Why I Cry For America

[backtoschool]

I know before all the recent bankruptcy filings all fees and cost were very low. Now it's much higher due to filings. Banks never ever charged 29.99% until all the filings.

Please!

It is naive to think that the banks will not recoup their losses. Some of those losses are insured and some of those losses are recouped through higher fees, etc...

It is also naive to believe that bankruptcy protection is not a bail out of a sort. Being relieved of obligations or being given money to help with obligations is the very definition of "bail out". The difference between when I say "bail out" and when a conservative reactionary type says "bail out" is that I do not mean the word negatively. I will happily take any and all bail outs given to me.

Conservatives who file for bankruptcy protection have to reconcile their free maket values with the fact that they are not honoring their free market contracts. They are instead letting "Big Government" step in and "bail them out", and help them cancel those free market contracts.

[banca rotta]

Bankruptcy costs all consumers money in extra fees and higher rates. The creditors pass their costs onto everyone. I agree with you though that we saw the bubble because the profits for the banks were guaranteed.

I know before all the recent bankruptcy filings all fees and cost were very low. Now it's much higher due to filings. Banks never ever charged 29.99% until all the filings.

Please!

[backtoschool]

I don't agree with you example. There is a HUGE difference between BK and bailouts. BK is not a govt bailout program, hence it doesn't cost taxpayers anything.

Lenders are taking risks and they take much bigger risks knowing that the dems and republicans will bail them out with the end result being either higher taxes or higher inflation on the rest of us.

If bank executives knew they would fail with all these risks you wouldn't have seen the credit bubble you just witnessed.

Bankruptcy costs all consumers money in extra fees and higher rates. The creditors pass their costs onto everyone. I agree with you though that we saw the bubble because the profits for the banks were guaranteed.

[banca rotta]

Do you think your filing has no cost to society? Do you not think everyone has, in an indirect way, "picked up the tab" for your discharged debt? If you truly believe in personal responsibilty and going it alone without Government/ Societal help, why are you filing? Ah, you needed help, and recieved the protection of what was, at the time of it's writing, a very uncoventional set of statutes. Debtors prisons was the norm. I would say the BK laws, if proposed now, would be considered socialism and "wacked out liberal" policy- and yet - in your time of need- you embraced it. Things that make you go HMMM.

I don't agree with your example. There is a HUGE difference between BK and bailouts. BK is not a govt bailout program, hence it doesn't cost taxpayers anything.

Lenders are taking risks and they take much bigger risks knowing that the dems and republicans will bail them out with the end result being either higher taxes or higher inflation on the rest of us.

If bank executives knew they would fail with all these risks you wouldn't have seen the credit bubble you just witnessed.

BK is also no harder to file today since most will pass the means test either through high unemployment or higher inflation. Maybe in 2005/2006 it was but not now.

[WhatMoney]

Just as many Democrats wanted to reform bankruptcy laws and make bankruptcy difficult as Republicans. It is not about party affiliation as much as it is about taking a lot of money from banking lobbies.

Small point here, but 55 Repubs (ALL of them) and only 18 Demos voted for the BK reform act. There were 25 nay votes, as listed below, the "good guys" as I call them (w/ the exception of Lieberman of course). I pretty much agree with the rest of your post, which is unusual considering this board is dominated by far right conservatives and seditionists.

S. 256 [109th]: Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (Vote On Passage) Senate Vote #44 --- Mar 10, 2005

Ayes: 74
Nays: 25
No Vote: 1

Ayes by Party: 18 Democrats and 55 Republicans and 1 Independent
Nays by Party: 24 Democrats and 0 Republicans and 1 Independent

ALL Republicans senators voted for the 2005 BK Reform Act.
A Minority of Democrat senators voted for the 2005 BK Reform Act.

The 25 Nay votes for the 2005 BK Reform Act were:
CA Barbara Boxer (D)
CA Dianne Feinstein (D)
CT Christopher Dodd (D)
CT Joseph Lieberman (I)
HI Daniel Akaka (D)
IL Richard Durbin (D)
IL Barack Obama (D)
IA Thomas Harkin (D)
MD Barbara Mikulski (D)
MD Paul Sarbanes (D)
MA Edward Kennedy (D)
MA John Kerry (D)
MI Carl Levin (D)
MN Mark Dayton (D)
NJ Jon Corzine (D)
NJ Frank Lautenberg (D)
NY Charles Schumer (D)
NY Hillary Clinton (D) no vote
ND Byron Dorgan (D)
OR Ron Wyden (D)
RI John Reed (D)
VT Patrick Leahy (D)
WA Maria Cantwell (D)
WA Patty Murray (D)
WV John Rockefeller (D)
WI Russel Feingold (D)

All Democrats (including Obama), and NO republicans on the Nay list.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2005-44

[banca rotta]

No other President in history has taken on so many difficult goals in his first year. If you don't want any enemies - just promise nothing and do nothing - this is the Republican party's platform of "NO", or is it the "I Want American To Fail As Long As Obama Is In Office" platform of Rush Limburgher and his right wing radio listeners?

