-
Thank you for visiting HeavyEquipmentForums.com! Our objective is to provide industry professionals a place to gather to exchange questions, answers and ideas. We welcome you to register using the "Register" icon at the top of the page. We'd appreciate any help you can offer in spreading the word of our new site. The more members that join, the bigger resource for all to enjoy. Thank you!
The pulse of America
- Thread starter J Olender
- Start date
DPete
Senior Member
Have not read all the posts but we have become a nation of consumers instead of producers. As long as we import the tens of thousand shipping containers we are exporting jobs and our pulse follows suit. We as a country need long term steady jobs that free enterprise and industry provide. If you look back to the free trade agreement I think you will find the orgin of todays weak pulse, obviously there have been other factors such as the latest housing fiasco and govt. regs that have added insult to injury but in a nut shell the loss of jobs is the cancer eating away our quality of life. It took 30 years to get this way and damned if I can see any light at the end of the tunnel. 
John C.
Senior Member
The roots of our deficit spending government go back to the second world war but even then there was the expectation that the borrowed money was always going to be paid back. War bonds were purchased from the citizenry as an investment device.
The next big borrowing binge happened in the sixties with Johnson's Great Society. Medicare was invented and funded out of the Social Security Trust fund. That began the huge binge by democratic governments to help "those who can't help themselves". It also began the help those who can get us reelected syndrome . Each time money was needed for some government program to help the poor down trodden sap who didn't want to or couldn't work, another program was brought in through another less publicized part of the bill to help the rich. It was paid for by borrowing money again out of the Social Security Trust Fund. Back about the mid nineties someone audited the trust fund and came to the conclusion it was not making enough interest along with the "contributions" we all make to fulfill its obligations to the retired folks. The rates were adjusted and someone somewhere decided it was better to sell treasury certificates to foreign nations than to continue to raid our own retirement program. Foreign nations jumped at the chance to put their wealth in safe keeping in a stabile nation and they jumped at it like a kid on a lake side diving board on a hot summer day. Now this was to everyones liking until the recent economic troubles.
So now we have a huge jump again in a health care bill that no one yet has explained where the money to pay for it is going to come from. We have two wars with nation building programs for people who don't pay into our system, don't want our help and are too stupid to understand that they are responsible for their own problems. We allowed ourselves to be defrauded out of billions of dollars because we believed rich people would take care of our economy and not take advantage of designed weaknesses that stupid elected officials and bureaucrats hadn't even read and could not have understood anyway.
I've never undertaken a debt that I didn't intend to repay with interest and I'm quite sure that kind of ethic is part of all who frequent this site. Unfortunately our leaders have taken the idea that we can just shove debt loads down the line for someone else to pay. What my whole thought process comes down to is that we are at the end of that slope. Blue collar Joe right now is very lucky if he has a job and most of his friends and relatives probably don't have a job. Illegal aliens and outsourcing along with the collapse of the worlds largest fraud have pretty well shut off his way of making a living. The feds now are paying their unemployment on borrowed money. Taxing them more is a losing proposition. Jack white collar though is sitting high, dry, fat and happy hiding away and waiting for something to happen that he can take advantage of again.
Blue collar Joe isn't going to move to China for work. He isn't going to Mexico or Canada or Europe or anywhere else. When his unemployment runs out he will take to selling dope, living off the land or stealing from rich people. Like it or not taxes are going up if for no other reason than to prevent blue collar Joe from turning rogue. That kind of sounds like the atmosphere in Mexico right now.
So please make a case for why we should keep giving tax breaks to the rich.
The next big borrowing binge happened in the sixties with Johnson's Great Society. Medicare was invented and funded out of the Social Security Trust fund. That began the huge binge by democratic governments to help "those who can't help themselves". It also began the help those who can get us reelected syndrome . Each time money was needed for some government program to help the poor down trodden sap who didn't want to or couldn't work, another program was brought in through another less publicized part of the bill to help the rich. It was paid for by borrowing money again out of the Social Security Trust Fund. Back about the mid nineties someone audited the trust fund and came to the conclusion it was not making enough interest along with the "contributions" we all make to fulfill its obligations to the retired folks. The rates were adjusted and someone somewhere decided it was better to sell treasury certificates to foreign nations than to continue to raid our own retirement program. Foreign nations jumped at the chance to put their wealth in safe keeping in a stabile nation and they jumped at it like a kid on a lake side diving board on a hot summer day. Now this was to everyones liking until the recent economic troubles.
