• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Sob sob

aplusmnt

Well-known member
fff said:
aplusmnt said:
fff said:
Of course, it's Bush's fault. He runs the government. He appoints the head of the EPA. His adminstration has been in close contact with the auto makers to fight any requirement to increase gas mileage or tighten emission standards on US automobiles. Foreign made cars are kicking US automaker's butts, mainly because of better gas mileage and some improved emission claims!

What is wrong with the Free Market dictating what us consumers want? As you mentioned Foreign made cars are kicking the US auto makers butts, they did not need the government to tell them to get better mileage on your cars. When people get tired of buying gas for Hummers and Suburbans they will start buying the better gas mileage cars and the auto makers will make the change or go out of business.

Government needs to stay out of the free market. Us consumers can decide what we want and how much gas mileage we want.

Because there is no "Free Market." Governments are involved in most everything these days with subsidies, tariffs, taxes, etc. We all breath the same air. You don't get to fill it with junk just because you want to.

The government should only do one thing, that is set a good example for us, but we see the Dem's in office don't want to do that, do they?

If you'll read this thread, you'll see that the Dems want to set a good example by leasing low emission cars. But the BUSH adminstration's EPA hasn't come up with a list of cars that meet that criteria. Pay attention before you jump in next time; maybe you won't look so silly. :D

This is a subject that the government could easily leave alone, just because they subsidize corn or ethanol does not mean they have to dictate what gas mileage a car gets.

Plus when you talk change you want more government control, when I talk change I want less. If we are going to live in a wishing world why wish for more control by the government.

And some things can still be dictated by the free market, and what kind of car we drive very well can be.

As for the epa and the air we all breath, enough is enough, epa regulations are good enough on cars, they are clean enough. Time to let things be.

Time to let the free market once again control what the government continues to mess up!
 

fff

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
fff said:
aplusmnt said:
What is wrong with the Free Market dictating what us consumers want? As you mentioned Foreign made cars are kicking the US auto makers butts, they did not need the government to tell them to get better mileage on your cars. When people get tired of buying gas for Hummers and Suburbans they will start buying the better gas mileage cars and the auto makers will make the change or go out of business.

Government needs to stay out of the free market. Us consumers can decide what we want and how much gas mileage we want.

Because there is no "Free Market." Governments are involved in most everything these days with subsidies, tariffs, taxes, etc. We all breath the same air. You don't get to fill it with junk just because you want to.

The government should only do one thing, that is set a good example for us, but we see the Dem's in office don't want to do that, do they?

If you'll read this thread, you'll see that the Dems want to set a good example by leasing low emission cars. But the BUSH adminstration's EPA hasn't come up with a list of cars that meet that criteria. Pay attention before you jump in next time; maybe you won't look so silly. :D

This is a subject that the government could easily leave alone, just because they subsidize corn or ethanol does not mean they have to dictate what gas mileage a car gets.

Plus when you talk change you want more government control, when I talk change I want less. If we are going to live in a wishing world why wish for more control by the government.

And some things can still be dictated by the free market, and what kind of car we drive very well can be.

As for the epa and the air we all breath, enough is enough, epa regulations are good enough on cars, they are clean enough. Time to let things be.

Time to let the free market once again control what the government continues to mess up!

The Bush Administration is clear proof that consevative government is not good for this country. The "free market" stole money from people by misleading them about the value of homes they were buying, leading to a terrible financial crash. The "free market" has allowed oil companies to rip off consumers until food prices are out of control, causing riots, deaths, around the world. The "free market" that gave people credit cards, then raised the interest rate has ruined many people's credit. The promises that a "free market" would lower the cost of meds for people on Medicare was a lie.
 

woranch

Well-known member
. The "free market" stole money from people by misleading them about the value of homes they were buying, .

Who mislead people on the value of homes ????

Each person makes that choice on price when buying a home . No one forced them to buy an over priced home . Or take out a loan they can't afford.



. The "free market" that gave people credit cards, then raised the interest rate has ruined many people's credit. .

No one forced people to take the cards or use them . They made the choice to run up that $20,000 bill that they can't pay ...
 

fff

Well-known member
woranch said:
. The "free market" stole money from people by misleading them about the value of homes they were buying, .

Who mislead people on the value of homes ????

Each person makes that choice on price when buying a home . No one forced them to buy an over priced home . Or take out a loan they can't afford.

Lenders, bankers, appraisers, realtors all had hands in inflating the price of homes to buyers. Who are buyers supposed to trust if not these people?

Complaints about potential mortgage fraud are up during the subprime mortgage crisis, and the FBI has opened criminal investigations of 14 companies related to subprime mortgage loans, the agency said Tuesday

The FBI did not identify the companies.

Neil Power, chief of the FBI economic crimes unit, attributed the increase "to good old-fashioned greed."

"On insider trading, we're looking in some cases at whether executives were aware that the value of their holdings would be going down and the executives traded on that information," said Power.

"On accounting fraud, we're looking at housing developers who may have reported cash reserve accounts to reflect falsely inflated values," he told CNN.

Power and other senior officials said the number of suspicious activity reports they review for potential investigation skyrocketed from 3,000 in fiscal year 2003 to about 35,000 in 2006, to 48,000 in 2007. And in the first quarter of fiscal year 2008, Power said, officials have already received 15,000 such reports, putting them on pace to receive 60,000 complaints this year.

The FBI said it investigates only cases involving losses of $500,000 or more, and last year 56 percent of all cases had losses of more than $1 million. The number of pending cases swelled from 800 in fiscal year 2006 to 1,200 in 2007.

Kenneth Kaiser, FBI assistant director for the Criminal Investigative Division, said the FBI has developed an initiative focused on subprime mortgage loan fraud and is working with investigators from other federal agencies.

Officials identified the states that are the "top 10 mortgage fraud hot spots" as California, New York, Texas, Florida, Georgia, Utah, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Michigan.




. The "free market" that gave people credit cards, then raised the interest rate has ruined many people's credit. .

No one forced people to take the cards or use them . They made the choice to run up that $20,000 bill that they can't pay ...

No, but a consumer might be able to handle payments on $5,000 with no problem. Let the credit card company raise their interest rate from 10 to 30% and there's a big difference. One missed or late payment brings down fees and penalties that can make the balance unmanagable, especially since wages have been stagnant under the Bush Administration. Even though the Fed has lowered interest rates over and over, credit card companies have been raising their rates on a regular basis recently, even on customers whose accounts are up to date. There's no law against them raising the rates to whatever they think consumers will pay.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/10/AR2008021002537.html
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Making payments on a 5,000 dollar credit card is utter stupidity. You can't buy yourself into prosperity. Ask any financial advisor. If you can't afford something putting it on a credit card does not automatically make it workable.
but a consumer might be able to handle payments on $5,000 with no problem
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Larrry said:
Making payments on a 5,000 dollar credit card is utter stupidity. You can't buy yourself into prosperity. Ask any financial advisor. If you can't afford something putting it on a credit card does not automatically make it workable.

You and I know that...But have you seen how these Scumsucker credit card companies have been targeting 17-18 year old kids- promising up to $40,000 a year towards college- and $10,000 toward living costs :???:
Financing rate dependent on credit history- but no history required...Everyone guaranteed a credit card :???:

Recipe for disaster...

The ethics and morals used by some of these supposed honorable investment/lending firms is lower than a snakes belly..... :( :mad:
 

Texan

Well-known member
fff said:
The promises that a "free market" would lower the cost of meds for people on Medicare was a lie.

I guess none of the people that get prescriptions filled at Wal-Mart and Target are on Medicare? :roll:

========================================

Wal-Mart Stores today expanded its discount prescription program to add more women's health coverage and over the counter drugs. It also introduced 90-day supplies for $10 and cut prices on some over-the-counter drugs.

The retailer now sells more than 1,000 generic drugs for $4 for a 30-day supply.

The move marks the third phase of a company program that began in 2006 and has saved customers more than $1 billion, Wal-Mart said.


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/5754226.html


=========================================


Wal-Mart said in a release that Wal-Mart Stores, Neighborhood Market and Sam's Club pharmacies would now fill prescriptions for as many as 350 generic medications at $10 for a 90-day supply.

