Republicans manufacture a crisis for the Postal Service, and too many Democrats

[Bob E.]

Pensions offer stability...it's likely illegal to posess what you're smoking to come up with that line.

Anytime an entity, say the USPS or the Chicago PD, has as many or more retired people collecting a pension scheme as they have currently on the job, that entity is about to fold. Some entities have almost twice as many retired pensioners as they have full time people still actually on the job. 

Why not just get rid of the pension/ponzi scheme and allow these people to contribute to their own 401(k) type retirement like everyone else? Can't you understand the current system is simply unsustainable? Have you seen what's happening in Spain, Italy, Portugal, France etc. etc. etc.

We're borrowing $0.40 of every $1.00 we spend. How long do you think your household could do that until it collapses?


Mark

But Mark, my daughter learned in class that deficit spending is OK.  Nothing wrong with it.  The only thing her teacher forgot to mention is that it hasn't worked.  The libs don't consider deficits and debt as these don't make them feel good.  Yelling that everyone deserves (fill in the blank)....makes them feel good.

I gave the kid this example of what deficit spending is:

You own a business that is not doing well.  To save the business, you borrow money to advertise a little more.  Through this increased advertising, the business does better, the loan is paid off, and you are now making a profit.  This is not what the gov't has been doing.  The gov't borrows to make up a deficit that never gets closed, so it has to borrow again the following year.  But the following year, things are more expensive and they added additional debt to close other deficits and they chase their tail year after year until we are 17 trillion in debt, with no way out of it.  And a huge nut to deal with to just service the loan and not even pay anything down.

But again, Dems and libs don't think of or consider the debt.  Bob Bickle (I thinks that's the spelling), a liberal pundant was asked about the rising cost of the debt and he asked back "When you woke up this morning, did the debt affect you?"   

Don't put this entirely at the feet of the Dems.  Reagan was the one who started massively exploding the debt back in the 80's and it has continued ever since.  And just FYI...it was Dick Cheney who said "Deficits don't matter". Since when is he a raging liberal democrat?

[Chattanooga Mark]

Anyone who blames only one party is nothing more than the other party's useful idiot. Like I've posted on many occasions, I very VERY opposedto the G W Bush administration. Mainly because he spent WAY too much money, came up with too many additional ways to expand government and reduced the federal  tax payer base by about 10 million. That last only expanded class warfare.

The current group in charge in Washington is G W B x100.

Mark

[G-Man]

Pretty sweet deal huh?

Choices.  You make'm, you live with 'em!  But to bitch about how little you'll be walking away with after all is said and done, due to the CHOICES you made, sounds silly to me.

Yep.... knew the deal going into it, the statement "pretty sweet deal huh?" (darn that lack of sarcasm font) was meant to mean that contrary to what is popularly believed, most all public employees aren't walking away at 50 with a 80K/year pension.

Somehow most everyone thinks that when the guy that mops the courthouse floor retires it is comparable to hitting the lottery or something.

What sucks is when you make your CHOICE (G-Man likes caps...lol!) based on some criteria going in, then they change the game halfway in after you've already committed over half your life to your CHOICE, and then gut your pension fund and make you take concessions because they can "no longer afford it".

And that is exactly what is going on right now.  Our politicians made deals that we no longer can afford.  So what is society supposed to do with what it can no longer afford?  Well, this society has adopted the borrow, spend, and then borrow some more technique that doesn't seem to work.  The other alternative is to decrease spending.  And, since we can't take entitlements away from the poor, the elderly, the sick, the clueless, the leaches, etc., then public employee pay and benefits have to suffer.  Our roads, bridges, buildings, are already suffering.  The garbage  and cigarette butts are piling up at the end of the off ramps of the highway.  Where else should/could the money come from? 

I'm not sure if your "no longer afford it" is sarcastic or not, but if you read my previous post about 75% of Westchester's budget paying for county employees, past and present, you'd see that it's really the only thing that has any meat to go after.