So now we have a huge jump again in a health care bill that no one yet has explained where the money to pay for it is going to come from. We have two wars with nation building programs for people who don't pay into our system, don't want our help and are too stupid to understand that they are responsible for their own problems. We allowed ourselves to be defrauded out of billions of dollars because we believed rich people would take care of our economy and not take advantage of designed weaknesses that stupid elected officials and bureaucrats hadn't even read and could not have understood anyway.
I've never undertaken a debt that I didn't intend to repay with interest and I'm quite sure that kind of ethic is part of all who frequent this site. Unfortunately our leaders have taken the idea that we can just shove debt loads down the line for someone else to pay. What my whole thought process comes down to is that we are at the end of that slope. Blue collar Joe right now is very lucky if he has a job and most of his friends and relatives probably don't have a job. Illegal aliens and outsourcing along with the collapse of the worlds largest fraud have pretty well shut off his way of making a living. The feds now are paying their unemployment on borrowed money. Taxing them more is a losing proposition. Jack white collar though is sitting high, dry, fat and happy hiding away and waiting for something to happen that he can take advantage of again.
Blue collar Joe isn't going to move to China for work. He isn't going to Mexico or Canada or Europe or anywhere else. When his unemployment runs out he will take to selling dope, living off the land or stealing from rich people. Like it or not taxes are going up if for no other reason than to prevent blue collar Joe from turning rogue. That kind of sounds like the atmosphere in Mexico right now.
So please make a case for why we should keep giving tax breaks to the rich.
dayexco
Senior Member
please make a case why we should keep giving tax refunds "EIC" to those who didn't pay in? why should those who busted their tail, took chances, even got lucky or inherited....have to sit back and allow somebody to take such a disproportionate share in the form of taxes just because they succeeded? i just don't understand that at all.
Iron@Dirt
Senior Member
Politicians dont and wont have the gumption to make the changes this country needs to get back on track, it would cause severe pain for the whole country. The cowardly way will be buisiness as usual, they have to protect their chances of relection you know. Not if but when the house of cards fall, they will still think throwing money at a problem will fix anything. This country has been bankrupt since 1933, check FDR 's anouncement to congress and the american people. So whats the next step, it ant gona be pretty.
joispoi
Senior Member
The upcoming taxes on "the rich" will not put a dent in the deficit. "The rich" are defined as anybody making (actually earning over $250,000 per year.....in the form of "wages" or "personal income").
My preferred tax structure is much more simple than what is currently in place, not to mention what lies ahead: Everybody pays the same tax rate....for example 18% on personal income. Add an additional 12% to anything over $100,000 per year. Give everybody (every taxpayer that is) a $6,000 tax personal tax deduction every year (this will help low wage earners pay for essentials, but everybody is entitled for the sake of equality).
Skip the death tax. More often than not, when someone inherits money, they quickly find a way to spend it. I'd rather see that money in circulation.
A doctor cannot save a bleeding patient simply by administering more blood. The bleeding must be stopped.
I think the state of California is a prime example as to why it is not productive to blindly tax a population that is loosely defined as "the rich". Between 1990-2010, 129 companies have left the state or de-invested in California. 25% of California manufacturing jobs are gone. A failed tax structure on a state level will be just as much of a failure- if not more -on a federal level. :beatsme
My preferred tax structure is much more simple than what is currently in place, not to mention what lies ahead: Everybody pays the same tax rate....for example 18% on personal income. Add an additional 12% to anything over $100,000 per year. Give everybody (every taxpayer that is) a $6,000 tax personal tax deduction every year (this will help low wage earners pay for essentials, but everybody is entitled for the sake of equality).
Skip the death tax. More often than not, when someone inherits money, they quickly find a way to spend it. I'd rather see that money in circulation.
A doctor cannot save a bleeding patient simply by administering more blood. The bleeding must be stopped.
I think the state of California is a prime example as to why it is not productive to blindly tax a population that is loosely defined as "the rich". Between 1990-2010, 129 companies have left the state or de-invested in California. 25% of California manufacturing jobs are gone. A failed tax structure on a state level will be just as much of a failure- if not more -on a federal level. :beatsme
Solutions start with you and your community
I tried to make this point before but I was too longwinded.
