10 reviews & complaints.

Most Popular | Newest | More Options >
More filter options:
Selling off Loans and Perpetual Debt
Posted by on
GREENSVILLE, TEXAS -- The selling off student loans and the perpetual Debt Skam.

Is the American government at war with its own people? You might think so after this.

After not being contacted for over 10 years on student loans that I had believed were discharged in bankruptcy, I received a letter from NCO Financial, concerning the loans.

Naturally I demanded verification of a contract between myself and NCO Financial, but they have failed to respond within the 30 days as required by law. Then again, over the years, most 3rd party collections agencies fail to respond properly when faced with the situationt that they have to validate their claims.

Upon further research, it seems the US Department of Education has a habit of selling uncollected Government student loans to these 3rd party parasites. Yet no were in my original contract does it allow for this to happen. Therefore I believe we have a breach of contract.

Go back and re-read that. The US Dept of Ed, is selling your debt, to another party and is forcing people to deal with 3rd party collections agencies, (aka parasites) for whom the debtor has NO contract with, such as NCO Financial, whom has a VERY VERY bad reputation. The reports on this company that I am finding on the internet, cleary shows theya re one of the biggest violators of the Fair Credit and collections act. Not to mention the stress and out right rudeness of its workers when they call people on the phone.

The US dept of Ed's procedure of selling debt to 3rd party collections agencies, is, in my humble opinion, a clear violation and conflict with the fair credit and collections act.

Under this act, A debtor must deal with the original creditor, UNLESS the original contract contains a clause that allows the original creditor to transfer the debt/contract to a 3rd party. This happens in most home mortgages. However, with student loans, I am not sure.

I do know that the latest Paperwork sent to me from US Dept of Ed, contains NOTHING other than a written address where I can contact them. All phone numbers shown on the letters belong to a 3rd party collections agency that I refuse to do business with.

The crime here is that the US dept of Ed is violating the fair credit and collections act, by forcing people to deal with parties which whom they hold no contract. Not only is that a violation of law, but of the Constitution's 13th amendment of involuntary servitude.

The reason US dept of Ed is doing this, is because they refuse to deal with the fact that many people in the USA suffer financial hardship. And cannot pay their loans the way US Dept of Ed wants them to.

Any other loan, if filed on for bankruptcy can result in the debtor paying as little as 2 cents on the dollar, or having the contract declared void. But not so for debts owed to the government. Not unless you are totaly disabled and depend on others for your mere survival, I.E. they have to spoon feed you. Either that or you are dead. Only then will they eradicate their claim of indebtness against you.

And the whole time the interest keeps piling up. Soon your payments won't even cover the basic interest. And by that time, its too late. Unless they are willing to stop the interest, you will be forever paying it off. You cannot pay on the principal until you pay the interest. PERIOD. They won't allow it. You cannot even send in a conditional payment.

One of the questions I sent to US dept of ed over the years, concerned a fee that was listed on one of my applications. The fee was for insurance. What insurance, and who was the benificary of said insurance? I never got an answer from US Dept of Ed concerning this. It makes me believe that someone is involved in an insurance fraud, and it might be the US Dept of Ed.

But back on topic, Selling our contracts and debt to 3rd party collections agencies, that then tack on another 5 to 30 percent for collections fees.

Why should any of us, who are experiencing financial hardship have to deal with parasitic personages like NCO?

For example, I just got off the phone with a place called Costal Solutions Debt Consoldiation company. They proposed a 36 month settlement, at a cost of 500 per month for 36 months. For me, 500 is my home/rent payment, that representes 2/3rds of my take home pay!

Being a dead beat that is refusing to pay your debts is one thing. Being financially unable to, is another, and its these people that the 3rd party parasites attack the most.

Under the Fair credit and collections act, We are required to deal with the original creditor, NOT a 3rd party parasite like NCO.

I also found out that some of these loans are growing at a HIGHER rate than some people can afford to pay them back. Monies sent in, even if a small amount is NEVER paid on the principal, so one can get the amount of interest being accrued to be lower. Instead, they first apply the amount to cost of collection, then interest, THEN principal. So if you make 48 payments of 50 dollars a month and that doesn't even cover the cost of collection and interest, then all you end up paying over that 4 year period is interest! WHEN DOES IT END?! If you cannot discharge these in bankruptcy, you have become a FINANCIAL SLAVE to the government, who will hound you until you either disappear or die! How UN-American can this get?

If US Dept of Ed refuses to deal with us, it is the same (I believe) as refusing payment, and that invalidates their claim.

Its time we the people stop dancing to US Dept of Ed's sloppy Fox Trot, and make them start dancing to OUR Tune. After all, they work for us, and get their paychecks from OUR tax dollars.
Read 32 RepliesAdd reply
User Replies:
Anonymous on 11/07/2007:
Wizardofsnog, how about this for something new:

We paid for your damn education, now pay the money back and stop your whining and crying because your being asked to do what is right!

It's not NCO's fault that you made the decision to be a dead beat. (NH)
Anonymous on 11/07/2007:
(NH) as well!
Anonymous on 11/07/2007:
I didn't think that you could "write off" Student Loans anyway. Give "US" our money!
Hugh_Jorgen on 11/07/2007:
I thought student loans were one of the few debts that could not be discharged in bankruptcy?
Anonymous on 11/07/2007:
Your 100% right Hugh. Student loans and taxes can not be discharged. In this case the dim witted OP thinks that by shifting the blame to NCO somehow exonerates him from paying back the guaranteed loan money he stole from the government. Which of course is you and me in the end.
Suusan B. on 11/07/2007:
You are splitting hairs on this one in an attempt to get out of paying a government debt. First of all, student loans are never, ever discharged in bankruptcy and that fact is something you should have clarified when you filed. Secondly, you keep demanding a copy of a contract between yourself and NCO which, of course, you are well aware does not exist because your loan was sold to them after you defaulted. You can put your special spin on all the laws you want, but the bottom line is that you defaulted on a student loan, the government got tired of trying to collect from you and sold your debt to NCO.
msnanny on 11/07/2007:
It looks like loaning you money for a college education wasn't a very good investment if $500 is 2/3 of your monthly after tax income!!! Pay back your loan you deadbeat.

Skye on 11/07/2007:
You borrowed the money, now pay it back. You had 10 years, yes, 10 years to pay it back.

Student loans and car loans are never discharged from bankruptcy. Just google this information like I did, and you will be amazed. Bankruptcy doesn't seem worth it, just my opinion.
Anonymous on 11/07/2007:
I'm sorry but I didn't read the whole post.Did you graduate?
Anonymous on 11/07/2007:
Hey! I paid mine back and you can pay yours too!
Suusan B. on 11/07/2007:
I just read this post again as its really a beauty. No where does the author state that the money isn't owed - - all he/she keeps saying is that they don't have a contract with NCO therefore they won't pay. My favorite part is where he/she says "If US Dept of Ed refuses to deal with us, it is the same (I believe) as refusing payment, and that invlidates their claim". While they are spinning their unAmerican rhetoric and claiming not to be a dead beat rather someone who cannot afford to pay back the 10 year old loan they thought was discharged in a bankruptcy but they knew full well it wasn't - - along with the back taxes they are currently paying via garnishment, NCO is positioning themselves to lawfully file suit and collect what is owed even if it means a second garnishment. So, if it were me, I'd get off the Internet and figure out a way to pay this debt because, believe me, it's not going to just vanish.
Starlord on 11/07/2007:
Of all the self-absorbed nit-picking idiocy. I didn't get a chance to go to college because our family was poor (my mom worked for $65 per week for a doctor and my father was killed when I was two). I could not qualify for a student loan, so I didn't have the benefit of a college education. I took some adult education classes which included the police academy, for which I paid out of pocket all the expenses of the classes. You got to go to college on the government Dole, and you are too chickensh*t
to repay monies that came out of MY taxes. Pay your debt, you freakin' deadbeat.
Suusan B. on 11/07/2007:
One parting shot: It's "Scam" - - not "Skam".
Anonymous on 11/07/2007:
I paid mine, and Liddy paid his... and WE paid yours! And you have a damned lot of nerve to complain that the government is trying to recoup the loss you inflicted on all of us.
Anonymous on 11/07/2007:
Ken, very well said!
wizardofsnog on 11/08/2007:
LAMO, and you think I am stupid? Most of you missed the entire point of that posting.

