Why the hell is everything on allocation?

They don't _make_ those, it happens. And it is one of the moral duties of a society to be there for each other when that happen. Way I see it. And it is the way God sees it.

value,

the

what it

to

people

No. Where did I ever say "force" anyone? It shall be purely a business decision on the part of the lender.

When that leads to a much heftier loss for the lender than negotiating a compromise it is a bad business decision. In the same way that owners of business buildings sometimes give tenants a break these days because they correctly figure that a tenant who pays $3k instead of the originally agreed upon $4k/mo lease is much better than having no tenant. Because no tenant means $0k in revenue, minus property taxes and other payments.

I disagree. it can be a good deal for the bank. Of course, this has to come with some other austerity clauses.

I know it does. But you can string conditions to it, we are a in free country and new contracts can be written with a lot of extra stuff in there. For example, require them to attend what we run at church, "Financial University". It's cheap but has brought lots of our members back to an even keel financially.

The fundamental problem is that the current generation of younger home owners has grown up in an environment of abundance and received the wrong cues from their parents. For example, that it's ok to rack up tons of credit card debt, while it clearly is not ok.

I've just heard from one of the delivery drivers that they are handling loads of RS parcels, they are really busy.

Looking on the pessimistic side, that could, of course, be because every order is now arrving in dribs and drabs from all directions and generating lots more small parcels.

It doesn't happen until they take the action of performing sexual intercourse, or do you believe in Immaculate Conception? Then, in that case, why should I pay their bills? Wouldn't that be God's responsibility?

So, tell me, where is your direct line to God?

I like this one:

Thanks! RIch

Right. So I call you out as an idiot, and you interpret that to think that I mean "everybody."

This is called "globalizing," and is one of the primary symptoms of dysfunction.

Thanks, Rich

Which is necessary in order to keep funding the systems that will support you. Or actually already do support you, as evidenced by your own words in the links below.

Yes.

No, they apparently already shoulder your bills. Re-read your posts from Dec-27, 2005, 12:44pm and Oct-3, 2010, 6:53pm. Somehow that, in combination with what you wrote today, strikes me as hypocrisy:

Quote "I'm scraping by on a combination of Food Stamps and "odd jobs.""

It's about 4ft from me, the bible.

Lots of mortgage holders have done so. Politicians do, too. Ever heard of gut-and-amend? Do you honestly believe all of them actually read the nasty add-ons in section 9006 of the health care reform bill?

And it is pretty clear. To put it in stark terms for Rich (and I am in complete agreement with Jörg on this point), it boils down to this:

• treat others as you'd want to be treated
• store treasures in heaven, not earth
• give to all who beg
• carry no money, bag, or sandals.
• judge not
• love your enemies
• take the log out of your own eye, first
• don't trumpet your righteousness
• you can tell by their fruits
• if struck on one cheek, offer the other
• go out as lambs among wolves
• pray in private, not in public

I can provide citations for Rich, if he needs to know where these come from. But Matthew and Luke would be a start.

Jesus also says that even hypocrites do for their own, so claiming that you give freely to people of your own tribe or political group, etc., isn't the point. It's giving to those who are outside of those you identify as family or your own community that is important.

Rich, you might also remember (if you ever read the bible) that it says somewhere something like "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction ..." A thread of thought also shows up saying that those with diminished or weakened lives deserve special respect and help.

It pretty much pervades throughout Jesus' words, as laid out in the gospels and in some of the letters, as well.

Jon

The public employee retirement fund out here did this:

Three large parcels near Phoenix, one of the nation's hardest-hit property markets. Last month, Calpers effectively walked away from one of the three, ...

Is it any wonder people think walking away from a real estate purchase that went sour is ok?

But wait, there's more:

That's true as it goes. But Rich was addressing himself (I never really know for sure, but...) to contract for hire of some kind. That's a little different. I read those with a fine tooth comb and, usually, insist on modification. I think I've only examined one (maybe two?) in all my years that wasn't tilted way too far in favor of the company trying to hire me -- the rest required modification or I refused the work.

One of the arguments I've made, not seen in this thread, when a large company (read: Seimens or Lockheed and so on) attempts to get me to indemnify them against work I do in case of law suit: "Putting me between you and someone suing you is like putting a sheet of toilet paper up as a defense against a blow torch... they'd blow through me in less than a second." They usually get the point. I'm not a deep pocket and I cannot sincerely play in the legal big leagues, anyway.

Jon

Bankruptcy isn't an easy out, anymore, as it should be. However, it is there to be used in the right circumstances, sure. That isn't the discussion, here, though. The issue is the banks (by choice or being coerced into) rewriting the terms of the loan after the game starts. *THAT* is a bad plan. No doubt, bankruptcy is a legitimate tool.

That is a *BAD* idea, for the reasons given.

Sure, it's called bankruptcy. No, I didn't much like the executive branch ripping GM away from first class creditors and being given to others with lower standing, either.

Not if the rules aren't known up front, there won't be. That's a good part of the problem now.

I always insist on my own consulting agreement, which I have written myself. It is written in an equitable way for both sides, protecting me from ambulance chasers and protecting them in terms of IP generated during my consulting for them.

That was a good one!

My impression is that the larger the company the less this is understood. Probably because they usually deal with other large companies, more so than with individuals. With small companies the agreement gets signed same day and work commences right then.

value,

sale. I

the

offer

then.

happening.

what it

to

people

That was part of the discussion.

system.

