americans

[CptSternn]

I had to post this. From the Miss Teen America pageant. You can't write this kind of stuff...

http://www.maniacworld.com/what-is-s...ing-about.html

Question: Recent polls have shown a fifth of Americans can't locate the United States on a world map. Why do you think this is?

Miss Teen South Carolina: *Watch to see her response...

You need to see the clip. The text version just doesn't do this justice...

[Vyvian Blackthorne]

Good goth...Wow.






...Wow...
Goth Forever
Goth Forever
Goth Forever

[Edward Strange]

That was the best thing evar!
Those South Carolinians... Crrrrazy.

[CptSternn]

Clash of the titans! The health care industry vs. the fast food industry...

Employees starting to pay for poor health

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20625381/

CINCINNATI - First they tried nudging. Now companies are penalizing workers who have high health risks such as obesity and high blood pressure or cholesterol as insurance costs climb.

Lee Morrison, 51, doesn’t mind the push, which came in the form of added insurance charges from his employer, Western & Southern Financial Group.

“I knew if I wanted to be healthier and pay less, it was up to me to do something about it,” said Morrison, who has lost 54 pounds and lowered his body mass index enough to earn refunds the past two years.

A small number of companies have linked health factors to what employees pay for benefits, but the practice is expected to grow now that some federal rules have been finalized, spelling out what’s allowed by law. Employee advocates worry that other anti-discrimination laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act won’t cover the person who is 20 or 30 pounds overweight.

The businesses are deducting from employees’ paychecks, adding insurance surcharges or offering insurance discounts or rebates only to low-risk workers.

“Employers know they have to do something,” said Garry Mathiason, a senior partner at the national employment and labor law firm Littler Mendelson, based in Boston. “I believe that in just the next two years more employers will turn to penalties to change employee behavior.”

Mathiason said more than 300 companies have sought advice on creating more aggressive wellness programs since the firm released a study in April on legal issues and trends associated with requiring healthy practices.

Health care spending in the United States is estimated to reach $2.2 trillion this year, with at least 54 percent of spending in the private sector, and is expected to nearly double by 2016, according to the National Coalition on Health Care.

A 2003-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey showed about two-thirds of adults in the United States were overweight and almost one-third obese. A U.S. surgeon general’s report said health care costs of obesity totaled more than $117 billion in 2000.

More employers have charged higher insurance premiums the past few years for tobacco-using employees. Otherwise, wellness programs had been primarily voluntary, offering in-house fitness centers and free health screenings, for instance.

...

To screw the American insurance holder even more, insurance companies now are charging more for those who are over weight. Current stats show 2 in 3 Americans are overweight, one third of all Americans fall into the OBESE category.

This means insurance rates for 2/3rds of Americans will rise.

On top of this, this also could have long reaching side effects as the article points out. Being fat can now mean that fast food companies will be viewed, and potentially legislated, like tobacco. It also means companies can legally discriminate against fat people, like they do with tobacco smokers.

This puts two of the largest lobbying groups in America up against each other, much like the battle tobacco/heath care lobbies.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[CptSternn]

I had to post this. Maybe they should take all references to 'GOD' off the American dollar and replace it with a Big Mac.

Ten Commandments no match for Big Mac

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58047

A new survey shows more Americans can name the seven ingredients in a McDonald's Big Mac hamburger than the Ten Commandments.

The survey of 1,000 Americans, by Kelton Research, showed 80 percent could name the hamburger's primary ingredient – two all-beef patties – but less than 60 percent recalled the commandment "Thou shalt not kill," the Catholic News Service, or CNS, reported.

Kelton was commissioned to do the research to help promote the new animated movie "The Ten Commandments," opening Oct. 19.

The survey also found just 45 percent could recall the commandment "Honor your father and mother" while 76 percent remembered the Big Mac ingredient lettuce, 75 percent sesame-seed bun, 66 percent special sauce, 62 percent pickles and 60 percent cheese.

Even Americans who say they go to church once a week had difficulty naming all of the commandments, CNS reported.

