Bad economy

Theo Zhounil

Theo Zhounil

Artisan
Lol.

I tried to take out a personal loan today to help me buy a new car and the loan support guy told me that since the economy has been so bad that Wachovia has stopped giving personal loans 6 months ago. And if i wanted to get a car loan, The car itself would need to be a 2003 and be at least $8,000.

Save me, Obama!!!
 
Amusing note :

The AIG bailout is more expensive than simply giving every taxpaying resident of the US $80k to spend.

When am I getting bailed out?
 
Myth. That math is off.

The AIG Bailout was approximately 165,000,000,000 (165 billion). That only includes U.S. bailout money, not the billions given them by European countries.

The population of the U.S. is approximately 300,000,000 (300 million).

Say 1 in 3 people are taxpayers, that would give each person $1,650 (165 billion divided by 100 million).

Even if only 1 in 10 people were taxpayers, that would only give each taxpayer $5,500 (165 billion divided by 30 million).

An easier way to look at it is to multiply 100 million by $80,000. That gives you $8,000,000,000,000 ($8 trillion). $8 trillion is about 49 times as much as 165 billion.

Relatively simple (though very large) math debunks this internet urban legend.

Though with the way the government is going, we may be in 8 trillion of debt sooner than later.

Regardless, the economy sucks and we feel your pain Mike.

I also would have rather seen the money go to taxpayers than AIG. That's what the government did in 2008, more or less, when most people got $600 stimulus checks. As it stands now, only overpaid executives get "stimulus checks" this year to the tune of $700,000 or so.

Scott
 
Myth it is. I still agree that it would have made me happier to see that money go out to the populace rather than propping up a mismanaged financial company.
 
Wraith said:
Myth it is. I still agree that it would have made me happier to see that money go out to the populace rather than propping up a mismanaged financial company.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see them do this by getting rid of the income tax and cutting off overseas spending on our empire. It would also be nice if we could all keep the money we currently put into the world's biggest Ponzi Scheme, aka Social Security. Then maybe you could save up money in a reasonable amount of time and buy a car without having to lend the money from a bank.
 
One idea that has been floating around is a payroll tax holiday. That's a huge tax that affects poorer people much harsher and would make a huge difference to the average person's paycheck.

And one thing to keep in the back of your mind: Whenever a politician says "We can't afford health care" be sure to point out that a national health care policy insuring all citizens would still cost less than this bailout or the Iraq war. It's all a matter of priorities.
 
The government provides roads for us to drive on, paid for by our tax dollars. If National health care is socialism then so is our entire highway system!
 
Yes, apparently providing free education for every child is perfectly fine, but making sure they are all healthy is evil socialism that must be avoided.

I never quite understood that one out.

Anyway, sorry, I didn't mean to start a thread hijacking.
 
Quite frankly, I wouldn't want to trust my life to a medical establishment with the success rate of our educational system. :D
 
Fearless Leader said:
Yes, apparently providing free education for every child is perfectly fine, but making sure they are all healthy is evil socialism that must be avoided.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's not. Once upon a time Republicans were for getting rid of The Department of *insert name here.* These days most would rather just expand government & spend like crazy while in power, and then complain about Democrats spending too much when out of power.
 
I can understand the whole reasoning behind the government not giving us all big checks. Because at that time all of our money would be worth less than the wheelbarrow we would have to use to push it around in. I don't quite understand this and perhaps it is because I am a stupid young kid. I understand companys struggle and to a point I understand the government bailing them out. But to me it just seems like it would make more sense for the government to pay off consumer debt. If instead of actually just giving the bank money they need because they particapated in shady unethical practices to me it would make more since to give this money to the banks with the stipulation it was to pay off consumer debt. Because it just seemse like the government is giving the banks money because people are unable to pay their debt. Then the banks are still charging people the debt they owe them. So to me it seems that the banks could quite possibly receive this money twice. I would really like to see the government say X%(a relatively small number of the trillions given to the banks) is to pay off John Does debt etc etc etc. Which as a tax payer I would be ok with. However, my tax dollars going to support companys that are failing because of their own unethical practices slightly bothers me. Now, if the government used theese bailouts to pay off consumer debts such as credit cards, homes, loans, etc etc these Americans would then have more money that they could go out into the ecconomy and spend. I understand some of those people would end up in the same situation once again. Moreover, I get that that wouldn't be fair to Americans who have tried to remain debt free. But the thing is our tax dollars are going to be given to these corporations anyways. I would much rather see them be used for some bit of good. As I stated before I am sure that there is some deeply flawed logic in this and I am sure you will all be more than kind enough to point it out. But I would just rather see the money help Americans and not greedy coprate america.
 