In the case of the politicians, put yourself in their shoes. Everyone wants their particular issue dealt with. A farmer wants a subsidy, (thats a tax on the population), a small business operator wants free trade, (cheaper products/machinery) and employee wants safer working conditions, (employers pay for this).
The above items can all cost the country and negatively affect the economy, especially if managed poorly. However each taxpayer sees their needs as paramount and must be satisfied to get their vote. That's democracy, can be crap but it's better than the rest.
In Australia we had some major economic reforms in the last twenty years which led to in increase in productivity and efficiency. This by and large led to benefits for all and a stronger and more competitive economy. We have in the last ten years years been coasting on the benefits of previous reforms and have been relying on the booming mining industry and China to pay our way. One day that will end and we had better have a good plan for improving our productivity and efficiency or we'll be in trouble.
What I'm getting at is that no Tea Party or other group of Politicians is going to fix the USA or Europe for that matter. You need a more economically literate population to require more sustainable solutions to economic problems or you'll just repeat the same mistakes. eg. I don't think that banks would be giving home loans to people who have no hope of paying them if the general population pointed out this was plainly stupid.
Get smarter, ignore the empty slogans and start in your own community and make it economically sustainable. The rest of the country might follow your example.
Dave
I tried to make this point before but I was too longwinded.
In the case of the politicians, put yourself in their shoes. Everyone wants their particular issue dealt with. A farmer wants a subsidy, (thats a tax on the population), a small business operator wants free trade, (cheaper products/machinery) and employee wants safer working conditions, (employers pay for this).
The above items can all cost the country and negatively affect the economy, especially if managed poorly. However each taxpayer sees their needs as paramount and must be satisfied to get their vote. That's democracy, can be crap but it's better than the rest.
In Australia we had some major economic reforms in the last twenty years which led to in increase in productivity and efficiency. This by and large led to benefits for all and a stronger and more competitive economy. We have in the last ten years years been coasting on the benefits of previous reforms and have been relying on the booming mining industry and China to pay our way. One day that will end and we had better have a good plan for improving our productivity and efficiency or we'll be in trouble.
What I'm getting at is that no Tea Party or other group of Politicians is going to fix the USA or Europe for that matter. You need a more economically literate population to require more sustainable solutions to economic problems or you'll just repeat the same mistakes. eg. I don't think that banks would be giving home loans to people who have no hope of paying them if the general population pointed out this was plainly stupid.
Get smarter, ignore the empty slogans and start in your own community and make it economically sustainable. The rest of the country might follow your example.
Dave
Cat Wrench
Well-Known Member
AusDave, with all do respect I highlighted and underlined the part which proves you have no idea what you are talking about.
You need to study the problem a little closer.
This will help if you even care;
YouTube - The Crisis of Credit Visualized - Part 1
Cat Wrench
Well-Known Member
Orchard Ex
Super Moderator
A reminder to be civil and keep this industry related, not a general discussion on politics. And don't give me that "all politics effects our industry" stuff...
JoeinTX
Well-Known Member
My, my, my.....
Steve and Cat Wrench are nailing it here.
So please make a case for why we should keep giving tax breaks to the rich.
Roughly 50% of the earners in this country don't pay any Federal income tax at all. The top percentiles pay the overwhelming amount of income tax as it is today with the current tax structure. I suppose you like living off of the "rich" and want to do so even more in the future? Remember, these are the "rich" as defined by the current drool-bib wearing Administration as those making $250k/yr. Ya know, monocle clad millionaires who live in mansions and have dozens of servants washing their RRs off of their $250k/year.
How many entities generating less than $250k/year are serious job creators in this country?
As long as we import the tens of thousand shipping containers we are exporting jobs and our pulse follows suit. We as a country need long term steady jobs that free enterprise and industry provide.
And why are those containers from overseas arriving? Simple. It's cheaper to produce and transport, all costs considered, overseas than to produce close to home. Why? Unions and taxes. Take it for Gospel, it is.
Unions-
Edited. See below
Taxes-all taxes are paid primarily by the middle class. Raise taxes on the "rich", the primary owners of business and industry in this country, and they do the logical and natural thing for any business and they pass that along to the consumer.........i.e., the middle class. When Bush enacted the tariff on imported metal products, guess what, the price of anything containing steel went up. We all noticed it and felt it.