And, yes, I do like to capitalize the word CHOICE because it is a very important word.  It's what separates us from most of the world.  We have the ability to CHOOSE our path in life, and even CHOOSE to change that path if we fail, if circumstances change undesirably (sp?), or we we just don't like something.  I see the CHOICES that people make and scratch my head asking why?  It seems as though people intentionally make CHOICES that handcuff them and stop them from moving forward. 

[Cliff]

i tried watching that video, once again, one party blaming the other.

from what i hear about the post office (my brother works there) is that it's a bunch of management idiots that don't know how to manage an orginization. 

now, if i had a chance to work for 'em, i would.  excellent benifits, paid sick time, heck of a retirement plan, free stamps......  what more could you ask for.

Postal employees get no employee discount and cetainly don't get free stamps.  They pay what the public pays.

[Bob E.]

Pretty sweet deal huh?

Choices.  You make'm, you live with 'em!  But to bitch about how little you'll be walking away with after all is said and done, due to the CHOICES you made, sounds silly to me.

Yep.... knew the deal going into it, the statement "pretty sweet deal huh?" (darn that lack of sarcasm font) was meant to mean that contrary to what is popularly believed, most all public employees aren't walking away at 50 with a 80K/year pension.

Somehow most everyone thinks that when the guy that mops the courthouse floor retires it is comparable to hitting the lottery or something.

What sucks is when you make your CHOICE (G-Man likes caps...lol!) based on some criteria going in, then they change the game halfway in after you've already committed over half your life to your CHOICE, and then gut your pension fund and make you take concessions because they can "no longer afford it".

And that is exactly what is going on right now.  Our politicians made deals that we no longer can afford.  So what is society supposed to do with what it can no longer afford?  Well, this society has adopted the borrow, spend, and then borrow some more technique that doesn't seem to work.  The other alternative is to decrease spending.  And, since we can't take entitlements away from the poor, the elderly, the sick, the clueless, the leaches, etc., then public employee pay and benefits have to suffer.  Our roads, bridges, buildings, are already suffering.  The garbage  and cigarette butts are piling up at the end of the off ramps of the highway.  Where else should/could the money come from? 

I'm not sure if your "no longer afford it" is sarcastic or not, but if you read my previous post about 75% of Westchester's budget paying for county employees, past and present, you'd see that it's really the only thing that has any meat to go after.

And, yes, I do like to capitalize the word CHOICE because it is a very important word.  It's what separates us from most of the world.  We have the ability to CHOOSE our path in life, and even CHOOSE to change that path if we fail, if circumstances change undesirably (sp?), or we we just don't like something.  I see the CHOICES that people make and scratch my head asking why?  It seems as though people intentionally make CHOICES that handcuff them and stop them from moving forward. 

I was just doing a little friendly kidding with you on the "G-Man likes caps" thing since we've had some mostly friendly debates here.  I apologize if you took it wrong or anything. 

The reason I even brought up this choice stuff is because conservatives generally demonize folks for making poor "CHOICES" and needing to live with them.  And that's how I took your response to ptgb...that you were saying he made a poor CHOICE now live with it. I'm not saying they don't have to live with their CHOICES...that's life...but that doesn't necessarily mean their CHOICES were bad.   

For example, the whole housing bubble thing...folks being blamed for taking out mortgages they couldn't afford.  Well, I'd bet that for the most part, they took out the mortgage under circumstances where they could afford it.  Maybe they had a good job or even a 2-income family and the economy was booming so they felt secure in their job stability, but then the recession hit and one or both lose their job.  Did they make a poor CHOICE?  That's my point is that people make CHOICES based on circumstances at the time they make the CHOICE.   The same can be said about people who make career CHOICES.  Take my dad for example. Back in the late 60's, he graduated highschool and got a good job at the local factory...union member, union benefits and pension...the whole deal.  He figures he'll be able to retire from there...life was looking good.  But about 15-20 years in, after he's committed half of his working life to this company, they go out of business.  He doesn't get any of his pension or anything.  So now, he's got no retirement savings or anything and has to try and scrape what little he can over the 2nd half of his working life.  Did he make a bad CHOICE?

As for whether my "no longer afford it" was sarcastic or not, I'd say this...Whether we can afford it or not is a matter of priorities...nothing more.  Do we want to continue to spend so much on the military...more than almost all other developed nations combined?  Or should we spend some of that money on pensions, health care, infrastructure, etc.?  Do we want to cut taxes and reduce revenues to near historic lows as they are now?  Or would we rather raise taxes back to where they were, not 10 years ago, but 30-40 years ago when these pension programs were well funded, we were expanding our infrastructure, the middle class was growing, and our national debt was at a more manageable level?  Bush NEVER should have cut taxes when we had any national debt...at least not if Republicans don't like to be called out for being hypocrites. His justification was that we had a surplus, so he was "returning the money back to us".  Why not use it to pay down the debt if it is so important? Because Cheney says "deficits don't matter", that's why.

The priorities of our country and our government have been so corrupted by greed and special interests and pandering that we now find ourselves in a world of hurt.  Not only that, but our civil discourse has become so non-civil that we cannot even have a valid or meaningful debate about what our priorities should even be.  And that, I fear, will be the downfall of this country.  Not some debt crisis or foreign attack or anything like that.  But our real loss of civility and respect among those who cannot even agree to disagree without demonizing that person to the point that you cannot even work with them to solve real problems....near failure to raise the debt ceiling is a perfect example.

[musclehead]

Pensions offer stability...it's likely illegal to posess what you're smoking to come up with that line.

Anytime an entity, say the USPS or the Chicago PD, has as many or more retired people collecting a pension scheme as they have currently on the job, that entity is about to fold. Some entities have almost twice as many retired pensioners as they have full time people still actually on the job. 

Why not just get rid of the pension/ponzi scheme and allow these people to contribute to their own 401(k) type retirement like everyone else? Can't you understand the current system is simply unsustainable? Have you seen what's happening in Spain, Italy, Portugal, France etc. etc. etc.

We're borrowing $0.40 of every $1.00 we spend. How long do you think your household could do that until it collapses?


Mark

But Mark, my daughter learned in class that deficit spending is OK.  Nothing wrong with it.  The only thing her teacher forgot to mention is that it hasn't worked.  The libs don't consider deficits and debt as these don't make them feel good.  Yelling that everyone deserves (fill in the blank)....makes them feel good.

I gave the kid this example of what deficit spending is:

You own a business that is not doing well.  To save the business, you borrow money to advertise a little more.  Through this increased advertising, the business does better, the loan is paid off, and you are now making a profit.  This is not what the gov't has been doing.  The gov't borrows to make up a deficit that never gets closed, so it has to borrow again the following year.  But the following year, things are more expensive and they added additional debt to close other deficits and they chase their tail year after year until we are 17 trillion in debt, with no way out of it.  And a huge nut to deal with to just service the loan and not even pay anything down.

But again, Dems and libs don't think of or consider the debt.  Bob Bickle (I thinks that's the spelling), a liberal pundant was asked about the rising cost of the debt and he asked back "When you woke up this morning, did the debt affect you?"   

Don't put this entirely at the feet of the Dems.  Reagan was the one who started massively exploding the debt back in the 80's and it has continued ever since.  And just FYI...it was Dick Cheney who said "Deficits don't matter". Since when is he a raging liberal democrat?

I will grant you that Reagan got the ball rolling on debt, but he was promised a $2 cut in spending for every dollar increased in revenue (taxes) so Reagan does the deal and the Dems (tip O'neal) stiffs him on the cuts.  just like always.

deficits DO matter, deficits in the trillions of dollars are just crazy

[G-Man]

Pretty sweet deal huh?

Choices.  You make'm, you live with 'em!  But to bitch about how little you'll be walking away with after all is said and done, due to the CHOICES you made, sounds silly to me.

