DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on October 20, 2006, 07:26:20 PM
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15337932/
-
30% of 50k is15k
a car loan would easily make one qualify
-
You can get out of combat by maxing out your credit cards? Kewwl.
-
a car loan would easily make one qualify
Debt ratios take into account the value of the securing property.
If you have a loan for $30,000 on a vehicle and the vehicle is worth $28,000 then you only "owe" $2,000 on it.
Many GIs also own housing. Any house will take you over $15,000 in debt.
-
I made a phone call to ask about this. The answer was that they really only consdier undescured debt like credit cards. There is a lot of concern on this issue because the number of particularly enlisted personnel with over 30K in unsecured debt is the highest in history. The military is apparenlty having to be pretty lenient, even on the issue of personal bankrupcies. If not, the number of "acceptable" enlisted persoonel would be pretty small. Officer unsecured debt is also at a high as well. Is it a concern? Yes. A major one, I seriously doubt it.
This only mirrors societal norms, as I see it. For example, personal bankrupcy is no longer considered anathema by many.
-
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=debt&version1=31&searchtype=all
Proverbs 22:26
Do not be a man who strikes hands in pledge or puts up security for debts;
Proverbs 22:25-27 (in Context) Proverbs 22 (Whole Chapter)
Romans 13:8
[ Love, for the Day is Near ] Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.
Romans 13:7-9 (in Context) Romans 13 (Whole Chapter)
-
All well and good, Plane, but unrealistic. By this standard, no one would be allowed to go into debt for ANYTHING such as a home. Debt is not the problem, it is simply something else in life to be managed. If you borrow for a home renovation, for example, that would be violating this precept as well, I suppose.
I could also quote "The Borrower is servant to the lender" -- Prov. 22:7 as well, but, again, not practical in today's world. I'm not saying it isn't a great policy. For example, doesn't this apply to the U.S. being a debtor nation to the Saudis, in the matter of oil?
-
The Bible is pretty much the WORST text one can imagine that one should turn to for financial advice.
The Bible prohibits lending money at interest. Of course, no sane person would lend money to anyone outside his family or perhaps his group of friends for any other reason. This was the case from the time of the Fall of Rome, all through the Middle Ages until the Renaissance.
The Jews interpreted it to mean that they could not lend money at interest to other Jews, but to Christiansd it was OK. Thius led to the amassing of huge fortunes by Jewish bankers, such as a man named Fugger, followed by antisemetic persecurions and pogroms, incited by rulers who didn't want to have to pay back their debts.
Of course, the Christian belief that the world might well end next Tuesday and such quaint nonsense such as The Rapture are anything but motivation for financial responsibility.
-
The Saudis get payed for their oil pretty quick , all such debts are short term because it is a comoddity market.
The Government sells its debt to people who want the security and intrest payment of a loan to the US government , I think it hilarious that some of the biggest buyers of this debt are governments and businesses that cannot say out loud that they have confidence in the Satbility of the US.
I use debt myself , I cannot argue against the necessity , but I try to make getting out of the debt a realistic goal.
If current trends could continue ,would the US national Dept be reduced to nothing in Twenty years?
That would be great , but I don't think that the trend is liable to remain constant for that long.
-
Well, I have always advocated a balanced budget at the Federal level. After all, many states have to,; why should the Federal Government be exempt from this practice?
-
In practice many states do not run a balanced budget. They are allowed to draw down from reserves from previous years surpluses.
I would not have a problem with the fed following that same practice.
-
Of course, BT, a major problem exists in that, in order to galance the budget, where would the axe fall? People have gotten so used to the benefits and services they have now, they would reject any taking away of these same benefits and/or services, right? California is an excellent example, I believe.
-
I think that the first axe to fall will be on the tax cuts that a Democratic House can kill by simply allowing to expire.
Next will be some serious across the board tax increases as a Democratic house and President attempt to resussitate the Social Security system which is due to run low on cash very soon.
For many years Social Security taxes were treated the same as other tax recipts and added to the general fund, paying for the Tanks , Spys , food stamps Congressional Salarys of the current year.
A few years from now the SS taxes will not only fall short of covering extras but will not even cover the outlay for Social security recipients , at that point the downward spiral that has already been going on for thirty years will become noticeably steeper.
Perhaps we can come up with a fix , but it will have to be a big fix , as big as cutting Social security to a bare minimum or annexing Mexico.
