southsider2k5

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 03:56 PM) She went into the store just looking. She knew she couldn't afford it. The salesperson showed her a way she could get a loan. He pointed out how she would be working soon and making all sorts of money. He sold her on her future then showed her how to lie on the application. When that wasn't enough, he went back and changed the contract she signed. Perhaps if she was told she would need $8,600 to qualify she would have stopped it there. Much of what he did was within the law, but when he told her how to commit fraud, she should have told him no. But by then, she was caught up in the excitement, she was about to be a Mercedes owner. She got owned. They took advantage of her. I really wish we would have had 100 posts blaming the scum bag who called himself a salesperson. Has anyone person said that the salesperson didn't do something wrong? Why is it so hard to accept, that when you do a crime, you need to deal with the consequenses? If she doesn't agree to commit fraud, none of this ever happens. Stop and think about that for a second. No matter what the salesman, financier, or anyone else did wrong, if the woman in question doesn't agree to falsify information, NONE of this happens.

Wow, I just read about this. for everyone affected and involved in this.

I believe you can file a federal return for free if you are under a certian income. You have to completely your federal return first, because you need your fed AGI to do your state forms.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 03:20 PM) Babies R Us or Target. That or the ballpark...

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 02:57 PM) I should add to tall this that I think i heard a few nights ago that they can vote to NOT count superdelegates at the convention. So, theoretically, if Obama has a significant enough lead and Hillary is trying to steal it, they could vote the Supers to not count. They could also vote for FL and MI to count for Hillary. There is no real process to ensure fairness in this at all.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 02:55 PM) I think based on current rules you really need 3 viable candidates for that to happen. If there's only 2, then 1 of them is bound to get 50%+1 on the first ballot. Unless some people don't vote. Aren't they bound to their candidates wishes on the first ballot?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 02:39 PM) Who thinks the sales person should be fired? Prosecuted? Absolutely. If more people were prosecuted for this stuff, it wouldn't happen all of the time. But I also think she should get prosecuted for fraud, because she knowingly agreed to something that wasn't true. I also want her paying for her crimes as well.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 02:14 PM) Some people like to see the new cars. Not everyone walks into a store with the intent of buying. Look at the car shows, they are packed with people. The industry even has a term, tire kicker it's so common. And they train their sales reps to turn tire kickers into customers. And I don't have a problem with that. But the dealer crossed the line in this case. They could have sold her a $30,000 car and just took her savings. They could have sold her a $50,000 car and strapped her, but she probably would have qualified based on her true income. But this guy went in for the kill and used fraud to get it. Why isn't she committing fraud by agreeing to an income number that wasn't true?

QUOTE(bmags @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 02:11 PM) A party picking their candidate is quite different than the presidential election. Dispite all of the critisisms of the Electoral College, the process is completely transparent. If you win a state, you get its delegates. The Democratic Primaries, just because you win a state, doesn't mean you get a majority of delegates, and the superdelegates can do whatever the hell they want to. It is quite different, you are right.

QUOTE(retro1983hat @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 01:34 PM) Here is my situation: Been working for the same company for 10 years. Plenty of vacation time. Not the greatest insurance and other benefits, but not a bad place to work. My wife is pregnant and I have the flexibility to leave to go with her to the doctor whenever I need to. I was just offered a job with a much bigger corporation. The pay is essentially the same. Health insurance, tuition reimbursement and other benefits are much, much better. Being new, I wouldn't have the flexibility or vacation time to take off when I might need to. Basically, I want the new job, but would like a bit more money. What is the best way to negotiate this without seeming too pushy or arrogant? You are in a position of power because you have your old job to fall back on. Be honest with them and tell them that you have these advantages at your old place, and you would like a fair compensation for leaving them behind. The worst thing that could happen is that they would say no, and you would still have their offer on the table.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 01:48 PM) No, she went into Autonation "looking", according to the article. She got wrapped up in the excitement created by the salesperson and wound up committing fraud with the sales person. Why would you go into a luxury car dealership with $30,000 in life savings, if you didn't intend to try to buy something?

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 12:38 PM) It's probably too early to worry about the Supers, but since everyone else is, here's my $0.02. I assume (perhaps naively) that the majority of Supers are not a pack of fools. If Obama has a considerable lead of pledged delegates after things wash out, they will have to break for him. If Clinton has a considerable lead, they'll have to break for her. To me, this will be a test of the leadership of Howard Dean. If the delegate scenario plays out in favor of Obama, it will be Dean's job to convince Clinton to bow out gracefully. That will be the toughest thing Dean's ever done, more than likely, but it has to be done for the good of the party. If Obama has that considerable lead in pledged delegates and Clinton still takes the fight all the way to Denver and wins, then McCain will likely win in November, and Dean will be out of a job. After 2000, its already an embarassment to the Dems to have this in the media as a chance that the Clinton's could steal this nomination dispite the will of the people.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 11:56 AM) Maybe some day, people out there will realize that the best way to keep Hillary Clinton in office and to help her advance is to keep making remarks exactly like this one. Her winning the Democratic nomination is a good thing in my mind. The Repubs won't be able to after Obama the way they will Clinton. I think McCain wins pretty easily against Hillary. Obama, I do not see him beating.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 01:39 PM) She was led to lie about her income in order to qualify. Later the dealer altered the contract she signed to inflate her income even higher. She agreed to use her expected income (same as before her disability) they bumped it up another 35%. Did she go into the dealership with the intent of trying to drive away in a $100,000 car, knowing full well what her income was?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 11:24 AM) As long as the government steps in to bail out the banks, everyone's happy! The banks shouldn't be bailed out either. But then again, if we are going to be a nanny-state, who are we to descriminate against who we bail out? That would be so anti-PC.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 03:21 PM) I kind of like the backyardigans, as kid cartoons go. I haven't watched much PBS. I always forget about it. Backyardigans isn't too bad except for the theme song (damn that drives me nuts.). PBS has lots of the old standby's like Sesame St and Clifford, plus a couple of new ones, but they all at least have a basic educational theme to them (In between the Lions, Super Why, Word World etc) so you don't feel quite as guilty about them watching it, as opposed to some of the crap you get on Disney or the other cartoon channels.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 11:03 PM) At what point is someone responsible for their own actions? I just dont see how anyone would have sympathy for some idiot who doesnt even work and leased a 100k BMW knowing EXACTLY what the payments were going to be every month. Also, how much did it say she put down, 30k? On a lease? She wasnt gonna get it back anyway With all of the other things that people want to point to, this has begun the downfall of our society. We were founded as a republic of independant, self-sufficient, tough minded individuals. Now we have been reduced to being all being vicitims of something in our little nanny state who is here to protect us. I still say the scariest thing you could ever say to me is... "Hi, I am from the government, and I am here to help you!"