.

You are funny!

Where are these "right wing listeners"?

I wish we had right wing people as you say we do.

If so you would find people, businesses and banks rising and falling on their own merits.

Taxes and govt would be lower and smaller and the country would be thriving.

I promise you there are no right wingers at least in high places any more. Perhaps some say they are but no they aren't.

You can relax and let the left take us down the tank as they are doing. The left consist of dems and republicans.

[backtoschool]

Sofarsogood2, I agree with a lot of what you posted, but disagree with some of what you posted as well.

Just as many Democrats wanted to reform bankruptcy laws and make bankruptcy difficult as Republicans. It is not about party affiliation as much as it is about taking a lot of money from banking lobbies. Both parties do this. But I agree with you that Bankruptcy is as much of a bail out as a mortgage principal reduction would be and to be for one and against the other is inconsistent.

I agree with you in regards to Scott Brown, but I would add that he also got a lot of media attention because he is VERY good looking, and this helped his campaign. I am usually pretty jaded when it comes to reacting to someone's looks, especially a politician's, and I am a die-hard unapologetic progressive liberal, but even I couldn't stop staring at him when he came on the television.

I actually volunteered on Obama's campaign and I am very disappointed in what he has accomplished. But I do not think that anyone that was available to us at the time would have done any better. Our economy was truly in a melt down. The banks were ALL insolvent at the time. Lending had stopped completely. Obama got distracted by health care and the war in Afghanistan and did a stimulus that was too small to truly jolt the economy. Hopefully now he is scared enough to get back on track.

Clearly now is not a good time to buy gold. Buying gold at its peak out of fear will not protect you from hyper-inflation anyway. You will still have to buy that $200 loaf of bread. There were many people that bought gold at it's peak during the Carter years only to take a bath when the gold bubble burst and prices came tumbling down. Speculation is always risky. And individual investors do not have the tools to compete with the institutional commodities traders and will hurt themselves financially if they speculate based on fear.

Of course we must step in and help Haiti. Should we have had a better response to the victims of Katrina? Absolutely. We always should help those in need. Period.

[sofarsogood2]

It's a complete contradiction to claim "registered Independent" and then long for an "awesome progressive candidate". If you are a true independent you would probably clamor for an awesome independent candidate.

Ah, Ohio, I knew you would reply. As an Independent, I look for a progressive option right now because, in my opinion, the country and it's policies have swung way too far to the right. I have no allegiance to any party- I prefer to vote for what I think the country needs. Both parties, at this time, have ignored the well being of the American public. Do you really think either party gives a rats a$$ about you and yours?

I am not a Progressive overall, but feel having some in Congress would help balance out policies being enacted (health care, Wall Street Regs.) as Progressive policies lean towards the public good. I am for the good of all Americans- call it what you will- socialist, liberal, "wacked out far left"-whatever- the label doesn't matter- it's the philosophy that counts. Less labeling of ideas and options would probably be a great start towards "bi-partisanship"- what I would call representing the interests of your constituents.

Th Rs in Congress right now would love to take away your right to BK and a fresh start- they certainly made it more difficult in 2005. I find it ironic that someone who couldn't "pull themselves up by their own boot straps" advocates that very philosophy of extreme personal responsibility, capitalism running amok, and no consumer protections/ government intervention in business.

Don't expect me to pick up the tab for his irresponsible decision to buy a house he couldn't afford.

Do you think your filing has no cost to society? Do you not think everyone has, in an indirect way, "picked up the tab" for your discharged debt? If you truly believe in personal responsibilty and going it alone without Government/ Societal help, why are you filing? Ah, you needed help, and recieved the protection of what was, at the time of it's writing, a very uncoventional set of statutes. Debtors prisons was the norm. I would say the BK laws, if proposed now, would be considered socialism and "wacked out liberal" policy- and yet - in your time of need- you embraced it. Things that make you go HMMM.

