Texsox

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 11:19 PM) Can't take a little friendly competition, eh? IKBIC® Hell, friendly competition is guys like PA, he comes close, but Jimbo is way too nice.

QUOTE(Shadows @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 09:34 PM) Yessssssssss!!!! Still no failed test eat s*** Bonds haters.. Barry is the man!! Bonds Fan Club Logo

Start weight: 226 Current weight: 226 Goal weight: 190 lbs lost: 0 lbs to go: 37 I lost the pound I gained last week. Time for some changes to my plan.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 04:48 PM) I would think, from experience, that like Steff said, the flexibility would be worth a huge cash tradeoff. I had a very flexible situation while both of my boys were young, and it was very nice. Being a smaller employer, I can't always compete salary-wise with some of my larger competitors, but I do offer flexibility. My press operator has his very old mom living with him, who is in need of alot of care. He often has to leave for doctor visits, and at least once a month into the emergency room for SOMETHING. He has come in late or on weekends if we need to get something done, and as long as he keeps me in the loop, I work with him to help him out. When I couldn't give out raises last year, he told me that the time off I give him when needed was worth more than any pay raise. Besides, it is hard to find a job you like, you may not find one again if you leave. Good luck either way. Hmm, talks like a Rep, acts like a Dem.

So can anyone be a victim of a con man? It seems we can always say, they should have known. No matter how smooth the con, they handed over the money, they should have known. They clicked on that link, they should have known. They singed the contract, they should have known. Someone describe a person to me that you all would say, should not have known, and was an actual victim?

Oh s***, it just crossed my screen. to all. I know it's a big campus, but it still is scary when people you know are around there. A friend of mine sent this to a list I am on

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 03:49 PM) With the plethora of payment calculators online, there's no reason not to know. 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.

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.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 03:31 PM) Not even in the same ballpark as dumbasses buying stuff they can't afford and expecting taxpayers to bail them out. if someone buys a $100,000 car and they only make $20,000 a year, they deserve a bad credit rating. And if a bank finances it they deserve to take the hit. Taxpayers shouldn't be bailing either party out. What situation are you commenting on?

QUOTE(Jimbo's Drinker @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 07:39 PM) I really thought I would win for biggest s***head award Not even close Jimbo

And if you really do like your old company, let them know you love the company and appreciate all they have done for you, but you just can not afford to work there at your current salary. Do not hold the other offer over their heads, do not even mention it unless they ask. You may even want to keep their offer close to the vest. Employers do not want to be held up in a bidding war, but any decent company will respect your situation has changed and you don't want to resign, but have to. I had an employee approach me in this matter and we managed to make it work. He was worried I would not think he was "loyal". But I really appreciated his honesty and worked hard to make it work for everyone. Obviously if he was a poor employee I would have said, thanks for the effort and best of luck, send a baby picture.

Obviously I believe the salesperson and anyone else at the dealership with knowledge of the fraud should be prosecuted. I'd have to know more about this woman before deciding her fate. We have a sliding scale of responsibility for kids, people with low IQ, the elderly, those that are mentally ill, etc. I can't imagine a world where we allow people to prey on those groups. She was allowed to return the vehicle, the terms were not disclosed, but I doubt she got much of her $30,000 back. I would factor that in as well. I'd also like to see an audit of that dealerships records and loan applications. I'd be even less willing to go after Vivian Snyder if I saw a pattern of this salesperson having applications like this. It seems wrong to me that we would allow someone to go around enticing people into committing illegal acts.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 02:14 PM) 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. It is making the electoral college look better. But honestly, I'm hoping for a floor fight, a 10 rounded. Lots of speeches and ballots.

Who thinks the sales person should be fired? Prosecuted?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 02:18 PM) Why isn't she committing fraud by agreeing to an income number that wasn't true? And that is the core of the debate. Was she duped into participating in this fraud? Some reject any chance that anyone could be duped into participating. Which sounds to me like no one could ever be a victim of fraud. I believe she is a victim because the dealer, based on her correct information, could have sold her a less expensive car. But this dealership conned her into overstating her income, then altered her admitted wrong doing, to sell her something they clearly knew she would not qualify for. And isn't there always someone like her in a fraud or is fraud a victimless crime? It seems in every fraud someone hands over cash, signs a contract, etc. Yes they should have known, but we call them victims. It's a tough call, but the assbag at the dealership deserves the venom that is being heaped on this woman.

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. But that isn't this situation. In this situation the buyer would not legally qualify for the purchase. Time to look for a less expensive car. But this sales rep realized she is stupid and an idiot and he can convince her to commit fraud so he can sell a more expensive car.

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? 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.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 01:51 PM) 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. That pretty much sums it up. I guess I should be voting for HIllary here in Texas

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 01:43 PM) 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? 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. From the article Does that change your opinion even a little bit?

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. Jenks you are missing some key information. Her income was not good enough, so the salesperson convinced her to list her expected income of $6000. Later, they altered the application, after she signed, to show an income of $8,600. It is not the companies right to alter the contract to sell her a more expensive car. Even if she immediately earned her pre-disability income, she still would not have qualified. If she walked in with this in mind, she's wrong. But the sales rep lured her into lying. Later they compounded the lie by altering the contract she signed.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 01:37 PM) 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. Later this summer, when our checks arrive, is that a bailout?

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 01:35 PM) She had $30K cash, good credit and agreed to a fixed monthly amount. How exactly was she misled/conned? Every dealer is going to get you to tell them what you want to pay a month and get you a car that makes them the most money they can for that amount. She did not agree to pay 'x' and then got a bill for 'y'. It is not the dealer's job to get you the best deal. 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%.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 01:29 PM) You keep missing this fact: the dealership didn't con her. They conned the lender. She agreed to those payment terms. They did not change anything on her end of the deal. The payment amount didn't change, so it didn't change any budget on her end. Yes, they changed her income from $6000 to $8600 to get it approved by the lender. The dealership (actually the salesperson) showed her a way she could lie and get that car. The salesperson knew he could not make a sale without a fraudulent application and convinced her to do it. Yes, she should have been smarter to listen to the salesperson. Lucky for the sales rep he found someone really stupid for his con.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 01:12 PM) That fraud didn't change the information and knowledge they were providing her. She saw the payments, she knew what they were, and she agreed to lie about her income. That they changed it later doesn't change the fact that she should realize that she can't afford those payments in the first place. No it doesn't change that. But again, does that mean that there are no victims of fraud? We could sit back and say anyone who falls victim to a con man should have known better, so they are at fault? She couldn't afford it, and the lender would not have approved the application she signed. The lender approved the altered application. Does that count for anything?