112
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 01:58 pm
@hawkeye10,
Took me more than a bit to decode your reference. There is nothing wrong with the way I am, thank you. If you don't like it, I will just, as my father always says, "consider the source."

A long time ago, it occurred to me that people engage in courting behavior. I found that I had written on the matter here, prior to my hiatus from this forum.

By courting behavior, I mean trying to be not just the best they can be but, perhaps, better than his/her potential.

Some people become better through their romantic relationships and others become worse. Even without cheating, there are more than two "people," in every relationship. There are the two and then there is the potential that each one brings to the relationship. In a good relationship, both parties grow. Different scenarios are possible in bad relationships but I am not taking this tangent further.

I firmly believe that part of the reason for the high divorce rate is that people think there is a quick fix: that they can become their own personal best.

I did not marry my husband to fix him nor did I marry him because he was the man I always wanted. I married him, in part, because he gave evidence of recognizing his own faults . . . and two or three other characteristics.

The insight into his self that seemed so important to me was his feeling sorry for himself because he wasn't tenured at his university. Had he further insight into himself, he would have realized his personality was wrong for that line of work.

Now, just to set you straight. He does not speak to our kids. When my older son married, he took his wife's name because he hated his father so much. So, who was the problem in the marriage?
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 01:59 pm
@okie,
No, looking toward God is abdicating personal responsibility. There are far too many hypocrites who say God is my savior and who act with hatred toward their fellow man.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 02:22 pm
Quote:
WASHINGTON – To the list of economic woes squeezing small banks, add another one: government bailouts.

The Treasury Department's bailout program was designed with Wall Street megabanks in mind, according to a new report from a congressional watchdog. The "one-size-fits-all" program may actually be hurting small banks that are struggling to repay the money or even deliver quarterly dividend payments, the report says.

The main bank bailout program anticipated banks springing back from the crisis and raising fresh funds to repay the government, the report says.

That's exactly what happened to most of the big banks that took the most bailout money. Yet small banks continue to struggle, dragged down by souring loans for commercial real estate and high unemployment. Hundreds more small banks are expected to fail by the end of next year.

The 690 small banks that took bailout money are even worse off, according to a report Wednesday from the Congressional Oversight Panel, which monitors the $700 billion financial bailout. Already, one in seven has failed to pay a quarterly dividend due to Treasury. They can't afford the payments, which will nearly double in 2013.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100714/ap_on_bi_ge/us_bailout_watchdog_small_banks

Humm, fat cats do well at the expense of the little guy, with massive amounts of help from the government....seems like I have heard that story line somewhere before...
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 02:24 pm
@okie,
The problem is that within a marriage many civil laws do not apply and that once a marriage is dissolved, the responsibility toward each other that is not laid out in the divorce agreement is dissolved.

The loans remained hidden until after the divorce.

No, there is nothing fishy about my power of attorney claim. I said he signed my name as though he had power of attorney which he did not.

You may not be aware of the fact that during the late 70s and into the mid-80s, many banks and other financial institutions made loans to men who signed on behalf of their wives. The savings and loan collapse was a good thing because many of these practices were abolished under the increased scrutiny given to banks. After our divorce, my youngest brother went to the bank that he and his wife used since their marriage, a small bank where everyone was known by their first names. My brother and his wife were considering refinancing their home, and, as he had to do something at the bank, thought he would ask what the current rates were. The vice president, who was also a friend of theirs, told him that he could not discuss rates with him without Mo (his wife) being present. Ah! Government controls do work to help people!

Quote:

It does make me wonder if you are needing some whipping boys to take out your lingering anger over your failed marriage, pom?


Can you say, "low blow," boys and girls? That is a truly tacky statement. I have been divorced for 16 years and never felt that it was failed marriage. If anything, I wish I has ended the marriage years before I did. I am not going to go into how hard I worked within the marriage to involve my ex with the kids he wanted. But, I have had two relationships since. I also do not feel jealousy. Jealousy is a waste of time.

All my life, I have been concerned with justice. I was motivated by justice even as a child in grade school. I hate untruths. If I attack people here it is 1.) in self-defense; 2.) in defense of others; 3.) to correct their errors; 4.) to defend myself, my children and grandchildren, the institutions of this nation that I uphold, the environment and the planet against the right wing.