Among church-goers, 70 percent recalled "Thou shalt not kill," listed as "You shall not kill" in the survey, and 69 percent remembered "You shall not steal."

CNS said survey participants also had an easier time remembering the names of the six children on the old TV series "The Brady Bunch."

The least remembered children, Bobby and Peter, were named by 43 percent of Americans. The two commandments least recalled by survey participants were to keep the Sabbath holy, 34 percent, and have no other gods besides God, 29 percent.

The survey allowed for the slight variation between Catholic and Protestant versions of the commandments.

The "Ten Commandments" movie is the first in a series of 12 planned animated "Epic Stories of the Bible," according to CNS. Cindy Bond, president and chief operating officer of Promenade Pictures, said "Noah's Ark: The New Beginning" is halfway through production and "David and Goliath" has just started production.

The fourth is expected to be "The Battle of Jericho." Other Bible stories under discussion include Daniel in the lions' den, Samson and Delilah, the book of Genesis and stories from the New Testament.

[CptSternn]

IRS says rich getting richer: report

http://news.**********/s/nm/irs_inco...tZcIstGHKs0NUE

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The richest one percent of Americans earned a postwar record of 21.2 percent of all income in 2005, up from 19 percent a year earlier, reflecting a widening income disparity among different classes in the nation, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing new Internal Revenue Service data.

The data showed that the fortunes of the bottom 50 percent of Americans are worsening, with that group earning 12.8 percent of all income in 2005, down from 13.4 percent the year before, the paper said.

It said that while the IRS data goes back only to 1986, academic research suggests that the last time wealthy Americans had such a high percentage of the national income pie was in the 1920s.

The article cited an interview with President Bush, who attributed income inequality to "skills gaps" among various classes. It said the IRS didn't identify the source of rising income for the affluent, but said a boom on Wall Street has likely played a part.

[CptSternn]

This is a brilliant article out of the Guardian today...


The land of optimism is in the dumps, but refuses to accept how it got there

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...191182,00.html

Not since Watergate has such pessimism afflicted Americans. They want politicians to lift them without facing the cause

Gary Younge in New York
Monday October 15, 2007
The Guardian

On April 27 1968 the vice president, Hubert Humphrey, announced his presidential candidacy. It was a particularly troubled moment in America's recent history. Just three weeks after Martin Luther King's assassination, the cities were still scarred by riots while the country as a whole was deeply divided over the Vietnam war.

Presumably seeking to capture the mood of the nation, Humphrey started his speech thus: "Here we are, the way politics ought to be in America, the politics of happiness, the politics of purpose, the politics of joy; and that's the way it's going to be, all the way, too, from here on out." Within six weeks Bobby Kennedy had been assassinated.

America's self-image as the home of unrelenting progress - a nation of historic purpose and unrivalled opportunity where tomorrow will always be better than today - is the linchpin of its political and popular culture. Optimism, it seems, is a truly renewable national resource. It was used to build Bill Clinton's "bridge to the 21st century" in 1992, and powered the alarm clocks for Reagan's "new morning in America".

"The American, by nature, is optimistic," said John F Kennedy. "He is experimental, an inventor and a builder who builds best when called upon to build greatly." This optimism is the source for much of what makes the US simultaneously so revered and reviled, dynamic and deluded, around the world.

On one hand it articulates a hope, bordering on certainty, that a better world is not just feasible but already in the making. Released from the hogties of tradition and formality, such confidence is driven by possibility rather than the past. Winston Churchill once said he "preferred the past to the present and the present to the future". An American politician who wanted to get elected would say precisely the opposite. This optimism underpins the notions of class fluidity and personal reinvention at the core of the American dream. Where others might ask "Why?", it asks "Why not?". Such is the root of so much that is great about America's economy, culture and politics.

On the other hand this optimism has within it the notion that the US is the exclusive repository of these hopes and the sole means by which a better world can be made. Unfettered by history, consensus or empirical evidence, it is driven by myth rather than material circumstances. Even as class rigidity entrenches and personal reinvention slips, the dream remains. Like Stephen Colbert's spoof of George Bush, it has the capacity to "believe the same thing Wednesday that [it] believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday". It posits America as the world's future whether the world wants it or not. Such is the root of so much that is terrible about America's economy, politics and foreign policy.