No one on this board, no one, operates any differently. No person here simply accepts higher operating costs, says "oh well, I guess they got me this time" and digs dipper into their great big account to pay up. DOES NOT HAPPEN. In this respect, the "rich" and big business and small business are no different.
It's not that hard, people, and I'm frankly surprised that with so many seemingly involved in business on this board that this so very basic concept is lost.
Essentially, the less overhead on any business INCLUDING GOVERNMENT TAXATION is always a good thing for any biz to survive and even thrive.
Steve and Cat Wrench are nailing it here.
So please make a case for why we should keep giving tax breaks to the rich.
Roughly 50% of the earners in this country don't pay any Federal income tax at all. The top percentiles pay the overwhelming amount of income tax as it is today with the current tax structure. I suppose you like living off of the "rich" and want to do so even more in the future? Remember, these are the "rich" as defined by the current drool-bib wearing Administration as those making $250k/yr. Ya know, monocle clad millionaires who live in mansions and have dozens of servants washing their RRs off of their $250k/year.
How many entities generating less than $250k/year are serious job creators in this country?
As long as we import the tens of thousand shipping containers we are exporting jobs and our pulse follows suit. We as a country need long term steady jobs that free enterprise and industry provide.
And why are those containers from overseas arriving? Simple. It's cheaper to produce and transport, all costs considered, overseas than to produce close to home. Why? Unions and taxes. Take it for Gospel, it is.
Unions-
Edited. See below
Taxes-all taxes are paid primarily by the middle class. Raise taxes on the "rich", the primary owners of business and industry in this country, and they do the logical and natural thing for any business and they pass that along to the consumer.........i.e., the middle class. When Bush enacted the tariff on imported metal products, guess what, the price of anything containing steel went up. We all noticed it and felt it.
No one on this board, no one, operates any differently. No person here simply accepts higher operating costs, says "oh well, I guess they got me this time" and digs dipper into their great big account to pay up. DOES NOT HAPPEN. In this respect, the "rich" and big business and small business are no different.
It's not that hard, people, and I'm frankly surprised that with so many seemingly involved in business on this board that this so very basic concept is lost.
Essentially, the less overhead on any business INCLUDING GOVERNMENT TAXATION is always a good thing for any biz to survive and even thrive.
Last edited by a moderator:
J Olender
Well-Known Member
Great thought Joeintx. Just a quick thought, people say we need to tax the "rich" well, isn't that what we're all trying to become?!?! So where does that leave us?
John C.
Senior Member
AusDave,
I know you mean well and what you are saying is absolutely true. But we do have some issues with our system that are probably unique.
The first issue with getting involved is the time you have to take out of your business in order to volunteer for your community. If you are working local it's only a matter of a couple of nights a week and maybe some homework here and there. School boards, municipalities, fire districts and cities are usually always looking for people to volunteer their time and expertise. One can do that at times, just not all the time.
Second issue is that we are a republic and not a true democracy. We elect people who we think represent our interests to spend more time in a less than local place to govern us. For a Washington state representative that means every other year you go to the capital in January and stay there until at least the end of March. Sometime you go into special session and stay until the end of May or beginning of June when your do nothing legislature does exactly that.
Now our federal wags have to go back to the nations capital which for my state is at least 2,500 miles away. They stay there almost all of their time except when they have to come back home to campaign for re-election every two years for a representative or six years for a senator. Again we are supposed to vote for the person that we think represents our best interests. In actuality we vote for the person that will do us the least amount of harm.
When you get a person that has been in office for a long time people know what to expect from that person so they usually get re-elected easily. The new person running is an unknown so their potential for doing harm is greater than the person in office. It takes a great deal of money to un-elect a sitting politician. Because of that we have a nuclear arms race of money trying to get a new politicians put in place. Because of the huge sums required now to get elected, the politician has to prostitute their values so that the money keeps coming in so they keep getting elected. Now we are stuck in the never ending circle of re-election cycles voting for the same people time after time.
This piece of circular logic has a slang description of "Catch 22" I first heard it coined in a movie about WWII bomber pilots. You see unless the incumbent politician does something bad, like getting caught soliciting sex from another man in an airport bathroom or having someone paying to build your house at no cost to them, they ride the gravy train higher and higher until they die in office or finally retire. No one wants to take the chance on someone they don't know.