The point of the posting (for those of you who simply cannot comprehend) is that you do not have to deal with a 3rd party collections agency, espically one that has a history of harassing people such as NCO Financial does.

You do have to deal with the original Creditor, in this case, one that backed or secured the loan, the US dept of Education. You have to deal with them, and its time we start making THEM deal with us, and not try to shift their responsibility over to some 3rd party parasite.
THAT was the main point of that text.

wizardofsnog on 11/08/2007:
To Susan B. "I just read this post again as its really a beauty. No where does the author state that the money isn't owed - - all he/she keeps saying is that they don't have a contract with NCO therefore they won't pay."

When dealing with 3rd party collections agencies, you NEVER NEVER argue amounts, or if anything is due. You argue validity. You demand they show proof of claim.

There are no contracts between the 3rd party collections agency and most people who they contact.
The law requires debtors to deal with their original creditors, NOT parsitical collections agencies.

Tell me, do you discuss your financial situations with strangers on the street? no.. Why would I post what I might or might not owe to the dept of education? If I do, and how much that might be is no one elses business.

The entire point of my post was anti-3rd party parasites like NCO financial. Understand now?

Anonymous on 11/08/2007:
Yes Wizard we do all think your stupid, and a thief that is trying to steal money from us by not paying off your student loans. It's been ten years? Start doing the right thing for once in your life. And stop trying to create a NCO smoke screen.
Anonymous on 11/08/2007:
superbowl if you're going to call somebody stupid you should at the very least do it with proper grammar.

"we do all think your stupid" should be "we do all think you're stupid"

That's too funny.
Anonymous on 11/08/2007:
Stew, thank Oh' wise one. Guess it's time to follow you around stalking and looking for English errors too? Sorry, I just do not have the time as I have better things to do.
Slimjim on 11/08/2007:
"Therefore I believe we have a breach of contract." Are you serious?!? You're darn right there is a breach of contract, specifically by you regarding the terms of repayment. I'm guessing you agreed in writing to pay back the money you borrowed. What makes you think there needs to be a contract between you and NCO?
warddw1526 on 11/09/2007:
I don't think anyone has posted this yet. If this was a federally guaranteed loan, the government has probably not sold it to NCO, just are paying them a % to collect for them.
wizardofsnog on 11/10/2007:
To Slimjimhohnson2000.
"what makes you think there needs to be a contract between you and NCO?" The fair credit and collections act, that's what.

And if you claim I breached a contract, prove it, or shut up.

There is no valid contract in existence at this time.
With me and NCO as parties, or with me and US dept of Ed as parties.

Without a contract the claims made by US dept of Ed are no different than the the Utility company claiming you owe them, without proving how, first.

jktshff1 on 11/10/2007:
wizard, ya deadbeat, pay the money back, you used it you owe it. Did you learn anything in college at all?
Anonymous on 11/10/2007:
Wizardofsnog, Selling off student loans happens long before one finishes school and that is the way its been for as long as I remember you really have NO argument here and you are trying to defend an unveiled point and you don't have a leg to stand on. The fact is you didn't pay the dam lone and you are trying to justify not paying it with BS. That is what you are saying here, BS. Let it go and pay the debt!

Even know the 13 Amendment has nothing to do with your not paying off your lone, let make it anyway.

Amendment XIII
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

You voluntarily took the lone and in fact you did not pay it back therefore except your punishment and pay off the lone!!
SickOfShadyBusinesses on 11/15/2007:
"what makes you think there needs to be a contract between you and NCO?" The fair credit and collections act, that's what.

No. The Act does not require you to have a "contract" directly with NCO for them to collect. You are, however, free to pay your debt directly to the educational institution (1st party) rather than directly to NCO (3rd party) if you so wish.

That you can't stand the idea that your debt is being collected by a 3rd party does not absolve you of your responsibility to pay it back. You are being harassed by NCO because you deserve to be. If NCO can't/won't validate the debt gives to cause to complain about their practices per The Act. That also does not absolve your responsibility to pay your debt.

Smokescreens will not help you. Pay your loan. All that money you saved from filing bankruptcy (not having to pay your bills) should have freed up some money for you to pay your loan, the way I see it.

chow on 12/02/2007:
Seem like a deadbeat crook is misusing 3 cents site to voice his own misdeed and complain about others, pay back your student loan to the government so others student can have their chances now.
Lovie2000 on 03/27/2009:
The Government doesn't sell the accounts to collection agencies. They are their own collection agency. They will offset your income tax refund if you have one or garnsih your wages.

I know because I had an overpayment of a student loan after transferring from one college to another and they offset my tax refund for the amount owed.

The things that some people will make up is crazy.
chinchilla on 09/11/2009:
I have had dealings with NCO and I am sure that they are the only deadbeat crooks I know of. They harass people who are only trying to make ends meet and would prefer that their clients are homeless and destitue while they accept 50% of the payments that are made to creditors. They treat American citizens like they have no rights just because they have debt. I swear they are connected with the mafia.
DebtorBasher on 09/11/2009:
Hey DoubleChin...this review is from 2007...AND for your information DEBTORS are NOT their CLIENTS! Where do you get your information from? If the people are homeless, than how does NCO harass them if they have no home to send letters to, or phones for them to call? That was just a stupid statement to make. "...while they accept 50% of the payments that are made to creditors"....what the heck are you talking about? And you should think twice before making remarks about the Mafia!
DebtorBasher on 09/11/2009:
Starlord on 09/12/2009:
Wizardofsnog, go to a legal library and look up the term "holder in due course." This is NCO. Whether the government sold your contract to NCO or is paying a percentage, NCO is the holder in due course of the contract, and thus legally entitled to collect from you. When I was 19 I joined a health club, who then sold the contract to a sleazeball collection agency who came to my home at 1 AM trying to intimidate me. When we went to court, the judge threw the case out. In Indiana, one cannot legally contract with anyone under 21 years of age. The contract showed my age, so was null and void on it's face. The sleazeballs had bought the contract, so they were out, but they were the holders in due course.
Close commentsAdd reply
US Energy Savings Scam
Posted by on
ONTARIO -- I would like to expose what I believe is a huge misrepresentation on the part of U.S. Energy Savings Co. (USES), which is an Energy Service Company (ESCO), in the way they conduct business.

My wife and I switched our gas and electric supply from National Grid and ConEdison respectively to US Energy Savings. The latter's modus operandi is basically like this: They sent an independent contractor who was visiting all the homes in our neighborhood. She warned that we may be paying too much for our energy supply and that she knew a way to save us money. Naturally, when the economy is in a recession and you're stretching every dollar to be able to pay your bills, you are willing to listen to this kind of pitch. Furthermore, the representative proceeded to elaborate on the three misrepresentations which are, first, that there would be no term or that it would be open term and we were free to change USES at any time. Second, that there would be no fee whatsoever if and when we switched from USES, and third, that if and when the energy supply rate dropped, our rate would adjust automatically. All three proved to be false consequently when we called USES.