This sense of optimism has been in retreat in almost every sense over the past few years. According to Rasmussen polls, just 21% of Americans believe the country is on the right track, a figure that has fallen by more than a half since the presidential election of 2004. Meanwhile only a third think the country's best days are yet to come, as opposed to 43% who believe they have come and gone - again a steep decline on three years ago. These are not one-offs. In the past 18 months almost every poll that has asked Americans about their country's direction has produced among the most pessimistic responses on record - a more extended period than anyone can remember since Watergate.

America, in short, is in a deep funk. Far from feeling hopeful, it appears fearful of the outside world and despondent about its own future. Not only do most believe tomorrow will be worse than today, they also feel that there is little that can be done about it.

There are three main reasons. Closest to home is the economy. Wages are stagnant, house prices in most areas have stalled or are falling, the dollar is plunging, and the deficit is rising. A Pew survey last week showed that 72% believe the economy is either "only fair" or poor and 76% believe it will be the same or worse a year from now. Globalisation is a major worry. Of 46 countries polled recently, the US had the least positive view on foreign trade and one of the least positive on foreign companies.

The sense that things will improve for the next generation has all but evaporated. Another Pew poll from last year found that only 34% of Americans expected today's children to be better off than people are now - down from 55% shortly before President Bush came to power.

Second is the Iraq war and the steep decline in America's international standing it has prompted. A global-attitudes Pew poll from last year showed that 65% of Americans believe the country is less respected by the rest of the world than it was - double the figure of 20 years ago. The fact that only half those polled thought this was a problem is telling.

For if the war in Iraq were going well then this probably wouldn't matter. But it isn't. All surveys show that for some time a steady majority of the public believe the war was a mistake, is going badly and that the troops should be withdrawn. One of the central factors in which America's self-confidence was predicated - global hegemony based on unrivalled military supremacy - has been fundamentally undermined.

Last week Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, the former top commander of US troops in Iraq, spelled out the national despair, branding the war a "nightmare with no end in sight".

Which brings us, finally, to the political class. Once again the American public have lost faith. The rot starts at the top. Almost as soon as they elected Bush in 2004 they seemed to regret it. Since Katrina, his favourability ratings have been stuck in the 30s and show no signs of moving - or at least not upwards. Bush's only comfort is that public approval of the Democratically controlled Congress is even worse, hovering just below where it was shortly before the 2006 elections. In other words, however Americans believe their country will return to the right track, they no longer trust politicians to get them there.

Little suggests that anything will change any time soon. After four years of being told they were winning a war they have been losing and are better off when they are not, Americans are more wary of political happy talk than they have been for a long time. But that doesn't mean they want to hear sad talk instead, even if it happens to be true. For the central problem is not that they were lied to - though that of course is a problem - but that they have constantly found some of these lies more palatable than the truth. Bush may have exploited the more problematic aspects of this optimism. But he did not create them. Enough of the American public had to be prepared to meet him halfway to make his agenda possible.

Herein lies the challenge for the presidential candidates in the coming year - how to respond to this pessimistic mood without reflecting or discussing its root causes: to lay out a plausible explanation of how Americans can get their groove back, without examining how they got in this rut in the first place.

[CptSternn]

Over 35 million Americans faced hunger in 2006: USDA

http://news.**********/s/nm/20071114...food_hunger_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government said the number of Americans who went hungry in 2006 was held in check at 35 million people from the prior year, but food advocacy groups said on Wednesday more needs to be done.

The U.S. Agriculture Department said a total of 12.65 million households were "food insecure," or 10.9 percent of U.S. homes, up from 12.59 million a year ago.

The USDA defines food insecurity - its metric for measuring hunger - as having difficulty acquiring enough food for the household throughout the year.

"It looks very stable from this year to last year," said Mark Nord, who co-authored the annual report for USDA's Economic Research Service.

