CA has

I'm telly you very s-l-o-w-l-y that after going to doctors one after the other and you decide to do something about your overweight problem, I wouldn't accept a 9 month old analysis without checking the batteries in your scale

California is not now or has it ever been bankrupt. Your premise is wrong, your info is wrong, you are wrong

I don't care a rats ass about how much money you have, why should I?
As for children growing up with substandard education,

that's right you want government money given to the untermenschen so they can watch the TV ads with the beautiful people extolling the virtues of "that" school so that they will send their (money and) children to schools that are coincidentally non-standardized and unregulated
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, August 19, 2013 8:08:51 PM UTC-4, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:




u


So, because some other states are too, it makes CA OK? NJ has too much debt, for many of the same reasons as California. What does that change?


a

dit

Just

More failed logic. Because someone was able to buy a $2mil house on a $100K salary, pile up $100K in credit card debt, etc and not go bankrupt, it makes it a safe, sound strategy? Good grief!

e

rev

ch

r

use



Village idiot. I gave you link after link from credible sources that say CA is indeed in serious financial trouble, with massive unfunded liabilities. Your response is that because the stories are a few months old, they aren't relevant.


h

ne

p

I


le

he


I never said that CA is or was bankrupt. Stop lying and using strawmen.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

it's what the banks, those bastions of conservatism did, isn't it?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote: > > More failed logic. Because someone was able to buy a $2mil

"Was able" is an interesting shift of liability. Who "enabled" people to buy houses way beyond their means? Who stopped placing sensible restrictions on who could get a mortgage? Banks were falling all over themselves to write zero down loans. They did it because they felt they had to stay competitive and because they knew they would sell off that mortgage (and its inherent risk of failure) within months to people that believed the market could only go up. Of course, the rating agencies were labeling these badly secured mortgages as AAA instruments, furthering the fraud. The mortgages were tightly bundled into inseparable units to further conceal the fraud.
Where does the true "due diligence" requirement of lending money rest? I believe it's with the banks who were handing out (depositor's - not even their own!) money. In many states, the borrowers are off the hook if they relinquish financial interest in the mortgaged property - a contractually agreed to event with no moral "good or badness" involved.
There wasn't an army of evil natured borrowers conspiring to rip off the poor big dumb generous banks. Banks were all too happy to give anyone a loan because if and when it soured, it would be on somebody else's books and they would have captured huge fees from both the buyer of the house and the buyer of the mortgage-backed security. These were huge banks that some allege were *forced* by fear of the Feds (ha! - try greed) to write loans requiring no cash up front to people unqualified to get them. When enough zero down loans soured and the market became saturated with repossessions, the bottom fell out and the financial dominos began to topple.
Good lenders don't write zero down loans because of the increased risk. You may have noticed that the "zero down" car loans are back. Not much was learned from the 2008 meltdown. )-"
Several things contributed to the runaway real estate market, but securitization was the engine driving most of the trouble. Banks were packaging and selling those loans in the equivalent of sealed barrels. The rating agencies swore that those bundled mortgages were AAA prime investments (they weren't!) and they helped fuel the hunger for what turned out to be a lot of junk debt.
Banks could afford to write risky loans because they held that risk for a very short time. In their frenzy to cash in on the real estate spec frenzy they went from requiring 20% down payments, having verified jobs, tangible income and assets to simply checking for a pulse. Who's to blame for that decision? The people who lined up for "free" money or the idiots that were giving it away?
There's been a big (fraudulent) push to lay the crisis at the feet of borrowers who signed up for zero down loans. "Zero down loans" = "no skin in the game" = "very bad idea." It always worried me that the supposedly more financial astute conservatives were unable or unwilling to acknowledge that zero down home loans in the midst of a spec frenzy were a very bad idea on the part of the banks. All they did was to fuel the speculative market and that eventually got us to the 2008 crash.
The Fed's easy money policy had a lot to do with it, too. Economic numbers look great - for a while - when money's so cheap you can borrow it for almost any cockamamie reason. But eventually, the piper must be paid.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/insane-levels-of-leverage-by-the-too-big-to-fail-banks-not-deadbeat-borrowers-caused-the-financial-crisis.html
<<Bass testified to the FCIC in January 2010 that TBTF banks' leverage at the end of 2007 - yes end of 2007 (see page 13) shows almost all TBTF Banks were over 30 times, Citigroup at 68 times leverage; meant an adverse swing (in the value of the underlying collateral or obligations) of as little as 1.5% wiped them out completely - insolvent>>
So when people complain about home owners living above their means, they should reflect on banks like Citigroup, buying $68 worth of property or securities for every dollar spent. Works great until the bottom falls out of the market and you have to pay off on the VERY big bad bet. The big investment banks had that contingency "hedged" as well. They would claim the entire financial sector would collapse unless they got a HUGE government bailout. It's important for hard-over partisans to remember that both Bush and Obama were happy to oblige them.
Meanwhile, the poor working couple trying to buy their first house got priced right out of the market by the rampant speculators. Where did those speculators get all their money from? A lot of it came from the Bush tax cuts. Seems the ultra-rich didn't go out and create jobs with that newly-found money after all. They tried to make a killing in mortgage-backed securities. In the long run that "tax cut" money actually helped to destroy jobs when the house of cards fell apart. When someone's making a "killing" that means someone else is getting "killed" - the Bush tax cuts ended up "killing" the middle class by making them poorer and the ultra-rich much richer.
Simple inspection reveals that some of the best numbers the economy has ever turned in occurred during times of high corporate and personal taxes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/tax%20rates%20and%20economic%20growth%20cap.jpg
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/23/2013 10:28 AM, Robert Green wrote:

Was there ever a true 0% interest car loan? In the case of a house, the proceeds go to the owner and the bank is on the hook. In the case of a car loan, they are shifting money internally so it is easy to offer a minus % loan on paper. I'm pretty sure they are not taking a bath on the new car sale.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Says so on the ads "Dealer contribution may effect price."
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

but in the last kerfuffle, the bank wasn't on the hook. they either loaned other banks money to the buyer in the form of a mortgage they serviced, or they bundled tens/hundreds of mortgages and sold them as AAA securities
In the case of a

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 23 Aug 2013 10:28:49 -0400, "Robert Green"

The federal government. Fannie&Freddie are 100% to blame.

Why not? They were being guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US government.

When there is no risk attached, why not? It's what *YOU* wanted.

Wrong. The army of evil saw there was no risk. The banks had no risk. You lefties wanted to take it for all of us, thieves included.

You really are an idiot. I've been able to buy cars "zero down" for the last forty years; less than zero, really, because they folded in the sales tax (106% loans).

No, the leftists in the federal government, dummy!
<sniped more repetitive tripe>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, August 23, 2013 10:28:49 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:

More leftist nonsense. There is still some freedom left in this country, despite what you libs have done. You're able to jump off a cliff with a hang glider, or even without one, if you want to. You're able to go 30 miles out into the Alaskan wilderness in winter in shorts and a tee shirt. That you're enabled to do things doesn't mean it's OK to do them.
Who stopped placing sensible

For sure some of it was fraud. Some of it was monkey see, monkey do. Housing had always gone up and the corrections for a very long time had been modest. A lot of people from individuals to banks, rating agencies, regulators were lured into complacency.
The

Now there I disagree. Mortgages have to be bundled to make them marketable. An institution buying them wants to buy $20 mil or $100 mil worth of mortgages. They don't want to buy one or two on grannies farm.

It starts with the lender and yes, most of it belongs there. But it also extends to the institutions that rated the bundled mortgages and to the buyers of those bundled securities. Also throw in the appraisers.
>In many states, the borrowers are off the hook if they

I'd like to see some examples of that, ie where a borrower is off the hook by state law by just walking away.
But as to the no moral good or badness involved, that is precisely what you libs want. It's precisely where you're taking the country.

An army no, but there were plenty of people out there that figured heads I win, tails the bank loses and I don't care.