They had an interesting demonstration on CNN last night. Basically they took an interactive map that figured out delegates awarded based on each states rules for award delegates. They used the map and played out a bunch of different scenarios, and basically it is almost impossible for either candidate to win the nomination outright before the convention without either a huge swing in superdelegates, or Edwards pledging his delegates to someone who wins almost all of the remaining at about a 60-40 ratio. In other words, this is going to drag out with no winner in sight.

What an asshole. Hopefully prision is good to this pathetic waste of flesh.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 03:04 PM) Certainly does. Please rank these 3 in terms of which ones you'd blame the most. Here's mine: 1. The dealer, who wrote a fraudulent loan 2. The lender, who doesn't bother verifying income 3. The person who is stupid. If, however, the buyer lied about her income directly, without any influence by the dealer, in that case I'd jump her from 3 to 1. If the buyer knowingly agreed to a lie about her income, she is just as guilty as anyone else, whether someone else participated in that lie or not. "influence" is garbage. It doesn't excuse culpability.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 02:51 PM) If a college student walked in to a BMW dealership, declared no provable income, and the dealer leased him a car anyway, who is responsible there? Why is there no responsibility on the lender to verify these things? Yes, she was clearly wrong. But If I walked in to a BMW dealership 8 years ago and tried to lease a car, I'd have been laughed out of the place. Why isn't it the job of someone above them to actually verify income levels before giving out a loan? This exact same thing was done all the time in the mortgage business, people would just ask a person for a number, and sometimes even suggest an income level in order to give them a loan. Should that be ok? If the student agreed that they had a level of income that they did not, they are committing a crime. If the fraud was being committed soley by the dealership, then they should be the only ones being charged. My question would be, what exactly is a college student who has no income doing trying to get approved for a BMW? Doesn't that by itself deserve some level of being responsible for your own actions?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 02:40 PM) Screw corporate responsibility! If they lie to people or commit fraud, it's the people's fault for not uncovering it! Seriously, do statements like that actually do anything or illustrate any important point? If we're going to actually debate this issue, here's the question I think is worth answering Re: the government; how much responsibility do they have to make it where a mess like this can't happen? Not as a matter of personal responsibility...but as a matter of avoiding screwing over the 90% of us who do things right. Here's my point. If 10% of Americans are complete fools and take out mortgages they can't afford and finance $100,000 on $30,000 cars like we've seen the past 5 years...when the system hits a bump in the road, like it has now...it's not just those 10% who suffer. 10% of Americans lose their house, but then the construction industry collapses, unemployment goes through the roof, the banking system teeters on the edge of collapse, etc. Simply sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "People should know better!" ignores the fact that there are always going to be a group of people who never know better, who lie, who are stupid, etc. I would argue that the fact that this mess hurts everyone is exactly the reason why we need stronger regulation of these lending markets and more transparency in how they're being treated as investments. Would you disagree? Perhaps you missed the part where EVERYONE said the company should be charged with a crime? Also remember ignorance is no excuse for illegal activity.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 02:23 PM) My god that show is hideous. Alissa sort of watches it. The one she really likes right now is the "backyardigans", which is kind of a fun cartoon. Mads likes both. Personally I like most of the PBS shows better than any of those. Ugh.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 01:50 PM) I don't like the conclusion this leads to, but my thinking has changed in this particular case. The car dealer committed fraud to get this woman a loan. Phrased another way, the result of their crime was a lender lent money to someone who should not have received the loan ~and~ a woman was given a loan she could not afford. If the car dealer does not commit fraud, she does not get the loan and lose her life savings. Is this much different then an unethical contractor who takes someone's life savings in costly and unnecessary repairs? Again, in case you forgot, I don't like the conclusion this leads to. And perhaps if she was just greedy and not stupid, she got what she deserves. But we do have laws to protect stupid people, and we know she should have known, but it seems the dealer had a greater responsibility. She agreed to the figures, at least implicitly when she signed the paperwork verifying her personal information. Even if it was just because she didn't review the information put down, she is still considered an accessory to the crime.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 01:44 PM) The way things are now with the deficit and national debt, I'd rather just not spend it at all. The reason the economy is in such trouble right now is that consumers have been on an unsustainable coke-binge of spending for the last 10 years and now we're going to use deficit spending to serve up some more and say "go spend it!". There is nothing that saids you have to spend it. You could either destroy the check, so the funds would stay with the federal government, or even donate to someone else who needs it more.