Overall, 35.52 million people, including 12.63 million children, went hungry compared with 35.13 million in 2005. The survey was conducted in December 2006 and represented 294 million people, an increase of 2.5 million from 2005.

Food advocacy groups said the figures showed the United States was not doing enough to combat hunger, and feared conditions could worsen.

"As costs for food, energy, and housing continue to rise and wages stagnate or decline, households are finding themselves increasingly strapped," said Jim Weill, president of the Food Research and Action Center. "This may mean even worse numbers in 2007."

Very low food security was most prevalent in households with children headed by a single woman -- 10.3 percent in 2006, USDA said.

Food stamps and other public nutrition programs account for about 60 percent of the USDA's spending. Funding for the department's 15 nutrition assistance programs has risen 70 percent since 2001 to $59 billion in 2006, and 20 percent of all Americans are impacted by the programs each year.

Some 27 million people are enrolled in the food stamp program alone, which helps poor Americans buy food. USDA has estimated 65 percent of eligible people participate in the program, up from 54 percent in 2001.

"We have more work to do," said Kate Houston, USDA's deputy undersecretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services. "We can't say that everybody that is eligible for our programs is participating."

35 out of 300 million in America go without proper food because they cannot afford it. Need I say more?

[AngelikDemonik]

Americans are fat because they are poor. There is a direct link between obesity and poverty.

Bad foods are considerably cheaper than healthy fruits and vegatables.

The only reason American celebrities are thin and "beautiful" is because they have people to make them healthy food, and have people who drag their lazy asses out of bed everyday to go run a few miles.

[MaguMan]

Originally Posted by AngelikDemonik

Americans are fat because they are poor. There is a direct link between obesity and poverty.

*blink, blink*

Then why are the whole of [poor] North-Eastern African countries like Sudan, Chad, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia plagued with individuals that look like skeletons while the richer Arab countries in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia have much larger citizens?

[AngelikDemonik]

Originally Posted by MaguMan

*blink, blink*

Then why are the whole of [poor] North-Eastern African countries like Sudan, Chad, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia plagued with individuals that look like skeletons while the richer Arab countries in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia have much larger citizens?

Poverty is different for different nations. In developed countries (Such as the US or England or Saudi Arabia), most people who are poor at least have a roof over their heads, a television, and access to food (usually unhealthy). As you said, parts of Africa that are very poor, the people are starving, live in tin sheds, and have stomachs swollen to due ascites. In the United States, for a family of four, the poverty line is a household that makes less than $14,000 a year. That amount may be different now, seeing as how I learned that in a Sociology class two years ago. If a person living in a poor part of Africa made that type of money, they would be considered filthy, freakin' rich...THERE.

Think about it...Where I live, you can buy a package of Ramen noodles for 10 cents. With $5.00, that's 50 packages of Ramen Noodles. That's enough to last for nearly a month. Ramen is not particularly healthy for you, but it's cheap and probably will not expire for a good few years. If you buy lettuce, a cucumber, and some carrots for $5.00 that's enough food to last a family for probably a day...not to mention all of those products will have gone bad in a few days. Those who live in poverty in the US also probably live in very dangerous areas--They cost less. They can't afford gym memberships, work-out DVDs, and don't want to get mugged taking a run in the park. I live in Detroit (one of the most dangerous cities in the US)...I have to drive out 20 minutes to a park in a suburb so I can do my daily running or roller blading.

Nothing that I stated above are little thoughts I came up with in my mind. I've taken multiple Sociology classes, Pyschology classes, and Anatomy and Physiology classes, where this topic was covered in detail. I was also not disagreeing with what anyone said. I was just giving a few reasons as to why most Americans are overweight.

Here are a few sources that you can research on the subject:

http://www.sirc.org/articles/poverty_and_obesity.shtml
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...13/ai_n9648877
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/health/199427
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0105071229.htm

[MaguMan]

$14,000 would be a lot there if you discounted the appropriation of exchange rates and the wide differences in the costs of living. The relationship is still the same, in that such an annual salary for an entire household means only one person is really working, and at that for minimum wage. In other words,they can't afford the average commodity available with regularity to the majority of the working class in whatever country it is they live in.

