Bailout Alternative???

[Tom Lowe]

Drew, you actually believe in personal responsibility??

We need you in the libertarian movement, my friend!

 

[Andrew Walker]

Drew, you actually believe in personal responsibility??

We need you in the libertarian movement, my friend!

That does seem to be the only place I fit the most in this jacked up political system.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I try to avoid political discussions... Not worth it. But I just have to say that the whole McDonalds Coffee incident, preceding accidents of the same nature, subsequent cases of similar tone, etc.. All bullshit.

Coffee is supposed to be hot. It's supposed to burn your ass if it spills on you. If you're a klutz whose prone to spilling hot beverages, then request that the coffee you're ordering be made less hot, have them throw an ice cube in it, whatever.

So now, when my wife drags my ass into Starbucks (oh, how I loathe that place), I have to request they make my coffee extra hot because they're not supposed to hand over any drink hotter than 177 degrees or some crap like that. Or at least that's what my wife informed me of, after I had been there a few times and I vocalized my displeasure with getting coffee that is barely "hot".

In actuality, I'm more of a tea person. I pour the water out of the pot while it's still boiling and I let my tea steep for about 90 seconds or so until it's just done. Then I drink it. None of this waiting around for it to cool off stuff.

While I'm feeling political, did anyone else watch the debate tonight? Well, I think this link says it better than I ever could.

Edit> Ooops. Actually meant to link this one, but the above one is good too.

 

[Tom Lowe]

LMAO.. my new camping chair, one of those nylon regular camping chairs, literally has three huge "warning" labels on it, telling me not to use it as a ladder, telling me not to put "hot drinks" in its cupholder, and telling me not to stand on the chair... haha..

Is this really necessary?

BTW, Jeff, I feel confident that we are going to be able to recruit you to our libertarian cause.

 

[Andrew Walker]

I try to avoid political discussions... Not worth it. But I just have to say that the whole McDonalds Coffee incident, preceding accidents of the same nature, subsequent cases of similar tone, etc.. All bullshit.

Coffee is supposed to be hot. It's supposed to burn your ass if it spills on you. If you're a klutz whose prone to spilling hot beverages, then request that the coffee you're ordering be made less hot, have them throw an ice cube in it, whatever.

So now, when my wife drags my ass into Starbucks (oh, how I loathe that place), I have to request they make my coffee extra hot because they're not supposed to hand over any drink hotter than 177 degrees or some crap like that. Or at least that's what my wife informed me of, after I had been there a few times and I vocalized my displeasure with getting coffee that is barely "hot".

In actuality, I'm more of a tea person. I pour the water out of the pot while it's still boiling and I let my tea steep for about 90 seconds or so until it's just done. Then I drink it. None of this waiting around for it to cool off stuff.

While I'm feeling political, did anyone else watch the debate tonight? Well, I think this link says it better than I ever could.

Edit> Ooops. Actually meant to link this one, but the above one is good too.

Glad to see there's another responsible person around here.

LMAO.. my new camping chair, one of those nylon regular camping chairs, literally has three huge "warning" labels on it, telling me not to use it as a ladder, telling me not to put "hot drinks" in its cupholder, and telling me not to stand on the chair... haha..

Is this really necessary?

BTW, Jeff, I feel confident that we are going to be able to recruit you to our libertarian cause.

On the no standing warning does it say not to use it as a chair to hang yourself with...come on we have to cover all the bases here. Someone could fail at killing themselves and then fill a lawsuit against the chair and rope manufacture. I mean how are people suppose to know not to hang themselves with a camping chair...you need a nice tall bar stool to do the job

 

[Priyesh P.]

The unresponsible actions of big corporations can`t be compared to those cases of injury. The one thing has it`s roots in pure greed, the other ones are accidents that were results of carelessness or stupidity - I, for example drank boiling hot water directly out of a thermo flask when I was 5 years old - who would be so dumb of suing the flask`s manufacturer?
BTW, I was not seriously wounded, just lost my sense of taste for weeks - so I don`t understand how these serious injuries happened.

