Bloody, you were probably already established by that era, thanks to Ronnie. I was just buying a house and a car, I painfully remember what the misery index was, and taxes. There is a reason 1200sqft homes were considered mansions. Today I think they start construction at 4,000 sqft.

Yes unlike historians I will agree that Papa Bush did a lot of good for the long term economy.

scompay wrote:

True to all of the above but I was really just starting out in 1988- Ron's last year. Opportunities were everywhere if you worked hard. Sort of reminded me of the land grabs from the 1800's. Disorganization everywhere but the gold in dem der hills awaited! LOL

In reference to your homes comment, I remember my folks finally "making it" when they bought a 3 car garage, brick home with about 4,000 square feet and a fountain out front in a suburb of DC circa 1976. Today the fountain doesn't work and the new homes in that area are easily 30%+ larger with less land of course.

I feel sorry for "kids" just starting out these days. Just think they have it rougher.

bloody spaniard wrote:

If you figure out what has changed since then, you can win this race.

......
......

Small business and individuals can be telling the bank to go fly a kite like GM and Apple or thousands of others- but they dont because they have been brainwashed into believing your reputation will be ruined, what will the neighbors think. They have used that stick to keep us beholden to them.

Here is an exit strategy if you really think the world is going to crash- borrow like its your last week.

scompay wrote:

Wish I could, but cannot disagree with anything you've said at the moment, scompay, (give me a few minutes). lol

You know, as I sit at my desk reminiscing with a finger in nose, your posts bring to mind imagery from a Michael Moore film where a small dog (us) jumps up at the master's (Top 500 & Govt. folks) dinner table hoping for scraps and crumbs... All that energy, all that anticipation! Alas, the mutt's (us) expectations usually fall way short. Not that I agree with everything that hypocritical, irreverent slob puts out but this time I think he hit it out of the park.

bloody spaniard wrote:

I have no respect for anyone who is irresponsible.
Blame the bank. Blame the system.
In the end it's personal responsibility that provides character.
Good guys might finish last, but they can look in the mirror without seeing a punk-azz loser.

tailgater wrote:

Live like a corporation and prosper.

scompay wrote:

If you can live with yourself; go for it. There will be a special place for people who do this over and over again. This is what is really wrong with the US these days. 🌫

Buckwheat wrote:

Used corporate charter in order to diminish liability in these litigious times & lower tax rate.
Subchapter S be damned, part of my motivation was survival (in addition to personal interest of course) but I have ventured into the health service industry. Complicated but lucrative and most importantly, satisfying.

I pity most small business these days. They have to diversify to survive but usually have no clue.

On an aside, have you heard that Target employees' hours have been dramatically cut back? They are now p/t & can apply for Medicaid, er, comprehensive care.

bloody spaniard wrote:

Yeah so who is really abusing medicaid/er- its Target. They are cheating on both ends, they want govt to create a middle class that can afford to shop there- but they dont want their employees to earn enough to be middle class. LOL do you see where its breaking down.

Henry Ford paid his workers three times as much as the going rate, he rightfully believed that if his employees could not afford to buy his cars he would not be in business.

Folks who work at these targets of the world cant afford to shop there or even live in america.

scompay wrote:

Exactly, so you see where the image of a jumping chihuahua who's been promised table treats is apropos?
These are difficult times and the carrot on the stick is not as believable anymore.

bloody spaniard wrote:

You are confusing stupidity for character. Dont ever change.

scompay wrote:

So it's stupid to be responsible?
If you advocate for people to walk away from debt and pass the problem to the bank, then you're a loser.
If you think that this type of irresponsible behavior only hurts the fat cats in the bank, then you're also stupid.

tailgater wrote:

If it was simple everyone would get it and the rich would outnumber the poor.

Responsibility is not the ability to repay your debts- Responsibility is not getting into debt. Particularly the kind with liability.

Thats the difference between then and now. They have convinced the gullible masses its responsible to have second mortgages.

And FYI there is no debt you can walk away from in this country, stoopid. If you walk away from a house, the bank gets the house, i.e their money back and then some. You can no longer walk away from CC debt at all, nor student loans, nor certain medical bills.

The point is that, when we look at the corporate methodology we can learn a lot from them. They only gamble with the house's money. Bill Gates for example, worth billions, but his company still borrows money from the public that has zero liability. i.e stocks, you can lend him $1000 today, there is no guarantee you will get back even $500 a month from now. GM the largest corporation in the world walked away from billions in debt.

scompay wrote: