|
Post by Bezron on Apr 15, 2010 9:12:37 GMT -5
From what I understand, that isn't going well because the financial institutions refuse to help people. Although, I do know (from personal experience) that there are quite a few qualifications, and some of them are hard to meet. In my situation, for example, we closed on the house at the end of Feb 2009, and got into trouble in July/August. Thing is, when we applied for the loan and such, we had no idea that my wife was going to be forced to take a $15k hit for the year. We did know there would be some reduction, and we told the mortgage guy that. His response? "Don't worry about it, and I won't tell the underwriters." We finally got out from under, but we didn't qualify for any mortgage reduction because we closed after Jan 12009, and since we bought our house at a low point it hasn't lost more than about $10k in value. So, instead, we had to beg the mortgage company for a payment plan, and they continued to ding our credit for the entire period.
|
|
|
Post by Trillian on Apr 15, 2010 9:24:40 GMT -5
Thanks everyone. I also read a really interesting article in the NY Times about what the healtcare bill means to the everyday person. I can only assume that since it's the NY Times, it's probably based on fact rather than opnion.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Apr 15, 2010 9:58:27 GMT -5
I can only assume that since it's the NY Times, it's probably based on fact rather than opnion. Sadly, the Times being honest isn't something to take for granted anymore. The scandal surrounding Jayson Blair's tenure with the newspaper did a number on its credibility, and to this day it still receives the occasional odd glance by people who aren't 100% sure if they can trust it. Likewise, between the Hutton Report and the Bhopal Hoax, the BBC - another source that was generally considered a global standard in honesty - has also seen its reputation shredded.
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Apr 15, 2010 10:15:40 GMT -5
That's right, Sky. The only trusted news source now is Fox News.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Apr 15, 2010 10:16:37 GMT -5
Sky, saying that the Times is no longer trustworthy because a single editor plagiarized and fabricated some details is idiotic, even moreso in light of the fact that he resigned and the Times ran a lengthy front-page article detailing his crimes and apologizing for them within two weeks of his being found out. That said, it is a good idea to get your information from multiple sources. Here's the Reuters article I've been using as my primary reference regarding HCR.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Apr 15, 2010 10:54:57 GMT -5
That's right, Sky. The only trusted news source now is Fox News. No, I'm saying that for both the Times and the BBC, their integrity has undergone significant challenges and so people are a little gunshy about taking them at face value. As Tiger noted, it's better to get multiple sources on an issue if at all possible.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 15, 2010 10:59:36 GMT -5
I think the point was the irony Sky, you parrot fox news all the time, have used it to back up your argument before and refuse to acknowledge that it's more political than news.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Apr 15, 2010 10:59:49 GMT -5
If at all possible? In the age of digital media the only time you can get a single source is if the "news" in question isn't.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Apr 15, 2010 11:00:31 GMT -5
people are a little gunshy about taking them at face value. "Some people say..."
|
|
|
Post by agnosticantagonist on Apr 15, 2010 11:15:46 GMT -5
Anyone's better than that motherfucker Hoover.
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Apr 15, 2010 11:15:55 GMT -5
I can only assume that since it's the NY Times, it's probably based on fact rather than opnion. Sadly, the Times being honest isn't something to take for granted anymore. The scandal surrounding Jayson Blair's tenure with the newspaper did a number on its credibility, and to this day it still receives the occasional odd glance by people who aren't 100% sure if they can trust it. Likewise, between the Hutton Report and the Bhopal Hoax, the BBC - another source that was generally considered a global standard in honesty - has also seen its reputation shredded. That's right, Sky, mention the actions of a single reporter pulling bullshit out of his ass, don't mention the Times explanation and apology, and whatever you do, don't you dare mention Fox News winning a court case that now gives the green light for them to lie whenever the fuck they feel like it and still call it "news."
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 15, 2010 19:47:33 GMT -5
I can only assume that since it's the NY Times, it's probably based on fact rather than opnion. Sadly, the Times being honest isn't something to take for granted anymore. The scandal surrounding Jayson Blair's tenure with the newspaper did a number on its credibility, and to this day it still receives the occasional odd glance by people who aren't 100% sure if they can trust it. Likewise, between the Hutton Report and the Bhopal Hoax, the BBC - another source that was generally considered a global standard in honesty - has also seen its reputation shredded. A single, biased government report into an organistation that made claims that have since been confirmed, a single journalist and a dodgy press conference are hardly the worst the BBC or NY Times have done. In fact, selecting these examples rather than other, more egregious, long-term trends dishonestly implies that they swing liberal. But the NYT isn't the Nation, BBC isn't Democracy Now. Where they are biased, they are against, not towards, liberalism. Just look at the front page of the NYT today- did they poll anti-war protestors in 2003? Were they a 'new party'?
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Apr 15, 2010 19:51:59 GMT -5
Taft? Don't get me talking about Taft (bawhoa bawhoo)
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Apr 15, 2010 20:11:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Apr 15, 2010 20:41:21 GMT -5
|
|