The answer to ending this cycle is term limits which has been stated more than once in this thread. All that would take is a constitutional amendment. I believe that requires an act of congress and ratification by two thirds of our states. It's an easy fix except that we are forgetting about the "Catch 22". Our politicians will never cut their own throats and the electorate will not take the risk of harm to themselves in voting for new politicians every four or six years. You see everyone wants term limits for everyone else's politicians, not our own. The trap our founding fathers could not possibly have foreseen has come up to bite us two hundred years later.
Our system is loosely based on the English system of governing I think. I haven't studied the English much, only heard parts of how their system works in the news. Perhaps your system has many of the same components. I would like to hear a little bit about how your system works if you have the time.
Thanks for the outside input into the thread.
I know you mean well and what you are saying is absolutely true. But we do have some issues with our system that are probably unique.
The first issue with getting involved is the time you have to take out of your business in order to volunteer for your community. If you are working local it's only a matter of a couple of nights a week and maybe some homework here and there. School boards, municipalities, fire districts and cities are usually always looking for people to volunteer their time and expertise. One can do that at times, just not all the time.
Second issue is that we are a republic and not a true democracy. We elect people who we think represent our interests to spend more time in a less than local place to govern us. For a Washington state representative that means every other year you go to the capital in January and stay there until at least the end of March. Sometime you go into special session and stay until the end of May or beginning of June when your do nothing legislature does exactly that.
Now our federal wags have to go back to the nations capital which for my state is at least 2,500 miles away. They stay there almost all of their time except when they have to come back home to campaign for re-election every two years for a representative or six years for a senator. Again we are supposed to vote for the person that we think represents our best interests. In actuality we vote for the person that will do us the least amount of harm.
When you get a person that has been in office for a long time people know what to expect from that person so they usually get re-elected easily. The new person running is an unknown so their potential for doing harm is greater than the person in office. It takes a great deal of money to un-elect a sitting politician. Because of that we have a nuclear arms race of money trying to get a new politicians put in place. Because of the huge sums required now to get elected, the politician has to prostitute their values so that the money keeps coming in so they keep getting elected. Now we are stuck in the never ending circle of re-election cycles voting for the same people time after time.
This piece of circular logic has a slang description of "Catch 22" I first heard it coined in a movie about WWII bomber pilots. You see unless the incumbent politician does something bad, like getting caught soliciting sex from another man in an airport bathroom or having someone paying to build your house at no cost to them, they ride the gravy train higher and higher until they die in office or finally retire. No one wants to take the chance on someone they don't know.
The answer to ending this cycle is term limits which has been stated more than once in this thread. All that would take is a constitutional amendment. I believe that requires an act of congress and ratification by two thirds of our states. It's an easy fix except that we are forgetting about the "Catch 22". Our politicians will never cut their own throats and the electorate will not take the risk of harm to themselves in voting for new politicians every four or six years. You see everyone wants term limits for everyone else's politicians, not our own. The trap our founding fathers could not possibly have foreseen has come up to bite us two hundred years later.
Our system is loosely based on the English system of governing I think. I haven't studied the English much, only heard parts of how their system works in the news. Perhaps your system has many of the same components. I would like to hear a little bit about how your system works if you have the time.
Thanks for the outside input into the thread.
digger242j
Administrator
JoeinTX said:
Since here in our industry, the union/non-union question is always a hot-button issue, our policy is to be "aggressiviely neutral" on the topic. That means you can't slam unions, any more than the union guys can argue their benefits, which they will.
This thread is already requiring far too much attention from the moderators to keep it within bounds.
Last edited:
Hi Cat Wrench.
I did watch the videos and already understood the credit crisis before this discussion and I stand by my comments.
However I think I understand why my statements don't make as much sense to someone in the US as they do to someone in Australia or maybe the rest of the world. Although I won't say Australia wouldn't have a housing crash, it couldn't happen in the same way as the US. When you take out a home loan in Australia YOU take out the home loan, not the house. Whichever way the economy goes you can't walk away from your loan, you have it, not the house.
Also in Australia giving loans to those could obviously not repay would not be allowed. We do have low doc loans but those too are scrutinised carefully by the tax office as they are often used by people with money from the black economy to avoid tax. There are a series of checks and balances in our system which it would seem to be of benefit to the US to consider. That's what I meant about getting smarter. Educate yourself about the way your economy works compared to other economies. At the very least you should be able to make much better investment decisions for your business and family. You may even consider going metric...