Obama's actions are exactly as was expected by those who bothered to research his past. The truth was there. He has never accomplished anything except be elected and often that was via dirty Chicago style politics (ask Jack Ryan).

As far as my Obama vote goes, yes, I am disappointed. However, it was a choice between the lesser of 2 evils. A crazy old man and former beauty queen...what was the RNC thinking?

Scott Brown was swept into office by an electorate demanding change.

The Scott Brown win was due to several reasons:

1. MA has it's own Health Insurance Bill.
2. Disenchanted voters stayed home.
3. A really lousy Dem candidate.
4. He avoided identifying himself as an R. I believe he called himself an Independent.

However, wish as you might, it was not a referendum to move the coutry more to the right.

Buy gold? LOL- your kidding?!- gold is at it's peak right now.

America is helping Haiti because Haiti is in dire need of help. When Americans are in similar straits our government and our citizens jump in (i.e. hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes). America is and will always be a most generous country, unlike ANY other country in the world.

Katrina victims would beg to differ. If our politicians had the good of those citizens on their mind, they would have fixed the levys in the first place. I also don't recall sending in private planes and government planes to quickly evacuate injured people, as we are doing in Haiti. Our citizens are indeed generous when it comes to helping out during large scale disasters. But I do think some politicians would like to ignore the plight of individual poor Americans. Hence the fight over health insurance reform.

BTW, I love my country- just hate greedy, manipulative people who are parasites on the backs of good, hardworking Americans.

Don't bother to respond.

I will not convince you, and you will not convince me. We are worlds apart on this.

I'm going to agree to disagree- you have a right to your opinion and so do I.

* Please note, I am mature enough to not label you or call you any names. I would appreciate the same courtesy in the future.

[WhatMoney]

Obama's actions are exactly as was expected by those who bothered to research his past. The truth was there. He has never accomplished anything except be elected and often that was via dirty Chicago style politics (ask Jack Ryan).

The election is over - the conservatives lost. Get over the past.

Here are 500 promises Obama has made for his Presidency as compiled by PolitiFact. PolitiFact is keeping score. So can you, right here:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

The Obameter Scorecard

* Promise Kept 91
* Compromise 33
* Promise Broken 15
* Stalled 87
* In the Works 275
* Not yet rated 2

No other President in history has taken on so many difficult goals in his first year. If you don't want any enemies - just promise nothing and do nothing - this is the Republican party's platform of "NO", or is it the "I Want American To Fail As Long As Obama Is In Office" platform of Rush Limburgher and his right wing radio listeners?

It's normal to blame the President for everything - especially your own troubles. A great American tradition. This is only Year One for Obama. It will not be easy to pass anything with a 100% hostile Republican minority and without a Democrat supermajority (60) in the Senate. He now has only 58 Democrats, with a few renegades, and of course Lieberman the smarmy traitor doesn't count for anything but the Israeli neo-con insurance company representative.

BTW, FDR had a strong Democrat majority in the Senate when he passed Social Security in 1935. LBJ had a 67 Democrat Senate supermajority when Medicare/Medicaid was passed in 1965. And the right wing Republican conservatives were fighting both social programs all the way. Should we ask the American public if they would like to give up Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid for retirees and the disabled? Many of you would/will be living on the streets someday without these programs.

[OhioFiler]

I'm all for giving people a hand up- AFTER we fix our own problems and take care of our own citizens.

Why is it that Americans will offer free health care to citizens of Haiti (they are being flown in, on our tax dollar, to So. Fl. Hospitals, also on our tax dollar, daily) but giving that same right to an American citizen is considered some kind of welfare? By the way, Iraq has a single payer system-guess who's footing that bill?

Why are we so wrapped up in denying our neighbor assistance from the government, like a principle deduction, unless we get the same (even when our circumstances are entirely different)?

Why do we want Americans to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps", but we can offer free nation building to citizens of other countries?

Why do we think it's ok to bend over backwards for citizens of other countries, but gleefully give our backside to our own countrymen?

Why can a telethon for Haiti raise so much American money, but if you held an American Relief Telethon for our poor, the major networks wouldn't be interested, and neither would many Americans.

Why?!

That is what scares me most. The complete apathy in some circles to what Americans are suffering. The "keep government out, no taxes for social programs, survival of the fittest (richest) attitude that is prevalent. Celebrated in particular by one party, approved on the down low by the other party. We are a nation divided by dollars.

