patrick.net

hi sevan : Can you name them ...is switzerland one of them ?
I agree with you that there is a tendency in US to name everything best in US as best in World...most international travelers find that annoying as they have real life experiences all over the world.
I consider US very strong in individual Freedom and money making..apart from that everything else is not that great compared to some of the other countries ( social fabric , pace of life, health , obesity, life style, culture..etc)

sevans says

Why would you make such a claim? I could name at least 3 other countries that leave the USA in the dust. I don’t speculate. I speak frm experience. Just because you were born in the USA does not by definition make it the best in the world.

Read that again, friend. There are plenty of places that are as good or better than the US (though none that are really meaningfully "better" -- mostly just different). The problem is that if you relocated to any of those countries you would have a hard time finding work and possibly be unable to own property.

Of course, I also highly doubt that the people ranting about government spending would be all that happy in other countries that are actually nice places to live :)

homeowner_for ever_san jose says

hi sevan : Can you name them …is switzerland one of them ?

Absolutely not -- that is, not to say that it's worse than the US, but as a non-citizen, your rights in switzerland are severely restricted. Unless you already have an employer willing to hire you there, you'll have a hell of a time getting work permits, and owning property is out of the question.

The story is the same in just about every other country that you would want to live in.

If those countries relaxed their work eligibility / ownership rights, I'd consider leaving the US.

I like to say. Yes, perhaps E=mc2, but Science=FFF (Full of Fallacious Facts).

Things are what they are. Our understanding of those things is according to our capacity to interpret and then understand them. Unfortunately that capacity is ever changing and evolving as our basis of understanding is proven and thus disproven.

We scientists know the more we learn about this universe, the more clueless we thus become on the primeval origins and complex workings within it. The ol' "The more I learn, the more I know that which I do not know."

We are severely limited by our 5 senses. No one has ever seen an atom. The atom itself and all of it's related structural properties have not been actually observed by science. The atom is a theoretical deduction. Nothing more, nothing less. Much of science is conducted in this manner. Science is enormously comprised, to this modern day, by THEORIES, still quite unproven, and often everchanging. With many a theory heavily relying on another. With any one of the underlying theories disproven, serious doubt is cast upon subsequently reliant propositions. For example, see: red shift theories in relation to the expanding universe theory. (IE big bang theorists) and the linear velocity-distance relations.

Science is more divided and muddled these days than at any time in recent history. I laugh at those people that pretend to know that "science is in full agreement" in this or that.. Science hardly, completely agrees on anything. It's comprised of numerous ideas and opinions.

Einstein actually theorized that our universe was temporally homogeneous, static, surely not expanding.

To all you posters who wake each morning with the errant belief that there are better places to live than the United States:

You are clearly 28 years old and perhaps still living in "your mama basement". Have you ever left the state?

I've lived in and traveled to almost every country in the world. I have yet to find or credibly hear of ANY place that is even remotely as good a place to be, than the United States.

The United States is still the best. You're still here!

Agreed. We have a beautiful country, where people can say pretty much whatever they want. They can act like asses without being arrested, receive minimal healthcare in the ER, live however they want... And they can be racists with the same protections as the rest of us... People in our prisons have a better lifestyle than do many citizens of third world countries.

But there are other countries that have qualities we could emulate, such as a viable healthcare system. Or we could create a better system on our own (not the corporate-pocket-lining crap, either). Just because we're great, doesn't mean that we couldn't be greater.

Impolite says:
"And I’m truly SURPRISED that Patrick.et now requires CIVILITY, POLITENESS and general NICENESS from those (millions?) of us who are FED-UP, FURIOUS and BOILING HOT over the way we’re being RAILROADED, RIPPED-OFF and RAPED by Goldman Sachs/WashingtonDC. It’s kinda like asking someone who’s about to be executed by firing squad to SMILE for the picture."
"As far as I’M concerned, this country is DEAD. I’ll NEVER waste my time or breath again in any stupid opinion forum as long as I live. From now on all my efforts will be directed to EMIGRATING from this shithole known as the United States of America LAND OF THE FRAUD."
----------------------------------------
Someone needs to refill the Prozac. If you can afford it, that is.

The USA is a very large country. Each area has a distinctly different flavor.

Like the urban life in a city that does not sleep, but do not mind a small living quarters on a busy sreet and no parking? Try New York City.