A spokeswoman for Target said that the retailer "understands the challenges guests are facing in the current economic environment," adding that the company would match Wal-Mart's programs.

In 2006, when Wal-Mart launched its $4 generic prescription drug program, Target followed suit a few days later.


http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2008/05/05/daily17.html
 

Texan

Well-known member
fff said:
The Bush Administration is clear proof that consevative government is not good for this country.
Horseshit. There's absolutely no correlation between the Bush Administration and a true fiscally conservative government.
 

Mike

Well-known member
The promises that a "free market" would lower the cost of meds for people on Medicare was a lie.

I happen to know for a fact that many, many prescriptions have come down in price for people on medicare.

I pick up the meds for my parents and they are paying almost half of what they were a short while ago.

You want to see the frigging receipts? :roll:
 

fff

Well-known member
Mike said:
The promises that a "free market" would lower the cost of meds for people on Medicare was a lie.

I happen to know for a fact that many, many prescriptions have come down in price for people on medicare.

I pick up the meds for my parents and they are paying almost half of what they were a short while ago.

You want to see the frigging receipts? :roll:

Malarky. This doesn't cut and past well, so I'm only going to put part of it here. The balance is at the link.

A key claim made by those who wanted a privatized Medicare Part D drug program—especially one that prohibits Medicare from bargaining for cheaper prices—is that competition among private plans would slow the increase in drug prices. Plans would supposedly use their market power to negotiate lower drug prices and pass those savings on to beneficiaries and taxpayers in the form of lower drug prices and premiums.
More than a year after the Part D benefit began, however, the evidence shows that private plans have done little to slow the inexorable rise in drug prices. Rather, over the past year, Part D drug prices have increased several times faster than the rate of inflation. Families USA analyzed the prices for 15 of the drugs most frequently prescribed to seniors.1 We examined prices for each of the plans offered by the
largest Part D insurers, which together cover about two-thirds of all Part D beneficiaries.
2 We then compared the lowest available Part D price for each drug in April 2006 with the lowest available price for the same drug in April 2007.
The lowest price for every one of the top 15 drugs prescribed to seniors increased, and the median increase was 9.2 percent (see table on page 2).Part D Drug Costs Outpace Overall Inflation
These increases in Part D drug prices are especially significant when compared with increases in overall prices. The consumer price index (CPI), the most widely used measure of inflation,
increased by 2.4 percent from February 2006 to February 2007 (the most recent period for which data are available). Part D prices for these drugs therefore increased nearly four times faster than overall consumer prices.
What is most relevant to seniors in Medicare is whether they can afford these rises in drug prices. Seniors’ Social Security payments are increased in January of each year by a cost of living adjustment (COLA). The COLA in January 2007 was 3.3 percent, which is just over onethird
of the increase in Part D drug prices. For many seniors, especially those with limited incomes who depend on Social Security, Part D drugs are becoming less affordable.

http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/medicare-part-d-drug-prices.PDF

Then we have the "Medicare Advantage" plans that are bleeding Medicare dry.


Private Medicare plans often cost beneficiaries more than the traditional government-run Medicare program, Congressional investigators say.

Many private plans advertise extra benefits and low costs. But in a report to be issued Thursday, the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, says that many people in private plans face higher costs for home health care, nursing homes and some hospital stays.

About one-fifth of the 44 million Medicare beneficiaries — 9 million people — are in private plans, known as Medicare Advantage plans.

The report says, “Medicare spends more per beneficiary in Medicare Advantage than it does for beneficiaries in the original Medicare fee-for-service program, at an estimated additional cost to Medicare of $54 billion from 2009 through 2012.”

Bush administration officials and insurance executives say the private plans provide a bargain. “Medicare Advantage plans are offering an average of approximately $1,100 in additional annual value to beneficiaries in terms of cost savings and added benefits,” said Kerry N. Weems, the acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Moreover, insurers say, co-payments and deductibles are generally lower in private plans than in traditional Medicare. In data submitted to the government, insurers estimated that their beneficiaries paid, on average, $49 a month in such costs, or 42 percent of what they would have paid in traditional Medicare.