AusDave
Cat Wrench
Well-Known Member
Hi Cat Wrench.
I did watch the videos and already understood the credit crisis before this discussion and I stand by my comments.
However I think I understand why my statements don't make as much sense to someone in the US as they do to someone in Australia or maybe the rest of the world. Although I won't say Australia wouldn't have a housing crash, it couldn't happen in the same way as the US. When you take out a home loan in Australia YOU take out the home loan, not the house. Whichever way the economy goes you can't walk away from your loan, you have it, not the house.
Also in Australia giving loans to those could obviously not repay would not be allowed. We do have low doc loans but those too are scrutinised carefully by the tax office as they are often used by people with money from the black economy to avoid tax. There are a series of checks and balances in our system which it would seem to be of benefit to the US to consider. That's what I meant about getting smarter. Educate yourself about the way your economy works compared to other economies. At the very least you should be able to make much better investment decisions for your business and family. You may even consider going metric...
AusDave
Dave, I figured it would be hard to understand that loans were given to those who couldn't afford it but believe me friend that is exactly what was happening. If a family cannot come up with 10-20% down what will happen to them when not if a problem arises? Default.
If I understand you correctly you are saying we need to get involved and change the way things are done? Well that is precisely what we are doing in the next 22 days. Many of us have been involved for a long time.
I like the loan system as you describe it in Australia.
I am already convinced we should be on the metric system:thumbsup:usa
Nothinbetter
Well-Known Member
My personal take on the melt down.
I don't know if I am write or not, but I have read a huge amount about this and I also have some friends in the loan buisness.
Banks were pressured/forced to give loans to low income people who would not normally get a loan. This pressure was from the government, Andrew Como while at HUD himself said these very loans would have a higher rate of default than a normal loan. Yet they kept pushing these very things due to "it was the right thing to do" as he put it.
An investor at one of the companies that insure the banks came up with a credit default swap. My understanding was they would at 1st group "good" debt with bad and sell it as an investment. This spread the risk around and would cushion any defaults. In time though some lenders found that no one was checking the stuff in these. So they could put bad debt with more bad debt and still sell it. The lender made money on closing costs and no risk due to they were going to sell the bad debt. That is how we got into no money down, or even no proof loan. No proof loan you go into a bank, show no ID or proof of a job and get a loan. Of course then there are adj rate loans, interest only loans etc. People didn't realize at some point there payments were going to go up. Since most places have property taxes they also went up.
Again the bank or lender didn't care because the loan was sold as fast as it was made. Due to now anyone could get a loan this allowed people to make dumb choices over paying for houses. With no down payment, these people didn't care. Houses that were going up in value 10%-50% a year. This drove up home values and other people would refinance there current home taking money out to pay for vacations and other things. Others were "flipping" homes, buying, putting very little into them then selling at a huge profit.
The problem is with wages going up at about 2% a year, inflation at about 2% it wasn't going to continue to begin with. Then when oil took off, that was in my mind what sent it all crashing down. People who were paying $25-$50 a week in fuel, were then paying double and triple that. Heating cost went up, it had to end.
Now people who bought or refinaced and took money out now have home not worth the balance of the loan.
Of course our leaders didn't do anything and those that tried were called racist or poor haters.
What is really sad, is, nothing yet has really been done about this whole mess.
I don't know if I am write or not, but I have read a huge amount about this and I also have some friends in the loan buisness.
Banks were pressured/forced to give loans to low income people who would not normally get a loan. This pressure was from the government, Andrew Como while at HUD himself said these very loans would have a higher rate of default than a normal loan. Yet they kept pushing these very things due to "it was the right thing to do" as he put it.
An investor at one of the companies that insure the banks came up with a credit default swap. My understanding was they would at 1st group "good" debt with bad and sell it as an investment. This spread the risk around and would cushion any defaults. In time though some lenders found that no one was checking the stuff in these. So they could put bad debt with more bad debt and still sell it. The lender made money on closing costs and no risk due to they were going to sell the bad debt. That is how we got into no money down, or even no proof loan. No proof loan you go into a bank, show no ID or proof of a job and get a loan. Of course then there are adj rate loans, interest only loans etc. People didn't realize at some point there payments were going to go up. Since most places have property taxes they also went up.
