Banks are just MEAN!!!!

[momisery]

So, have you visited the website? Because they actually do. Another good one is Politifact.com unless you go to the blogs then you simply get an opinion and those are a dime a dozen. Too many people think a place is left or right based on the fact that it disagrees with their point of view. Both of these websites will disagree with your point of view regardless of which part you happen to agree with. Visit, spend a lot of time reading.. During the last elections I would listen to the debates and then log in to factcheck .. they told the lies on both sides... I like the FACTS not left or right leaning like Rush, Hanity, Frankin, Schultz, fox .. or etc.

[momisery]

Actually here is a sample of the latest on factcheck.. go ahead and tell me they don't go after everyone...................
We deconstruct "shovel ready," "up to" and other misleading phrases.
We’re always alert for signs that the president (any president) is overselling his programs. Here’s what we heard in President Obama’s speech on Tuesday announcing new efforts to create jobs: He highlighted a Congressional Budget Office estimate that “up to” 1.6 million jobs … and more......
Truth Hits a Pothole

Obama said 10,000 infrastructure projects — the ones we were once told were "shovel ready" — have been "funded."

Obama: Already, more than 10,000 of these [infrastructure] projects have been funded through the Recovery Act. And by design, Recovery Act work on roads, bridges, water systems, Superfund sites, broadband networks, and clean energy projects will all be ramping up in the months ahead.

Does that sound left leaning?? Really what do they need to do call him names? Not meaing to insult you honest, but please read the website before you decide they are left or right. I did listen to Rush, Hannity, Frankin Shultz before I decide yep, they lean right or left.

[dspii]

Class envy in a man is as unbecoming as penis envy.

Wow, that's mean, by the way, I have my MBA, I just choose earn a profit and a paycheck for a service or product rendered in an honest way. I don't hunt the weak, I don't deceive anyone, I live by honor and integrity.

[backtoschool]

Wow, that's mean, by the way, I have my MBA, I just choose earn a profit and a paycheck for a service or product rendered in an honest way. I don't hunt the weak, I don't deceive anyone, I live by honor and integrity.

I have an MBA too from a top ranked school, and worked on Wall Street for ten years, and I can tell you that the words "honor", "integrity", "weak" and "hunt" are not quantifiable or measurable by any of the methods I learned in school or on the job. Your slogan above sounds more like a recruitment poster for the Marines than the working methodology of an MBA.

It is an economic reality that job growth requires capital. The capital can either come from the government and/or from businesses, but taxing without funneling money into growing the economy will lead to a shrinking economy and more job losses.

It is a matter of strong opinion (that I don't share) that Obama is "red".

It is a matter of pitchfork wielding public opinion that business should be "regulated", but when it comes time for designing regulations that will not hurt economic growth, nobody seems to have any answers. Regulating growth to get rid of "greed" is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[dspii]

It is an economic reality that job growth requires capital. The capital can either come from the government and/or from businesses, but taxing without funneling money into growing the economy will lead to a shrinking economy and more job losses.

So true, that is the methodology of an MBA and basic business 101. The banking industry and Wall Street play a very important roll in keeping America rolling. When you introduce government into either, we will all pay.

I am not a proponant of regulation, actually I hate it, but unfortunately sometimes it is needed, the reasons of which have been discussed at length, already in this thread.

Regarding honesty, integrity and the weak, it's too bad that a full year of ethics isn't a requirement. You are right, they are emotions and values, hence non-quantifiable, but nonetheless, important in decision making as well as risk taking. My perspective was that when we allow the ruthless, easy access to big money without shouldering the risk, we are asking, no, we are begging for trouble.

How many strip mall mortgage companies were in your neighborhood allowing fixed or low income families $100-$200k refi's knowing that they can't afford it in the big picture. I know in my neighborhood, it was terrible, the paper is filled with stories. But hey, they're grown-ups and signed right? When desperate for money, for whatever reason, people will do stupid things.

Creating the opportunity that allows one to make mega bucks on the weak or desperate is my issue. When a man is down, do we kick him and take his wallet or do we offer a helping hand.

The thoughts in starting this thread was when we are down and need a little help, the banks kick us and take our wallets. I don't want or expect a free-ride or handout, I'll work for my paycheck. But, had the banks been more lenient...I wouldn't have filed and they would get a return on the capital they loaned.

So the story goes, here we all are with at least one thing in common, the reasons we got here vary like grains of sand. But, if a deal could have been made, would you have filed or rode the storm a little longer in hopes for a brighter future? I would have rode the storm, I guess that where my integrity come in.

[backtoschool]

So true, that is the methodology of an MBA and basic business 101. The banking industry and Wall Street play a very important roll in keeping America rolling. When you introduce government into either, we will all pay.

I am not a proponant of regulation, actually I hate it, but unfortunately sometimes it is needed, the reasons of which have been discussed at length, already in this thread.

Regarding honesty, integrity and the weak, it's too bad that a full year of ethics isn't a requirement. You are right, they are emotions and values, hence non-quantifiable, but nonetheless, important in decision making as well as risk taking. My perspective was that when we allow the ruthless, easy access to big money without shouldering the risk, we are asking, no, we are begging for trouble.

How many strip mall mortgage companies were in your neighborhood allowing fixed or low income families $100-$200k refi's knowing that they can't afford it in the big picture. I know in my neighborhood, it was terrible, the paper is filled with stories. But hey, they're grown-ups and signed right? When desperate for money, for whatever reason, people will do stupid things.

Creating the opportunity that allows one to make mega bucks on the weak or desperate is my issue. When a man is down, do we kick him and take his wallet or do we offer a helping hand.

The thoughts in starting this thread was when we are down and need a little help, the banks kick us and take our wallets. I don't want or expect a free-ride or handout, I'll work for my paycheck. But, had the banks been more lenient...I wouldn't have filed and they would get a return on the capital they loaned.

So the story goes, here we all are with at least one thing in common, the reasons we got here vary like grains of sand. But, if a deal could have been made, would you have filed or rode the storm a little longer in hopes for a brighter future? I would have rode the storm, I guess that where my integrity come in.

Thoughtful post dspii

I am not against regulation, I just think that congress does not have the expertise to effectively regulate, and the Fed is in bed with Wall Street and will not regulate. In my opinion, regulations would not have helped us with the current crisis we are now in. Maybe regulation would have stopped AIG from being saved, and would have stopped Goldman Sachs from making as much money as it did, but it would not have stopped the housing crisis or the slow down of the economy. Marginal buyers would have still gotten mortgages, but at higher interest rates, and would have defaulted at much the same rate of default as we have now.

And what could we regulate really? I supposed we could regulate naked short sales. Those led to the downfall of Lehman, and several of the banks last fall. I would approve of that as long as we don't regulate regular short sales which are a necessary check and balance on the market.

We can regulate credit default swaps of course, but it is not practical, with the amount of debt now in the economy, to not repackage that debt in some way.

We can try to regulate ponzi schemes nad insider trading, but we have a very very long history of failing at such regulation.

And just as an fyi, I left Wall Street because I disagree with the value system in place there. If you read some of my history, I talk about that occasionally.

[AngelinaCatHub]

I am not jumping in. I do wish as I did on page 3, my observation of a most interesting thread I have seen with various sects of politics, yet we all have stayed civil.

Could it be the season? Could it be that we are all above this, have seen both sides, and been hit in the 'groin' too many times? Maybe, all the above.

Another reason to love our community of posters. We are or have been in the same boat as our forum peers. 'Hub

[OhioFiler]

Wow, that's mean, by the way, I have my MBA, I just choose earn a profit and a paycheck for a service or product rendered in an honest way. I don't hunt the weak, I don't deceive anyone, I live by honor and integrity.

It wasn't meant to be mean. It's an observation, nothing else.

Why didn't you address my concerns about your post? Why don't you open an "honest" bank?

George Bailey tried this in competition with Mr. Potter some time ago.

George Bailey---Just a minute - just a minute. Now, hold on, Mr. Potter. You're right when you say my father was no businessman. I know that. Why he ever started this cheap, penny-ante Building and Loan, I'll never know. But neither you nor anyone else can say anything against his character, because his whole life was - why, in the twenty-five years since he and Uncle Billy started this thing, he never once thought of himself. Isn't that right, Uncle Billy? He didn't save enough money to send Harry to school, let alone me. But he did help a few people get out of your slums, Mr. Potter, and what's wrong with that? Why - here, you're all businessmen here. Doesn't it make them better citizens? Doesn't it make them better customers? You - you said - what'd you say a minute ago? They had to wait and save their money before they even ought to think of a decent home. Wait? Wait for what? Until their children grow up and leave them? Until they're so old and broken down that they... Do you know how long it takes a working man to save five thousand dollars? Just remember this, Mr. Potter, that this rabble you're talking about... they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community. Well, is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath? Anyway, my father didn't think so. People were human beings to him. But to you, a warped, frustrated old man, they're cattle. Well, in my book he died a much richer man than you'll ever be.