I am a big skeptic and when this representative made these big promises to my wife and me, I made it a point to ask the questions over and over again, ad nausea. I stopped short of recording our conversation; in hindsight, I think I should have. Moreover, when the switch to USES was finally reflected on our gas bill, I compared the rate of National Grid to that of USES and to my shock and dismay, the latter's was higher by 50 cents. This adds up to a lot of money over time. Immediately, I called USES to question my findings and they told me that they "don't promise any savings." I tried to cancel our agreement and they refused, citing that my wife and I should have read the contract. I argued that we had an understanding with their representative, thus reaching an agreement. USES did not honor this, saying instead that the written agreement supersedes anything that was said. I mentioned a clause on the agreement regarding the "Extended Cancellation Period of 30 days from the date of our first bill" and they refused to honor that by saying that they have their own start date which is much sooner than the one reflected on the bill.

In conclusion, this is a disgrace. U.S. Energy Savings is preying on the public's quest to save on energy by enticing them and then changing the rules thereby hooking them for up to 5 years at higher rates.
Read 1 RepliesAdd reply
User Replies:
Hugh_Jorgen on 12/11/2008:
A scam like this is mentioned in this month's Reader's Digest as a top 10 scam to avoid. In the example they provided, the rep was covering parts of the agreement with another piece of paper while the victim signed.

But the moral of the story remains unchanged - read and understand every contract you sign and NEVER depend on the verbal representation made by a sales rep.

Good luck with getting out of this contract - you might contact your state's agency that regulates utilities to see if they can help.
Close commentsAdd reply
US government racketeering
Posted by on
Predatory and Racketeering Energy Polices of US Senate?

For several decades now the US Government has systematically protected the manufacturers of low efficiency insulations, less than 10% efficient, while at the same time publicizing misinformation about high efficiency insulations, 97% efficient, in order to steer the public to low efficiency insulations which increased the home energy consumption up to two to three times what it would have been if high efficiency insulations had been used. By doing this they are collecting 10s of billions of dollars in energy taxes. They have been doing this despite the obvious input into the atmosphere of trillions of tons of carbon gases.

As early as 1958-1960 the US Senator from Colorado, at the request of the Mineral Wool Assoc., had a law passed that prohibited the use of high efficiency insulations in government buildings. This law severely crippled the high efficiency insulation companies which were in the process of becoming the dominant insulation. It wasn’t until 1964 when the US Navy issued material document HH-I-1252 so that they could use these materials in the Artic that this ban was broken. These materials are still used there as well for the space program plus residential and commercial buildings.

In 1981 at the request of the fiberglass manufacturers the US Senate again intervened when the Federal Trade Comm. issued regulations that required all insulation materials be tested in the installed conditions, as opposed to the almost meaningless tests now used. For two days the operating funds of the FTC were shut off until the regulations were rescinded. This regulation would have led to the demise of fiberglass insulation as it would have had to reduce its advertised “R” values up to 50%.

There have been funny things going on with the California Energy Comm. also. When presented with valid data showing that, in the installed condition the high efficiency insulations were superior to the fiberglass in reducing energy costs the commission rated the fiberglass superior.

The DOE has a warped view of priorities. Although they tout their agency as searching for ways to bring forth energy reduction technology, they minimize the available low tech technology that is reliable and low cost for high tech technology that very technical and is costly and expensive to maintain. Today, you can build a home that uses low cost passive heating and a ground coupled (not geothermal) cooling system for about the same price as an energy hog. In some cases for a lot less.

As if this wasn’t bad enough the DOE and FTC have minimized the obvious detrimental health effects of fiberglass in favor of the tax revenue it brings. They are subject to industry influence and are controlled by the Senate.

Every summer we hear about older folks dying in their homes from excessive heat because they couldn’t afford to operate the air conditioner. Some of these homes have fiberglass insulation. What these people don’t know is that with fiberglass it can get hotter inside the building than outside. Tens of thousands of construction related craftsmen are suffering from lung conditions as a result of working in and around fiberglass as are children and parents in these infested homes. People die of fiberglass
lung cancer; others are affected by the mold that grows in fiberglass walls. Children are particularly sensitive to mold. Because of deep pockets it is almost impossible to sue these large insulation manufacturers.

Politicians, president on down, refuse to do anything about this because of the high tax revenue and donations made to them by the energy producers and insulation manufacturers.

This has to stop. NOW

Add reply
Social Security Card Replacement Lack of Security
Posted by on
I recently had the pleasure of trying to replace my lost Social Security card. What a joy visiting the local office was, but I'm not here to complain about that, it is a government run agency so I did not expect the level of service to be anything above abysmal. My major complaint is the security of my coveted Social Security number. We have been raised since birth here in the US to guard the SS number against theft since once thieves have this number and our address they can wreak all sorts of havoc. (Don’t even get me started on why we now have to give it out to every Tom, Dick and Harry every time we need any sort of service) I applied for a replacement card, which would take up to 4 weeks to arrive. Within days I received an envelope from the US SS office, which was sealed and gave no indication of its contents, with a letter stating someone had recently applied for a SS replacement card in my name and if this wasn’t me to immediately contact them. That’s a great security feature and that’s not the issue. The issue is, two weeks later I received the actual envelope with the SS card in it. This time, instead of a nicely sealed envelope concealing the contents, the US SS office sent me an envelope with a large clear address window in it (I’m assuming this was done to save cost so they didn’t need to print the address on the outside as well), with a large return address clearly stating it was from the SS office. The best part was that my new SS card was clearly visible through the address window, in fact without even bending the envelope it was possible to read the first three digits of my SS number and my first name. WTF??? Everyone knows there are new stories every week how some government agency failed to secure its computers and massive amounts of personal data is stolen, but I think by far the easiest way for thieves to get this info is from trash sifting or intercepting mail. Why wouldn’t the government bother spending a couple of more pennies per mailing to protect the privacy of its own citizens? Because they don’t really care, to them it’s all about bottom line cost. Screw the poor people who have to deal with identity theft because of our cheapness. We as consumers of these large government entities need to start demanding better security and accountability for these agencies. I for one will try to do my part by posting this letter here and various other sites to help get the word out and am sending copies of this to my representatives letting them know how dissatisfied I am with the level of security offered. If you are interested in increasing the security of your personal info please contact your Senator and let them know you want something done, here is a link to their contact info;