 

[jpp]

But I just have to say that the whole McDonalds Coffee incident, preceding accidents of the same nature, subsequent cases of similar tone, etc.. All bullshit.

Coffee is supposed to be hot. It's supposed to burn your ass if it spills on you.

You're confusing actual personal responsibility -- for example, you make coffee that's too hot and spill it on yourself -- and the obligations of multi-billion dollar corporations to society, which derive from the special and very particular rights and privileges corporations enjoy.

A company the size of McDonalds, serving up coffee in all its franchises which is hot enough to cause third-degree burns when spilled, is just plain idiocy: kids buy that coffee, seniors buy that coffee, etc.. So fine: McDonalds can make the coffee as hot as it wants, in order (in its view) to enhance its profits. But, if so, it has to accept the legal consequences of its recklessness. If that's not taking "personal responsibility", what is?

Now, as to this whole "personal responsibility" mantra, you guys bring to mind the case of Trent Lott, former Republican majority leader of the Senate, and another big one-time opponent of tort lawyers. Here was a guy who defeated Congressional provisions which would have mitigated Katrina-like damage, and then sued his insurance company when it refused to cover damage to his coastal Mississippi vacation house (after Katrina).

It's easy to bray about one's own virtue and self-reliance, but it's a little silly to do so, until the matter actually gets tested. If Tom's lounge chair folds on his hand and crushes it, thereby significantly and permanently reducing hand function, we'll see how much longer he hates trial lawyers.

It's also a little aggravating when the richest, most powerful and most privileged people in America (GWB, for one?), push this line. As we're seeing now, our corporate masters aren't so big on personal responsibility, after all.

 

[Priyesh P.]

jpp, we`ve gone OT, but nonetheless, McDonalds (as evil as they are ;-) didn`t sell liquid uranium that was declared as a beverage, but a none chilled drink called coffee (ok, maybe it`s a fault of the perfectly isolating cups that makes one believe that the content is warm - not hot, but nonetheless it IS a hot drink by definition).

If you go this far then nobody could produce anything because ANYTHING can be harmful in one or the other way, could fail or idiots could misuse it...

 

[jpp]

If you go this far then nobody could produce anything because ANYTHING can be harmful in one or the other way, could fail or idiots could misuse it...

What's "this far"? Asking a mass-market retailer like McDonalds to accept liability if it insists on selling millions of cups of coffee at a temperature sufficient to produce 3rd degree burns -- and which has produced 3rd degree burns, 700+ times?

In any event, we have gone "this far", and business proceeds merrily along anyway. Certainly McDonalds has.

Nonetheless, I'll make a deal with you guys: we'll do away with all these frivolous lawsuits (in your eyes), if you can get the CEOs of the investment banks and the mortgage companies to accept personal responsibility for what they've done to the American taxpayer, and return 98% of their compensation for the last ten years, which will still leave them very rich men. The money should of course go to the U.S. treasury, but for the sake of the argument, we'll let them pay it to their bankrupted shareholders. Then again, the shareholders also need to shoulder personal responsibility, for their own stupidity and lack of due diligence, and their trust in the ratings agencies. So, it goes to the Treasury.

But of course, you won't get 98%. Or .98%. In fact, you won't get a dime, or even an apology, or an even acknowledgment of error.

So really, guys, who wants to hear about the so-called abuses of an 81-year old burn victim, suing McDonalds to recover her medical costs?

If you really think liability lawsuits are what's wrong with the U.S. today, I can only suggest you start reading the newspaper. Or, if you're a capitalist and have a brokerage account, look at your last statement, and rejoice.

 

[Curran Giddens]

We need you in the libertarian movement, my friend!

