zaph

Advanced members
  • Content count

    4272
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

40 Good

About zaph

  1. I dold mumma
  2. I said mostly not true. You say not quite true. Similiar. It would be interesting to know the % of loans written in the US that are recourse/non (today and pre GFC). I bet most loans would be recourse if the state allows it. If a bank can get recourse it's going to - or charge a higher IR or lower LVR. I think the point of discussion is: Was non recourse lending a significant contributor to the crash in the USA housing market? I'd say no. They were not as widespread as Maude Flanders would have you think. IMO liar loans and liar banks contributed far more. Are our banks any better off, or are housing market less likely to crash, because we have recourse lending and the USA doesn't? Again no. While Australia is recourse, there is mostly no real recourse in foreclosure. How many people have significant assets that can be sold up by a bank outside of a home?
  3. That is the case in 11 out of 50 US states - known as non recourse lending. Lenders can pursue borrowers for the shortfall between what they get for the house and the amount owed in the other states. So the assertion that " Their saving grace is that, unlike the US, owners cannot just return the house keys and walk away from the home loan. " is mostly not true because: In 78% of American states it's a false statement. In most cases (both here and the USA) where the banks sells a house for less than what is owed on it there is little other assets owned by the borrower that can be chased by the bank.
  4. My first job while at school was paid in cash. Casual worker at Target. From the late 80s to the early 90s. Line up at a window at the allotted time and get an envelope stuffed with cash and the 'payslip' hand written on the outside. If it wasn't ready by 4pm Thursday you could sign on and get paid to sit there and wait till it was ready. If cash is eliminated the govt (and their buddies) will know everything we do. All those secrets that we use cash for - drugs, hookers, booze etc. From our transactions they will know exactly where we've been and how we behave. Having said that, some form of private tender will blossom. There are too many transactions that require anonymity for cash not to be replaced.
  5. Inch by centimeter we march towards a police state. What reason do the police need to randomly identify someone for merely being in an airport? Under what circumstances will the cops ask for ID? I understand airlines might want to ask for ID so they can ensure that naughty people on a 'no fly list' are denied boarding. By extension one might consider naughty people are not even allowed in airports - that would require every person entering an airport to be carded. That's odd. In Australia police have great powers if they have 'reasonable grounds'. I've often wondered what reasonable grounds are? IME when police want you to do something that you are not required to do they 'ask' in such a way that makes you believe you have to comply with the request. I've been 'asked' to empty my pockets one one occasion and to provide ID on another - just walking the st. I don't like the requests, but have complied on both occasions. I wonder if I refused whether they would have forced me to comply? Another thing that pisses me off about the Australian legal system is that evidence obtained illegally is admissible in court. It makes limited police powers to search a joke.
  6. And I'm cinderella.
  7. Champagne for everyone! Morrison will go down as the worst treasurer in Australia, even worse than Costello.
  8. https://iview.abc.net.au/programs/louis-theroux-the-most-hated-family-in-america/ZX6357A001S00#playing This is a seriously weird family masquerading as a church. Are they genetically modified to only have female offspring?
  9. You are a joke'
  10. Only a few countries issue bonds in USD.
  11. Most people spend most of their lives working or studying. Perhaps people who spend their whole lives on the dole don't deserve a pay rise just because they turn 65/67? What about a woman who spends half her working life raising kids - should she get half the pension of a spinster? Should a high income earner (and high tax payer) get more pension than a low earner? I'm not having a go here - they are genuine questions. My parents have a belief that they worked their whole lives paying taxes and deserve, yes, deserve a pension regardless of their means. You introduced 'junkies' into the discussion of welfare. I presume that is because you think drug use is over represented in welfare recipients? I believe in harm minimisation regarding drugs. Legal or illegal. Harm reduction - eg we supply needles to users to reduce blood borne viruses. Supply reduction - eg we limit the sale of alcohol. Demand reduction - eg we have programs to get 'junkies' off drugs. I have no idea what a bleeding heart approach is. I know that illegal drug use is VERY widespread and most drug users use occasionally and responsibly. Not all of course. Ok. I don't hold the Alan Jones approach that we should hunt down dole bludgers, tax cheats etc at any cost. If it's going to cost more to catch a cheat than they are receiving then just let it be. Countries with their own currency don't go bankrupt. Australia is a currency issuer. I'm selling up and moving to Cuba. If they'll have me.
  12. That's a matter of opinion not fact. What about someone who has spent their life on the dole? - should they get their benefits doubled because they managed to live to 65? What about someone who has saved (super) - should they be denied the pension till they spend their super? How will the lawyers get meth if all the meth 'junkies' are in the desert? Families are worthy of benefits but singles are not? You're now equating people on benefits to 'junkies'. Is it just people on the dole who are junkies, or are disabled and aged junkies as well? Once I'm supreme leader there will be a more pragmatic approach. I tried, they wouldn't accept it.
  13. The actual cost seems to be a state secret. Last I read it was almost $2b (mostly given to christian church businesses). That's 2b paid to churches to make $8b dole bludgers do as they are told. What a complete waste of money. Bashing those on unemployment payments is just cannon fodder for talk back shock jocks and politicians. There are very few that are "dole bludgers", most are either between roles or unemployable. I honestly think it's a waste of money, just give them the meager amount they receive. It's much cheaper than prisons or dealing with the social costs, and all the unnecessary process and compliance, etc. is a waste.
  14. Build a wall! A big expensive useless wall. Lets punish dole bludgers. After all dole bludgers cost the budget 1/10th of oldies, or 25% of families. What;s your number Alan?