Read 11 RepliesAdd reply
User Replies:
Doc J on 07/17/2006:
Good post! Let me answer the question as to why the SS Admin couldn't care less about security of a SSN and the attached account...$$$. Many Americans have up to 6-10 illegal aliens piggy-backed on their SSNs. Income, social security, and Medicare taxes are withheld from the earnings of the illegals (and contributed by their employers) They seldom, if ever, file for refunds, etc. When the address, DOB, and other data don't match (as with illegal workers), the collected taxes are put into "suspense accounts" and retained in government coffers...billions of dollars in "free taxes". Therefore, security is not an issue for the administration. BTW: Social Security will not tell US citizens and legal workers who is piggy-backed on their SSN. A few lenders can get this info but, of course, it's "illegal" to divulge it to the SSN holder.
glc on 07/17/2006:
This is scary. Recently a friend of mine lost his NYS driver license. He went to a local DMV office and apprised them of the situation. They only ASKED him for his address and DOB. They did not REQUIRE any other documentation from him, and proceeded to issue him an interim license! I was under the impression that since 9/11, ALL government agencies were thoroughly scrutinizing applications for ID....I guess not.
NotHappy on 07/17/2006:
YIKES< I applied for a Passport and when it came to me in the mail it was in the same type of envlope. Then I had to change my name with SSN because I got married, could not believe I had to deal with the SSN office worker in full head covering (she was muslim) I have nothing against them, however I think they could not have access to our info. I keep a eye on my credit report monthly for any one trying to use my number now..
Doc J on 07/17/2006:
Guys! Here's the really scarey part. All of the folks "piggy-backed" on your SSN may one day end up contending that the money in the account actually belongs to THEM! Don't depend on the "date of first activity" as proof the money is yours. The people who are the sloppiest at protecting our IDs are also the same people "protecting" us from terrorists. Sweet dreams!
myangels7 on 07/17/2006:
That explains why the gov is fearing there will not be enough SS funds to go around when we and future generations reach retirement age...and why the gov encourages us to opt for other programs such as the 401K for retirement funds. I did not know this "piggyback" scam was happening right under my big American nose. I do know that some banks do not require the "Guest Workers" to provide an SSN when opening a bank account with them. I now believe I know why. Please see the following link to an article (2005) which states American Banks have been catering to illegal immigrants... . Thanks for the info all. I can only hope that I reach retirement before my piggybacks do.
chemman on 07/18/2006:
Doc-that is very scarey! I did not know about the alleged "piggybacking" problem, but it makes sense! Although, I have to say, being a relatively young guy (30) I am not counting on seeing any SS by the time I retire. Most retirement planners laugh in your face if you tell them you count on having SS as part of your retirement income if you are my age.
Noneill on 07/18/2006:
Doc how do you know about this SS piggybacking? We learned a couple years ago that some guy in CA was using my sons SSN. To this day we don't know if we should do something. And if we should, what?
Doc J on 07/19/2006:
Noneill-Sorry for your son's situation. I have many friends in the financial security industry who warned me about this scam a year ago. There's a little info on the Web, dig around. It's one of those "dirty little secrets" most Americans are kept ignorant of in the cause of open borders and cheap labor for the meat-packing and slave labor agricultural corporations. Current recommendations are that involved persons check bureau reports at least every three months (all three). Remember, the goal of the piggybacker normally isn't to steal identity for's to legitimize their illegal work or residency in the USA. In all seriousness, it is a good idea to hire an investigator to track down the piggybaker...most often an illegal worker. Turn the evidence over to DHS and INS. Don't hold your breath for action from them. However, doing so may protect your son's contributions for the future and will put the illegal on notice that his presence is known (he/she may jump to another number). Your son is not alone. The Social Security Administration refuses to prosecute such individuals for illegally using someone else's SSN (it's normally a federal felony). The failure to prosecute is part of our politically correct culture helping legitimize illegal immigrants and to promote open borders. The usurpers are far from harmless people in search of "a better life"...some may be foreign agents intent on harming our homeland. Best wishes!
Anonymous on 07/19/2006:
should be "OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE and then it may then become FOR THE PEOPLE". Right now it is all for the business, of the business and by the business and for the politicians in witch it stands. Sad, but true. Aaaaa, Mennnnnnnn
Anonymous on 07/19/2006:
Anonymous on 07/19/2006:
Social Security Card Replacement Lack of Security this is another reason the government should be "OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE and then it may then become FOR THE PEOPLE". Right now it is all for the business, of the business and by the business and for the politicians in witch it stands. Sad, but true. Aaaaa, Mennnnnnnn
Close commentsAdd reply
Government should change the way to keep milk prices high
Posted by on
I know that the government has been paying farmers to poor milk down the drain for decades to keep milk prices high. But it doesn't mean a better idea doesn't come along.

There are lots of studies saying that kids do not get enough milk in their diet. Lets face it, 80 cents for half pint of milk is very expensive compared to the 1 gallon of milk for $3 in the store. Why not have the government buy the same amount of packaged milk and send them into schools for free milk for the kids?
Read 28 RepliesAdd reply
User Replies:
jktshff1 on 02/10/2011:
What? Statistics would be helpful.
Anonymous on 02/10/2011:
A source would be nice.
MDSasquatch on 02/10/2011:
Milk is just plain nasty; why would anyone knowingly drink the excretions of a cow udder?
yoke on 02/10/2011:
The government has programs that children can get free or reduced meals which include milk.
Anonymous on 02/10/2011:
Op, it is true that farmers receive government subsidies, but the government does not set milk prices.
Anonymous on 02/10/2011:
I read this as a complaint against the United States Government. Regardless of the details or facts or reality of this particular situation I'm going to have to 100% agree with the OP. It's the United States Government for pete's sake.
Anonymous on 02/10/2011:
My elementary school, middle school, and high school back in San Diego offered free breakfast, milk included, to kids from low-income families. But I don't blame the government for kid's not getting enough milk. I blame the parents who would rather give their kids soda than milk.
Anonymous on 02/10/2011:
Store brand milk is generally cheaper. I often find it for $1.99 a gallon.
Anonymous on 02/10/2011:
It is the responsibility of parents to ensure their children get proper nutrition, the government was not meant to be our parent. There are other sources of calcium.
Anonymous on 02/10/2011:
Exactly my point rip
Anonymous on 02/10/2011:
And an excellent point it was shorty.
MRM on 02/10/2011:
Back when I was in elementary, I would use somebody else meal ticket and I would get a discount lunch for 25 cents. And eventually, the lunch lady would catch me that I'm not the owner of the meal ticket.
Slimjim on 02/10/2011:
Why would the Government want to keep milk prices high? Even Glen Beck would find that extreme. I think right now we are spending enough in Washington. Let's let the parents pay for their kids drinks like mine did and perhaps we can avoid yet another wasteful earmark.
Anonymous on 02/10/2011:
80 cents? That is a lot..milk costs 40 cents at my daughter's school. Or lunch w/milk costs 2.75/day and the kids are actually fed nutritious meals that meet the dietary guidelines.

Low income families get reduced or free options. I have no problem with that. When we start making sure that families can make enough money to adequately support their families w/o government assistance, then gov't can step back. But, we'd rather keep 1 in 7 Americans at poverty level because that makes SO much more sense.
Inat on 02/10/2011:
eww...I cook with milk; that's about it. The thought of actually drinking glandular secretions from another mammal makes me gag
clutzycook on 02/10/2011:
Mmmm I love milk. Growing up in my family, we'd go through a gallon or more a day easily.
momsey on 02/10/2011:
Growing up, we'd always have a glass of milk with dinner. I'm not the biggest fan of milk, but throw some chocolate sauce in there, mmm mmmm mmm!

My husband is a big milk lover. He's like a kid, he needs to have a big glass of milk with his dessert. My son also loves milk.
Inat on 02/10/2011:
I like cheese -adore cheese actually, but there something about yucky ole think milk...blech...
Anonymous on 02/10/2011:
I adore all dairy products, but I have to be careful about eating them. I do love milk. Always have.
Anonymous on 02/10/2011:
Milk... It does a body good.
MRM on 02/10/2011:
Ript, I was going to say that quote several posts ago!
Anonymous on 02/10/2011:
Well MRM, how about you say a good body does milk?
Starlord on 02/10/2011:
I have always loved moo juice, since living on a farm in Indiana and getting raw milk and making our own butter right up to today. When I was a kid, I would think nothing of drinking a half gaqllon with my evening meal. I don't drink near as much now, being on a fixed income vs the cost of milk.
PepperElf on 02/10/2011:
of course one could always buy his or her milk from a local farm. straight from the cow even.

jktshff1 on 02/10/2011:
Roth, you are missing the point. I could come on here and claim the government is using duck butter in the school lunches, but without any documentation the statement is worthless. Very similar to the politicians you hate making statements without backup.
Since the op "knows" the source or documentation is necessary for a credible post.
PepperElf on 02/10/2011:
duck butter and mouse milk actually
jktshff1 on 02/10/2011:
Anonymous on 02/11/2011:
I drink at least one full glass of milk each day. I love it. I could drink it while eating nearly anything, I.e. pizza, hamburgers, etc...The going price for the store brand of milk in my neck of the woods is about $2.46 per gallon.
Close commentsAdd reply
Pa. Government does not care about its people
Posted by on
I want you to know that I have written emails to a lot of government officials with not one reply. I wrote to the Senators for Pa., Local government, and state agencies.

If you have a problem or issue don't even bother going this route. They do not care. These are people elected to represent us and they are nowhere to be found. And if you reach a person you will now I am telling you the truth.