Huge fees? I wouldn't call them huge. They were the typical normal profits that lenders get from such transactions.
These were huge banks that some

You do if the CRA and regulators say by law you have to make them. Now, I'm not saying that was the sole reason for the problems, but it was clearly one of the reasons.
You

Nothing wrong with that. And these mortgages have been packaged and bought for decades. What do you think Fannie and Freddie, both created by the fed govt have been doing?
The

It wasn't anything new specific to these loans. Most banks haven't been holding on to the mortgages they wrote for a long time. And lenders are not limited to banks.

Both. Because it wasn't free money that was being given away. People were buying houses and agreeing to make the mortgage payments.

I don't know who the astute conservatives are that are refusing to acknowledge that zero down loans are a risky idea. I agree they helped fuel the speculative trouble.

And the Fed has gotten almost zero of the blame. I've said that here a long time. That the Fed deserves a lot of the blame. The low interest rates were justified in terms of performance of the overall economy and inflation. I think it was you who was just trying to blame Bush for having a terrible job creation record. While I don't agree that it was terrible, (unemployment was at 4.6%), you can't have it both ways. What do you think would have happened to jobs if the FED raised interest rates?
But at the same time the FED has buildings full on analysts that are tracking all kinds of economic statistics. They had to have known how real estate had doubled or more in price in many major markets in a short time. That is a classic sign of trouble brewing. They could have sounded an alarm, gone to bank regulators to see what the risk was, etc. No sign they did anything. Neither did any of the fed or state bank regulators either.
Same thing the FED did with the stock market bubble in 1999 -2000. Even a fool could see what was happening, but besides Greenspans mentioning "irrational exuberance", they did nothing. And there they had a direct too, the margin reqt for buying stocks, which they could have raised.

And where were all those bank regulators while this was happening? Where was Barney Frank, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, who pronounced Fannie and Freddie sound just weeks before they went kaput? Where were the other members of that committee? Anyone in the entire House or Senate? The WH?

Who exactly is complaining about homeowner's living beyond their means causing the crisis and not also assigning blame to all the other players? I've said many times here that there is a long list of people who are responsible, not just the homeowners who bought houses they couldn't afford.

I see, so then explain the stock market bubble under Clinton with his higher income tax rates. I suppose that is Bush's fault too.
And ignore the fact that the US govt has heavily subsidized housing for a long time. Subsidized it under with huge support by both Democrats and Republicans. As I pointed out before, earn $150,000 in a job, hand over 30% of it. Start a small business, earn $150,000, hand over 30% of it. But buy a house on zero down, live in it for 3 years or at least claim you did, sell it for a $150K profit and voila!, it's tax free. And along the way, you can deduct all the mortgage interest and the real estate taxes from your income. Then you're surprised when people do what the govt is incentivizing them to do?
Seems the ultra-rich didn't go out and create jobs with that

Oh please. Bush gave tax cuts to almost everyone paying taxes. For the lower income, many wound up paying no income tax at all. You make it sound like the ultra-rich took that tax cut and used it all, most of it, a lot of it, to buy junk mortgages. There is no evidence of that at all. Those mortgage securities were sold mostly to institutions and all over the world. But it's typical lib lunacy to try to ascribe everything bad that happens to people being allowed to keep a little more of their own money.
In the long run that "tax cut" money actually

There you go again. If you're lib feet smell, you'd try to blame that on the Bush tax cuts too.
When someone's

And there you have it folks. The classic lib lunacy and outright lie. That it's a zero sum game. That if one person is getting ahead, then it's because someone else is falling behind and they are screwing them.
The Bush tax cuts didn't make the middle class poorer, the middle class got tax cuts!
Try taking a course in economics.

Great idea. We'll just tax our way to prosperity! Another lib classic!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

wow, give those over-regulated businesses some freedom from them, because business knows better and now it's "complacency" not greed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I get a kick out of people thinking that either Congress or the regulators will be able to solve the problem. They (especially Congress) made it all possible.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.