Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

No need to wonder...current mortgage bank crisis...

Posted By: sam on 2008-09-20
In Reply to: And the economy isn't already gasping its - last breath? Gee I wonder why.

brought to you courtesy of greedy democrats on Congress and greedy Democrats at the top of Fannie Mae. The handwriting is on the wall. This one's on you. McCain saw it coming in 2005 and the dems shut him down. Well, we are reaping what they sowed. To quote Toby Keith...how do you like them now?


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

If the current mortgage securities plan prevails,
come out of it all smelling like a rose. They are proposing to refinance the mortgages based on inflated appraised values that existed BEFORE the mortgage crisis, not the current lower values. In this way, the homeowners will still end up owing more on their mortgages than their homes are actually worth....they will just be paying for it for a longer term with more accumulated interest on the loan. Those terms are the ones we need to keep our eyes on and see how it plays out, but it looks to me like it is not going to make it into the next session of Congress.
Bush vs Obama on the current crisis
I think I cannot post the link (?) but go to Youtube and search "timeline shows Bush, McCain warn.... for a news piece aired in Canada (and certainly not in the US on the MSM).  Back in 2002 Bush and McCain both warned that Fannie and Freddie needed overhauling ,after the Clinton/dem policy that anyone who wants a mortgage should get one had us on a collision course with financial ruin. But did anyone listen?  Noooooooo!  Bawney Fwank said:  We're all just fine here.  No problem.  Nothing to look at, people.  Move along.  Chuck Schumer said:  Fannie and Freddie have been doing an outstanding job and there is no problem.  So, once again history has vindicated a republican, but we in the US are being protected from such dangerous information.  How about a REVERSE fairness doctrine?
McCain has fogotten the stock market crash, mortgage/credit crisis,
unemployment rates, job losses, stagnant wages, rising prices in gas, food, health care, etc, etc, etc.
Why should we pay your mortgage?
Why on earth should the people who were smart enough not to jump on the bandwagon and buy a bigger house than they could afford give a 30% mortgage decrease to the people who went hog wild and spent above their means? I am not a homeowner, by choice, and I am totally against giving anyone a decrease on a mortgage that they agreed upon when they purchased their home. You make a mistake, you pay the consequences!
Mortgage
Somebody who cannot afford to buy a house should not buy a house, bedasue they do not want to lose out on the rent money.
There are people out there who buy a house, rent it out and expect the tenants to pay the mortgage. If something goes wrong, who pays the mortgage then?
Wrong speculations!
about that fixing your mortgage --
are they going to go back and fix everybody's mortgage that has already had their house foreclosed?
DH and I should get our mortgage fixed....
we have no debt but our home, have never missed a payment or been late, pay a few hundred dollars extra every month towards the principal, have never taken out a HELOC or used our equity (quite a bit) for anything and have a fantastic credit score. We should have our rate lowered below the 5% it is now for doing a great job. But no, we'll give a break to those who bought too much house, had to compete with the Jones' and who took out foolish loans to begin with.
The Mortgage Failure......

Check out the mortgage failures.
Tell me which failed more, prime or subprime
Tell me what is the rate of failures under the CRA or even Bush's ADDI (which i attack alll the time)
Once again, REALITY AND THE DATA doesn't fit ya'lls claims.


Basically what happened was.. we reformed bankruptcy laws.. so that people who ran into dire straights could not restructure.



We packaged the loans into commodity derivatives. These are sorta mirror bets on the loans. Sorta..as the same loan will be sold many times in many derivative packages.. that's why the housing derivatives are worth more than all the real estate in the US. Derivatives are actually not that bad.. when a market is stable and only has to deal with natural forces. The housing market was bubbled.. partially due to low interest rates that encouraged everyone to buy, even the rich, and partially due to the CRA and the ADDI.. which did add customers to the market (helping form the bubble was the extent the CRA and the ADDI had in this mess)


All it took was a few failures to pop the bubble..and make real estate prices drop,. and mind you, it was mainly prime loans (READ not loans given to poor people and not loans under the CRA) that failed. The derivative market.,.which like I said, is really mirrors of the same loans.. cause the defaults to explode with ten times the ferocity, because one loan could effect the price of dozens of derivatives.