Like to retire to an inexpensive waterfront lot and fish all day? Try ocean or lakefront living in rural Virginia.

Like a 3,000 sqft home with a 3 car garage on a 1/2 acre lot, affordable on a middle class income? Try a Texas or Carolina suburb.

Want to live where everyone has a gun, counties don't even have mandantory electrical inspections, highways have no speed limits, and very few property restrictions, try Montana.

So you see, if you are fed up with for example, with being the equivilant of a fluff girl or Gaston de Pee in a law office somewhere, you can pull up stakes and change lifestyles rather easily.

This is

Hmmm, “dumbest thing I’ve read” sounds impolite.
Especially because you didn’t explain why you think it’s dumb.
You think corporations won’t do whatever they can to make money?

I didn't think it was necessary for competent individuals to recognize what is self evident. But it's all too easy if I must.

Corporations are bound by law to make the most money they can for their shareholders. If they started just being nice, their shareholders could sue them.

Haven't you ever heard of corporations giving to community projects or supporting (funding) philanthropical institutions? There are literally thousands of examples. Are they typically sued for these activities? I will expect that you will say that they do this for PR purposes - to maximize profits. But isn't this the same as individual action where we ultimately do everything for selfish reasons? At somepoint you have to call goodwill goodwill, even if it is self-serving at the same time. Otherwise we fall into a neverending cynicysm where all matter of kindness, politeness, is a lie.

Essentially a corporation is a collection of individuals and will act only as ethically/morally as the individuals who influence it. In other words, if a corporation does something amoral, it's because SOMEONE did something amoral. ... which brings me to the second point.

The law must be bigger than the corporations, and must stop them from making money by grinding up children to sell as dog food, for example. Corporations will scream and cry the the government is interfering in the free market, and they’d be right. A totally unregulated free market would kill us all.

Please cite where a corporation has screamed and cried how it's unfair that they haven't been allowed to grind children into dogfood and I will concede. This statement implicitly assumes that you, as a shareholder, worker, or corporate executive, along with everyone else in the corporation and all the dog-food consumers, have no problem with grinding up children for dogfood. Further, it is only the Government, source of all moral goodness, that would prevent it. That is why that statement lacks any type of intelligence, to be more POLITE.

I believe the Republican Party is teetering on the brink of fracture right now. They have failed to recognize the large population segments they have alienated & disaffected, and simply cranked up the volume from the fringes and become more shrill.

However I don't think they are the DANGER in past or present that is so often ascribed. This is precisely the nature of party politics. When any party becomes sufficiently polarized & out of touch, it finds it is losing seats in office. Which is precisely what happened lately.

No need to worry about this further.

As to those for whom Corporations are equal citizens, I ask you to compare the MORALITY & LAW standards currently imposed on Corporations versus individuals as regards bankruptcy. As individuals we are told MORALLY we must pay all our bills no matter what. As individuals post 2005 LEGALLY there avenues for bankruptcy were reduced. On the other hand when a corporation wants to declare bankruptcy to "reorganize" hey no problem here's the express lane how can we help you..... A double-standard is plainly evident and it's amazing people deny that corporations have ascended to a plane where their rights EXCEED those of citizens. It baffles me this is not under public debate. I'm baffled that corporate "personhood" fiction has morphed into a near-religion.

Vicente says

On the other hand when a corporation wants to declare bankruptcy to “reorganize” hey no problem here’s the express lane how can we help you…..

That is because when a corporation goes out of business lots of people lose jobs. The polticians would rather a company restructure than throw its workers into the unemployment line.

For individuals, most bankruptcies (other than medical) are parachutes from an overspending lifestyle.

However, I would like to see any corporation that files for bankruptcy be required to implement serious executive pay caps. Unlikely though, since even the bailed out banks are now allowed to pay million dollar bonuses.

Vicente says

I believe the Republican Party is teetering on the brink of fracture right now. They have failed to recognize the large population segments they have alienated & disaffected, and simply cranked up the volume from the fringes and become more shrill.

That is a wonderful slogan, "Republicans: The party of shrill fringes."

What exactly does this have to do with 'Housing Crash Forum'? Would you care to explain?

The fact of life is that WE-YOU-I are the ones responsible for this life we have. If you want to play the victim-blame game, go right ahead. And then, as DR. Phil would say, “How’s that working out for you-lol.