Social security used to work and had lots of extra money. Then some genius in government said "Let's borrow money from the social security surplus for x, y and z, because those programs are broke. If social security needs it back, we'll pay them back." Social security never got paid back.

One of the U.S. governments biggest mistakes they make over and over is that when something is working well, they decide to break it by using it's success to bolster something that is a failure.

Gas tax and tolls were supposed to go ONLY for roads and highways. But they dipped into it for other things. Now our roads are falling apart.

If there is something working in government, someone incompetent is sure to come along and screw it up.
 
Mmm.. I think the school system should be 100% Privatized. Let the people take over where the Government keeps messing up there. I bet we'd get better scores in 5 years with a privatized system. Sadly, the Governments "No child left behind" program is what is messing us up. Good intentions, poor outcome.

*And I am an Independant... regardless of that Republican check next to my name. I wasn't allowed to pick anything but Dem or Rep.
 
Wraith said:
Quite frankly, I wouldn't want to trust my life to a medical establishment with the success rate of our educational system. :D
Click to expand...

And you wouldn't have to, just as you don't have to send your kids to public school and can send them to private school as well.

A national health insurance program would in no way prevent private health care from existing.
 
Fearless Leader said:
Wraith said:
Quite frankly, I wouldn't want to trust my life to a medical establishment with the success rate of our educational system. :D
Click to expand...

And you wouldn't have to, just as you don't have to send your kids to public school and can send them to private school as well.

A national health insurance program would in no way prevent private health care from existing.
Click to expand...

That's correct, I may be wrong but wouldn't national health care put a cap on what a Doctor charges? You know that's probably what will happen when the gov't figures how much people are being charged in the hospital system right now! but I think they would probably cap the charge for private doctors.
 
Dargon said:
Fearless Leader said:
Wraith said:
Quite frankly, I wouldn't want to trust my life to a medical establishment with the success rate of our educational system. :D
Click to expand...

And you wouldn't have to, just as you don't have to send your kids to public school and can send them to private school as well.

A national health insurance program would in no way prevent private health care from existing.
Click to expand...

That's correct, I may be wrong but wouldn't national health care put a cap on what a Doctor charges? You know that's probably what will happen when the gov't figures how much people are being charged in the hospital system right now! but I think they would probably cap the charge for private doctors.
Click to expand...

Depends on the system. There are a couple of thousands of variations that could be used, from a Massachusetts-like "everyone must buy health insurance just like they buy car insurance" program (which sucks) to a Canadian-like one which basically has doctors working for the government on salary as well as private doctors (who can charge whatever they want).

So who knows?
 
There are lots of potential problems if you don't prop up AIG though: http://www.stock-market-idea.com/?p=430

Wraith said:
Myth it is. I still agree that it would have made me happier to see that money go out to the populace rather than propping up a mismanaged financial company.
Click to expand...
 
As a mass resident I'd just like to chime in and say the "you must buy insurance" thing is not as simple as you make it sound Mike.

It does say you have to have insurance, any insurance. The important part is if you cannot afford it the state provides it. They do this so the tax payer isn't picking up emergency room visits from the poor that are forced to wait till it is too late anyways. Statistically the poor (I am one of them) use the emergency room rather than a doctor visit- and it is far greater a cost and taxing the old system. The insurance the state provides allows a huge amount of choice- My list of doctors is as thick as a phone book but lists just dental, medical, mental and optical doctors(plus specialists.) By the way I have needed many a specialist etc but every time I look in the book every doctor I need and nearly all of the doctors in the Local hospital are in the book.) The only thing I can't get is lipo, or a nose job etc.needed a doctor

And as a heart attack survivor (with the doctor voted Number 1 or 2 best in the state and nationally recognized as one of the best cardiovascular specialists in the country, which also equates to one of the best in the world), and being able to pay lower costs on everything (because I have insurance) all because the state makes me have insurance. The cost of which changes as does my pay. I can even choose to keep it if I move out of poverty (and I will because the state run insurance in many ways is far reaching, and very good). I would like to say the You must buy system is pretty phenomenal. My old boss loved the fact that she could have her own insurance that she chose and noone forced her, and I am happy with the provided resources for dental, mental, physical and optical insurance my state provides me for next to nothing. The argument that a patient has to wait weeks upon weeks in a system like this is simply not true.

The present national health care system is problematic at best. The argument "we have the best medicine in the world is BS (IMO). The wealthy in this country have access to it, the middle and lower classes do not. Becuase it costs so damn much without insurance. The medication I take to regulate my heart rate alone would cost me $650 a month and there are medicines far more expensive. If not for the insurance- which I do pay a little for and my taxes go to- allows me to have access to that medicine. and it is all because of the "you have to have insurance" plan in Ma.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top