Again the bank or lender didn't care because the loan was sold as fast as it was made. Due to now anyone could get a loan this allowed people to make dumb choices over paying for houses. With no down payment, these people didn't care. Houses that were going up in value 10%-50% a year. This drove up home values and other people would refinance there current home taking money out to pay for vacations and other things. Others were "flipping" homes, buying, putting very little into them then selling at a huge profit.
The problem is with wages going up at about 2% a year, inflation at about 2% it wasn't going to continue to begin with. Then when oil took off, that was in my mind what sent it all crashing down. People who were paying $25-$50 a week in fuel, were then paying double and triple that. Heating cost went up, it had to end.
Now people who bought or refinaced and took money out now have home not worth the balance of the loan.
Of course our leaders didn't do anything and those that tried were called racist or poor haters.
What is really sad, is, nothing yet has really been done about this whole mess.
Last edited:
Hi John.
Two points.
1. Yes, it seems like in the US your system of Government has some issues. Take a look at the way other countries govern, no point reinventing the wheel. There's a lot to learn from the recent issues in the US which have lead to your current economic state. But you have to overcome vested interests who don't want change.
In the recent Health Care debate in the US for example, Australians were bemused at why you would let the health insurance industry dictate the outcome. I think our Australian Medicare system is similar to Canada and Aussies are very happy with it and can't understand why the US, which has higher health care costs than us, can't make the change.
It seems the US has the best democracy money can buy...
2. Getting involved volunteering in your local community doesn't need to take time out of your business. I'm president of the board of one of our significant local charities which makes a large contribution to our community. It's run by local people for the benefit of local people. Meetings are at night at a time agreeable to the rest of the board.
Getting involved in your community in this way not only benefits your community, it raises your own profile in a positive way. This is good for your business as long as you conduct yourself with integrity and avoid conflicts of interest.
In regional communities where word of mouth is one of the best forms of advertising, being involved in your community as a volunteer is good for your community, good for your social life and can have real positive benefit for your business in my experience:thumbsup
AusDave
watglen
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,324
- Location
- Dunnville, Ontario, Canada
- Occupation
- Farmer, drainage and excavating contractor, Farm d
Wow! Has this thread got some legs! Great Stuff.
Anyway, I have to agree with AusDave with respect to aussies view of the US political system. As a Canadian, I think the US system is terribly paralyzed with special interests and pork. The whole country is thinking me me me. You can hardly blame the politicians for fighting for perks for their own constituency when it gets them elected back home.
I was arguing with an American woman on a cruise one time about Obama’s health care plan. ( I lived in LA for a while so I know the American system a little bit) Anyway, I was beating on this woman at a bar to try to get her to justify her statement that there was no way in hell she was going to pay for anyone elses health problems. (I know Americans well enough to know you guys are not the least bit selfish like this) So I hammered on her for an hour to crack this selfishness, and find out what lied underneath. Finally she let it slip out that she doesn’t trust the government to do healthcare right.
It was a real eye opener for me. This health care debate wasn’t about cost, money, poor vs rich, or anything else. It was about trust. Who knew? That was the day I realized a lot of Americans don’t trust their government(with good reason likely) and it changed my perspective on all politics.
Anyway, that was my little story.
You wanted to know something that works different in another country. In Canada, political contributions are capped at $1000. Not sure if that is personal contributions, but I know that’s what it is for companies. So there is now way a company can swing policy with money (maybe it happens but not to the extent as in the US)
Also, Canada is more federalist. That means the federal government has most of the power. The provinces, not so much. It creates a lot of angst regionally because lots of regions want the power to govern themselves, but it also forces the provinces to work together to get programs from the feds. It ends up keeping the provinces all working together instead of against each other. This is kinda nice in my opinion. A downside is lots of times nothing gets done locally, since programs have to apply country wide in a lot of cases. Sometimes it seems like nothing ever gets done.
What we don’t get is a law governing vehicle emissions, with a little line in it giving $20b to big pharma for instance. I must say that after many hundreds of years of lawmaking like that, the US has one seriously screwed up set of laws. Seems to me the US should start over, keep the constitution and bill of rights, scrap the rest and start over.
Anyway, that is just my opinion, and I’m no expert.
One thing is for sure, the grass is always greener…
Cat Wrench
Well-Known Member
Oh how I wish this would happen as does many of my fellow Americans.:usa