I registered as Libertarian when I turned 18. I would love to vote for the party. But this country just isn't ready. Until more people wake up, I think it is better to vote for the lesser of two evils. My vote was wasted on Nader back in 2000. Not gonna let that happen again....

I am going to vote via absentee ballot since I will be in Brazil during the first week of November.

 

[Priyesh P.]

JPP, you`re misunderstanding me. I`m aggressively condemn the whole deregulated mess we`re currently in.

But the McDonalds issue is different. It actually makes me frightened to know that there are people who can`t handle a cup of coffee. On the other hand - if there really were 700 people who scald themselves out of hundreds of millions of successful drinks worldwide then it`s more safe to drink coffee than fly with the 737... just joking!

BTW...there was an hilarious lawsuit here in Germany where a former judge (!) tried to sue the Mars Corp. and Coca Cola because he went obese and developed diabetes...his case was rejected...

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

You're confusing actual personal responsibility

Am I? At which point does responsibility shift from individual common sense to the responsibility of corporations or government agencies?

I don't know if it's your intent, but it sounds like you are spinning this to say that "multi-billion dollar corporations" have additional responsibility to society or should have the burden of additional blame and responsibility because they're big and therefore presumably have lots of surplus money.

the special and very particular rights and privileges corporations enjoy.

Which are? Two of my companies are corporations. Would you care to elaborate on what special and particular rights and privileges I enjoy? Which of these privileges, in turn, saddle me or my companies up with extra liability vs. the common man or other types of companies?

A company the size of McDonalds, serving up coffee in all its franchises which is hot enough to cause third-degree burns when spilled, is just plain idiocy:

Is it any more idiotic than general operations of a business like a liquor store? Every day, liquor store owners knowingly sell a substance that is known to affect human behavior. It's known to induce conditions that lead to fatal accidents, domestic violence, long-term illness and other less popularized occurrences.

Or is the coffee scenario different because it was sold by a "multi-billion dollar corporation"? We don't have any "multi-billion dollar" corporate liquor store chains in this country. If we did have such a thing, would that set a precedent for something more?

It's easy to bray about one's own virtue and self-reliance, but it's a little silly to do so, until the matter actually gets tested.

True. But the same can be said for braying over one's own success, failures, misery, whatever.. All we can do is state our opinions. Most opinions are biased anyway. I know where I stand with my own principles and outlook on responsibility. I'm sure Tom knows where he stands as well.

If Tom's lounge chair folds on his hand and crushes it, thereby significantly and permanently reducing hand function, we'll see how much longer he hates trial lawyers.

Perhaps, but like you said, we won't ever know unless this scenario is put to the test. That was outside my point anyway. I subscribe to an ideal of where everyone stands up and takes responsibility for their own actions, right or wrong, intelligent or stupid. If the chair and Tom's hand scenario ever came to pass, I would hope that the chair manufacturer would have the decency to investigate the matter thoroughly. And if it were determined that the incident occurred due to a defective chair and not Tom being an extreme dumbass (or fatass?), that the manufacturer would take appropriate action to meet all of Tom's legitimate needs pertaining to the accident.

I know our society isn't going to work this way. Just like world peace and widespread ethical business practices, it's not going to happen. In my own opinion, I like to believe that when a business sells a customer a well-established product, like coffee or beer, that it becomes the customer's sole responsibility for any actions and risks that may arise from the use of that product. Coffee is supposed to be hot, beer contains alcohol, use at your own peril. Certain responsibilities should be in place, yes. The coffee vendor should ensure that there is no bacteria or harmful substances in the coffee (oxymoron?), likewise the liquor store should not knowingly sell the beer to an under-aged purchaser or someone who appears to already be intoxicated.

As Kalone pointed out, coffee is by definition a "hot" drink. It even warns on the side of the cup, in more than one language, that the contents are hot and to use caution. These cups have done so since more than a decade before this whole spilled coffee legal circus came into being. In this case, a line has been drawn to establish where personal responsibility ends and corporate liability begins. To me, it seems the line is entirely in the wrong place. Obviously you disagree...