But the Government Accountability Office said the experience of particular beneficiaries might not match the average, so their out-of-pocket costs could substantially exceed those in traditional Medicare.

Last year, it said, “19 percent of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries were in plans that projected higher cost-sharing for home health services, and 16 percent of beneficiaries were in plans that projected higher cost-sharing for inpatient services.”

Insurers often boast that they protect Medicare beneficiaries against high out-of-pocket costs by setting annual limits.

The Government Accountability Office found that “48 percent of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries were in plans that had an out-of-pocket maximum.” The limits typically ranged from $2,750 to $4,600 a year and averaged about $3,500.

But, the report said, certain costs are not counted toward the out-of-pocket limits established by some insurers. Thus, it said, among Medicare plans with out-of-pocket limits, 29 percent exclude the cost of some cancer drugs, 23 percent exclude the cost of some mental health services and 21 percent exclude home health care expenses.

“Beneficiaries who use these excluded services may pay more in total cost-sharing than is indicated by the plan’s out-of-pocket maximum,” the report said.

Medicare makes substantial contributions to the earnings of insurers like Humana and UnitedHealth.

Representative Pete Stark, the California Democrat who is chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health, said, “Medicare overpayments fatten company profits, even as many seniors face higher costs in private plans than they would in traditional Medicare.”

Democrats tried unsuccessfully last year to cut Medicare payments to private plans. CIBC World Markets, an investment bank, predicted last month that “Humana and the Medicare industry will have at least two years, and probably three years, of continued strong enrollment and earnings growth.”

Medicare actuaries estimate that more than 27 percent of beneficiaries will be in private plans by 2017.

Critics of private plans often assert that they have higher marketing and administrative costs than traditional Medicare, but figures have been elusive.

The accountability office found that private Medicare plans “allocate about 87 percent of total revenue ($683 of $783 per member per month) to medical expenses; approximately 9 percent ($71) to nonmedical expenses, including administration, marketing and sales; and approximately 4 percent ($30) to the plans’ margin, sometimes called the plans’ profit.”

Insurers say that low-income people rely heavily on Medicare Advantage because it provides more comprehensive benefits than traditional Medicare, and they cannot easily afford supplemental policies.

But the accountability office said the subsidies were not well focused.

“If the policy objective is to subsidize health care costs of low-income Medicare beneficiaries,” the report said, “it may be more efficient to directly target subsidies to a defined low-income population than to subsidize premiums and cost-sharing for all Medicare Advantage beneficiaries, including those who are well off.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/washington/28medicare.html

And all the while, we're spending billions of American dollars in Iraq on what? No one knows where it's going. Billions are unaccounted for and untraceable. That's how conservaites spend money. I'm pretty liberal and I don't mind spending money on people who need it here in the US, but the Republicans have squandered a surplus left by Democrats and put a long time, successful, effective program (Medicare) in jepoardry to sell it out to big business. It's wrong. I won't pretend that ALL politicians had a hand in this. They didn't. It was the Bush Administration that pushed Part D and the "Advantage" programs through Congress.
 

fff

Well-known member
Texan said:
fff said:
The Bush Administration is clear proof that consevative government is not good for this country.
Horseshit. There's absolutely no correlation between the Bush Administration and a true fiscally conservative government.

He for sure isn't a Liberal. So that makes him yours. John McBush loves him and promises more of the same if/when elected. The difference is, of course, that he'll probably be working with a Democratic Congress that will put some limits on his adverntures.
 

fff

Well-known member
Larrry said:
Making payments on a 5,000 dollar credit card is utter stupidity. You can't buy yourself into prosperity. Ask any financial advisor. If you can't afford something putting it on a credit card does not automatically make it workable.
but a consumer might be able to handle payments on $5,000 with no problem

And that's ignorant. I know several people who charge all their business expenses on their credit card. They run monthly charges of several thousand dollars on a regular basis. They pay all of it at the end of the month and use the points, credits, whatever, to buy stuff for the business or take employees on trips. But if their interest goes up to 30%, it makes all the difference in the world to how they run their business or if they have a business to run.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
fff said:
Texan said:
fff said:
The Bush Administration is clear proof that consevative government is not good for this country.
Horseshit. There's absolutely no correlation between the Bush Administration and a true fiscally conservative government.