Really the poor and even irresponsible people .. simply did not have the economic ability to cause this mess. Pool all their money together and waste it on hookers.. it would have zero effect without help from the rich elites and their magnifying packaged derivatives.


THE CRA and ADDI both had stricter requirements than loans you got from normal banks.. both required income data.. where many prime loans did not.. they also greatly limited you on how much home you could purchase..whereas private banks did not care if you tried to buy something you could not afford.
Don't believe me?.. Look in the phone book.. call your own housing authority - you can get a loan for 106% the purchase price of a home even today.. if you're poor enough.
 


Ask to hear the red tape and hoops you must go through.. Heck, it is probably easier to just get a real job and earn real money than go through the FHA.




 

I don't think we should bail out anyone's mortgage.
Anyone who took out a mortgage and signed a contract to repay the loan and needs to do so. I don't care if they are illegal aliens, legal aliens, space aliens, or United States citizens.
That's how the mortgage cookie crumbles!
I am still against bailing out homeowners only!
the whole mortgage thing upsets me...sm
I have a subprime mortage and have had for over 3-1/2 years, but I make my payments on time every month. I can't even get a refinance to go through with almost $40,000 in equity in the house and only needing a loan for $85,500, as I put down a big down payment when I bought the house, but if I had an ARM or was in foreclosure there are programs that would put me in a new mortgage. So, here I am trying to take care of my bills, be a productive citizen, and I get no help. Makes lots of sense don't it.
McCain's mortgage plan
Did anybody understand when McCain brought up plan to buy bad mortgages and renegotiate, etc. Would that be with the $700 billion we are already shelling out or would this be an additional $300 Billion the taxpayers have to pay. If I can get my mortgage renegotiated with the government, maybe I'll just stop paying my mortgage and get something out of this after all!
Citi is my mortgage holder too. sm
They are just downright nasty when you call, can never post things on time, and then have the nerve to call and ask me when I am going to send my check when I have my bank statement in front of me saying they processed the check 3 days before they called me.

I am with you...LET THEM ALL TANK. Why should I give ANYBODY more of my hard earned money. And that includes Obama and his "redistribution of the wealth" schtick.
Disagree. Mortgage lenders FM/FM
and sub-prime mortgages did it, along with all the money certain senate leaders got for sticking up for for FM/FM. It's called GREED.
Dear Crabby, about the mortgage
Yes, American people were also greedy, but there were predatory lenders who got higher commissions for giving out those certain types of ARM mortgages. Do you know what an ARM is? Even if people qualified for conventional mortgages, the mortgage brokers didn't offer them because there was more money in it commission-wise for them if they brokered the ARM loans. We can thank Bush and the repubs because they did not want to regulate any of this.
You really should educate yourself.
Fugget about Uncle Tom's Cabin. Is that your claim to fame? aww shucks.

I have my mortgage throught CitiCorp.....
I wonder if I will see any of that largesse....NOT. Guess you have to be on the letter head. Oh well....LOL
what exactly is a bank run?
x
Rush just said the same thing....give everyone with a mortgage...sm
something like $75,000 to pay down their mortgage.




Do you agree with him also?
Yes, slimy mortgage companies who have no oversight....they don't ask anything
just selling 'em as fast they could and packed them all up into nice little derivatives to drive up the bubble and make fast money - at our expense.
You don't mind paying for an illegal mortgage?
nm
Check your bank.........
A financial advisor on the Today Show this morning warned all Americans who have more than $100,000 in the bank, to shift their money to other banks that are FDIC insured. The FDIC only insures up to $100,000 per person. That does not mean different accounts within the same bank or different branches of the same bank. DIFFERENT insured banks. I, myself, do not have to worry about this as I don't even have a fraction of that, but I find the fact that this advisor felt the need to come on the air and spell it out very telling. She also said your bank will tell you that you just need to create more than one account within the same bank - NOT TRUE. She also said to watch the stocks of your bank - if stock prices continue to fall - get the he11 out!  BTW, greed is a sin, eh?
And our bank accounts are

in such wonderful shape today, right?