Finally, you spoke to me once in a way that I am certain that you felt was kind but that I could not accept. You suggested that, perhaps, in my heart, I was a conservative. As I could not accept it, I ignored that statement. No anger, no reprisals. Nothing. So much better than acrimony and not as dishonest as thanking you would have been.

okie, I never felt that a marriage has to be permanent. I accept that I have a fault in working to make silk purses out of sow's ears. It is a genuine failing of mine and it caused me to spend far too much of my life doing things I should have abandoned.

I do not need counseling. My father was horrified that I went to college. He actually beat my mother in his frustration. I knew what I wanted but I modified where I went to school and what I majored in to suit my mother, who did not disapprove of the idea of college but rather my desired major and the fact that I wanted to leave home to do pursue it. I found a compromise in doing what she wanted but within the scope of my talents. My brothers did the same thing: chose majors that matched her ideas and not their own.

I returned to my own intellectual roots in graduate school. Both times, I followed my own interests and desires. When I was hired by the community college, I finally became what I wanted to be so many years before, a professor. I am not at an Ivy nor am I at a Big Ten or Pac-8 school but I am doing something that I am good at and not what any one else wants me to do.

I pursue my own hobbies, interests and dreams. Perhaps, not to the level that I would like. But to the level that I can, working with what is available to me.


plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 02:47 pm
@okie,
Here's the first shred:
Quote:
I even doubt your claims about your education and teaching, given your mistaken assessments of my writing.


Here is where you said I would have flunked some of your courses:

Quote:
Judging by your posts, I would guess you would have flunked out of some of the classes I took. Sorry, but that is my honest opinion.


This is the bigger shred:
Quote:
I commend you on your family history and your personal degree of success, that is if you are telling the truth?



plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 02:52 pm
@xris,
Thanks.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 05:29 pm
@plainoldme,
When are you going to reassure those who live near power lines that you didn't mean what you said about them distorting okie's mind and thus helping to raise anxiety levels among them?
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 06:39 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

I believe a country's economic condition actually starts with its moral condition, and we see that going in the wrong direction now for a very long time. Whenever a culture begins to look increasingly toward government instead of God for solving its problems, that is a big turn in the wrong direction. And so that is the question for our future, will the people continue to expect more and more out of government, or will they once again turn to themselves and their God to be responsible for themselves and their liberty and freedom, as the Declaration of Independence and Constitution laid the groundwork for.


Well, I'm not one to look to government to solve all our ills, but I don't want them legislating morality either. I'd rather they didn't spend any tax dollars -- not one, not even for their own salaries -- debating and/or legislating morality. I agree with you in one respect... I want people to be responsible for themselves. And, if they have a God they want to work with on that then that's ok with me. But I don't want God in government any more than I want government spending time and energy (both of which equate to dollars) legislating morality or common sense for the populace.
okie
 
  0  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 09:33 pm
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:

Here's the first shred:
Quote:
I even doubt your claims about your education and teaching, given your mistaken assessments of my writing.

Here is where you said I would have flunked some of your courses:
Quote:
Judging by your posts, I would guess you would have flunked out of some of the classes I took. Sorry, but that is my honest opinion.

This is the bigger shred:
Quote:
I commend you on your family history and your personal degree of success, that is if you are telling the truth?


Sorry, pom, but in none of those statements did I call you a liar. I did express some skepticism and doubt about your assertions, and in some instances I placed a qualifier to my statement such as "if you were telling the truth," but that is far from flat out calling you a liar. Surely you can see the difference, but maybe not?
okie
 
  0  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 09:39 pm
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:

The problem is that within a marriage many civil laws do not apply and that once a marriage is dissolved, the responsibility toward each other that is not laid out in the divorce agreement is dissolved.

The loans remained hidden until after the divorce.

No, there is nothing fishy about my power of attorney claim. I said he signed my name as though he had power of attorney which he did not.

You may not be aware of the fact that during the late 70s and into the mid-80s, many banks and other financial institutions made loans to men who signed on behalf of their wives.