You can ask for help, plead for it and nothing. You have waisted your time. I am including both parties. Neither one of the 12 I wrote responded.

If you are in an insurance situation get a lawyer. You'll have to fight for your rights.
Read 10 RepliesAdd reply
User Replies:
Anonymous on 09/25/2009:
SInce PA is a commonwealth, they have many unique challenges. I currently work for a law firm that collects debt for the commonwealth, such as personal income tax, sales, withholding, etc.

We even collect on unemployment over pays and EZ Pass violations. It can be very frustrating!
Anonymous on 09/26/2009:
Exactly what is your complaint?
Starlord on 09/26/2009:
I can't speak to Pennsylvania, but I am happy with Washington. I sent Senator Patty Murray an email taking her to task for her vote in the recent vote on a National Concealed Carry law. The idiots in Congress decided to use a 60 vote barrier, rather than the normal simple majority. Both Senators from Washington voted NO on the amendment, and the final vote was 58 to whatever. I informed her that they had stabbed the 225,000 firearms licensees in Washington in the back, in violation of the Second Amendment. Within a week I received an email from Senator Murray, explaining her reasoning, which was disingenous, by the way, but it was a response. What part of "Shall not be infringed" do Congress persons not understand?
spiderman2 on 09/26/2009:
Pa isn't frustrating because it is a commonweathm, Pa sucks because we have a governor who doesn't care about people unless you happen to live in Philadelphia. If you want to talk to your representatives, your best bet is to call their offices and speak to someone. I have had luck with this approach. If you are expecting a response from Fast Ed, party changing Arlen or Bob Casey, you will wait until hell freezes over though.
Anonymous on 09/26/2009:
spider isn't your governor fairly newly elected? I heard he is insanely uncompromising. NOT a good trait for a politician.
When I visited one of our branch offices in Harrisburg last week, I was very surprised to learn of the budget issues PA has and the fact that some moron ( or a few morons) has decided closing the libraries is a good idea.
spiderman2 on 09/26/2009:
This is Ed Rendell's second term in office and he is out in 2010. He is uncompromising and stubborn. He really only cares about the people in Philadelphia. Right now, we don't even have a budget in place. Closing libraries or cutting back hours is just the tip of the iceburg, our schools don't have books because there is not money to buy them with!
Anonymous on 09/26/2009:
Fufu487 on 09/26/2009:
so public and youth education are the main cut-backs??? ouch!!! Glad I don't live in PA.
Eloise on 09/26/2009:
It always seems like services for children are the first to go. Which makes no sense. They are the future. Do we want the future generation to be uneducated? I hope not!
spiderman2 on 09/26/2009:
Rendell is willing to hold our children hostages so he can get what he wants. What does he care he isn't up for reelection? If he ends up running for a national office, beware. The man look sleazy and he is sleazy.....IMHO of course!
Close commentsAdd reply
Taxpayers Should Not Bailout Detroit Automakers
Posted by on
The chief executives of G.M., Ford and Chrysler have been lobbying hard in Washington for at least $25 billion in addition to the $25 billion that the government has already lent them. I understand that Congressional leaders expressed some support but have not made specific promises.

Please urge your senators and representatives not to give more taxpayer money to automakers who are failing because they cannot compete. Long before this recession, Detroit automakers were losing market share to Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai and Volkswagen. Detroit’s overly-generous union contracts and failure to produce efficient well-made automobiles has contributed more to their demise than the bad economy. The recession is also hurting Asian and European automakers, but their governments are not bailing them out. Why should we?
Read 48 RepliesAdd reply
User Replies:
nstigator39 on 11/08/2008:
How we say so much when we know so little. The Japanese and other European and Asian automakers are compensated by the governments where they are located, in other words, they are a partnership. Please know your subject matter before you post.
I agree that the big three have made many major blunders and at a time let the quality of the products they produce go down, but that has been changing for the past few years. A publication such as Consumer Reports, states this, and they have been the harshest critics of domestic autos for years. You are forgetting the millions of other jobs that would be affected if the industry is allowed to go under. The small suppliers who would be affected are all over the country and reaches all over the world but over two million would be out of work here in the U.S.
People who talk and write a lot have little time to study up on the facts. I urge everyone to write their Senators and Reps. and urge them to support help for the industry. If we are attacked by a foreign enemy, do you think the foreign auto companies will rush to help us to build our war material? I hardly think so. I hope we are never in that position.
Ponie on 11/08/2008:
Since our government pumps so much money to the non-taxpayers, why not give some to the corporations that provide jobs? Maybe some of these people would have to work for a living for a change.
Anonymous on 11/09/2008:
I have to agree with Ponie. My God, all of those jobs being lost? It devastates entire cities when a car manufacturer leaves. This whole "bail out" thing makes me sick, but what else do we do?
Anonymous on 11/09/2008:
PS. I watched a guy pay for his groceies yesterday food stamps bought with my tax dollars and he got into a car $20,000 nicer than mine. That's the crap I want to stop. We need to overhaul a lot of waste going on out there.
jktshff1 on 11/09/2008:
It's called responsibility.
Sherdy, that's exactly what we are going to get more of now 'cause the government knows what's better for you. BS...more government means more waste and fraud.
The auto companies have brought it on themselves.
Sparticus on 11/09/2008:
I read an interesting article about this the other day. It was saying the government looks at the problem with the auto industry from a much larger perspective. They were saying if GM were to go under, that would cost the government nearly 100 billion due to pension obligations and loss of people paying income taxes and instead receiving government benefits. GM has 177,000 U.S. workers and around 500,000 people receiving pensions.

When you look at it from that perspective, the government would actually be SAVING taxpayers money by providing aid...
yoke on 11/09/2008:
I don't mind the bailouts as long as there is a provision that the top exec's don't get any bonus or golden handshakes. That goes for the Wall Street bailout also. If a company has to come and use our tax dollars to bail out a company it means they weren't doing their job and therefore they do not need a bonus.
steve101 on 11/09/2008:
The Auto industry makes up 3% of the GNP. IF you add up all the auto workers, parts workers, dealership workers,repair workers, and shareholders, you are talking millions of jobs at risk and a million retirees losing half of their pensions,which would send the economy into a depression. Better to save the auto makers than bail out the fatcats on Wall Street.
Principissa on 11/09/2008:
Do you know how many people will be without work if these companies fail? I say bail them out, but make very strict provisions for them to follow. No bonuses for top executives, bi-annual audits, and even so far as removing the current CEO with a government approved one. The workers, by that I mean the ones that actually work for a living, should not have to suffer because of these white collar mistakes.
yoke on 11/09/2008:
princi, I agree. We also need to watch the end of the year to see if Wall Street gets there huge bonuses that they give. I have no problem with bailing out a company if it is for the workers, but if the exec's get a bonus then that is so wrong.
old fart on 11/09/2008:
Hold on a minute folks... I have lived in Michigan for most of my life and not far from the "birthplace of General Motors.
I have worked in an auto plant and have watched what passed for quality control first hand...

The interaction of the company and the unions finally drove the nail into the coffin by means of their mutual greed and the result was poorly made product at an unconsciable price...

look at what GM is faced with today.. SUV's that no one wants, at a price that no one can pay, all to support workers whose benefits are strangling the company.

When I was "on The line" I brought the poor quality of a part I made to the attention to supervision only to hear the words, "run it!... let it pass".. they have a quota..

When faced with a shut-down due to a strike for higher wages and benfits, GM caved in simply because they didn't want to lose production time...

They are paying the price for that mutual greed now!

My 2001 KIA still has 2 years to go on the 100,000 mile guarantee and cost ten thousand GM equivalent is available to match that...

Why should you be expected to bail out a company that brought about its own demise?

