To save the US economy - Republicans turn to a tribunus plebis??!

Remove all ads!

Oh, yes. If you are commenting on the national debt, I agree - it's lunacy, like 10 trillion or something. But most private comsumers intend to pay their debts; that's where I disagree with Gnarff. Credit is a finacial tool that can be helpful or it can be abused, and I think the average American has every intention of paying his/her debts. However, the credit situation is much like the mortgage meltdown: You have a bunch of greedy and incompetent business guys, handing out money to a small percentage of losers who have no intention of paying it back, and their credit reports reflect that. Now they are stuck, or should I say, the taxpayers are stuck, as usual.

I should add that the situation is different for people who lose their jobs. Those people are victims of the economy, caused by corporate incompetence. The employment situation is going to get worse before it gets better. That's a tragic stituation for anyone to be in.

 

Chandos is completely correct. Most people are fine. In fact, I recently read an article that said 92% of Americans are currently keeping up with both their mortgage and credit card payments. That means the problems we are having are being caused by a small fraction - the other 8%.

 

Chandos: Companies make their money off the consumers. To maximize profits, they need more money out of the consumers. They need consumers to buy things they don't need, and to the extent of using money they don't have...

AFI: Are you trying to tell me that 92% of people pay their credit card balance in full every month? Are you assuming that 8% of people are trying to commit Fraud? It doesn't work like that. While yes, most people who use their credit card intend to pay the full amount, more than just 8% carry a balance. All it takes is a prolonged stretch of unemployment or a serious medical emergency for these people to end up filing for bankrupcy, and thus getting us in the situation we're in now...

 

Hmm, population of 296,410,400 so 8% is 23,712,832
Yeah that almost 24 MILLION people aren't hurting the economy

 

Yes, because all 296 million people have mortgages and credit cards. I'll ask my son if he's keeping up with his mortgage payments.

 

Just so that you don't keep repeating back to me what I said, which seems to be am ongoing occurrence, 2/3 of the economy is consumer spending. But really, "companes make money off consumers?" Do you think?

But if your only real point is that you don't think that people should use credit, all I can say is that you won't have an economy. Especially, all those companies that you keep ranting about. How many companies use credit everyday to conduct their business? Almost every company has some kind of start up expense, and an ongoing line of credit for cash flow. Many companies buy supplies and materials on purchase orders, which they often don't pay for 90 days.

Or are you saying that the average person should not operate his family budget in the same systematic way that a company does? How about their homes? Is it OK in your economy for people to buy those on credit? Cars? Take away credit and you won't have much of an auto industry, which means that an economy won't have much in the way of transportation. Your economy is already getting smaller.

What people "need" or don't need is based upon individual value judgments. It's not really possible for you to decide what they need, just as they don't decide your "needs" for you.

I'm not arguing this from a personal perspective, because I have no credit card debt myself. But since I worked in business, I saw thousands of people make purchases on credit and saw almost all of them pay it back. I also ran thousands of credit apps, so I know there are a lot of people who have good credit and use it just as they would any other financial tool.

Let me ask you this: When they speak of credit and lending as being "subprime," which is a large source of the current economic problems, what do you think they mean by that?

 

And to maximize profits, Companies need to get as much consumer spending as possible. Including spending beyond the income of the people doing the spending. This is what I blame for the problem.

I'm not saying not to use credit, but to do so wisely. Yes, you need to borrow money for a house, education or a car, but how big does the house need to be? Does it have to be a swanky neighbourhood? How fancy does the car need to be? Does it have to be the latest model? And are you choosing your school for the practical education you want or the big name or the party reputation? While you need these things, you can get into serious trouble by over-spending to get them, and the payments on these loans can tighten a budget.

But I'm ripping on other forms of unwise consumer spending. How much do you actually need to spend on your clothes? If you decide that a TV is important, do you buy one for $200 or $2000? And if you buy something more than the cheap model, are you sure you can afford it? When shopping for a computer, do you look at what you foresee a need for or do you go for all the bells and whistles? Customers need to be judicious in the use of their own money, and think even harder about about purchases they use credit for.

I'm not just getting on a soap box and preaching, I've been unwise with my credit. I was complacent and believed that as long as I was making my payments, all was well. I believed myself to be in that 92% of good customers. But a few years ago, I hurt my back the first time, reducing my ability to work, and was laid off from a second job for the summer. I missed 4 months of payments in a row. I did get back to work in the fall, and again thought all was well, but in January, the second job was lost, and with me still not back to my original capacity, I started struggling again, and eventually had fallen into the 8% and had to file for bankrupcy.

How many of that 92% carry a balance on their credit cards, and make more than the minimum, but not enough to keep the balance under control? How many of them are, just like I was, on the brink of financial disaster and in denial over their situation? And with a recession looming, how many of them will be pushed over the edge and into bankrupcy?