I want to revisit this issue again, pom, because I still think something is fishy about this. I have bought and sold several homes, and I have done a fair amount of business, and never have I seen a situation where I or any other person I have known could sign for someone else, including my wife's name, sorry but I don't believe it. If your husband signed your name to borrow money in your name, without your consent, he committed fraud. And if he claimed POA when did not have it, that is also fraud. I am compelled to ask the question, how come you did not file charges against him for it?
realjohnboy
 
  5  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 09:47 pm
Is there any possibility of having this discussion of marital matters, okie and pom, moved to - perhaps - something you could talk about via emails between the two of you? I don't think most of the rest of us are all that interested in following along.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 09:52 pm
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

Well, I'm not one to look to government to solve all our ills, but I don't want them legislating morality either. I'd rather they didn't spend any tax dollars -- not one, not even for their own salaries -- debating and/or legislating morality. I agree with you in one respect... I want people to be responsible for themselves. And, if they have a God they want to work with on that then that's ok with me. But I don't want God in government any more than I want government spending time and energy (both of which equate to dollars) legislating morality or common sense for the populace.

The primary purpose of government is to protect us from each other and from government, to insure our freedom and liberty, and to provide a level playing field. I agree with most of what you say, but in regard to legislating morality, sure it is part of government's job, don't you want stealing and blackmail, things like that illegal? And in case you don't know it, marriage has been an institution okayed by this government, between one man and one woman for as long as this country has been in existence. God was a part of this country from day 1, read the Declaration of Independence if you doubt it. The important thing we need to do however is to not make government our God.
okie
 
  0  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 09:54 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

Is there any possibility of having this discussion of marital matters, okie and pom, moved to - perhaps - something you could talk about via emails between the two of you? I don't think most of the rest of us are all that interested in following along.

I suppose that is possible, but I happen to believe that this discussion will or at least could shed considerable light upon why pom holds the opinions that she does. I find her to be an interesting and fascinating case study of liberal thinking and what produces liberal thinking.

So ultimately, it may be hard to believe, but maybe this discussion could shed light on why liberals think about the economy in the manner that they do. If that doesn't happen, my apologies, but hopefully at least we can all gain further insight into pom's thinking process when she posts her opinions here.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 06:57 am
@okie,
Well I don't know about America but it happens quite frequently here in the UK. My friend has borrowed for his business using their house as collateral and is frightened to tell his wife.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 07:05 am
@okie,
Quote:
I placed a qualifier to my statement such as "if you were telling the truth," but that is far from flat out calling you a liar.

I am curious what a person is if they aren't telling the truth okie.

(Of course that is if you aren't a complete idiot. )
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 07:07 am
@okie,
Quote:

Sorry, pom, but in none of those statements did I call you a liar.


I knew you would not be man enough to admit your terrible behavior. Typical rightie: never accepts personal responsibility for anything except his own self-proclaimed sainthood.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 07:21 am
@okie,
You claim to never have been divorced. Therefore, you are without personal experience.

Your goal is to discredit me. And, by your use of the word "fishy," you are again calling me a liar.

However, you somehow think that I should have been psychic! That I should have known what was going on. A friend, who is an attorney, found her ex did the same thing prior to their divorce, only he bought a boat. These acts were done covertly. Our largely patriarchal society allowed men to sign on behalf of their wives. No documentation was asked for.

I discovered the signature a few years after the divorce when I donated a file cabinet in the basement to a non-profit.

There are many variables to all of these cases:
1.) Whether the state is a community property state.
2.) Even if a spouse files criminal charges against the other spouse, the prosecutor may reduce them to civil charges.
3.) The statute of limitations. If some reason for complaint is discovered after the divorce was finalized, the person sinned against is simply out of luck.

plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 07:23 am
@realjohnboy,
I totally agree, john. Furthermore, this is the creation of okie. I would never have brought this stuff up but he has this campaign to pigeon hole me and insisted. I thought it would best be ended by addressing them. Chalk one up to Hamlet who would not take arms against his sea of troubles. He may have been right.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 07:26 am
@okie,
Quote:
The primary purpose of government is to protect us from each other


Wow! No rightie has said that in 40 years! You may be leaning to the left after all.

The difference between liberals and conservatives as commonly expressed during the 1960s was liberals think the most distant government protects citizens the best while conservatives think the closest government does that most effectively.

The conservative doctrine in recent years has been that government does not protect us.
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 07:27 am
@okie,
You are just plain old nosy.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 06:53:23