I wouldn't say Ramen noodles are quite as equatable as, say, a happy meal. Or better yet a steak or a buttered up lobster. For families living below the poverty line, food may be a lot of what their money is dedicated to, but that's not a lot of money to begin with. It certainly can't entertain a lifestyle of fast food very often. At that, the more the income, the more the pantry is going to be filled up in a home with fattier foods.

For many obese people, genetics and biology play a far bigger role than annual income. This is why, despite repeated diets and exercise, they don't become these thin little models you see in Victoria's Secret magazines. Short of starving themselves, they're not going to achieve that standard.

True obesity, as ruled by government health departments, is a measurement that rises well above just being overweight. It's more in the realm of being 5'8" and 230 lbs. If someone can support that kind of weight in an entire household [of more than one person] that makes only 14k a year, I'll be amazed, especially with rising gas prices, inflation, and everything else that's going on. Unless of course they're living off of food stamps and other government subsidies, in which case it becomes a matter of lifestyle over income, just like most folks in the middle class.

Fast food meals cost just as much as a healthy meal from the grocery, if not more. Some folks just don't prefer the former.

[Drake Dun]

Remember, boys and girls, correlation is not causation. It's incredible how much lucidity would come to the public sphere if people (or hell, even just the media) stopped trying to pretend otherwise.

I have often heard that there is a correlation between poverty and obeisity, and I don't doubt it, but I share MaguMan's skepticism of the inference that the reason poor people are fat is that they can't afford to eat healthy. As he points out, this theory appears to be ruled out by simple math.

Drake

[AngelikDemonik]

I assumed that it is common knowledge that over-indulgence and laziness lead to gaining weight--Which is why I didn't mention it. Anyone who denies that is a fool.

Poverty is a real reason why people are over-weight, as well.

Healthy foods do cost more than unhealthy food. White rice and white bread are considerably cheaper than brown rice and whole wheat bread. Why? You might as eat eat a bowl of white sugar instead of that rice, because that's all it comes down to.

[Wormboy]

Originally Posted by MaguMan

*blink, blink*

Then why are the whole of [poor] North-Eastern African countries like Sudan, Chad, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia plagued with individuals that look like skeletons while the richer Arab countries in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia have much larger citizens?

There's a difference between poor and starving bub.



Oh I got really caught up on the initial argument between sternn and binkie, it's entertaining as hell.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by AngelikDemonik

I assumed that it is common knowledge that over-indulgence and laziness lead to gaining weight--Which is why I didn't mention it. Anyone who denies that is a fool.

Poverty is a real reason why people are over-weight, as well.

Healthy foods do cost more than unhealthy food. White rice and white bread are considerably cheaper than brown rice and whole wheat bread. Why? You might as eat eat a bowl of white sugar instead of that rice, because that's all it comes down to.

Thats it in a nutshell. I actually have a similar post a few pages back. You can feed a family of 4 at McDonalds alot cheaper and faster than you can go out and get them a proper dinner.

[CptSternn]

New numbers out...

US cities struggle to help the hungry, homeless: report

http://news.**********/s/afp/ussocia...eGRAUbRMys0NUE

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The biggest US cities are struggling to meet the needs of the hungry and homeless, despite generating most of the country's wealth, a survey published Monday showed.

"Although 87 percent of our nation's wealth is generated in our cities, hunger and homelessness persist in most of our country's cities and urban centers," Douglas Palmer, the head of the US Conference of Mayors, said in a statement to coincide with the publication of the annual survey.

Twelve of the 23 cities that took part in the Hunger and Homelessness Survey said they turn away needy people some or all of the time.

All the cities that took part -- including Boston, Los Angeles, Miami, Nashville and Philadelphia -- said 15 percent of needy households with children do not receive aid.

Nearly one-quarter (23 percent) of America's urban homeless are families with children, the survey showed.