I had hoped Obama was even half of what he claimed to be during the campaign. But, much to my despair, he is more of the same. As did many voters in MA., I will probably sit out the midterms unless there is some really awesome progressive candidate (I'm a registered Independent). What's the point- one corrupt, corporate owned politician is the same as the next.

We will survive this, but what may come first is going to be ugly. We are unable to pull together as a nation of the people and for the people- our jealousy and self interest will be our undoing.

Obama's actions are exactly as was expected by those who bothered to research his past. The truth was there. He has never accomplished anything except be elected and often that was via dirty Chicago style politics (ask Jack Ryan).

It's a complete contradiction to claim "registered Independent" and then long for an "awesome progressive candidate". If you are a true independent you would probably clamor for an awesome independent candidate.

America is helping Haiti because Haiti is in dire need of help. When Americans are in similar straits our government and our citizens jump in (i.e. hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes). America is and will always be a most generous country, unlike ANY other country in the world.

Our country was founded on principles of freedom. To claim we are turning our backside to fellow citizens on the items you list is a whacked out far-left claim for socialism disguised as charity. If you believe your neighbor should have a principle reduction on his mortgage, by all means, go reduce his mortgage through your own charity. Don't expect me to pick up the tab for his irresponsible decision to buy a house he couldn't afford.

[sofarsogood2]

I'm all for giving people a hand up- AFTER we fix our own problems and take care of our own citizens.

Why is it that Americans will offer free health care to citizens of Haiti (they are being flown in, on our tax dollar, to So. Fl. Hospitals, also on our tax dollar, daily) but giving that same right to an American citizen is considered some kind of welfare? By the way, Iraq has a single payer system-guess who's footing that bill?

Why are we so wrapped up in denying our neighbor assistance from the government, like a principle deduction, unless we get the same (even when our circumstances are entirely different)?

Why do we want Americans to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps", but we can offer free nation building to citizens of other countries?

Why do we think it's ok to bend over backwards for citizens of other countries, but gleefully give our backside to our own countrymen?

Why can a telethon for Haiti raise so much American money, but if you held an American Relief Telethon for our poor, the major networks wouldn't be interested, and neither would many Americans.

Why?!

That is what scares me most. The complete apathy in some circles to what Americans are suffering. The "keep government out, no taxes for social programs, survival of the fittest (richest) attitude that is prevalent. Celebrated in particular by one party, approved on the down low by the other party. We are a nation divided by dollars.

I had hoped Obama was even half of what he claimed to be during the campaign. But, much to my despair, he is more of the same. As did many voters in MA., I will probably sit out the midterms unless there is some really awesome progressive candidate (I'm a registered Independent). What's the point- one corrupt, corporate owned politician is the same as the next.

We will survive this, but what may come first is going to be ugly. We are unable to pull together as a nation of the people and for the people- our jealousy and self interest will be our undoing.

[JRScott]

Living standards in this country have grown exponentially in the last several decades while the economy was migrating from manufacturing to service. The service jobs you cite have always existed and always will exist. North Carolina has survived the demise of the garment manufacturing industry. Ohio survived the loss of steel manufacturing and tire-building. Michigan will survive the loss of auto making jobs.

If the clowns in DC were smart they'd spend money on energy exploration and nuclear power plant construction. Instead, we get funding for windmills and give citizens tax rebates for installing energy efficient windows. THOSE would be high paying manufacturing and construction jobs.

North Carolina has not thrived with the trade treaties imposed by the Federal Government having lost both its textile and furniture businesses. It also routinely gets less money from the Federal Government than it deserves based on population.

[JRScott]

Buy gold!

You can't eat gold.

I know there is some that have espoused investing in gold, Glenn Beck among them but it is foolishness really. No economy that has collapsed in the last century has ever gone back to the gold standard.

You'd be much better off working up a food storage, etc than to save gold. (Not to mention if Obama brings back the old FDR policy you'll have to turn your gold into the government....how do you think we got all the gold in Fort Knox and Federal Reserve)

[JRScott]

So far we have not seen the deflationary pressures that were the hallmark of the Great Depression. Prices have not been coming down, and with all of the money that we are printing, I think hyper inflation is a more likely scenario than deflation.

We will not see deflationary pressure, in fact we'll see the opposite in the coming 2-5 year span, prices will raise and possibly dramatically. Even bumping interest rates back up to 1970 levels will not avert that.

[OhioFiler]

So far we have not seen the deflationary pressures that were the hallmark of the Great Depression. Prices have not been coming down, and with all of the money that we are printing, I think hyper inflation is a more likely scenario than deflation.

Buy gold!