Posts by Sandra White9

Michelle Nelson4 said:Don't be like that—I actually listened!
You are absolutely right; there were plenty of public warnings stating that the dollar was pegged closely to other major currencies and that taking out loans in a Swiss Franc were significantly riskier.
When I walked into the bank to apply for my loan, they tried to pitch me the Swiss Franc option as being "cheaper," but I told them no thanks—I wanted the more expensive one in dollars. They just gave me this look, like, "Oh, so you're choosing the safe route."

The exchange rate barely moved, even dipping slightly for a while, roughly $2.50/USD—but regardless, I was still paying my monthly installments in dollars, calculated precisely based on the current rate, even if the bank ended up receiving a bit less. My interest rate was tied to Euribor, so as Euribor fluctuated, my interest rate changed accordingly. You really have to read the fine print on what you're signing...

Exactly!!

And now I’m sitting here listening to some folks from consumer advocacy groups claiming they’re still being screwed over just because they aren't in the same boat as the people who took out loans in USD!!!

Well, you chose the Swiss Franc loan specifically because you didn't want the USD!!

Everyone knew the risks involved... they just naively assumed those risks wouldn't actually happen to them.

Leibniz’s version of Creditanstalt—basically a monopoly.🙂

Speaking from my own experience with the big players here, I’ve dealt with both JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, and honestly, I much prefer working with JPMorgan Chase (even if their recent redesign of the online banking app is, frankly, an eyesore that hurts to look at).

I also feel like their service suite—everything from account maintenance and online banking to their cards—is a bit more affordable than what Bank of America offers (or at least their fee structure actually makes sense for once).

Plus, I had this one instance where I needed some specific documentation regarding my account balances on two different occasions; over at JPMorgan Chase, they handed them over without even batting an eye. But at Bank of America? It was a total circus. You had these all-powerful managers hovering in the background, hiding behind the label of "legal department," acting like they had no clue what a simple request even looked like... it was like everyone around me thought I was trying to rob the bank or something.

David Baker2 said:It’s actually quite simple, really.

If we are going to insist on this rigid distinction between the "public" and "private" sectors, then why on earth shouldn't we apply that same logic to the tax code?

Let the public sector deal with the current tax rates as they always have, but for the private sector, let the government get off their backs and slash taxes by 50%; that would solve the whole mess because you wouldn't have to worry about firing anyone.

Plus, it creates a massive, direct incentive for people to jump ship from government jobs into the private sector if they can't stomach the tax disparity. It's a total Win-win. 😁 😁

Well, if you actually took a second to look at how the entire fiscal system functions, you'd realize your little proposal is mathematically impossible—I mean, where on earth would you pull the money from to cover that massive gap once the real sector stops paying that extra 50%?

And let's not forget that we’re stuck taking out unfavorable loans every single year just to ensure there's enough cash on hand to cover two or three months of salaries, pensions, and all those other social transfers...

hollowhawk412 said:Pure pathos and a complete trivialization of a very serious issue.

Now, some taxi driver is going to sit there thinking he’s personally funding a public sector doctor just because he works in the private sector while the doctor is in the public sector...

Mr. Huić comes from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and his employer association certainly includes plenty of members
who have earned far more from taxes than they have ever paid into them,
and heaven knows they've enjoyed their fair share of positions within institutions too.

Haha, the real kicker is that the lady working the counter at the IRS or the Department of the Interior is also a taxpayer—it's just a waste of time to argue about it—since she gets paid out of the Federal Budget, which is filled by taxes.

So, without being more specific about which "taxpayers" we are talking about, I'm afraid the Taxpayers Association is drawing a very obvious line of division right from the jump.

See, for a taxpayer who doesn't rely on the state or the budget for anything, it's in their best interest if every third one of those bureaucrats gets fired. Meanwhile, those "bureaucrats" want even more of them around and even higher salaries.

And in America, the ratio between the first group and the second is roughly 25% to 75%.

So you tell me...

Susan Price30 said:Don't you realize where they actually recruited those former communists from in the old US?

Back then, most of them were just bottom-feeders. You don't exactly see "urban elites" mass-recruiting themselves into resistance movement ranks—they usually just robbed them or kicked them out, right?

The same goes for intellectuals, artists, the wealthy, clergy, and so on.

That is the "cultural and spiritual legacy" we have to deal with... and honestly, carrying around that kind of baggage isn't easy, I guess.