Except that it doesn't. The track record of people being helped, once, and then staying good creditors is very poor. There is a reason they're under water and that doesn't often go away.

History isn't on your side.

Right. Except the guy that wrote the book (Dave Ramsey) doesn't believe it (rewriting mortgage terms) will work, either. He tells people to try (mainly because it's free money and worth a shot) but the record is *not* good. One of his first instructions to people who are that far under is to ditch the house in any (well, attempt to sell it first) way possible.

It's worse than that. It boils down to a need for instant gratification; the same reason the bought a house they couldn't afford in the first place.

is

What I wrote was

"The economy is recovering ..."

And your response was

"I'm sure yours is, being on the receiving side of the GIMME GIMME GIMME GIMME GIMME party.

You really don't have any grasp of reality, do you?"

Which might look to you like "calling me out as an idiot" but struck me as having so little relationship to the matter under discussion that your own grasp of reality looked questionable.

The point at issue - as I've said above - and you've ignored - is that the economy doesn't have to recover much to empty the distributors shelves. An economy that was contracting and recovered only enough to be contracting more slowly could be enough. Distrbutors don't keep a lot of goodies on the shelf in the depths of a recession.

I'm afraid that you are the idiot here.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Not in the part I partcipated in. So who "forces" here?

of

system.

Correct, just like with many welfare folks who have kind of gotten used to that "lifestyle". That is part of the business decision by the lender. They can look at individual situations, credit histories, number and size of bounced checks, general statistics, whatever they think is useful, and then make a decision who gets a deal and who doesn't.

It is fairly easy to find out if, for example, someone was notoriously tardy in paying their bills. That would for sure be a red flag. So would bounced checks because it is a clear indicator that someone has money management issues. But if you have someone where a spouse got cancer and that put them into a one-time tailspin but they had a clean past before that, very different story.

The

default

In our local community some of it is.

with

Sure, if they are very far under or lost a lucrative job they'll unlikely ever land again then they may have to cut it loose. But: I know lots of people who simply can't resist shopping until they drop, or until Visa says "Enuff!". Once that sick habit is broken people can actually pull themselves up by the bootstraps. I met people who are able again to not shake in their boots when the next mortgage payment comes due, or bite their nails hoping the check clears this time. It can be done.

Agree. But the imminent threat of losing the house has scared many of them straight. Mainly because it is a huge embarrassment. How do they explain that to their parents, friends, neighbors or ... ... their own kids? That mom and dad screwed up and that they have no clue where they'll move to?

There is a reason why borrowing is on the decline in the US (a good thing) and some people who had never done that are actually beginning to save (a very good thing). We personally know such people.

Read it? Why the Senate just passed a bill (S.510) that everyone agrees is unconstitutional. Even the people who passed it.

Bills that raise revenue must originate in the House. This one didn't. Reid's office? They say they didn't know that was in there.

"The debacle could prove to be a major embarrassment for Senate Democrats, who sought Tuesday to make the relatively unknown bill a major political issue by sending out numerous news releases trumpeting its passage."

-- Cheers, James Arthur

tcy.

ure

tely

then

ut to

f and

Gotcha. I was talking about mortgage re-whatevers, the process you spoke of before where the bank forgives part of the principle. [sic]

nt

ime

No worries--you've been busy getting lots of attention here.

ing

I haven't reviewed the final recommendations yet. The preliminary stuff was mostly too little too late, things that didn't kick in until

My best idea to date is that should cut everything, across the board. There's scarcely anything that can't be improved 10% (or more), especially the ranks of government (since it's never been pruned).

Cutting across the board means everyone shares in the pain, and eliminates battles over who got cut and who didn't. OTOH if we pick and choose, we'll have a million unwinnable battles over each cut and it will never happen.

Right now we're spending roughly $1.67 per $1.00 we're taking in ($2.06 in July). Ultimately, either we want to save America, or we don't. I believe Americans want to save it, and, if asked, will do whatever it takes, this is my faith.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

I completely agree. I hadn't realized you could be so pragmatic on these issues! :-)

I do this; howcome the self-avowed "christians" mostly don't?

This is ridiculous - why do I want to hide something in a place where you have to be dead to get to?

I do this when I've got it to spare.

That's insane.

That's a little hard to do in practice as well.

Wouldn't it be better to just not make enemies in the first place?

Excellent advice? How many evangelists follow this one?

This one I do diligently. If you want to see a sample of righteousness, just look for the one whose initials are BS. ;-) I don't think that noticing that warmingism is a religious cult is "righteousness," just acknowledgement of reality the way it is.

Boy, ain't that the truth!

Nah, it's much less self-destructive to just get the f*ck out of the way. If I'm a child of God, isn't it disrespectful to her to leave myself in harm's way?

That's insane.

Well, there you are!

Well, you can't give from an empty vessel. When my cup runneth over, I give vigorously, but when I can't afford a peanut butter sandwich, it's kind of self-destructive to starve myself so someone else can reap the fruits of my labor.

And self-effacement disrespects Our Creator, for aren't we all the children of God?

Oh, ick.

I didn't sign up for a sermon.

Well, the "christians" who want to kill Muslims "because they want to kill us" are the worst kind of hypocrites, and possibly downright evil.

And, hey, what the hey, if God could channel the Bible, who's to say that she couldn't channel a website? How could you know whether or not in the couple of thousand years or so anything has been learned?

This might help with your healing:

And, FWIW, God created Evolution. >:->

Cheers! Rich