The sooner we take R E S P O N S I B I l I T Y, the sooner things will change. And yes, WE do create our own reality.

From KLNR

The Little Guy

HeadSet says

That is because when a corporation goes out of business lots of people lose jobs. The polticians would rather a company restructure than throw its workers into the unemployment line.

Everyone has a RATIONALIZATION. Please explain in supposedly egalitarian society all created equal, but now corporations outrank citizens? Makes no sense. Corporation "reorganizes" by defaulting on debts and obligations. For corporation "just business". You just characterized personal bankruptcy as OVERSPENDING= moral issue = deserve to suffer. Got news for you many bakruptcies due to MEDICAL bills.

masayako says

Right on, dude.

My sentiments exactly.....

Vicente says

You just characterized personal bankruptcy as OVERSPENDING= moral issue = deserve to suffer. Got news for you many bakruptcies due to MEDICAL bills.

Read my post carefully. I specifically said:

For individuals, most bankruptcies (other than medical) are parachutes from an overspending lifestyle.

Note the "other than medical." And yes, other than medical, I would say most personal bankruptcies are parachutes from overspending.

HeadSet says

And yes, other than medical, I would say most personal bankruptcies are parachutes from overspending.

Why do you not apply the same standard to corporations?

If they are in bankruptcy it must be because they were overspending eh?

Therefore a "means test" and asset liquidation to allow the capital to flow back into national usage instead of being tied up in a demonstrably INEFFICIENT & OVERSPENDING company would be best resolution. That's capitalism and it should be EVENLY APPLIED to corporations as to citizens.

The entire idea of corporate "personhood" was to expand their protections & rights. However with protections & rights should come the same PRICE paid by citizens. Namely you screw up badly as a person, well there are consequences. That was the entire presumption in Bankruptcy Act of 2005 revisions. Namely credit card companies were peeved people might get off the hook on debts through bankruptcy so wanted to make it harder from them to "escape". My argument is SAME standards should always be applied to both. We have built a nearly risk-free environment now for large corporations. Everything is oriented around protecting and nurturing them, and citizens are increasingly left hanging out in the wind.

Vicente says

If they are in bankruptcy it must be because they were overspending eh?

Correct. That or other misguided practices, such as introducing an electric car that tops at 35mph.

Therefore a “means test” and asset liquidation to allow the capital to flow back into national usage instead of being tied up in a demonstrably INEFFICIENT & OVERSPENDING company would be best resolution. That’s capitalism and it should be EVENLY APPLIED to corporations as to citizens.

Correct again.

What makes you think I am in favor of corporations weaseling out? Notice I wrote The polticians would rather a company restructure than throw its workers into the unemployment line. Notice I said "politicians." If it were up to me, the company would have to restructure under the courts with no special treatment. If the corporation is too far gone for that, they close. It is the politcian that wants the special treatment, especially if it means job losses for constituents and campaign contributions from the corporation.

We have built a nearly risk-free environment now for large corporations.

Correct, except that I would say certain favored corporations. I presume you will agree that no bailouts should have been made to either bank or auto company. If those institutions were unable to survive after a restructuring, they should cease to exist.

Headset,

Actually I am in favor of some middle-ground where the courts decide the path a bankruptcy will take. I'm not that harsh about it. My argument is about uneven application of the principle currently.

I believe I misunderstood your argument and apologize for mischaracterizing.

Vicente says

I believe I misunderstood your argument and apologize for mischaracterizing.

That's OK, I do not write so well.

BobK says

Why worship the Democratic party?
Both parties are corrupt.
They both only nominate people who are scumbags to the positions. It is better to have the position sit empty rather have a scumbag in the seat.

So you think Anarchy is better than some corruption?

Every government has corruption in it -- you won't eliminate it. What you can do is try to be sure that what corruption you do have is naturally checked.

What a Pathetic Piss-Ant. Not Really worthy of consideration. Argues like a 19 year old college liberal.Maybe when he gets a little older or has a Muslim sword to his throat will he realize how blessed he is.

Maybe when he gets a little older or has a Muslim sword to his throat...

Scimitar - and I believe the preferred method is to start at the nape.

I blame whitey

"How is this BETTER than Anarchy?"