Lack of affordable housing was cited most often as the reason why a family with children found itself on the streets.

The most commonly reported causes of hunger were poverty, the high cost of housing and unemployment.

Four out of five of the polled cities said the demand for food aid grew by 12 percent from November last year to October, and 19 cities said they expect demand to rise even more next year.

Also contributing to the hunger and homeless crisis in the United States were the "recent spike in foreclosures, the increased cost of living in general and the increased cost of food," the report said.

"This report underscores the fact that issues of poverty in this country are often inter-related," said Frank Cownie, co-chair of the Conference of Mayors' task force on hunger and homelessness.

According to the US Census Bureau, around one in 10 Americans, or 36.5 million people, live in poverty in the United States, nearly 13 million of them children.

The number of homeless people in the United States is estimated to be around 700,000.

[clockworkcoffin]

what really grinds my gears is being called an immigrant.

[CptSternn]

Another tale from the lives of average Americans....

From $70K to food bank, one family's struggle

http://tinyurl.com/2kkz6t

ALTADENA, California (CNN) -- When she was laid off in February, Patricia Guerrero was making $70,000 a year. Weeks later, with bills piling up and in need of food for her family, this middle-class mother did something she never thought she would do: She went to a food bank.

It was Good Friday, and a woman helping her offered to pay her utility bill.

"It brought tears to my eyes, and I sat there and I cried. I was like, 'This is really where I'm at?' " she told CNN. "I go 'no way;' [but] this is true. This is reality. This is the stuff you see on TV. It was hard. It was very hard."

Guerrero is estranged from her husband and raising her two young children. She's already burned through her savings to help make ends meet, and is drawing unemployment checks. She has had to take extreme measures to pay for her interest-only mortgage of $2,500 a month. In fact, her mother moved in with her to help pay the bills.

Guerrero even applied for food stamps, but was denied. Video Watch Guerrero describe going to food bank »

"I never used the system. I've been working since I was 15-and-a-half. I needed it now and it turned me down," she said.

Stories like Guerrero's are becoming more common as middle-class Americans feel the pinch of an economic downturn, rising gas prices and a housing crunch, especially in a state like California that has been rocked by foreclosures.

On Wednesday, a key government report on the battered housing market found new home sales fell to their lowest level in 13 years in February, suggesting the nation's housing market is still struggling.

Americans also have been attending in large numbers foreclosure fairs where mortgage lenders, financial planners and counselors offer tips to hard-hit homeowners.

"Our economy is struggling, and families in the 'Inland Empire' and across the nation are hurting," California Rep. Joe Baca said, referring to an area of Southern California in his district.

"Our housing market is in a state of crisis due to rampant abuses of sub-prime lending, and unemployment is rising. At the same time, the cost of necessities such as gas, healthcare, and education continue to rise." Map: Foreclosures state-by-state »

Daryl Brock, the executive director of Second Harvest Food Bank in California's San Bernardino and Riverside counties, said his organization supplies food to more than 400 charities in metro Los Angeles, from homeless shelters to soup kitchens to an array of food banks. While the majority of people they help are working poor families, he said they have seen some major changes.

In the last 12 to 18 months, Brock said, the agencies he supplies have begun seeing more middle-class families coming to their doors.

"Our agencies have said there is an increasing number of people coming to them for help," Brock told CNN by phone. "Their impression was that these were not people they normally would have seen before. They seemed to be better dressed. They seemed to have better cars and yet they seemed to be in crisis mode."

He added, "The only thing they can do is give us anecdotal evidence that they think it's because of the sub-prime mortgage meltdown and the housing crisis."

A former loan processor, Guerrero knows all about that, although so far she has been able keep her house.

She used her tax refund to help pay many of her bills for the first two months, but now that money's gone.

She says she's now in a middle-class "no-man's-land."

"It just happened so fast. It happened in a matter of -- what -- two months," she said.

She's eager to get back to work and to hold onto her home until the market turns. But for this single mom, every day it becomes harder to hang on.