We now live in a fascist society where the Bush government is buying the banks.


Socialism would be a giant step forward.


Bank of Obama

 Because everyone deserves a bailout!


http://www.bankofobama.org/


BT, I am sooo with you, we also finally paid the mortgage, the cars are ours....sm
and no more credit, bad debts and loans killed the economy and Wall Street. Just providing for our 3 kids and making ends meet is the daily challenge, but we have each other and a good extended family, I so hope that the good thing that comes out of this crisis is LESS MATERIALISM in this country, back to simpler living and being happy with less!
I'd be happy if they just reduced everybody's mortgage rate to a fixed 3%. sm
Then everyone is still responsible for the debt they took on, yet they're still getting a break. It would free up a couple hundred bucks a month for me, which I could then use elsewhere to stimulate the economy. Fewer foreclosures, banks are still getting their money.
Yeah, but wouldn't it be great if they paid your mortgage?
Apparently, you have no problem with charity if it begins at "home."
There IS no constitutional crisis.
Recession teetering on the brink of depression. WAKE UP, will ya?
Maybe it isn't a crisis, just extortion and
I bet it won't be long before some of the anti-union people (poster below) will be begging for union representation.  Since Reagan kept his promise to break the unions it's been a downhill course and I imagine we've just about reached the bottom of the hill.
Bank of America to cut 35,000 jobs.......sm
over the next 3 years.  Weren't they the ones who put money in your savings account every time you made a purchase? 

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4BA6ZD20081211?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
The feds should use the bank & Wall St.
Then put a lien on, and sell, their fancy mansions in upstate NY, their yachts, their Mercedes, etc.  Let their kids to go public school instead of fancy private ones.   They're the greedy ones who got us into this mess, let THEM pay for it, not us.
If it's a felony to incite a bank run, then
shouldn't these people on Wall Street be prosecuted?  After all, if they hadn't done what they did to the economy, then we wouldn't have to withdraw our money.
Yeah! Could I rob and bank and claim to be
nm
What is the bank bail-out if not socialism? s/m
Maybe you'd have better luck with your employees if you gave them a raise.  If you have a profit margin that allows you to give them a 25% bonus, surely a 10% raise wouldn't cause you to suffer too much.
Bank executives will be getting bonuses
and we are fighting over crumbs and religion.
"Central international bank" = sm
One-world currency. Interesting.
Who benefited from the bank bailout?

Wall Street, Citigroup, AIG, Fannie May/Freddie Mac, the car companies.


I don't want a check either but wouldn't be nice if they would give us the money instead of coming up with all these carppy bogged down packages?


What would you do if they would give us $30K or more?  That would probably cost less than what they are proposing and you know darn well, that money would go into the economy faster than their plan.


 


I was speaking about bank bailouts
not the stimulus. Two different things.

Since the banks are crying that they are losing money because of people not paying mortgages, etc., would it not make sense to boost them back up by providing the money THEY ARE GOING TO GET ANYWAYS to the homeowners first and therefore killing two birds with one stone?

Or no, lets just throw more money at them with no stipulations and no rules and bend over and continue to take it while they go on another vacation and laugh all the way to the bank. That definitely makes more sense.

Since people who rent aren't involved with the mortgage/bank crisis, no they would be left out of this one. But like Zville posted, they could be covered under the stimulus side of this "economic relief" that's being proposed.

How does it not tick you off that all the businesses are getting a bailout and "infusion" of cash but the average citizen is still going to suffer for the next two or three years?