Is this a joke? Do you have a clue what the term Anarchy means? Travel to Nigeria, Somalia, Zimbabwe, or Zaire and find out for yourself. The US is the only country in the world where poor people are fat and have color tv's. Get a grip. Or at least get some perspective.

BobK says

When special interests with money are able to get the politicians to do their bidding while the politicians impose more burdens on the ordinary folks?

Why isn't anyone outraged now that the bailout banks will be allowed to hand out million dollar bonuses after all? It has become a non-issue.

I think no one is outraged about the bailout bank bonuses because the bank topic is played down in the right-wing spin machine.

That machine exists to rile up people about things that distract them from the corporate corruption of government. So we hear about socialism, liberals, health care, and how very evil government is when it's taxing the rich.

But Fox News etc does not seem to think government is all that evil when government is handing out taxpayer money to badly-run banks. For example, if you do a search on Fox News for Goldman, you get amazing spin like this:

"Lost Goldman Sachs Bonuses Costing New York $178 Million in Lost Taxes"

Just the opposite of reality! See http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/search?q=goldman&start=10

Why worship the Democratic party?
Both parties are corrupt.

Well they are both populated with lawyers... it may be time to stop electing lawyers as Congress-men/women.

I cant find the site (I'm tired and lazy), but there is one that shows who gives what to politico's ... who got what from "the banks" durring this last prez election? I think that would be some pretty good info to dove-tail into Patrick's point - one way or the other.

BobK says

How is this BETTER than Anarchy?

Well, I don't have to worry about being murdered on the street (and there actually are streets to begin with). My life isn't a constant struggle just to stay alive. I'd count that as "better than Anarchy".

bob2356 says

he US is the only country in the world where poor people are fat and have color tv’s.

...except for Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Norway, Denmark, Japan...

I could go on. The US is not alone in being so rich that even the "poor" are reasonably well off -- nor are we alone in having some corruption in our government.

However, the corruption that exists with the democrats and republicans doesn't hold a candle to the corruption that you'll find in third world countries, or even China and India for that matter. Some people have really, horribly skewed perspectives on how the world works.

Corruption is inherent in any system where human beings are involved. Nothing will stop that, because you can't change human nature. This is why we have laws and regulations to begin with.

Why isn’t anyone outraged now that the bailout banks will be allowed to hand out million dollar bonuses after all? It has become a non-issue.

The cynic in me says apathy, but that isn't the complete picture: there really is no mechanism in place for the public to change anything regarding the issue. Populist rage/pandering is about all the hoi polloi can hope for.

That said, I still read people on here who keep their money with BofA and Citi. Indefensible.

"I think no one is outraged about the bailout bank bonuses because the bank topic is played down in the right-wing spin machine."

Here's a remote possibility. The President is playing down the bank topic. If I were a gambling man, I might bet on this strategy: 70% of the people want health care reform. I give them health care reform, they continue to give me majorities in the House and Senate in 2010. After 2010, I can champion the reforming of Wall St. because it is another populist cause that will play well in the 2012 election where I already have the advantage of being the incumbent. If this works, the House and Senate can ride on my coat tails to maintain majorities.

"Why isn’t anyone outraged now that the bailout banks will be allowed to hand out million dollar bonuses after all? "
Maybe the funds were segregated into restricted cash accounts vs general operating cash and used to fix the defaulted loans from homeowners, which came from the depositors of the bank. And now being repaid back with interest from sales of homes the bank resold sold to the public from their inventory. While the bonus came from the general operating cash account.

I dont think congress, populated with crony lawyers, who couldn't add two numbers together have the brains to figure out how bonus programs works. Hum! did they go after the CEO bonus only or everyone else's Christmas bonus who worked at the bank ? How about the CFO bonus who didn't factor in the risks? How about the sales and marketing VP guru's who created this mess in the first place for the banks?

The most effective anti-bonus program so far has been the proposal by Sheila Bair at the FDIC that all the big banks (or is it all banks?) must prepay their FDIC insurance for 2009-Q4 to 2012 at the end of 2009.

That ought to put a real crimp on all the recent and new-found bank profits, and therefore also the bonus programs, one can hope. I think Sheila Bair is being very clever -- she knows what the bankster bounus thieves are up to and at the same time has a valid need for the insurance premiums because the FIDC insurance fund is running low. For her and the American public it is a win-win situation to grab the profits while we can.

It's the ultimate clawback, so to speak.

Anyone else looking at it this way?