-
Benefits and services can still happen in a balanced budget environment. The people and by that i mean all the people must be willing to pay for it. That is why i say universal health care is as close at hand as raising sales tax levels to cover the cost. For some reason, people object to that simple solution.
-
Benefits and services can still happen in a balanced budget environment. The people and by that i mean all the people must be willing to pay for it. That is why i say universal health care is as close at hand as raising sales tax levels to cover the cost. For some reason, people object to that simple solution.
As long as it was as simple as this , I would support it.
A Devil shows up when there are a lot of details.
-
A Devil shows up when there are a lot of details.
The devil shows up when folks try to game the system.
For this to work, taxpayers would have to know exactly what they would get for their 3 cents on the dollar. Service providers would know exactly what compensation they could expect from this 3 cents on the dollar. If either side expects more they can expect the tax to go up- to 4 cents or 5 cents on the dollar. On a local level i could see satellite clinics and a central hospital. Smaller counties could share facilities. Wellness and preventative medicine would be encouraged. Consumables and pharmaceuticals would be purchased at the state level via competitive bid. Co-pays might not be a bad idea.
-
http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/07/pf/retirement/retire0610_whatworks_hartmann.moneymag/index.htm
John Ameriks has a close-up view of how well shareholders save for retirement. And he's come to a conclusion: How much money you make matters a whole lot less than how much you spend.
Looking at the assets of Vanguard 401(k) plan participants, Ameriks found that those who were saving enough to retire comfortably had a median income of $69,000 and median assets of $200,000.
The group falling behind, with assets of just $38,000, earned more - a median of $83,000. "Clearly this group is spending relatively more of its income," he says.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
This is a principal that scales up.
From the time that Pizzarro started sending cash home , the King of Spain was owed one fifth of all the gold and silver and gems that could be plundered or mined in South America .
He kept getting this large tax for about two centurys , and the monarchy was in debt the whole time.
The USA has the worlds largest and most productive economy , but Japan has a better saveings rate , most countrys have a better saveings rate.
What our Government is doing our individual people are also doing , the richer the worser .
-
Perhaps we can come up with a fix , but it will have to be a big fix , as big as cutting Social security to a bare minimum or annexing Mexico.
===============================================================
Pray tell, how would annexing a poorer country like Mexico solve the Social Security problem?
Annexing Canada might be a solution: the addition of all those liberals and socialists would prevent the idiotic Republicans from being elected for a long, long time.
Not that annexing Canada or Mexico is ever going to happen.
-
Well, I can tell you a few things about messing with Social Security:
1. I have paid into it my entire working life.
2. I have certain expectations about my receipts form it when I retire
3. Because the Feds have plunfdered it has el zippo to do with my expectations.
4. I want my money, all of it, due to the promises made to me.
5. Older people vote and so I will vote to get what I have been promised, so don't even try to reduce my payout or I will vote accordingly.
-
Well, I can tell you a few things about messing with Social Security:
1. I have paid into it my entire working life.
2. I have certain expectations about my receipts form it when I retire
3. Because the Feds have plunfdered it has el zippo to do with my expectations.
4. I want my money, all of it, due to the promises made to me.
5. Older people vote and so I will vote to get what I have been promised, so don't even try to reduce my payout or I will vote accordingly.
If I promised you a home on Mare Imbrium would you vote for me?
The promise that is just too good to be true , looses my vote .
Social Security has been the cornicopia for everything elese for most of its history , when it runs out of cash it will sink and drag down everyone that is clinging to it.
Let me loose , let me work for ten years without paying a cent in and owe me nothing , I want to get in a lifeboat and paddle away from the S.S.Social Security.
-
Perhaps we can come up with a fix , but it will have to be a big fix , as big as cutting Social security to a bare minimum or annexing Mexico.
===============================================================
Pray tell, how would annexing a poorer country like Mexico solve the Social Security problem?
Annexing Canada might be a solution: the addition of all those liberals and socialists would prevent the idiotic Republicans from being elected for a long, long time.
Not that annexing Canada or Mexico is ever going to happen.
Mexico has a lot more young people , more people early in their career and people as yet unfamiliar with the tragic mismanagement that the SS has always had.
We could float on the backs of the Mexicans for a few extra decades , you might say that we have already started to.
Canada would be no help , they are at least as heavy with geezers as we are.
-
"...Let me loose , let me work for ten years without paying a cent in and owe me nothing , I want to get in a lifeboat and paddle away from the S.S.Social Security."
I agree with you, but it will never happen, unfortunately.