I congradulate you on running without credit card debt, but I still remain convinced that you are in a minority.

Sub prime suggests that the interest rates were forced down in hopes at making housing more affordable for the people. The problem is that even with low rates of interest, there is still principle to be repaid, and the companies doing the lending are not making as much interest they would on a normal mortgage. With lower rates of interest, more people want to buy homes, thus increasing demand. Increase demand and you increase the price. That increases the principle of these sub prime mortgages. That also means that people who might not ordinarily have mortgages now have them, and when disaster strikes, like job loss or a medical emergency, they are forced into that 8% and are defaulting on these loans. And this will only get worse before it gets better...

 

Gnarff, that's the answer right there. From all the other stuff you wrote in that paragraph, this is what comes closest to the definition of a subprime mortgage.

A subprime mortgage is a loan made to a borrower with a questionable credit history. Because of that history they are considered higher risks for defaulting on their loans (usually because they have a credit history of falling behind on other loans or credit card statements). The subprime mortgage crisis was not caused by, nor was it an inevitable result of, the housing boom. (But it definitely was magnified by it.) Afterall, there have been housing booms before that were not followed with a subprime mortgage crisis. These are the bad loans you always hear being talked about on the news, and are the ones that people who bought a house within their means are going to have to bailout.

 

Well, I was not referring to weapons in my post, nor anything else that would be generally regulated by the government (such as drugs), for obvious reasons as Tal points out. I'm sure there are people who feel they need a M1 tank, but that doesn't mean that it should be legal, just as there are those who feel they "need meth." And sorry LKD, but I'm just a "plain liberal," and very glad to be one.

But this is what I'm talking about:

Look at all those value judgments that Gnarff is pulling out here.

The choice of a college can depend on more than just the education, but they are also great sources for networking. That means that you can develop contacts with others that could land you much better employment down the road. Those big name schools can also mean big jobs as well.

Let's talk about housing: How big does a house have to be?

How many kids do you have? Do you expect your parents to move in at some point, when they get too old to take care of themselves? Do you have family and friends who come into town often, for whom you will need a spare room? Are you buying a house in an area where the schools are better for your kids? How about parks, pools and trails for running or walking a dog? Is the house an investemt and long term asset?

How about clothes? Ask Sarah Palin, since she spent more than 150,000.00 on those items. But then she was running for VP. You think she needs to spend more on clothes than you do? How about people in business? When I worked in professional sales I spent more on clothes. Because I "dressed for success." If you are in business, you want the people with whom you are doing business to know that you ARE successful. So you dress for it.

Don't get me wrong, because materialism and consumerism can become almost mindless and meaningless at a certain level.

Gnarff - You remind me of those counter-culture people in the 60s that I often hear about, who were opposed to any kind of materialism beyond the very basics for survival. Many of them escaped by living in communes that were not based on materialism or consumerism, but basic, almost tribal, lifestyles. I think you would be very comfortable with them. But don't forget to pack a copy of Walden.

 

All well and good, but factor in three things: First the training itself, second the carreer you seek, and third, the ability to pay the loans you'll incur to get that education. If you're going for that high profile, high paying jobe, then by all means go to Harvard, but if you're looking to be a school teacher,you can go somewhere with a lower tuition hit, and likely closer to home.

Definitely the size of the family is a concern, as is the location, but if you can't pay for it, what good does that do you? Looking at a cheaper home in a less convenient neighbourhood may be what you need to do to afford a roof over your head.

Agreed, but do you need a $2000 suit to shovel **** in a barn? I could see a $200 suit for formal occasions or Religious attendance if you need a new one (but I'd rather lose enough weight to fit in the one I already have). You should have somehting that looks good for a Job interview, and as a single guy, I should have some nice clothes if I ever get a date (stop laughing), but I shouldn't have to spens $150k on a wardrobe. Losing everything, I could get eveything I need for about $2-3k, including Clothing for the three main seasons, work and social clothing.

TBH, I was surprised that Palin didn't spend more than $150k. She needed to look her best in situations where a bikini and a hunting rifle wouldn't be appropriate. No matter who the candidate is, they have to look their best, and a campaign is an all in proposition.

I argue that that point is long passed, and that's how we got into this mess.

That's too far the other way, but with that much pot, I could forget my computer, D&D books, TV, movies and music. Luxuries are not a bad thing, but the practice of accumulating them beyond the ability to pay for them is. It's reasonable to expect a family will want a TV, Computer, some form of Stereo and the like, and I don't begrudge a well off household the nicer units, but I question the wisdom of getting the more expensive ones on credit when you can barely make the payments...

It's the fact that materialism has seemed to jettison reason that concerns me most...