Wanda on the bank bailout
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KADr2KG5aso
Wrong. Democrats are responsible for the mortgage meltdown, not Bush....
McCain tried to tell them in 2005...Dems blocked the regulation he begged for for Fannie/Freddie. But the Dems were too deep in the pockets...Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, James Johnson, Timothy Howard...all democrats, all walked away from fannie Mae with golden parachutes of millions...and we are left holding the bag. Fannie contributed more to Chris Dodd, Democratic head of Banking and COmmerce committe than any other senator in the past 20 years...followed closely by Barack Obama, who has only been IN the senate for 2 years...you do the math and follow the money. Democrats largely responsible for this. ANd you want to put one in the white house. Who wants to raise taxes in this financial crisis. What part of collapse of the economy don't you...and Mr. Obama...understand?
Actually, you are wrong about his role in this crisis....
concerning Fannie and freddie, he tried to get legislation passed to deal directly with them...and the Democrats blocked it. Fact is, John McCain was on the RIGHT side of this issue, and perhaps if the Democrats had listened to him in 2005 we would not be facing this crisis today. In the interest of full disclosure and truth, this is what he said regarding that legislation:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

He saw it coming, tried to tell the Dems, and they blocked it. Chris Dodd, head of banking and finance comittee, Democrat, largest recipient of donations from them. Guess who was #2?
crisis manufactured by Bush

they knew about this for weeks -- trying to railroad dems before election.


 


The truth about the housing crisis...
I will warn you this is long, but if your interested in the truth this is a good place to start.






Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card

Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist,
and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current
state of journalism.

An open letter to the local daily paper - almost every local daily paper
in America :

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's
journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before
the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague
emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late
1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more
accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized
to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to
be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor - which especially
would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these
people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a
house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -
along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it.
One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried
repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such
attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political
contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to
make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were
allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to
contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support
increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who
produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a
position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700
billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which
politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage
lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party
or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a
vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank,
both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused
Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these
agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost
up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts
Matter?" ( ]" target=_blank>http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com<http://snipurl.com/457to>]
): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of
the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's
Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The
party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic
Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican
deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to
account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took
offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who
is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million
while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one
presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on
housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have
called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper
every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried
this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an
"adviser" to the Obama campaign - because that campaign had sought his
advice - you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain
of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to
the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles,
you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all
Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically
selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including
Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you
would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow
Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration
never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not
stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension - so you pounded
us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you
created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that
there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American
people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they
tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama
because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as
hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim
you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your
paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie
- that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and
the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame
everything bad - even bad weather - on Bush, and they are responding as
you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and Editor would be
insisting on telling the truth - even if it hurts the election chances
of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth
even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what
honesty means . That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He
has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time - and you have
swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin,
reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried
daughter - while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery
for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know
what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will
throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women
threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his
well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who
listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no
principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and
the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven
and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list
of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been
getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with
its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its
lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories
will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which
put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about
helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a
Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the
truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once
to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton
administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and
blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe -
and vote as if - President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis,
then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats - including Barack
Obama - and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants
were Republicans - then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and
it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we
can actually have a news paper in our city.

This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro ,
North Carolina , and is used here by permission.

Like I said before, try focusing on a REAL crisis.
x
Financial crisis meeting;

November 14, 2008
World leaders dine in style as they discuss financial crisis


(CNN) – The global economy may be undergoing a significant downturn, but the White House's dinner budget still appears flush with cash.


After all, world leaders who are in town to discuss the economic crisis are set to dine in style Friday night while sipping wine listed at nearly $500 a bottle.


According to the White House, tonight's dinner to kick off the G-20 summit includes such dishes as "Fruitwood-smoked Quail," "Thyme-roasted Rack of Lamb," and "Tomato, Fennel and Eggplant Fondue Chanterelle Jus."