...Coffee is a hot drink. Hot drinks can burn you. I've known that since as far back as I can remember. My 3 year old knows his hot cocoa can burn him. But apparently some people in this world never got that memo. In a free, democratic society, I believe that everyone has the right to be as stupid as they choose. But they have no right to hang their stupidity onto the burdened shoulders of our judicial system or the taxpayers who support it.

Coffee is hot... Knives are sharp. Do I sue a knife company if I accidently bump a knife off a table and it slices my foot and severs a toe? Or do I sue the store where I bought the knife because they were selling knives that were sharper than knives sold at most other stores?

It's also a little aggravating when the richest, most powerful and most privileged people in America (GWB, for one?), push this line. As we're seeing now, our corporate masters aren't so big on personal responsibility, after all.

Yep... That's exactly where I thought you were heading with all of this. I'm not even going to get into that discussion.

For the record, I hate McDonalds -- the food is vile and the environment just plain sucks. IMO, the selling of the Big Mac is far more a crime than coffee that is "too hot".

 

[Andrew Walker]

What's "this far"? Asking a mass-market retailer like McDonalds to accept liability if it insists on selling millions of cups of coffee at a temperature sufficient to produce 3rd degree burns -- and which has produced 3rd degree burns, 700+ times?

So just because McDonalds is a mass-market retailer you think they should bend-over and pay people money that are STUPID and/or CLUMSY.

Nonetheless, I'll make a deal with you guys: we'll do away with all these frivolous lawsuits (in your eyes), if you can get the CEOs of the investment banks and the mortgage companies to accept personal responsibility for what they've done to the American taxpayer, and return 98% of their compensation for the last ten years, which will still leave them very rich men. The money should of course go to the U.S. treasury, but for the sake of the argument, we'll let them pay it to their bankrupted shareholders. Then again, the shareholders also need to shoulder personal responsibility, for their own stupidity and lack of due diligence, and their trust in the ratings agencies. So, it goes to the Treasury.

See the problem with this is that you think that the CEOs of the investment banks and the mortgage companies are to blame. They have a hand in it that's for sure but the one that started it all is the FED. They gave the greenlight on all these bullshit loans because they knew exactly what it would do and here we are. Oh and just for your info I don't get my thought process from watching other people give their opinions on the TV. I look at what's happened in the past to see what old bullshit they are trying to repackage and tell us its a new problem.

If you really think liability lawsuits are what's wrong with the U.S. today, I can only suggest you start reading the newspaper. Or, if you're a capitalist and have a brokerage account, look at your last statement, and rejoice.

Its one of the things that are wrong with the US. The biggest problem is that most of these lawsuits reward people for being stupid. Its the state of mind that it puts most people in...that they don't have to take responsibility for the mistakes they've made and that its always someone else's fault.

 

[jpp]

This has gone on too long, but if folks here don't understand why McDonalds, by virtue of its size and power, has special social responsibilities, I won't convince you.

The liquor store analogy is an interesting one, to which I have no answer, other than that selling liquor is, by custom, socially acceptable. And it's a product whose sole purpose is to induce intoxication, which is why people buy it. I doubt McDonalds patrons buy coffee to get scalded.

For corporate privileges under the law, I'd refer doubters to, appropriately enough, a documentary called "The Corporation". One might also ask Jay why, if there aren't special privileges, he chose to incorporate, since a small corporation can be costly to open and sustain. But that's neither here nor there.

I know that all our problems, according to you guys, are caused by government. There's some degree of truth to that -- Alan Greenspan could have instantly stopped subprime lending, instead of going on TV to promote it, and GWB's Dept. of Treasury actively prevented states from regulating subprime lending -- but I doubt that's the kind of government you're referring to.