[OhioFiler]

Thoughtful post dspii

I am not against regulation, I just think that congress does not have the expertise to effectively regulate, and the Fed is in bed with Wall Street and will not regulate. In my opinion, regulations would not have helped us with the current crisis we are now in. Maybe regulation would have stopped AIG from being saved, and would have stopped Goldman Sachs from making as much money as it did, but it would not have stopped the housing crisis or the slow down of the economy. Marginal buyers would have still gotten mortgages, but at higher interest rates, and would have defaulted at much the same rate of default as we have now.

Nor do these morons have the expertise to restructure our health care system. Roland Burris? Mary Landrieu? Pelosi? No man would trust these clowns with $50 of their hard earned money if they met them on the street.

[LimpDisc]

Nor do these morons have the expertise to restructure our health care system. Roland Burris? Mary Landrieu? Pelosi? No man would trust these clowns with $50 of their hard earned money if they met them on the street.

I agree with you about not trusting these clowns to fix the health care system, but something needs to be done. We spend way too much money on health care in this nation. My premiums went up 40% for 2010.

[Faust]

I agree with you about not trusting these clowns to fix the health care system, but something needs to be done. We spend way too much money on health care in this nation. My premiums went up 40% for 2010.

We pay $380.00 and it doesn't cover anything. We only go to the dr if we are dying and then we get billed on top of it.

Last year it increased $60.00 a month and my husband's raise was just a little more than that. This year it's up $20.00 and the raise is less than that so we're going backward now.

[OhioFiler]

I agree with you about not trusting these clowns to fix the health care system, but something needs to be done. We spend way too much money on health care in this nation. My premiums went up 40% for 2010.

So what do you suggest? How do we lower the cost of health care? Your premium increase is not a cost of health care, it is a cost of health insurance. I assume you'd be content had your premiums not increased regardless of whether health care costs increased. Well what drove those premiums higher? It's not an arbitrary decision by some executives in a board room. The insurance industry is the most regulated industry in this country. How much you want to bet it's regulations (coupled with greedy tort lawyers like John Edwards) that drove your premiums up?

[OhioFiler]

We pay $380.00 and it doesn't cover anything. We only go to the dr if we are dying and then we get billed on top of it.

Last year it increased $60.00 a month and my husband's raise was just a little more than that. This year it's up $20.00 and the raise is less than that so we're going backward now.

The cost of insurance is not correlated with your husband's income. It wouldn't make sense for an employer to do so.

You have the option of not selecting your husband's company provided insurance. You claim it costs $4,560 annually yet it covers nothing. Why not opt out and invest those dollars yourself and use the fund to pay your own healthcare? If it doesn't cover anything why are you wasting your money?

[LimpDisc]

Your premium increase is not a cost of health care, it is a cost of health insurance.

So the cost of health insurance isn't tied to the cost of health care?

So what do you suggest? How do we lower the cost of health care?

I wish I had all the answers. What I do know is that sitting around doing nothing is not the answer. What I would like to see is both parties working together to come up with a solution, but that's just wishful thinking. I know we have people in this great country that are smart enough to fix the problem.

My friend fell down 2 steps one night and broke two bones in his back. He thought that he had good health insurance. Guess what the result was of his visit to the hospital. BANKRUPTCY

[OhioFiler]

So the cost of health insurance isn't tied to the cost of health care?



I wish I had all the answers. What I do know is that sitting around doing nothing is not the answer. What I would like to see is both parties working together to come up with a solution, but that's just wishful thinking. I know we have people in this great country that are smart enough to fix the problem.

My friend fell down 2 steps one night and broke two bones in his back. He thought that he had good health insurance. Guess what the result was of his visit to the hospital. BANKRUPTCY

Well that's not what I meant. You can get rid of insurance entirely and the cost of healthcare remains static. My point was you are most likely more concerned about the cost of insurance not the cost of the actual care.

The solution to the cost of healthcare isn't to be found in Washington DC doing more. Every time Congress tries to fix something it becomes more broken. What we need is Congress to get out of the regulation business. Let the states handle these issues.