Grace, I am completely with you on this.
It seems like a historical pattern in this country that every single coup or upheaval ends up putting the absolute dregs of society in charge—you only have to look at the collaborators in '41, then the communists starting in '45, and now the Republican Party in the 90s.... All of them actively avoided letting any actual "intellectuals or urban professionals" join their ranks.
And that is exactly what drags us deeper into the gutter every time one of these "revolutions" happens...

rapidbear65 said:Everyone's talking nonsense about honesty. When you ignore intellectual authority, you're just leaving things up to idiots and thugs who rely on nothing but an iron fist...

John Doe... honestly, those low-life thugs don't give a damn about intelligence or anything remotely authoritative.🙂
People like that only care about shiny trinkets or a heavy club.
There is no middle ground.

Charles Lopez3 said:that whole mess showed up way back in the 90s ☕

Well, unfortunately, it turns out it's just the same old story, the same tired faces, looking exactly like they did in '41 and '45.

I can't even begin to wrap my head around how people can be this dense. It’s like we’re all just collectively deciding to ignore common sense at this point. Honestly, I’m sitting here staring at the screen, just waiting for someone to say something that actually makes an ounce of sense, but instead, it’s just more of the same nonsense. It’s exhausting. Does anyone else feel like they're shouting into a void sometimes? Because it certainly feels that way to me. kaže:
I couldn't agree more with you on this. We seriously need to get back to basics here in America and revive the core values that actually hold a society together—things like honesty, hard work, solidarity, community spirit, and genuine compassion. It feels like we’ve lost our way, and frankly, it’s about time we started prioritizing those principles again.

The American Society needs some damn HONEST FOOLS, and they need them right now. !!!

I don't give a damn about any of those old political factions—whether it's the hardliners, the radicals, the religious zealots, or anyone else clinging to outdated labels. Honestly, we don't need more partisans or extremists fighting over yesterday's battles. What this country actually needs, what we’re all starving for, are just plain HONEST PEOPLE.

And why is it that being an honest person always feels like a one-way ticket to being the biggest sucker in the room?
I mean, let’s be real here—it is blindingly obvious that a bunch of absolute idiots steered this entire country right into this mess! And honestly? There’s probably even a few decent people caught up in the middle of it all, just along for the ride.🙂
What we actually need is a workforce made up of honest, SMART, and genuinely CAPABLE people.
Here we go again. It’s the same old story, every single time.🙂

Look, my answer is a hard no.

America needs to find a completely different platform—something that actually fosters positive unity and channels real energy toward solving the massive problems we’re facing today.

On the flip side, I can't get behind this idea that it's "too difficult" to separate anti-fascism in this country from the communism and all the evil that followed it.

To me, saying you can't untangle them is just as absurd as claiming we have to renounce all the positive momentum from the 90s. That would be ridiculous because, unfortunately, that era turned out to be inseparable from the theft, corruption, and sheer dysfunction that defined the failure of American society in the years that followed.

Susan Price30 said:

America needs to reclaim the same spirit that built the AFL-CIO

Who actually buys into those loser stories?

Well, losers, I guess that's who.😁 (And some nagging old lady, which is probably whoever wrote that quote—just a bitter soul.)

Everyone else knows the past belongs in the past. We move forward, we progress, we don't drive in reverse...

Hmm....🤷

Jonathan Ortiz2 said:Look, if you can understand someone 90% of the time... what else are you gonna call it besides the same language?
If Czechs and Slovaks can follow each other 90% of the way, it's basically one language. Sure, they might use different names for things because everyone’s entitled to their own little set of grammar rules and whatever, but still...

It's just like how Americans have American English and the Brits have British English. We could've easily just called it Soviet-American and Soviet-Mexican or something. Just an example...

We already have a perfect example where one side calls it American and the other side calls it Mexican.
Honestly, I think that's the best way to handle it.
And it's a hell of a lot more practical than that weird comparison you're making...🙂

Sarah Barrett said:Both terms are technically correct. Essentially, the American and Mexican languages are one and the same, regardless of how much people argue over it. Artificially forcing new vocabulary into dictionaries for both sides serves no purpose other than to create an artificial divide within a single language. A few differing words don't constitute a brand-new language; they are simply regional dialect variations (you can find plenty of examples like this in America). Furthermore, until the end of the 19th century, even the names of the months were identical for everyone. As for grammar, it was tweaked year after year—despite resistance from the general public—in a deliberate attempt to split the language into two distinct parts.🙂

Hmm... I'm going to have to disagree with you there.
By that logic, are Czech and Slovak also "the same language" to the same degree!?
And they even use the exact same script...