I'm retired now so it's a moot point but I don't envy the younger folks who are going to pony up for the Big 3's and UAW's greed...
old fart on 11/09/2008:
DebtorBasher on 11/09/2008:
Thanks for the "inside" scoop, Old F!
But when you worked in the auto biz, didn't you work for Ford installing the crank on the front of the cars?
old fart on 11/09/2008:
Basher.. I made shift levers for school buses and trucks...
There was a gauge that we put the lever on to check the shape and angle... when they weren't accurate it meant that whoever was driving the vehicle probably would smash their knuckles into the dashboard every time they went into third gear...The supervisors always said, "run em"...

The best thing that ever happened to me was when they laid me off in 1967.. it was like being let out of prison!
old fart on 11/09/2008:
Basher.. the only way I could keep what residual sanity I had was to see if I could run the machine as fast as I could as a challenge... when I got so far ahead on the line, the union rep came by and told me to stop because it was making the other union schlubs "Look Bad"...
DebtorBasher on 11/09/2008:
Thanks for the "inside" scoop, Old F!
But when you worked in the auto biz, didn't you work for Ford installing the crank on the front of the cars?
old fart on 11/09/2008:
There's an Echo on my 'puter...basher...basher...basher...
Anonymous on 11/09/2008:
Why not give taxpayer money to the automakers? The banks and investment firms have been nationalized by the bailout. The shlubs cry out for 'free' healthcare'. In the United Soviet States of America, wealth is confiscated from those who generate it and it is redistributed in bailouts and to social-engineering 'gimmes'. It's time to do away with the charade...and hoist the Hammer and Sickle.
DebtorBasher on 11/09/2008:
That is Basher...Basher...Basher with a capital "B", "B', "B" ! ! !
old fart on 11/09/2008:
Amen Doc...
tnchuck100 on 11/09/2008:
Doc, that hurts. But, stop and think about it. Doc has put a pretty good label on what is happening. I, for one, am fed up with supporting the rich.
Anonymous on 11/09/2008:
Bail them out for many of the reasons stated above. It will be a hard pill to take but putting maybe millions of people out of work will be a worse pill to swallow. But as Yoke says the fat cat over paid "suits" can't pull their usual $200mil out of our tax dollar bail out money.
Anonymous on 11/09/2008:
I'm a middle class chick and I'm tired of spending my money to reward the rich for not doing their jobs and supporting the poor for refusing to get one. What is the incentive to out in the world and work for an honest day's pay anymore? The rich guys cheat the system and the poor guys play it generation after generation. Meanwhile, 28% of my pay supports this crap. I just hope all of the promises made to the "Middle class" are going to be kept in these coming years.
DigitalCommando on 11/09/2008:
Bailing out the auto industry is important to our economy, but it's where that money goes that will make a difference. If we hand it to the auto makers, they will bring their bills current and have cash for payroll etc. but the issue that creates their current problem would not be solved. PEOPLE ARE NOT BUYING CARS and when the bailout money runs out, we will be at square one AGAIN. This money should be used ONLY for subsidizing a vehicles initial price and the finance rates (causing both to go much lower) making cars a less risky option to today's cautious (non car-buying) consumer. With the return of cars sales to previous levels due to the new government sponsored available credit/lower prices, the help offered to the auto industry will be long term. Handing them the money directly will only offer short term help and will ensure continued return trips to the beggars trough.
Anonymous on 11/09/2008:
At Ford Motor Co. they called it "Blue," a team set up around the year 2000 to design an array of small, fuel-efficient cars to compete with the Japanese. It didn't get far because no one could figure out how to make money on low-priced compacts with Ford's high labor costs.

Besides, the automaker was racking up billions in profits by selling pickups and sport utility vehicles. Times were good and gas was cheap.

"Blue" is only a small blip in automotive history, but it tells a big part of the story about why Detroit automakers are in a mess so critical they could be only months away from bankruptcy.

Democratic leaders in Congress asked the Bush administration on Saturday to provide more aid to the struggling auto industry, which is bleeding cash and jobs as sales have dropped to their lowest level in a quarter-century.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson that the administration should consider expanding the $700 billion bailout to include car companies.

Critics say leaders over the years at Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp. and what is now Chrysler LLC were slow to take on unions, failed to invest enough in new products, ceded the car market to the Japanese and were ill-prepared for the inevitable rise in gas prices that would make their trucks and SUVs obsolete.

"There's been 30 years of denial," said Noel Tichy, a University of Michigan business professor and author who ran General Electric Co.'s leadership program from 1985-87 and once worked as a consultant for Ford. "They did not make themselves competitive. They didn't deal with the union issues, the cost structures long ago, everything that makes a successful company."

nanomarket on 11/09/2008:
I have enjoyed reading your provocative comments – particularly Old Fart’s. Most seem to agree that we, the taxpayers, should bail out Detroit’s automakers to preserve jobs. Remember that we have already lent them $25 billion – how much more do they deserve? Also consider that workers will be laid off with or without the government bailout. When the economy improves, wouldn’t it be better for these workers to join a company like Toyota which produces high-quality cars and is now the most profitable automaker in the world.

Nstigator39 incorrectly states that the European and Asian automakers are partners with their governments where they are located. While they may get certain tax benefits and incentives from their governments, they are all publicly-traded companies whose assembly plants pay US taxes e.g., the Toyota Camry is assembled in Lexington, KY and the BMW in Spartanburg SC. All governments subsidize their favorite industries. For example American agriculture is the most heavily subsidized industry in the world. But to my knowledge, no government bails out a mismanaged industry that fails for the reasons so eloquently stated in Old Fart/s comments.
old fart on 11/09/2008:
Digital , what you say makes a h3ll of a lot more sense than handing barrels of money to companies on the verge of bankruptcy. If the consumer chooses to buy a Japanese or Korean car, stipulate that the vehicle be made in the U.S

While the profit may go to those respective companies, the wages and benefits will accrue here in the U.S...
Anonymous on 11/09/2008:
I think if we bail them out, that the agreement ought to include a provision that the union worker's retirement funds be funded solely by stock in the American auto makers. Maybe if they got the hard news that their fat retirement package is contingent on performance, things might change in that industry.
jktshff1 on 11/09/2008:
KenP...great point.
Principissa on 11/09/2008:
I would love to know how these execs sleep at night. Sitting in one of their many million dollar homes while the people working for them are afraid to lose theirs, eating these big fancy dinners while their employees are afraid to spend too much on food because they could be laid off. Going on expensive vacations while their employees are giving up their time so they can work and pay the bills. How the heck do these jerks sleep at night knowing that their mistakes and greed are costing their employees, the life blood of their companies, their livelihoods. All those families and children going without because Mr. CEO don't want to lose his billion dollar bonus. Begging tax payers for money so that they can pay their employees. These people disgust me to no end. Give them the money, but make the execs, and I mean all of them, every single one of them, pay it back from their own bonuses and severance packages. Things this greedy jerks could easily give up but, well, that would cost them another vacation home, their son a brand new porsche, or their wife a new boob job.

Hubby's company should give these morons some lessons. All of the top execs in his company are former miners. All of them. All they do is give to us, never take. When production was down and everyone's checks were below 1,000.00, the execs gave money out of their own pockets and gave it to everyone so they would be at or above 1,000.00. When one of our miners lost his wife in a car accident they paid for her funeral out of their own pockets and gave him enough money to pay off his home and put his children through college.
Ponie on 11/09/2008:
Principissa, I do not begrudge the execs their high salaries. If the company is making money, they must be doing something right. I think Lee Ioccoca was worth every cent he made when he turned Chrysler around. My strong objection is to the golden parachutes these guys (and gals, too) get when they're replaced at the helm. I think those should be cut out completely. When I worked for someone else, should I have been let go, I certainly wouldn't have received a generous package whereby I wouldn't have to work for quite a while.