Yep.... knew the deal going into it, the statement "pretty sweet deal huh?" (darn that lack of sarcasm font) was meant to mean that contrary to what is popularly believed, most all public employees aren't walking away at 50 with a 80K/year pension.

Somehow most everyone thinks that when the guy that mops the courthouse floor retires it is comparable to hitting the lottery or something.

What sucks is when you make your CHOICE (G-Man likes caps...lol!) based on some criteria going in, then they change the game halfway in after you've already committed over half your life to your CHOICE, and then gut your pension fund and make you take concessions because they can "no longer afford it".

And that is exactly what is going on right now.  Our politicians made deals that we no longer can afford.  So what is society supposed to do with what it can no longer afford?  Well, this society has adopted the borrow, spend, and then borrow some more technique that doesn't seem to work.  The other alternative is to decrease spending.  And, since we can't take entitlements away from the poor, the elderly, the sick, the clueless, the leaches, etc., then public employee pay and benefits have to suffer.  Our roads, bridges, buildings, are already suffering.  The garbage  and cigarette butts are piling up at the end of the off ramps of the highway.  Where else should/could the money come from? 

I'm not sure if your "no longer afford it" is sarcastic or not, but if you read my previous post about 75% of Westchester's budget paying for county employees, past and present, you'd see that it's really the only thing that has any meat to go after.

And, yes, I do like to capitalize the word CHOICE because it is a very important word.  It's what separates us from most of the world.  We have the ability to CHOOSE our path in life, and even CHOOSE to change that path if we fail, if circumstances change undesirably (sp?), or we we just don't like something.  I see the CHOICES that people make and scratch my head asking why?  It seems as though people intentionally make CHOICES that handcuff them and stop them from moving forward. 

I was just doing a little friendly kidding with you on the "G-Man likes caps" thing since we've had some mostly friendly debates here.  I apologize if you took it wrong or anything. 

The reason I even brought up this choice stuff is because conservatives generally demonize folks for making poor "CHOICES" and needing to live with them.  And that's how I took your response to ptgb...that you were saying he made a poor CHOICE now live with it. I'm not saying they don't have to live with their CHOICES...that's life...but that doesn't necessarily mean their CHOICES were bad.   

For example, the whole housing bubble thing...folks being blamed for taking out mortgages they couldn't afford.  Well, I'd bet that for the most part, they took out the mortgage under circumstances where they could afford it.  Maybe they had a good job or even a 2-income family and the economy was booming so they felt secure in their job stability, but then the recession hit and one or both lose their job.  Did they make a poor CHOICE?  That's my point is that people make CHOICES based on circumstances at the time they make the CHOICE.   The same can be said about people who make career CHOICES.  Take my dad for example. Back in the late 60's, he graduated highschool and got a good job at the local factory...union member, union benefits and pension...the whole deal.  He figures he'll be able to retire from there...life was looking good.  But about 15-20 years in, after he's committed half of his working life to this company, they go out of business.  He doesn't get any of his pension or anything.  So now, he's got no retirement savings or anything and has to try and scrape what little he can over the 2nd half of his working life.  Did he make a bad CHOICE?

As for whether my "no longer afford it" was sarcastic or not, I'd say this...Whether we can afford it or not is a matter of priorities...nothing more.  Do we want to continue to spend so much on the military...more than almost all other developed nations combined?  Or should we spend some of that money on pensions, health care, infrastructure, etc.?  Do we want to cut taxes and reduce revenues to near historic lows as they are now?  Or would we rather raise taxes back to where they were, not 10 years ago, but 30-40 years ago when these pension programs were well funded, we were expanding our infrastructure, the middle class was growing, and our national debt was at a more manageable level?  Bush NEVER should have cut taxes when we had any national debt...at least not if Republicans don't like to be called out for being hypocrites. His justification was that we had a surplus, so he was "returning the money back to us".  Why not use it to pay down the debt if it is so important? Because Cheney says "deficits don't matter", that's why.

