iamshack

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 21, 2008 -> 11:17 AM) Interesting Note: Hillary is doing the "vote early" thing in Texas like she did in CA. Aren't they both? Hilary's hoping to get as many of her votes locked in before Obama's momentum eats even further into her base. She's probably hoping to lock her votes in now and win over more with a strong performance in the debate tonight.

Yeah, not only do we have an episode of LOST, but we have the debate in Texas prior to it. Should be a great night of tv tonight!

I'm going to guess $1 million base, with incentives the deal could reach $6-7 million, with a club option of $12 million for 09'.

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Feb 21, 2008 -> 08:18 AM) I'm not very familiar with the collective barganing agreement, so this is kind of a blind question, but is there any regulations on what he can sign for? Does it have to be a certain percentage of his old contract? There is something in the CB Agreement, but it does not apply to a player signing a "new" contract. A team cannot structure a contract where it drastically reduces a player's salary in the last year of a deal (past a certain percentage). But once that contract ends, performance may have reached a level where a player is worth far less than he was under his previous contract, as in the case of Colon.

QUOTE(ChiSox_Sonix @ Feb 19, 2008 -> 08:05 PM) Marissa Miller Diane Lane Denise Richards Jamie Pressley Two thumbs up for Diane Lane!

QUOTE(Balance @ Feb 19, 2008 -> 03:20 PM) Does an iPhone count? 'Cause I'd really like one of those.... I know, I know, it's not a "serious business" tool. But still. Honestly, it does a whole heck of a lot of stuff....and the thing is, it's a "soft" programmed device, so it is constantly being updated via iTunes software updates. It's by far the most well-integrated, intuitive and simple "smartphone" ever designed. You can pick the thing up and basically figure it out within 5 minutes or less. Try doing that with a crackberry. I couldn't be more pleased with mine.

QUOTE(Leonard Zelig @ Feb 19, 2008 -> 04:40 PM) My band opened for Chuck Berry. Hah, the first time I looked at that, I read it Buckcherry. Is that where they got their name, btw?

I played Smashball with Hulk Hogan in Redington Beach, FL for one whole summer back in the late 80's.

If we're strictly going by breasts here, I can't argue a thing that's been said. But if we are talking total package...I'll take Kate Beckinsale everytime, hands down.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 11:21 PM) The freckles dont bother me, then again I am Irish and freckles are part of the territory. +1

QUOTE(BaseballNick @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 10:53 PM) I love my Treo. I've had the 700P for a couple years and it's awesome. It's got a full QWERTY keypad and touchscreen. These are two features I would need on my next phone (whenever I decide it's time to upgrade). I have Sprint service, which has really come a long way over the years. The service is great: clear calls, fast internet browsing, etc. but if something happens to go wrong, the customer service with Sprint is about as bad as you'll find anywhere. Yeah, I used to have Sprint...and wow, talk about jerks...

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 08:41 PM) Blackberry curve, best phone ive ever owned. Yeah, my dad has a Blackberry Curve, and it is pretty solid for a Blackberry- especially with the nice trackball it has...too bad you have T-Mobile...I have an iPhone. I don't think there is a better phone on the face of the planet than it.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 08:11 PM) In college, there was one class that I never attended except to turn in papers (after the class ended). Anything else I can really think of would be like writing a check to Mr Mcnamee. Hah, I did that for both Constitutional Law I and II... Actually, I was in the Bulls locker room once back in the glory days and saw a LOT of THINGS that I doubt anyone else here has....

Reminds me of the infamous Seinfeld episode starring Teri Hatcher... "They're real and they're SPECTACULAR." Honestly, the freckles don't bother me much...I find her quite attractive...

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 03:53 PM) Here's why: she was also a willing participant in the fraud. She signed her name to a document that falsified her income. She was also proceeding illegally to get the car. Well, it certainly wasn't a deal that was "on the up and up" by both parties, but her part in this, is to me, a lot smaller than the dealership's. She said she honestly believed she thought she would be returning to her previous income level of $6k/mo very shortly. I'm sure quite a few people fudge a bit about their income when buying a car, but that notwithstanding, this was her mistake and her fault. But it is still his role to say "Ma'am, I understand that, and I have full faith that you will be returning to that income level shortly, but until then, I simply cannot obtain the necessary financing for this vehicle with the current state of your financial situation. Perhaps we could interest you in some more affordable models, or you could come back and get financing for this vehicle once you return to your previous income level." And that fact that he didn't is a far larger transgression in my opinion than what she did.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 03:48 PM) I hope there are two different things here. It would seem that many people here advocate for an open season on the stupid. Confused Senior citizens? Rip em good. Stupid people? Sell them twice and double the price. Because if anyone buys something they can't afford, it's their fault. No sympathy for stupid idiots I really hope that isn't true. Certainly we can expect companies to not use fraud to make bigger sales against the stupid. The fact they could have sold her a $50,000 car legitimately and legally, but chose instead to sell her a $100,000 vehicle using fraud is reprehensible. I view the truly stupid, the idiots, as needing protection. Well the sellers certainly get protection, so why should the buyers not? And secondly, the larger issue to me is that the sellers are proceeding illegally to make sales. That that is somehow considered "equal" here to a woman getting in over her head with an impulsive decision is fairly shocking to me...

Honestly, this tort reform issue and the medical malpractice issues do not even need to be entered into this equation. The level of complexity regarding those issues far exceeds what this thread is about. I'd be happy to discuss those issues in a separate thread, but this is an entirely separate issue...