To wash it all down, world leaders will be served Shafer Cabernet “Hillside Select” 2003, a wine that sells at $499 on Wine.com.


The exceedingly pricey wine may seem a bit peculiar given leaders are in Washington to discuss a possible world financial meltdown, but Sally McDonough, a spokeswoman for Laura Bush, said it "was the most appropriate wine that we had in the White House wine cellar for such a gathering.


McDonough also said the White House purchased the wine at a "significantly lower price" than what it is listed at.


"Of course the White House gets its wine at wholesale prices," she said. "Given the intimate size of the group, it was an appropriate time for The White House to use this stock."


The leaders of the U.K., France, Russia, China, India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey and 11 developing economies have all come to Washington at the behest of President Bush in an effort to express confidence in the fundamental underpinnings of the world's economy.


– CNN's Becky Brittain contributed to this report


My solution to carmaker crisis

SUGGESTED SOLUTION TO CARMAKER'S CRISIS, AS WELL AS SOME ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES


Maybe I've gone off the deep end - but I'm so sick of hearing about the big 3 bailout requests I've come up with a serious suggestion to help them.


I think its environmentally, morally, and financially irresponsible for the government to give tax breaks to those who buy NEW cars (much less bail out the manufacturers). The majority can't afford them anyway (or can't guarantee they'll have a job to make payments on them tomorrow), and we already have enough cars! Backyards and junk yards are full of cars because we can't get parts for them! How many economy cars that were good on gas are sitting in junkyards - because we don't have the parts to keep 'em on the road?


Why can't we get parts? The greedy corporate suits in Detroit figured if we couldn't get them, we'd be forced to buy new cars whether we wanted to or not! So they won't make them. I guess their plan didn't work, because when we bought new cars, we bought them from someone else.


I believe replacement parts manufacturing can be profitable - as the few little companies that make replacement parts for classic cars can prove. It might not restore the bonus of every deprived CEO in Detroit, but it could save quite a few line jobs. There is no longer a big market for new cars - but there's a constantly growing market for replacement parts. Its better than continuing the denial that Detroit has been in for the last decade - clinging stubbornly to the myth that we LIKE what they make, that we WANT it, and that we can AFFORD it, and that every one of us pines away for shiny new giant gas-guzzler in our driveway. We like what they USED to make, the muscle cars, the economy cars, the cars that were our sentimental favorites back in the day, when cars didn't cost the price of a house, and lasted longer than the 5 year warranty! They still have the blueprints to make the parts for those models, as well as parts for later-model cars past their warranty. That's what we want, what we can afford - and the sheer volume of parts purchased would make them a profit as well as helping the little guy with bad credit survive. Not everyone can get a loan for a new car - or even a used one - but those that can't could probably come up with the price of a needed part


I propose we reduce the production of new cars drastically. Instead we revamp a large number of our factories to manufacture parts for the cars that already exist (if we really MUST bail out the big 3, let's insist they put the money toward this). Alternatively, we insist that for every new car they manufacture - they must manufacture a certain number of essential repair parts for their discontinued models (which, according to recent news - will be most of them). This creates jobs, renews the jobs at some of the small non-union subcontracting plants that had to close when told to stop making the parts, or at least saves the jobs of UAW workers who were making unwanted new cars. Let them close their dealerships - but keep the dealer repair shops open. We then give tax credits for anybody who takes classes on repair - this creates jobs, as more people would rather fix it versus junk it (and can certainly afford the part easier than a whole new car). We give tax credits to anyone who gets a non-running vehicle operational again, we give tax credits for anyone who opens a repair/refurbishment shop, we give tax credits to junk yards that reduce their scrap heaps. Much better than a tax credit encouraging people to take on even more debt for a new car!


If some of elderly vehicles are unsafe by today's standards, we could manufacture parts that make them safer and update them, depending on the needs of each model. Surely the powers that be could run a scan for every VIN and get the statistics for how many models of each are currently still on the road (just like they do when there's a safety recall), and decide from there on whatever issues need addressed.


