Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
| Welcome to Evo Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Financial Bailout Passed by Congress | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 4 2008, 10:23 AM (880 Views) | |
| Celeborn | Oct 6 2008, 04:31 PM Post #46 |
|
Fat
|
nahz they just trying to control their income so CEO's don't benifit or some shit like that. obviously CEO's and a lot of other wealthy people will benifit more then the working class from pretty much anything because they are knowledgeable about personal finance. |
![]() |
|
| Canadian | Oct 6 2008, 04:33 PM Post #47 |
|
The Predator
|
well yea cause isnt the difference in money made between a ceo and working class astronomical now or something? i know ceos deserve alot but i heard its practically the definition for overpaid |
![]() |
|
| Rampid | Oct 6 2008, 05:19 PM Post #48 |
![]()
|
didn't expect you to come back with anything that made sense. |
![]() |
|
| Canadian | Oct 7 2008, 09:40 AM Post #49 |
|
The Predator
|
didn't expect to you understand a cheap rip off of a joke either. |
![]() |
|
| Celeborn | Oct 7 2008, 10:22 AM Post #50 |
|
Fat
|
well yes but its really not the main issue. whenever middle class people make more money they raise their standard of living and undo it. there are a lot of people with $100,000 - $200,000 incomes that are still broke. If people where to follow something even like the 70-10-10-10 rule or maybe a revised version then they wouldn't have nearly as many economic problems. on a side note corporations are pyramid schemes. I just want to point that out. few people at top get massive amounts of money most people at bottom supporting them don't get that much. |
![]() |
|
| Cannon | Oct 11 2008, 11:13 PM Post #51 |
|
Boom
|
This doesn't have much to do with the bailout but I read an article on the AIG insurance bailout. The week after the bailout all the executives went to this "posh resort" and spent $440,000 ($20,000 just for messages) all on the company's tab. They are currently being brought before the senate committee to explain this. |
![]() |
|
| Celeborn | Oct 12 2008, 12:36 AM Post #52 |
|
Fat
|
It is convient to point out extravagances of Executives as the root cause of all this. but its not. Its not a good thing however the root behind this crisis is the lack of financial werewithal of the american populance. People lived beyond their means. average credit card debt is 15,000 per person. people in this country on average spend more money then they make. So they start defaulting on everything cause they overextended themselves then it fell apart. Our economy somehow got built on Debt. Its fundamentally fucked up. its not a couple dirty C.E.O's who caused everything its that we as a populance live on debt then are suprised when it bites us in the ass. |
![]() |
|
| Tiger[SEX] | Oct 12 2008, 05:06 AM Post #53 |
|
Leader clan
![]()
|
If i had just speant the last 15 years lending money to people who couldnt afford to pay it back and my company was just about to go bankrupt because of my greed and stupidity and the government just stepped in and bought all the shitty debt from me to bail me out! Id feel i had something to celebrate too! $400,000 or $4,000,000 , who cares its only tax payers money and if we screw up theres plenty more where that came from! Lets get hoes , Krystal and mo hoes ! CHING CHING!!!!! Thats what id be sayin! Who can blame them for anything other than being indescrete. |
![]() |
|
| Broke[EvX] | Oct 12 2008, 05:27 AM Post #54 |
|
Teh pwnz0r
![]()
|
That figure isn't even close to accurate, where did you come up with that? |
![]() |
|
| Liquorman1 | Oct 12 2008, 10:15 AM Post #55 |
|
Groupie
|
The number itself is 8,000. One in seven grad student have 15,000 in debt.. But you also have to take into account that the AVERAGE is 8,000. This includes the ones, like myself, have not one penny in credit card debt. Facts, gathered from here. http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/debt/debt...ebt-trivia1.asp -Average per household debt in the U.S., not counting mortgage debt, is about $14,500 -- especially noteworthy because before the 1930s, most middle and working class people had no major debts. Banks would not lend to them; they rented their homes and if they did own a house, it was paid for as it was being built. -Average credit card debt among all American households is $8,400 -The personal savings rate in the United States has dropped from 8 percent in the 1980s to just under 2 percent since 2000 |
![]() |
|
| Celeborn | Oct 12 2008, 10:42 AM Post #56 |
|
Fat
|
hey since liq provided a reference I'll just go with it though cause his numbers prove my point. The point is still completely relevant. people over-extending themselves = defaulted loans = bad security = economy gets fucked cause its built around debt. I mean u can say ohh the mortgage companies hooked people into these mortgages, but thats ignoring the underlying problem. They had things like stated income where they wouldn't check for proof on your income u could just make up a number. then people would way inflate the money they make to get the loan. also some common sense tells u what u can and cannot afford. Its time we saw a movement towards personal responsibility. |
![]() |
|
| Broke[EvX] | Oct 12 2008, 04:14 PM Post #57 |
|
Teh pwnz0r
![]()
|
The $14,500 per household is all debt (excluding mortgage debt) not just credit card debt. The $8,400 figure for credit card debt is per household not on an individual basis. Not that it makes much difference as far as Sneaky's point is concerned, it's still evidence of Americans overextending themselves. I just felt like pointing out that the figure was a bit inflated. |
![]() |
|
| Celeborn | Oct 12 2008, 05:09 PM Post #58 |
|
Fat
|
I understand broke. I normally try to avoid figures all together. as I say I like to discuss theory of politics. Mainly because of one stupid Iraq war discussion where I was dragged into a battle of how many lives where lost because of the war. After checking 20 different sources the conclusion was that the life loss total at that point was somewhere between 50,000 and 2 million with no two sources agreeing. after that stupid excercise I tried to keep to theoretical arguments. was looking up the source as compared to people in the world dying of starvation and I was in fact right after the person dragged thru 20 sources for iraw and like 5-10 for starvation that in fact significantly more people died due to starvation in the same time period. |
![]() |
|
| Cannon | Oct 13 2008, 07:14 PM Post #59 |
|
Boom
|
Well the first line of my post was "This doesn't have much to do with the bailout but.." I said in my other post what I though was the cause. I blame 30% to people defaulting and 70% mismanagement (paying huge bonuses and dividens based on inflated company profits). Prime mortgages (good credit, down payment)=gold on the stock market, Sub-prime(bad credit, nothing down)=oil. When oil goes down it doesn't effect the market much, it's kinda expected for oil to go up and down. But if gold were suddenly worth less than silver it would have a huge impact. As far as CEO's go... ![]() Too bad this CEO pay and not the average wage chart for 85% of the American people. I do agree that living within your means will help fix it and was partly to blame. But how is the average household to get out of debt when CEO's are working hard to put them there? Minimum wage is a joke, like any family could survive on $6.55/hr. Wall street routinely backs CEO's who will take a company that show's a 3-4% profit and "manage" it to make 10% or more. How do they do this? They SCREW THE AVERAGE JOE out of descent wages and benefits. Companies in the 70's spent 7% of their payroll just for benefits and now it's 4%. Medical bills are right behind credit cards for household debt and medical bills are #1 reason given for filing bankruptcy. I read an article that said adjusting for inflation and cost of living the middle class wages increased during the Clinton years and DECREASED the last 8 years (I forgot the actual figures but it was like +3% and -2%). If everyone lived within their means, which I learned the hard way, it will repair all the damage that was done. But to fix the problem we need to do something about the chart above and get rid of all the greedy people running the companies. |
![]() |
|
| Celeborn | Oct 13 2008, 09:19 PM Post #60 |
|
Fat
|
Firstly did that massive picture fuck up anyone else loading the page? Secondly I thought I'd point out a couple of discrepencies. 1. minimum wage is $7.15 and it would be very difficult to survive on that either way. 2. what percentage of their payroll is spent. where they shift ur pay is up to ur contract and not necessarily indicitive of u being paid less or more. that statement was very faulty logic. 3. increase or decrease really has nothing to do with this bailout. or with the CEO's topic either. what are u trying to argue. That clinton and a republicans congress fiscally conservative government did better then Bush Jr's spend happy government? 4. how do you propose we remove all the greedy people out of curiousity? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · News & Updates · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
3:51 AM Jul 11
|






and it would be very difficult to survive on that either way. 
3:51 AM Jul 11