"It's just depressing," she said. "For me, I just don't want to get out of bed, but I have to. That's my hardest thing. I have to."

[Wednesday Friday Addams]

More to weight gain then over eating.

[ArtificialOne]

Did she save money? Did she over extend her credit? Did she have an adjustable rate mortgage? Where's her husband?

The amount you earn has very little to do with the amount of debt you're in as much as the decisions you make in your own finances. This is another case of someone not planning ahead.

After the great depression people knew they needed to save money. They knew what lack of work and over inflation can do. So allot saved to make sure they didn't fall victim again to another depression if one were to happen.

As far as the housing crisis. Where did these people think they could afford a 450,000.00 dollar house on a 50,000.00 combined income? Did they not know what an arm is? If you don't read the paperwork it's your fault. If you're a bank and you lend to people who would not normally be able to get a large loan for that amount, or a loan period, it's your fault. The blame is 50/50 across the board.

This isn't only an American problem. England, Europe and Australia are also having overinflated housing problems.

England:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2136114.stm

Europe:
http://www.networkeurope.org/feature...op--priorities

Australia:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=799
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...=Australia&Cr1

The media likes to latch onto problems like this because it's so incendiary. True the govt could have kept a closer eye on lenders and tried to warn consumers. But where's the personal responsibility in all this? It's not like there aren't many books or the Internet anymore. All you have to do is log on or go to your local library/bookstore.

What's going to be really bad is if whoever gets into office raises the corporate taxes. Jimmy Carter anyone? That would send more companies overseas, we'd lose more jobs, and the price of everything will skyrocket. Welcome back 70's!!!
http://uncpress.unc.edu/chapters/biven_jimmy.html

If you forget the past you're doomed to repeat it.

[Wednesday Friday Addams]

New Zealand also has high house prices.

[Tea and Cake or Death]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

No offense, but your comment is true. Europeans do think Americans are quite barbaric.

I agree.
Plus, I've always been paranoid about the food we eat. Okay, this will sound NUTS but here goes:

The government wants us to eat lots and lots of crap so that we die. I think they think this will help out with the social security thing. There is more to my crazy theory, but this isn't the time or place.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

Did she save money? Did she over extend her credit? Did she have an adjustable rate mortgage? Where's her husband?

Forclosures are up over 100% from last year. They say a few MILLION Americans have lost their homes. Are you saying they are were just bad with money? It's nice to see you again victimise the victims here. Of course its just the 'other' Amnericans who are at fault, not the businesses.

The amount you earn has very little to do with the amount of debt you're in as much as the decisions you make in your own finances. This is another case of someone not planning ahead.

Again, comments coming from a guy who had his parents bail him out when he was in the same situation. Too bad all those other Americans don't have parents who can bail them out, eh?

After the great depression people knew they needed to save money. They knew what lack of work and over inflation can do. So allot saved to make sure they didn't fall victim again to another depression if one were to happen.

I forgot you were 80 years old and were alive to remember the great depression. Oh wait, you weren't alive. Also, you weren't one of those people who saved money as to 'not fall victim again' as you yourself stated you went bankrupt and oyur parents bailed you out.

Good to see now that your financially solvent, thanks 100% to your parents and not your business edge, that you so blatantly attack others for doing the same thing you did.

How very American of you (i.e. say one thing, do another, complain about other people who do the exact same thing).

As far as the housing crisis. Where did these people think they could afford a 450,000.00 dollar house on a 50,000.00 combined income? Did they not know what an arm is? If you don't read the paperwork it's your fault. If you're a bank and you lend to people who would not normally be able to get a large loan for that amount, or a loan period, it's your fault. The blame is 50/50 across the board.

Who would have thought these people could be misled by banks who gave them loans. I mean, banks aren't supposed to check if they can pay, right? Why even bother reviewing loan applications, just send out the money to whoever asks - its their problem if they can't pay it back, right?

I guess you support usury as well then (thats the legal term for loan sharking)? I mean, people should be able to borrow whatever they want, its their responsibility to pay it back, right?