 

Sarah Palin was announced as the VP three days before the Republican Convention started. It was Friday, August 29, 2008. The election was held on November 4, 2008. That's a span of 67 days. That means that Sarah Palin spent an averge of over $2,200 PER DAY on clothing. You said you could purchase an entire wardrobe for all the seasons with a similar amount that Palin spent on a daily basis. I agree she needed to look her best, but I think she could have been able to get by with very nice clothing for less than $2,200 per day. Maybe she could have even worn a outfit more than once (I'm sure John McCain didn't wear 67 different suits during the last 67 days of his campaign).

 

BTA - Like many things in politics, that was the story for public consumption. It turns out that she was never authorized to make all those purchases (she hunted down low-level aides to make the purchases on their credit cards for her) and the items she was supposed to return have "been misplaced."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/168017/page/5

Well, there goes your entire argument. There's nothing "honest" about that statement except that it displays quite a double-standard. Everything you were trying to build just got blown away with how absurd it is for one person to spend on clothes for two months, what takes the average person 3 years of total income to make, while at the same time, you are carping about the average Joe trying to build a better life for his family.

What a waste of time this has been....

 

My point (and I believe Chandos' as well), was not whether she bought them, or they were bought for her, but rather that $150,000 is a ridiculous amount of money to spend on clothing for 67 days. As for the rest of your post, I do not know why you suspect the family only wore a fraction of what was purchased, and once it is worn it likely won't be able to be taken back. Great if they give it to charity, but it doesn't in any way detract from the point that $150,000 is an absurd amount to spend on a family for clothing - even if they have to look good.

 

I'm not sure how much an adequate wardrobe is for a high profile political figure. I haven't heard any condemnation from the likes of Hillary or Nancy or any other woman in high office. I would venture to say Hillary's wardrobe is worth more. Cindy's outfit from the Republican convention was more costly than Palin's entire wardrobe.

The problem with women's wardrobes is they are inherently more expensive -- even without accessories. The accessories alone (e.g., jewelry, shoes, etc.) easy cost more than the clothing itself.

If you add to that the cost for a few nice suits for the hubby and clothes for the kids....

Thank God I have an athlete for a wife who thinks such things are frivolous. I think $150,000 is ridiculous -- but I don't pal in those circles and would look very out of place.

 

Excellent. Did anyone bother to take into consideration my point about everybody's needs being different? That it was based upon individual value judgments? Or was Gnarff just trying harder to prove my point? I think T2 and Gnarff just illustrated it very well. According Gnarff's double-standard, Palin can spend as much as she wants, but that average guy trying to do the right thing is criticized for living beyond his means. I guess if you use someone else's credit card that's not "living beyond your means," but obviously the person whose name is on the card.

T2 - I'm not familiar with how much Hillary spent on her wardrobe, nor Nancy's. Can you supply us a source which shows us how much the DNC paid for it? Or did she buy it with her own money? Did she make unauthorized purchases with someone else's money? Any further hard information that you can provide would be helpful. I would hate to think that even Hill was "living beyond her means." But I agree with most of what you remarked. I'm just not sure about the Hillary part.

 

I made no assertations of either Hillary or Nancy living beyond their means (which would be very difficult for Hillary considering how much the Clinton's are worth). Or that their clothes were paid for by someone else. It's odd you shift to the attack as soon as a neutral observation is made. You don't have to come to Hillary's defense every time someone makes any comment about her.

The election is over. It's time to be a gracious winner.

 

It's also time to let go of the double-standards as well. And this has almost nothing to do with the election. Sorry that you missed the irony regarding the "living beyond her means" comment which was more diredted at Ganff's new standard for Palin, more so than at you. I was speaking specifically to Palin's shopping spree and never once mentioned Hillary. You did.

The election IS over.

 

The comparison to two other women of high profile in the same field was entirely appropriate. What double standard are you talking about here? I pointed out two women we see all the time in the news with "appropriate" attire -- that should have been the target attire the RNC was going to provide Palin if they wanted her to be appropriately attired. I would be surprised if Hillary didn't have a wardrobe that costed over $500,000 (think of all the professional attire at ~$2500 a pop, formal attire at ~$5,000 each, plus jewelry).

I could see a $27,000 limit for a man -- you're talking a reasonable number of high quality suits with appropriate accessories (shirts, ties, etc.) to last for several days at a time -- but a woman would require at least three times what is necessary for a man. You can't have the VP looking cheap.

If the RNC thought Palin could get away with a $27,000 wardrobe when she is standing next to Cindy with her $200,000 outfit, well that was simply stupid on the RNC's part. I think spending that kind of money on clothes is insane -- but it may have been necessary. I'm sure there are several on the boards with $27,000 wardrobes (although mine is only ~$5,000 and I only have one medium quality suit).

You're still missing the it's time to be a gracious winner part.