The priorities of our country and our government have been so corrupted by greed and special interests and pandering that we now find ourselves in a world of hurt.  Not only that, but our civil discourse has become so non-civil that we cannot even have a valid or meaningful debate about what our priorities should even be.  And that, I fear, will be the downfall of this country.  Not some debt crisis or foreign attack or anything like that.  But our real loss of civility and respect among those who cannot even agree to disagree without demonizing that person to the point that you cannot even work with them to solve real problems....near failure to raise the debt ceiling is a perfect example.

Bob,  I didn't take anything you wrote as an attack or anything like that.  And,....I agree with just about everything you've written.  I didn't say, or mean to infer that all choices are bad.  I understand that folks make choices based on what is in front of them at that time. (and usually, the choices presented at that time are based on previous choices) 

The choices I am mainly referring to are the ones that hold people back such as having kids when they haven't even gone to school yet.  Or quitting school and not persuing the degree another way (at night, GED, etc.).  Some folks do go to school and then major in things that can't help them in the world we live in today.  Spending money on expensive cars and toys that could go towards starting a business or further education, etc, etc.  They might not seem like decisions that will affect you in the future, but then they do and we wonder why we can't get ahead.

As far as housing choices.......A business can fail, a person can get fired, or injury or sickness can happen  at any time.  For lack of a better word, this is normal.  These aren't the folks conservatives are speaking about, these are the folks we all agree need help.  What isn't normal is people buying homes that are $200k more than they can afford, but the 3 and 5 year arms at low or no interest maked it doable.  Or the interest only loans where they only paid the interest for a few years and then all of a sudden the real payment comes do.  These people gambled that they will be able to still afford that house in the future.  They took the risk that interest rates would stay low, but they went up (then they came back down). And when the bubble broke, the values of those expensive houses that they couldn't afford went down so they could not refinance due to owing more than the house was worth.  This is nobodies fault but the homeowner.  They bought the expensive house, they gambled with the arms and they lost.  Now they want the bank who loaned them the moneythat they agreed to buy the home with, not the bank, to lower the PRINCIPLE !  Why should the bank take a loss because the borrower gambled. 

I know the reply to this from some is that there was predetory lending and the banks and loan officers took advantage of people.  Bullsh!t!  A home is the most expensive thing anyone will ever purchase in their lives.  If you go into that kind of a transaction with your head up your ass, there is nobody to bame but yourself.  I bought in 2001, just before things were beginning to skyrocket.  We were offered all kinds of money and rates and everything that everyone else was offered.  However, my wife and I made our decisions on what we could afford and what we could afford for a while in case anything happened to one or both of our incomes.

I will stick to my guns and never waiver on my belief that it's the CHOICES that people make that separates those that are doing well and those that are not, excluding the things beyond their control of course, which are few.

[G-Man]

Pensions offer stability...it's likely illegal to posess what you're smoking to come up with that line.

Anytime an entity, say the USPS or the Chicago PD, has as many or more retired people collecting a pension scheme as they have currently on the job, that entity is about to fold. Some entities have almost twice as many retired pensioners as they have full time people still actually on the job. 

Why not just get rid of the pension/ponzi scheme and allow these people to contribute to their own 401(k) type retirement like everyone else? Can't you understand the current system is simply unsustainable? Have you seen what's happening in Spain, Italy, Portugal, France etc. etc. etc.

We're borrowing $0.40 of every $1.00 we spend. How long do you think your household could do that until it collapses?


Mark

But Mark, my daughter learned in class that deficit spending is OK.  Nothing wrong with it.  The only thing her teacher forgot to mention is that it hasn't worked.  The libs don't consider deficits and debt as these don't make them feel good.  Yelling that everyone deserves (fill in the blank)....makes them feel good.