This isn't only an American problem. England, Europe and Australia are also having overinflated housing problems.

England:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2136114.stm

Europe:
http://www.networkeurope.org/feature...op--priorities

Australia:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=799
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...=Australia&Cr1

Seriously? Thats your rebuttle? It's happening everywhere, so its not worth talking about? First, look at the title of the first article you gave a link to:

Housing crisis in northern England

Their 'crisis' is that in one small part of one country in the UK they have a large number of unoccupied homes on the market. Yeah, thats not really a crisis. People are not having their homes foreclosed on. The banks are having to borrow billions from the government because they are going under. Stocks are dropping because of this situation. Apples and oranges mate.

The same goes for your other links - none are by any means within the same scope.

The media likes to latch onto problems like this because it's so incendiary. True the govt could have kept a closer eye on lenders and tried to warn consumers. But where's the personal responsibility in all this? It's not like there aren't many books or the Internet anymore. All you have to do is log on or go to your local library/bookstore.

Again, you attack the people who now are jobless and homeless. I think thats great you have such an issue with your own fellow countrymen and will blindly follow whoever is waving a flag to the point you has a feeling of disdain and hate towards other Americans.

Forget the fact that since bush took office the value of the dollar has dropped to an all time low, not seen since the great depression. Forget the fact that his administration turned a multi billion dollar surplus into a trillion dollar deficit. Forget the fact that the bush administration opened the door to policies which encourage businesses to move operations overseas, costing America thousands of jobs. Forget the fact unemployment and underemplyment is at an alltime high. Forget the fact foodbanks and other social services provided by the private sector are having issues feeding all the new 'poor' in America.

It's not the governments fault, it's all those stupid Americans, right?

What's going to be really bad is if whoever gets into office raises the corporate taxes. Jimmy Carter anyone? That would send more companies overseas, we'd lose more jobs, and the price of everything will skyrocket. Welcome back 70's!!!
http://uncpress.unc.edu/chapters/biven_jimmy.html

If you forget the past you're doomed to repeat it.

Heh - so all of the above mentioned issued happened because the next guy who is going to take office will raise corporate tax? How exactly did someone from the future cause all the current issues? The answer is simple - it was the bush administration that did this. Their fiscal and economic policies, the ones you say are currently 'working'. How exactly can you attack a government that hasn't been elected and blame them for something that is happening right now?

Seems like your trying hard to protect your leader, to the point of sillyness even.

I however am loving this. When bush took office in ealry 2000, the Euro was worth 0.80 of a US Dollar. That means for every Euro I had, I could convert it into 80 cents in America. Now, with all that bush has done to your economy, I get 1.65 for every Euro. The US Dollar is worth less than half of what it was when bush took office. I go on eBay or PriceWatch and order stuff all day now - it's like getting 40% off everything!

Also, the EU passed the US last week. The first time in HISTORY any country has passed the US in GDP. That means we are now the richest, and you are #2 in n the world.

But please, tell me how that is 'good' for your economy and how you plan on blaming it on someone who hasn't even been elected yet.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Tea and Cake or Death

I agree.
Plus, I've always been paranoid about the food we eat. Okay, this will sound NUTS but here goes:

The government wants us to eat lots and lots of crap so that we die. I think they think this will help out with the social security thing. There is more to my crazy theory, but this isn't the time or place.

There is truth to that. I have a bit on that a few pages back in this thread. Not to go off topic, but the short version is this...

Big business lobby the government to allow them to sell less-than-healthy crap to the masses. This crap then leads to bad health which increases profits for health care industries. You got the foxes guarding the hen house - everyone is geared to bad health in America, and the government is taking money on both sides for the same goal - the only group which doesn't have a say is the people.

I could go into detail about the sugar and salt industries in America to prove my point, but google it - go read up on how the sugar and salt industry spend big bucks to keep congress from limiting their product. Sugar and salt is added to almost everything made in America, in some cases without any reason. Both have addictive properties, yet all major food corps in America buy the stuff in large amounts and choke their food products full of it.

But again, thats off topic. Google it.