Ken, you bring up a good point. Isn't GM phasing out responsibility for the retirement plans and the UAW taking them over in the next couple of years? Seems to me that was part of the negotiations that lengthened the strike last year at the Detroit Axle plant.
Principissa on 11/09/2008:
I agree with you Ponie. If I was ever let go from a job, I wouldn't get money to tide me over either. Why should they? You got fired for a reason. No reason to get a bonus right?
yoke on 11/09/2008:
I was watching one of the news shows last week. They are the ones that brought up the big bonuses Wall Street gives at the end of the year for job performance. There should not be any bonuses this year since the government had to bail them out, which means they were not doing there job. From the sound of it the people on Wall Street who were used to the big bonuses feel they still should get them. In the real world, the world the rest of us live in, if your company needed to get bailed out you would not be getting a bonus, or expect a bonus.
Principissa on 11/09/2008:
Absolutely not. They do not deserve and should not get a bonus at all this year, and maybe even next year. If you were in such a position where you had to borrow money from taxpayers to keep you in business, not only do you not deserve a bonus, but you should also be looking for a new job because it's quite clear that you cannot handle the responsibilities that go along with your current position.
old fart on 11/09/2008:
Folks.. I have a relative that worked for GM Saginaw Steering Gear for 30 years...along with many other acquaintainces who boasted about the $40/hour straight time and the benefits which were worth another 35 to 45 dollars per hour and had the gall to boast about how many hours they spent sleeping in the restroom and reading the newspaper or playing euchre on company time...

What goes around finally came around..!
Some work ethic, eh?
BobJohn on 11/10/2008:
The auto makers are not asking for a gift. They are asking for a loan that will be repaid.

Bonus to bank/financial employees. If their company received 1 cent of 'bailout' money then no bonus. What would the bonus be for? Running their company into the ground?
nanomarket on 11/10/2008:
BobJohn - The first $25 billion that Detroit requested was indeed a loan, but the interest rate is so low that it might as well be a gift. The second $25 billion that Detroit now wants now would be gift - unless Congressional leaders change their mind. GM stock has plunged 82.5% this year -- twice the drop in the S&P 500. Analysts are telling investors that GM stock is worthless. Who in their right mind (other than the US government) would lend or give this company $50 billion?
old fart on 11/10/2008:
Nanomarket.. there was a time when GM was a government unto itself....
I suspect that they still have a tremendous influence in the halls of congress and therefore I suspect that they will get what they ask for if they grovel and whimper long enough...
The only "partnership" that GM and the U.A.W have will be to the end of begging the government for a welfare handout and they will probably get it...
nstigator39 on 11/10/2008:
Most of these posts are so ridclous that they do not deserve a reply. However for the sake of accuracy, I will tell you that yes, GM and the UAW are an alliance. For so many years the union hating people would point the finger at the unions as the blame for everything bad that happened in any industry that had a union. In the past decade we have seen a closer alliance between union and management, trying to work together for the better. Now you want to degrade that effort, how ironic. You hate it when the unions and management are fighting and you hate it when they are in colaboration. Yes they will get the bailout because it is the right thing to do, despite what some non knowing posters say.
You will go out and buy your VW's, which during the WW II, were using slave labor (mostly Jewish) to work twelve hours a day with no pay or benefits and drive them around with your chin in the air, forgetting that during the war, the American auto plants were converted over to building the war material that helped us to defeat Hitler and the other mad men who would have away our right to even make a choice. If you are in favor of honoring and benefiting companies such as these foreign corporations go ahead and buy your slave saved company vehicles. If patriotism and well being of our own means anything to you, give a test drive to an American vehicle before you offer up your advice to others.
old fart on 11/10/2008:
Instigator39... I have no wish to get into a "pissin" match with anybody but the arrogance of the UAW and related organizations, in concert with the auto companies, forced average people lacking union auto worker's pay and benefits to seek relief from other manufacturers whose product was cheaper and more reliable..

"I know..I know"... foreign cars have plenty of problems too, but in the time elapsed between when foreign products hit American streets and the time GM and the UAW woke up to find themselves "suckin hind t*t, it was too late and likely will be so for a couple of decades..
old fart on 11/10/2008:
Here's a case in point from my own experience.. I bought a 2001 KIA Sephia and other than oil changes, brake job at 40,000 miles and rubber engine mounts for 500 bucks total, all the major repairs including a new transmission was paid for by KIA.

My brother -in law, (a retired GM employee) bought a 2004 Buick which, in the last three years, has cost him a new transmission, new radiator, new wheel bearings, fuel injection system, totaling FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS with no guarantees...
Is it any wonder that the American public is so disenchanted with domestic products..?
Anonymous on 11/10/2008:
I have driven a Toyota corolla for 6 years now never had a problem. The most reliable car around by Consumer Reports.
nanomarket on 11/10/2008:
nstigator39 You say that we should not buy VWs because during WW II they were built with (Jew) slave labor. Should we also stop taking aspirin tablets because they were first developed by Bayer - a German company that also once persecuted Jews?
old fart on 11/10/2008:
You might also say the same reasoning applies by referring to the Bataan death March when purchasing Japanese autos...
Aerocave on 11/11/2008:
One of the main reasons that the US automakers cannot compete is because of the UAW. Unions had their benefit years they mostly cater to slackers.

And I have to add that any American who is sitting back and stating things such as "I hope they go bankrupt" is simply oblivious to reality and the economic meltdown--on a national level--that this would cause. Yes, a lot of their struggles have been caused by bad management and lower quality products in the past--However, things have truly changed. One of the biggest issues is our media, who love to report all the negatives--and not any positives. Toyota's sales are way down this year, the quality of their products has been questionable the past couple years, and their profit forcast has been lowered drastically. The sales at Honda...Kia...Hyndai are also off...its a tough year for most every manufacturer--but how is this reported? Its typically printed 3/4 of the way into the article, below all the bold print of the negative, misery, "end of the the world" crap on the US Automakers. I'm sick of it!
r5bales on 11/16/2008:
The Wall Streel Journal had an interesting editorial that said the Feds should help Detroit out with conditions. ALL execs leave, ALL UAW agreements are null and void, so the new guy who comes in will have a level playing field. I don't think the Feds should mandate that 70% (or what ever random number is chosen) of the new autos made will be alt fuel cars. Let the consumer demand deternine what is made.
nanomarket on 11/16/2008:
The conditions that you mentioned could only be achieved if GM declared bankruptcy. Otherwise, CEO Wagner will not resign and the UAW will agree to more concessions. The average UAW worker currently earns $74.00 / hour which is more than most professionals.

President Bush recently proposed that Congress remove the alternative fuel condtion from $25 billion loan to Detroit automakers. Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank want to give GM an additional $25 billion from TARP. When will these bailouts end? City and state governments and the airlines will be next.
old fart on 11/16/2008:
The UAW president just said today that the union will make NO MORE concessions...If that is so, the big3 are doomed as viable companies...
Close commentsAdd reply
The check was not in the mail
Posted by on
WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA -- Someone I work with had a problem with their nephew’s annuity through the Government Printing Office, Office of Personnel Management Retirement Board. When he turned 18 or sometime after that, the agency stopped his payments. If you are 18 and are not in school full-time you are no longer entitled to benefits. Even though he is 18 he is still in school full-time so he was and is eligible for the benefit. He called the agency’s 888 number and another number and waited on as I like to call it, “the phone line from hell,” listening to music to torture terrorists by only to leave a message or speak to no one at all. His nephew tried to resolve the matter on line as well, but all to no avail. They were not getting results so he asked me to help him out. This is what I live for, so I told him, I would gladly help him.
I called the automated “phone line from hell,” myself, and I waited about 15 minutes on the phone listening to that awful music that no one in their right mind would ever listen to. Then I called our state senator's office and spoke with someone there. She informed me that his office would gladly help us if we needed. She informed me that the time-frame for getting a response to a Senators inquiry is between 2-4 weeks. I was pleased to see that his office would help if we needed his assistance. The lady I spoke to there was very pleasant and most concerned about the situation.
I decided I needed to call the main office in Washington DC. I got a regular toll number for the office in Boyers PA. I spoke with a most pleasant and lovely lady there. She listened attentively and then offered me the correct number in Washington DC to call. I called the number in Washington she had given me and was connected to just the right person's direct line. I left her a message and in about 15 minutes or so she called me back. I provided her with the appropriate and necessary information and she promptly, professionally, and courteously responded with assistance. She had the client reinstated and he started getting his annuity in about two weeks as promised. His file had been "just sitting" on someone's desk she informed me so that is why nothing had been done about his case.