I gave the kid this example of what deficit spending is:

You own a business that is not doing well.  To save the business, you borrow money to advertise a little more.  Through this increased advertising, the business does better, the loan is paid off, and you are now making a profit.  This is not what the gov't has been doing.  The gov't borrows to make up a deficit that never gets closed, so it has to borrow again the following year.  But the following year, things are more expensive and they added additional debt to close other deficits and they chase their tail year after year until we are 17 trillion in debt, with no way out of it.  And a huge nut to deal with to just service the loan and not even pay anything down.

But again, Dems and libs don't think of or consider the debt.  Bob Bickle (I thinks that's the spelling), a liberal pundant was asked about the rising cost of the debt and he asked back "When you woke up this morning, did the debt affect you?"   

Don't put this entirely at the feet of the Dems.  Reagan was the one who started massively exploding the debt back in the 80's and it has continued ever since.  And just FYI...it was Dick Cheney who said "Deficits don't matter". Since when is he a raging liberal democrat?

I will grant you that Reagan got the ball rolling on debt, but he was promised a $2 cut in spending for every dollar increased in revenue (taxes) so Reagan does the deal and the Dems (tip O'neal) stiffs him on the cuts.  just like always.

deficits DO matter, deficits in the trillions of dollars are just crazy

And servicing a debt in the trillions wastes billions.

[Bob E.]

Pretty sweet deal huh?

Choices.  You make'm, you live with 'em!  But to bitch about how little you'll be walking away with after all is said and done, due to the CHOICES you made, sounds silly to me.

Yep.... knew the deal going into it, the statement "pretty sweet deal huh?" (darn that lack of sarcasm font) was meant to mean that contrary to what is popularly believed, most all public employees aren't walking away at 50 with a 80K/year pension.

Somehow most everyone thinks that when the guy that mops the courthouse floor retires it is comparable to hitting the lottery or something.

What sucks is when you make your CHOICE (G-Man likes caps...lol!) based on some criteria going in, then they change the game halfway in after you've already committed over half your life to your CHOICE, and then gut your pension fund and make you take concessions because they can "no longer afford it".

And that is exactly what is going on right now.  Our politicians made deals that we no longer can afford.  So what is society supposed to do with what it can no longer afford?  Well, this society has adopted the borrow, spend, and then borrow some more technique that doesn't seem to work.  The other alternative is to decrease spending.  And, since we can't take entitlements away from the poor, the elderly, the sick, the clueless, the leaches, etc., then public employee pay and benefits have to suffer.  Our roads, bridges, buildings, are already suffering.  The garbage  and cigarette butts are piling up at the end of the off ramps of the highway.  Where else should/could the money come from?  

I'm not sure if your "no longer afford it" is sarcastic or not, but if you read my previous post about 75% of Westchester's budget paying for county employees, past and present, you'd see that it's really the only thing that has any meat to go after.

And, yes, I do like to capitalize the word CHOICE because it is a very important word.  It's what separates us from most of the world.  We have the ability to CHOOSE our path in life, and even CHOOSE to change that path if we fail, if circumstances change undesirably (sp?), or we we just don't like something.  I see the CHOICES that people make and scratch my head asking why?  It seems as though people intentionally make CHOICES that handcuff them and stop them from moving forward.  

I was just doing a little friendly kidding with you on the "G-Man likes caps" thing since we've had some mostly friendly debates here.  I apologize if you took it wrong or anything.  

The reason I even brought up this choice stuff is because conservatives generally demonize folks for making poor "CHOICES" and needing to live with them.  And that's how I took your response to ptgb...that you were saying he made a poor CHOICE now live with it. I'm not saying they don't have to live with their CHOICES...that's life...but that doesn't necessarily mean their CHOICES were bad.  

For example, the whole housing bubble thing...folks being blamed for taking out mortgages they couldn't afford.  Well, I'd bet that for the most part, they took out the mortgage under circumstances where they could afford it.  Maybe they had a good job or even a 2-income family and the economy was booming so they felt secure in their job stability, but then the recession hit and one or both lose their job.  Did they make a poor CHOICE?  That's my point is that people make CHOICES based on circumstances at the time they make the CHOICE.   The same can be said about people who make career CHOICES.  Take my dad for example. Back in the late 60's, he graduated highschool and got a good job at the local factory...union member, union benefits and pension...the whole deal.  He figures he'll be able to retire from there...life was looking good.  But about 15-20 years in, after he's committed half of his working life to this company, they go out of business.  He doesn't get any of his pension or anything.  So now, he's got no retirement savings or anything and has to try and scrape what little he can over the 2nd half of his working life.  Did he make a bad CHOICE?

As for whether my "no longer afford it" was sarcastic or not, I'd say this...Whether we can afford it or not is a matter of priorities...nothing more.  Do we want to continue to spend so much on the military...more than almost all other developed nations combined?  Or should we spend some of that money on pensions, health care, infrastructure, etc.?  Do we want to cut taxes and reduce revenues to near historic lows as they are now?  Or would we rather raise taxes back to where they were, not 10 years ago, but 30-40 years ago when these pension programs were well funded, we were expanding our infrastructure, the middle class was growing, and our national debt was at a more manageable level?  Bush NEVER should have cut taxes when we had any national debt...at least not if Republicans don't like to be called out for being hypocrites. His justification was that we had a surplus, so he was "returning the money back to us".  Why not use it to pay down the debt if it is so important? Because Cheney says "deficits don't matter", that's why.

The priorities of our country and our government have been so corrupted by greed and special interests and pandering that we now find ourselves in a world of hurt.  Not only that, but our civil discourse has become so non-civil that we cannot even have a valid or meaningful debate about what our priorities should even be.  And that, I fear, will be the downfall of this country.  Not some debt crisis or foreign attack or anything like that.  But our real loss of civility and respect among those who cannot even agree to disagree without demonizing that person to the point that you cannot even work with them to solve real problems....near failure to raise the debt ceiling is a perfect example.

Bob,  I didn't take anything you wrote as an attack or anything like that.  And,....I agree with just about everything you've written.  I didn't say, or mean to infer that all choices are bad.  I understand that folks make choices based on what is in front of them at that time. (and usually, the choices presented at that time are based on previous choices)  

The choices I am mainly referring to are the ones that hold people back such as having kids when they haven't even gone to school yet.  Or quitting school and not persuing the degree another way (at night, GED, etc.).  Some folks do go to school and then major in things that can't help them in the world we live in today.  Spending money on expensive cars and toys that could go towards starting a business or further education, etc, etc.  They might not seem like decisions that will affect you in the future, but then they do and we wonder why we can't get ahead.

As far as housing choices.......A business can fail, a person can get fired, or injury or sickness can happen  at any time.  For lack of a better word, this is normal.  These aren't the folks conservatives are speaking about, these are the folks we all agree need help.  What isn't normal is people buying homes that are $200k more than they can afford, but the 3 and 5 year arms at low or no interest maked it doable.  Or the interest only loans where they only paid the interest for a few years and then all of a sudden the real payment comes do.  These people gambled that they will be able to still afford that house in the future.  They took the risk that interest rates would stay low, but they went up (then they came back down). And when the bubble broke, the values of those expensive houses that they couldn't afford went down so they could not refinance due to owing more than the house was worth.  This is nobodies fault but the homeowner.  They bought the expensive house, they gambled with the arms and they lost.  Now they want the bank who loaned them the moneythat they agreed to buy the home with, not the bank, to lower the PRINCIPLE !  Why should the bank take a loss because the borrower gambled.  

I know the reply to this from some is that there was predetory lending and the banks and loan officers took advantage of people.  Bullsh!t!  A home is the most expensive thing anyone will ever purchase in their lives.  If you go into that kind of a transaction with your head up your ass, there is nobody to bame but yourself.  I bought in 2001, just before things were beginning to skyrocket.  We were offered all kinds of money and rates and everything that everyone else was offered.  However, my wife and I made our decisions on what we could afford and what we could afford for a while in case anything happened to one or both of our incomes.