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 02:39 PM) Who thinks the sales person should be fired? Prosecuted? I absolutely do. And I'm sure the financing guy had a hand in this as well.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 02:18 PM) Why isn't she committing fraud by agreeing to an income number that wasn't true? Well, that's where this gets really hairy. She stated that she expected to be returning to work very shortly and would return to her previous income level of $6,000. That's her fault. But she didn't just make this up and guess her income could some day reach that level. She was at that level previously, but was currently on disability. Let's face it. Many people go into a dealership and tell them what their incomes are. But anyone could also get fired a week later and that income number could completely change. So this isn't a number that any of us really have any certainty about. Obviously there are some people that have plenty of money saved, so they could absorb the cost of paying their bills for a while even if their income drastically decreased. But the vast majority of people in this country are basically living either paycheck to paycheck or could maybe survive 2-3 months without any income. But the dealership is the gatekeeper of the financing system here, and thus it is their responsibility to honestly submit the appropriate income levels and credit scores to determine who is able and who is not able to obtain appropriate financing for a vehicle. It is not his duty to determine what a person can or can not afford, but whether they qualify for the appropriate financing. When that gatekeeper is purposefully circumventing the system, the entire process falls apart, as it did here.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 02:28 PM) DUMB = no responsibility. Just throw your money around blind, spend like a fool, and then act confused when the bills start coming in. The bad man didn't tell me that the 100k car actually required payment. See, the problem here is you are making an example of a woman who purchased a car that was led to agree to an income level she was not currently making, and then the dealer went above and beyond that to increase that income level even further, without her notice. This is an abuse by the dealer more than anything. If you want to talk about the people who can qualify for a vehicle because of inadequacies in the credit system, full-well knowing they cannot afford the vehicle because they lack the disposable income to make such a purchase, then that's fine. You'll find no argument here. But that is simply not the situation here.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 02:23 PM) Yep, seems to be the situation. How is it not her responsibility to take care of and manage her own financials again? If someone convinces me to hold up 7/11, am I not responsible for my own actions? Is this crime different because it was committed on paper? No one here is saying she is without blame or fault. The woman herself took part of the blame. The point is, the credit system is set up to qualify buyers and to protect both buyers and sellers from a seller making a purchase he or she simply cannot afford. And the deal has absolutely no right to circumvent that credit system.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 02:09 PM) So here is a scenario for you. This lady is paid 1500 dollars a month(not realistic but fits the part of this scenario). This is what she gets month in and month out for the last 4 years. The only increases are a 4 percent raise she gets at her job in March. She has lived in a rent controlled apartment, and her rent is 700 dollars a month for the last 4 years. Her utilities are 300 dollars and she spends 200 dollars in food. Now if a slickster salesman tells her she can afford 500 dollars a month and she signs it. Is it the fault of the slickster, sure. But I would say that the lady who had a clue on her budget and her income versus debits per month should have a handle on what is an appropriate payment to be made. In my scenario this lady cannot afford 500 dollars a month payment. So if she signs it knowing that her budget which has been laid out for years doesnt allow it, she is a willing participant in stupidity. Now the slickster is a fraud artist and deserves the same blame. But the person, who knows damn well what their discretionary income is should have a handle on what they can add to their monthly note. As an adult it is your responsibility to have a handle on what your income is, and what your monthly bills are. And as an adult you are responsible making sure that any additions to your financial responsibility will fit within the earmarks of your income for the monthly. If you strap yourself so much that you have no room for any mistakes then maybe you shouldn't buy the car. I can tell you my budget each month. I can pretty much tell you what my bills are with a 5 percent variance every month. If this is someone telling you that you have 300 dollars, you sign a contract that says the payment is 300 dollars and then they cook the books and then your payments are 600 dollars. Then thats not your fault. But if you sign a contract and know that 500 dollars is your monthly payment, then 3 months down the road you realize that the 500 dollars puts a strain on you and you are going check to check now. THen guess what, thats your fault. Unscrupulous lenders, snake oil salesman, and all sorts of filth is out there to try and separate you from your money. It is up to you to make sure that you make decisions for yourself based on what you know about your financial situation. I have absolutely no disagreement with anything you said here. If she wants the car, and she qualifies for the financing through her credit and income, then it is her own fault. The car dealer has absolutely no right and is in no position to make decisions as to what she can afford or what she can not afford. However, if the dealer cannot obtain financing for her using the legitimate income and credit score, then he has to tell her just that. And he cannot fudge the numbers so it appears that she does qualify but she really does not. His option, if he can not obtain financing for her, is to try and get her to purchase a car that she does qualify for.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 02:07 PM) 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? I'm assuming she didn't walk in with a briefcase full of the actual cash.

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 tell them your wife is pregnant and compensation is an important factor in your decision to leave a job you are already very comfortable with.

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 01:41 PM) The Porsche dealer will get you what you want if your credit and income is good enough. Somehow she was able to save $30K therefore the dealer will believe her if she feels she can make the payments. She agreed to a monthly amount that they gave her. She needs to know if she can actually pay that amount and then agree to it. Somehow she had $30K. The real sad part of this is that after the lease ran out she would still be out $30K then what would she do. I do not lease cars so I am not sure what happens at the end. Right. If my income and credit is good enough. Her income was not good enough. That is the point where the dealer is obligated by law to say, "I'm sorry, you don't qualify for the financing required to purchase or lease this particular automobile. Perhaps we can get you into something more affordable and more appropriate for your budget." Now I am not naive. Obviously some fudging goes on all the time. But the dealer is the benefactor of this fudging, and no one else. So the dealer is the one who will often be held accountable for breaking the law.