He for sure isn't a Liberal. So that makes him yours. John McBush loves him and promises more of the same if/when elected. The difference is, of course, that he'll probably be working with a Democratic Congress that will put some limits on his adverntures.

The problem is that the National Republican Party has been taken over by the neocons- that in few ways represent true Conservative or the old Republican values-- and throw morals and ethics to the winds in their backing of Corporate profiteering and expansionism...
 

fff

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
fff said:
Texan said:
Horseshit. There's absolutely no correlation between the Bush Administration and a true fiscally conservative government.

He for sure isn't a Liberal. So that makes him yours. John McBush loves him and promises more of the same if/when elected. The difference is, of course, that he'll probably be working with a Democratic Congress that will put some limits on his adverntures.

The problem is that the National Republican Party has been taken over by the neocons- that in few ways represent true Conservative or the old Republican values-- and throw morals and ethics to the winds in their backing of Corporate profiteering and expansionism...

It's up to the Republicans to get their party back together. IMO, they've sold out to big business, special interests and right wing religious nuts to get and retain political/personal power. I'm tired of it. They've damaged many of the things I hold near and dear about this country. I'll cut none of them any slack. Bush ran as a conservative Republican. He's governed as a conservative Republican. It's too late now for people to say he's not a "true" conservative.

Many of the major problems in this country from illegals flowing across our southern border, to lack of oversight in the mortgage business, to the sell out of Medicare, to using the Attorney General for political purposes, have come from lack of oversight by Congress and this Admistration. Bush has left dozens, maybe hundreds of positions in oversight agencies open. The driving theme in coservative thinking is that we have too much government interference in our lives. Bush has proven once and for all that's a bunch of hooey.
 

woranch

Well-known member
fff said:
Larrry said:
Making payments on a 5,000 dollar credit card is utter stupidity. You can't buy yourself into prosperity. Ask any financial advisor. If you can't afford something putting it on a credit card does not automatically make it workable.
but a consumer might be able to handle payments on $5,000 with no problem

And that's ignorant. I know several people who charge all their business expenses on their credit card. They run monthly charges of several thousand dollars on a regular basis. They pay all of it at the end of the month and use the points, credits, whatever, to buy stuff for the business or take employees on trips. But if their interest goes up to 30%, it makes all the difference in the world to how they run their business or if they have a business to run.



If they pay the balance each mo. they pay no interest . I have a card and I have not payed interest in several years . I can't even tell you what the rate is because I don't care .



Your trying to blame consumer ignorance on Lenders, bankers, appraisers, realtors and Bush. People have to be accountable for what they do .. :roll: :roll:
 

fff

Well-known member
woranch said:
fff said:
Larrry said:
Making payments on a 5,000 dollar credit card is utter stupidity. You can't buy yourself into prosperity. Ask any financial advisor. If you can't afford something putting it on a credit card does not automatically make it workable.

And that's ignorant. I know several people who charge all their business expenses on their credit card. They run monthly charges of several thousand dollars on a regular basis. They pay all of it at the end of the month and use the points, credits, whatever, to buy stuff for the business or take employees on trips. But if their interest goes up to 30%, it makes all the difference in the world to how they run their business or if they have a business to run.



If they pay the balance each mo. they pay no interest . I have a card and I have not payed interest in several years . I can't even tell you what the rate is because I don't care .



Your trying to blame consumer ignorance on Lenders, bankers, appraisers, realtors and Bush. People have to be accountable for what they do .. :roll: :roll:

No, I'm blaming the people who illegally inflated home values and paid kick backs to each other to sell overpriced houses and collect their commissions. The FBI is involved all over the country in these kinds of investigations. The FBI doesn't get involved with "consumer ignorance." They get involved when laws are broken and they have been all over the country, leading to this housing/financial meltdown.
 

Latest posts

Top