I will stick to my guns and never waiver on my belief that it's the CHOICES that people make that separates those that are doing well and those that are not, excluding the things beyond their control of course, which are few.

I definitely agree that some people certainly make things harder on themselves than they need to be.  Getting pregnant (generally easily avoidable) or dropping out of school (that costs nothing) are two good examples of that as you stated.

But when you refer to someone who falls on hard times and say "These aren't the folks conservatives are speaking about, these are the folks we all agree need help."...my problem is that you are right with this in that conservatives...or at least elected republican representatives...aren't talking about these folks at all.  They don't recognize, at least publicly, that these folks even exist or need help.  Instead, they generalize that they are just all the same lazy, over-borrowing moochers of the system and demonize them rather than helping them in any way.

On why should the bank take a loss and reduce principal...I look at it this way...The bank also took a risk when they lent the money.  They gambled that the the borrower would be able to pay back the loan plus interest for a profit.  And they hedge their bets against losses by charging the interest...so that interest on other loans would cover their losses on this loan if I fail to pay it back.  Now, all morality with regards to repaying debts aside, I look at it as a business decision.  If I borrow money to buy a house for $200K, then say 3-4 years later it is only worth $100K because the bubble burst, why shouldn't I walk away and let the bank take the house?  If that is what my contract (mortgage) says...if I fail to repay, the bank forecloses and takes the house...why shouldn't I just let them have it and let them eat the loss?  A Strategic Forclosure, I think it is called.  So, now the bank is going to eat close to $100K.  Wouldn't it be beneficial for them to reduce that loss to say...$50K and split it with me?  They are $50K ahead of where they would otherwise be, plus the cost of re-selling the house, and I'm able to continue repaying my loan with the lower monthly payment.  Everyone gains.  Sure, it sucks for the bank and in the end will probably result in overall higher interest rates for everyone, but if they lose all this money because of all of the foreclosures, they'd be worse off and you'd get higher rates anyways.

And finally, your paragraph on predatory lending (next to last paragraph), if you re-read it, is a complete contradiction. Your first sentence says that predatory lending is bullshit, but then follow up with your own personal experience of how the bank tried to lend you all this money you knew you couldn't afford.  I'll back that up with my own experience that matches yours.  You don't think that is predatory?  Granted, you and I made good decisions...perhaps because we're both more educated or have better financial circumstances or whatever...but I could see where a lender could convince someone with a weaker will to say "no" that maybe they could afford it, especially if he glosses over the facts about what could happen to the payments if/when the interest rates go up or maybe even convinces them that the interest rates have been steady for so long, they shouldn't expect them to rise.  In fact, that's the exact line of bs the guy gave me.  Fortunately, I was smart enough to walk away.  Unfortunately, not everybody is so smart.  I'd say that is the definition of predatory.

As to CHOICES being the determining factor, I'd agree but also add that there is more LUCK involved than most want to admit.  And those things out of your control are more numerous than you give credit for.

[G-Man]

I wasn't contradicting myself.  I said that people are blaming predatory lending on much of this.  I admitted this takes place, but I think it's a Bullsh!t excuse.  Not that's it's Bullsh!t that it happened.   My experience with it was that my wife and i were knowledgable enough to make good decisions and not just go with whatever a salesperson puts in front of us.  I am fully aware that hundreds of thousands of people just signed on the dotted line.  That's NOT the banks fault.  The borrower signed the note and if he/she wasn't educated enough in the process, shame on them.  It really isn't a very difficult. 

As for Conservs not recognizing the people who were laid off, or experienced illness, etc. you couldn't be more wrong.  I listen to talk radio all day long at work and I have never heard anyone lump all the hardshipped homeowners together,  Never.  Really,  Never.  Actually, their mantra is more like "Help the helpless, not the clueless".  And on this I strongly agree.  Contrary to what is spewed out on the networks and everywhere else except FOX, the conservs/Repubs don't want us to breath bad air, drink bad water, have a war on women, etc.  These are just thrown out to distract and deamonize.