Finally, this whole "personal responsibility" line doesn't go down well, because its loudest proponents are the biggest whiners in the country. Listen to 3 hours of Limbaugh and what do you hear? It's all someone else's fault. Republicans controlled all branches of government for nearly 8 years but when things go wrong, it's always someone else's fault.

After a while, you have to wonder whose "personality responsibility" these people are talking about. From what I can tell, it's never yours if you're a right-wing Republican, because liberals are always to blame for everything, even if there are no real liberals in American government, and even if the phony ones aren't even in power.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

See the problem with this is that you think that the CEOs of the investment banks and the mortgage companies are to blame. They have a hand in it that's for sure but the one that started it all is the FED. They gave the greenlight on all these bullshit loans because they knew exactly what it would do and here we are. Oh and just for your info I don't get my thought process from watching other people give their opinions on the TV. I look at what's happened in the past to see what old bullshit they are trying to repackage and tell us its a new problem.

Exactly. No new problem here. This situation has been building and building for over 30 years. Both the GOP and Dems had their hands in this one and either party can try to spin it any way they choose. Sadly, many of the events that led up to this current financial mess actually seemed like good ideas at the time, or at least to enough people to get proper legislation passed... The Carter administration's extensions to lending fairness, Reagan administration's broader allowances for debt consolidation and classifications, Bush (Sr.) Administration's lowered interest rates and extended service operations for Fannie and Freddy, Clinton Administration's lowering of minimum credit score approval lines and HUD policy extensions... W's Administration keeps cutting interest rates in an attempt to stimulate new business. It had the effect initially, but did not address the core problem. So they slashed again and again and ended up in a downward spiral. Now we're at the point where money is practically free, it's killing investors and lenders looking for decent returns and forcing money to go overseas. Low interest rates for too long accelerates inflation and right now the rate of inflation is far outpacing business revenues and earnings. Small businesses are getting killed.

Before W. even entered office, we already had a housing bubble starting to build and thousands and thousands of "homeowners" nation-wide who legitimately should not have been allowed to finance a couch were out there taking out loans to buy a $200K house and rolling $60K of credit card and auto loan debt into that. Now the economy hits a skip, people default on their loans and lenders are stuck holding a bunch of toilet paper where many squares are I.O.U's for $250K or more and the property in question is worth only 70-80% of that.

The bigwig CEOs and corporate lenders are at fault because they didn't scrutinize carefully when lending money. They simply handed out the money to anyone that fell within the established parameters of acceptable borrowers. Most of those parameters were established by the FED and past administrations. On the other hand most lenders faced serious fines and other reprisals from the FHC, HUD, the IRS and others if they did scrutinize to carefully when lending due to all the fairness policies. And while it should have been a perfectly acceptable reason for a lender to turn someone down, suddenly for the last 15 years or so, "we don't think you can afford this loan, even though your credit score is high enough" was no longer acceptable. Larger lenders like AIG faced tighter scrutiny and fear of fines due to their size and profile. Additionally, they got themselves into bigger trouble not only with their own products, but they also had been buying up portfolios from smaller lenders, many at a loss. They had bought thousands of junk notes that exceeded the value of the secured property, under the assumption that most of these notes would eventually pay off and money would be made. Now they're stuck holding vast portfolios of bad paper. And thanks to the powers that be, the taxpayers are the ones who get to wipe their ass with it.

Now we're coming up on the big election and we get to listen to pious candidates who self-righteously claim they saw this coming two years ago, as if they were blessed with great prognosticators of the divine. ...To which I only have to say, "No shit, dumbasses. You're slow, I saw it a few years before that." ...And so did everyone else I know who runs a responsible business pertaining to the highly-affected markets. Most responsible accountants, bankers, land developers and realtors I work with all saw this coming. We would casually talk about the housing glut and the overbuilding, bad loans, etc.. over the past 5 years or so.

This country needs a wake-up call. People need to take responsibility. People need to put that credit card away and get used to their bank telling them "NO!". Everyone wants it all now, no one ever asks "how much does it cost", they only care "how much is it per month?". Until we learn to save our earnings, live within our means and finance nothing more than a portion of our homes, this problem won't be fixed. Of course, that's highly generalized, but once again, that's the way I was taught... Don't spend money you don't have. I would rather live under a bridge than owe every penny I have now, and will have for the rest of my life, to someone else.

 

[number6]

Yeah, What he said!

 

[Joel Kaye]

Republicans controlled all branches of government for nearly 8 years but when things go wrong, it's always someone else's fault.

That's my problem with the Bush administration. They say one thing and do another. And they never take personal responsibility for anything they mess up.

I have some empathy for disappointed conservatives who supported them because the Bush adminstration has been anything but conservative and may have harmed the movement by association.

In the same way, Bush (as is pointed out in this thread) misused the government and corporate CEOs abused their positions.

When corporations have undue influence over the Gov't a consolidation of wealth... stealing from the taxpayer and giving to those who are exerting influence is the result.

So it's overly simplistic to just blame "BIG Gov't" or blame "Corporations". Both can be good. Both can be bad. There's a balance that needs to be reached - and only honest regulation can do it. But regulation has been corrupted - which is why some of you here sincerely believe Gov't is bad. Yes, it sure can be. But monopoly is bad too... and you can't prevent that without Gov't.

So what's the real solution to our current problems? My contention is (at least in America) it has to be an educated workforce that has an honest, good paying job available that's not going to be outsourced. All the credit in the world doesn't matter if there aren't good jobs being created. That's what got us into this mess. Easy credit but mediocre jobs. People have been pulling money out of their houses to pay the bills... and now here we are.

 

[Priyesh P.]

That's my problem with the Bush administration. They say one thing and do another.

But which of them do? They`re politicians...

 

[jpp]

The bigwig CEOs and corporate lenders are at fault because they didn't scrutinize carefully when lending money. They simply handed out the money to anyone that fell within the established parameters of acceptable borrowers.

What established "parameters" of "acceptable borrowers"? These guys lent to anyone -- regardless of income, and with no proof required of any claims on the application, and no due diligence performed by the lender. And why? In order to collect origination fees and then sell the mortgage to a third party.

"Didn't scrutinize carefully"? You mean to say they really thought these people could pay the mortgages, and it was just a lack of scrutiny which did them in? That's why, for instance, they offered ridiculously low teaser rates? No chance they were trying to deceive the borrower into thinking that he could carry the mortgage?

For a guy who's big on personal responsibility, sounds like you're making a lot of excuses for people who not only should have known better, but did in fact know better. In fact, it sounds like you're trying to defend fraud.

On the other hand most lenders faced serious fines and other reprisals from the FHC, HUD, the IRS and others if they did scrutinize to carefully when lending due to all the fairness policies.

There's absolutely nothing on the books which forces lenders to give mortgages to unqualified buyers, whatever their race. This is pure Republican talking points, blaming the crisis on the victims.

 

[number6]

What established "parameters" of "acceptable borrowers"? These guys lent to anyone -- regardless of income, and with no proof required of any claims on the application, and no due diligence performed by the lender. And why? In order to collect origination fees and then sell the mortgage to a third party.

"Didn't scrutinize carefully"? You mean to say they really thought these people could pay the mortgages, and it was just a lack of scrutiny which did them in? That's why, for instance, they offered ridiculously low teaser rates? No chance they were trying to deceive the borrower into thinking that he could carry the mortgage?

For a guy who's big on personal responsibility, sounds like you're making a lot of excuses for people who not only should have known better, but did in fact know better. In fact, it sounds like you're trying to defend fraud.



There's absolutely nothing on the books which forces lenders to give mortgages to unqualified buyers, whatever their race. This is pure Republican talking points, blaming the crisis on the victims.

jpp, give it a rest. The horse is dead. Enough with the flogging.