We should also consider legislation that insurance companies stop totalling vehicles without proof that their repair will be more expensive than a new car. "What a car is worth" needs to be restructured - what is the environmental/financial impact of junking it worth - the cost of a new one? If an old paid-off car ran perfectly fine before the wreck - should it be totalled because the damages came to a couple bucks more than the Blue Book value? I really don't think so! In this economy, having a paid-off vehicle with the option of keeping minimal insurance on it is nearly priceless!


We found out during the last couple years that we really can't afford a brand new McMansion, and we don't actually need one either, and we're much better off with less house than our budget can stretch to cover. Many of us know the same thing about the brand new car, but we don't have a choice because we can't fix the old one, and can't trust that the used one we buy will have parts available for it when it breaks down. That needs to change. We need more cost-effective options and we WANT the choice of fixing what we already paid for, instead of being forced to buy ever-more expensive brand new ones again and again and stuffing the landfills indefinitely!


My solution also applies to large appliances. Our landfills are full of them! The manufacturers of refrigerators, washers/dryers, riding lawnmowers, etc. should be required to produce a set number of repair parts for their older models - instead of making commercials about a lady throwing her old one off a cliff simply because she's tired of it!


Do we really want to be a nation of salesmen and consumers? I think we'd have more pride, strength and better ability to make it through these hard times if we replaced our salesmen with repairmen, blind consuming with sensible choices, and learn to one-up the Joneses with how much we saved from the landfill instead of how much we spent. Let's stop planned obsolescence and let the companies that refuse to give up the practice go belly up! They deserve it - they are trashing the environment as well as ripping off their customers - deliberately manufacturing products to break down in a couple years is just morally wrong. Lets make if fashionable to preserve and restore instead of consume and discard! I hope I'm not the only one that's tired of this - so is anybody with me on this? If you're in favor spread the idea! Discuss this with everybody!


And your solution to the economic crisis is???? (nm)
x
Not the same at all! The man inherited a national crisis,,,,,,sm
the likes of which have not been seen since the Great Depression, he had no hand at all in creating it. But he was brave enough and altruistic enough to come forward and TRY to bring changes that WOULD HELP OUR COUNTRY IN THE LONG RUN. Do you like instant Cup-A-Soup and coffee, because you and so many others are putting the RIDICULOUS load on Obama's shoulders to INSTANTLY come up with the perfect answer to all the crises (and yes, this is a multi-dimentional problem, no quick fix here), make everyone happy, snap his fingers, and poof the big bad depression that has been brewing for a LONG TIME since the Bush administration, and I say that because under President Clinton we had record surpluses in our nation, and by the by, you think W. was well-polished, well-experienced to head this country just cuz Daddy did? Come off it, he hired most of Daddy's friend and cabinet, he took his cues, but the poor guy could not even speak well, even with his Yale education. This man has been in office 4 months versus the past 8 years, a bit of inequity here?
The surplus also followed him out eh? We know because it's now in the bank accounts of the rich.
A lot of people made a lot of money during the Clinton years - that's real money, honey, and they're still rich, accounting for our current revenues. Without the Clinton boom years your president's buds (and your president himself, let us remind you) wouldn't have gotten their 100,000 tax break checks. Sure, the boom couldn't hold, but the point is that the favorable conditions created by a sounder Democratic fiscal policy allowed that boom to come about.

Now all we have is empty coffers, slashed public spending, and China owns us. Big improvement huh? Oops, but people like Frist are still getting over big time on their big time stock trades - all's clear in the upper 1% But since you likely aren't in it, it's hard to see what you find so appealing about being a credit slave one paycheck away from poverty. Is that working out good for you?
Bank Bailout Facts (2-min. video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68JUWYEc0Fg&feature=related 
Bank Bail Out True Facts
 
Everyone and their mother withdraws their cash from the bank.
dd
No, not at all. But, leaves the bank with no money to loan.
dd