|
Post by Art Vandelay on Apr 4, 2010 9:16:46 GMT -5
Woo, 10 page long Skyfire argument in 3... 2... 1...
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 4, 2010 9:18:05 GMT -5
It's times like this I'm glad I don't own a house. I'm incredibly glad I own a house. Reason being, I don't have to worry anymore about whether my landlord cannot afford his second (or tenth) property and is letting the mortgage lapse and I have to find a new place to live anyway. The difference maker in terms of the housing crises was the type of loan. If you had a standard loan where you had to put 20% down and you got a fixed rate mortgage for 15 or 30 years, then the housing crises wasn't a crisis for you -- because you were living within your means. The problem loan was the adjustable rate mortgage loan (and a bunch of others that were even worse, like no-assets-no-income loans or interest only loans, etc.), because then you could afford the payments until the loan "adjusted" in five years (approx. late 2007 for most of the housing crisis), after which time the interest rate skyrocketed and the payments went through the roof; then the person couldn't afford his/her monthly payments, fell behind, and we have a crisis. Banks weren't interested in fixing the bad loans they'd approved. That's what makes them rat bastards. But for plain old vanilla loans where people saved money, didn't buy more house than they could afford, and whose payments are the same now as they were five years ago, those people are not in trouble (unless they lost a job, which is a different avenue of problem). I pay less now in mortgage payments, which include my homeowners insurance & property taxes, than I did in rent, without the worry that my landlord will default on one of his eight or nine properties. Rent here is outrageous. I would much rather be a homeowner in a traditional loan. We're saving so much money.
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Apr 4, 2010 9:21:22 GMT -5
So, you want the dependents of military children to be covered more, thereby increasing government intervention and involvement? Also, if you're wondering there at least some of that money to pay for HCR is coming from, here's a chart. More jobs = more people paying taxes = more things get done. And that's what's important; Things getting done.
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Apr 4, 2010 9:27:27 GMT -5
...except, in this case my family is literally losing money because of Obama & co. not keeping their word. Only if you redefine Obama's word, sky. Also, while I take little pleasure in someone's well-being being threatened, this didn't exactly come out of a vacuum and it was tantrums from the conservatives you regularly fellate that led to the spending bill being trimmed. In other words, you're getting what you deserve for supporting people who fight against your own interests. Blame Obama's "promises" for it if you wish, but you serve as a pretty strong example of people fucking themselves over. The only thing I wish is that you and your ilk would actually, you know...Learn. Sadly, you're more likely to keep voting for the political crybabies, while you will eventually see further cuts to your livelihood and the support offered to your father. You're more likely to literally starve yourself to spite teh ebul librals. Now, I'm going to go bitch about the 50K a year job Obama "promised" me.
|
|
|
Economy
Apr 4, 2010 10:06:31 GMT -5
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 4, 2010 10:06:31 GMT -5
...except, Obama promised that nobody, civilian or military, would see their retiree pay, Social Security, Medicare, or anything else go down because there wouldn't be a COLA increase. And so in that sense, the promise was indeed broken and so for two years running my dad has seen his pay get cut by the government. There is not "in a sense" broken promise. Unless your fathers pay went down specifically because of a lack of COLA there was not broken promise. The Presidents statements does not mean that pay would not go down. Learn to listen to what people say and not what you think they mean. ......that and your whole resent line of arguments regarding losing you job and your fathers cut in pay scream at the problem with the right. It is all about you. The right screams about government spending and calls for cuts, until those cuts affect them.
|
|
|
Economy
Apr 4, 2010 10:16:47 GMT -5
Post by SimSim on Apr 4, 2010 10:16:47 GMT -5
......that and your whole resent line of arguments regarding losing you job and your fathers cut in pay scream at the problem with the right. It is all about you. The right screams about government spending and calls for cuts, until those cuts affect them. Glad I'm not the only one that has noticed this about a lot of conservatives. It really pisses me off. We all have to have to sacrifice sometimes for the betterment of society as a whole. It's not all about us as individuals.
|
|
|
Economy
Apr 4, 2010 10:35:48 GMT -5
Post by Vene on Apr 4, 2010 10:35:48 GMT -5
Sorry to hear about your dad taking a retirement cut. The thing you should know is that it has nothing to do with having no COLA (Cost of Living Increase) this year. The reason why there is no COLA is because last year was so bad that the way COLA is calculated it would have lowered rates. ...except, Obama promised that nobody, civilian or military, would see their retiree pay, Social Security, Medicare, or anything else go down because there wouldn't be a COLA increase. And so in that sense, the promise was indeed broken and so for two years running my dad has seen his pay get cut by the government. ** As an aside, if you've gotten your hands on last week's Army Times, take a good look at it. Turns out that the Army is going to get screwed again by Congress. Remember how the omnibus is supposed to mandate that employers cover the dependents of their employees until the age of 26? The military wasn't included in that; Congress forgot to institute the language needed to do so. As such, military dependents only see coverage until 21 (23 if they're in college) instead of 26 like the dependents of civilians. That's right: people are already having to push to amend the omnibus because it fucked up. The question becomes what did Obama say word for word, what program is your father on, and what was the reason given for the cut. Oriet and Magni are on social security, when COLA was calculated for them they didn't lose anything, it stayed the same, exactly as was promised. So I know for a fact that there was no decrease due to COLA. I saw the damn paperwork with my own eyes, there's something more to this than what you are sharing.
|
|
|
Economy
Apr 4, 2010 16:53:20 GMT -5
Post by Amaranth on Apr 4, 2010 16:53:20 GMT -5
The question becomes what did Obama say word for word, what program is your father on, and what was the reason given for the cut. Oriet and Magni are on social security, when COLA was calculated for them they didn't lose anything, it stayed the same, exactly as was promised. So I know for a fact that there was no decrease due to COLA. I saw the damn paperwork with my own eyes, there's something more to this than what you are sharing. The only "decrease" I can find when talking about COLA isn't really a decrease. People are whining that for the first time in like a decade, Cost of Living for the military was adjusted at a flat rate, rather than higher than the civilian factor. While this might count as an effective cut, it went up. It went up even with reflect to the cost of living increase. However, the conservative bloggers went apeshit over this, so it's no surprise that our resident conservative apologist would be ranting about this.
|
|