About two months later his checks stopped again. We contacted her office, she got right on it and got the problem fixed again. In about a week he received his check in the mail. Amazing response I would say!
Add reply
Posted by on
WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA -- My only source of income is social security which since has had no cola increases for two years (which is essentially a tax hike), it seems it would be difficult to raise objections to a government employee raise freeze.
Read 52 RepliesAdd reply
User Replies:
Anonymous on 11/30/2010:
Hey, I've been paying into SS for the past 14 years. I've got about another 40 years to go before I can collect, IF theres anything left! I havn't gotten a raise from my employer either for the past 2 years because of the economy. If I can manage, so can social security collectors and federal workers!
yoke on 11/30/2010:
Hubby is retired Navy and he also is not getting a raise in his retirement from the Navy.
Anonymous on 11/30/2010:
Won't be a cola for a while.
Anonymous on 11/30/2010:
I feel for all senior citizens that live on SS only.

I am very fortunate to work for a company that gives raises every year, between 5-8% based on performance, and only once two years ago did they give us the minimum COL which I think was 3%...and there were people that complained about it!
Ytropious on 11/30/2010:
People on social security make more than me, a WORKER. I don't understand how a grand a month "isn't enough". I don't even make that!
Anonymous on 11/30/2010:
Government employees only got less than 2%. They're working, they need it. There is already about a 25% wage gap between public sector wages and private sector wages. Nobody wants a bunch of knuckleheads to have these positions yet that is exactly where we are headed if more isn't done to close the gap - not that a <2% COLA will amount to much toward achieving that. Social Security is a flawed and failing program. The money just isn't there and expecting it to do MORE will only hasten its impending demise.
Anonymous on 11/30/2010:
I know a couple of folks here are on SA and they would disagree with a few of those statements.
Anonymous on 11/30/2010:
Y, I honestly don't know how anyone could make it on a grand a month. Not in today's world, everything is just so expensive. Even a person living alone, with no extras would have a hard time making ends meet on only $1000/month. You have to expect that rent and utilities alone would eat up most of that.
Anonymous on 11/30/2010:
I'm one of them wally. I haven't gotten a cola and I don't begrudge the government employees their meager <2% raise. They have to drive to a job every day and are more subject to the fluctuating costs of gas, etc. than I am. I wish we ALL could have gotten one but if the money isn't there, it just isn't there.
Anonymous on 11/30/2010:
I know a few folks personally who get SA and they live by themselves they can barley put food on the table with rent utilities and other costs they just barely scrape by each month.
momsey on 11/30/2010:
I agree, I can't imagine how anyone can live on $1,000 a month. Rent, utilies, car payments/maintenance, medical expenses that aren't covered, etc. Especially for someone in the position where they can't improve their situation by getting a better job making more money (elderly, disabled.)
MDSasquatch on 11/30/2010:
don't let facts get in the way of the truth when it comes to Federal workers.
trmn8r on 11/30/2010:
This discussion about making it on a "grand a month" (presumably social security check) is being carried on without consideration for several factors. Whether the person *has* rent or a mortgage. Whether the person has investment income. The "grand a month" is just one factor. I would love a grand a month - I don't have a salary.
momsey on 11/30/2010:
trmn8r, the discussion is being carried on assuming that the person doesn't have any other significant source of income and has normal expenses, which is the case for a lot of people.
Anonymous on 11/30/2010:
I just hope to live long enough to be around when it's time to collect my Social Security, company pension plan, and my 401-K. Who really knows what tomorrow holds for any of us?
Anonymous on 11/30/2010:
Even if a person doesn't have rent or a mortgage, a $1000 is not much to live on in today's world, that was my point. Food, gas, electric, phone, clothes...the basics, costs a lot more than it did in years past. I stress all the time about what it's going to be like when I'm my parent's age, hoping I've invested wisely enough that I have sufficient means in addition to, or in lieu of SS.
trmn8r on 11/30/2010:
OK, I missed that. If a person only has Social Security after they are retired, maybe they should have planned better earlier.

I paid into Social Security when I had an income. My employer matched my payments - sweet! And I saved extra for a rainy day. IMO, SS isn't welfare.
trmn8r on 11/30/2010:
I never planned for Social Security. Neither did my parents. I set it in my mind 30 years ago that if I got any SS it would be icing on the cake. I mean, this was money I never saw, and I thought of it as a tax. Most taxes you never get back as money. With the government, I get most my taxes back in the form of a spectacle in Washington and vote for the best of the worst contest once every two years.
Anonymous on 11/30/2010:
Ask and ye shall receive... Hot off the presses - Obama puts a 2-year freeze on federal employees wages:
Anonymous on 11/30/2010:
SS was enacted for that very purpose though, to provide assistance to primarily the elderly. I don't look at it as welfare either, I pay into it every two weeks, I should get it back when I retire.

I think for many in my parent's generation, they didn't necessarily think about the fact that times would change as fast as they have, and didn't invest wisely enough to ensure they would have enough to live on.
Anonymous on 11/30/2010:
Does that include Congress who vote themselves raises?
Ytropious on 11/30/2010:
If rent is factored in then yes, a grand a month is not enough. But by 65 I'd assume most 30 year mortgages are paid off. Plan ahead, don't be buying a house with a high mortgage if you're planning on retiring soon. If you factored out rent or mortgage then my husband and I could make it on a grand a month EASY. Utilities and food aren't that much for us. It's called living frugal. Also isn't that why most retirees have nest eggs stashed away? Retirement funds are called retirement funds for a reason. If you don't have a nest egg then again, no one to blame but yourself. Are most people living on SS living on SS alone? I doubt it.
Cwazychicken on 11/30/2010:
A grand a month is not that much. I'm on disability and make 670 a mth for rent, bills and food. I have an 8 mth old and get about 156 a wk in child support for his food, diapers and clothes. Definitely not a lot to live on. I get about 90 in food stamps so that helps a bit. I cannot work or I would. Luckily my sons father can help provide him clothes, food and things my money cannot buy.
clutzycook on 11/30/2010:
YT, even if you have a paid-off mortgage, you still probably have property taxes. Depending on where you live, that can be almost as much as a year's mortgage payments. I heard of places where it's upwards of $10K. Personally, I'm not planning on Social Security. Heck, at 28, I'm not planning on much of anything. I contribute to my 401K/403B and hope and pray my health holds out long enough for me to enjoy my retirement.
momsey on 11/30/2010:
Just look at NJ! My taxes are $8,000 a year, and that's actually pretty low for this area.
Ytropious on 11/30/2010:
My property taxes are low, only about 1-2 grand a YEAR. Again, planning is planning is planning.
Anonymous on 11/30/2010:
I pay about 275 dollars in taxes a year.
Venice09 on 11/30/2010:
Our total real estate tax bill is in the $10,000 range, making our mortgage payment seem insignificant. Of course, we never dreamed it would get that high, and there's not much we can do about it now.
momsey on 11/30/2010:
Exactly, Venice. Planning is one thing, but unless you're willing to completely uproot yourselves, property taxes are hard to plan for.
trmn8r on 11/30/2010:
As far as real estate taxes, yes they are hard to plan for. In my mom's area, the taxes skyrocketed over the years as the town became a sought after place to live. Fortunately, NJ had a property tax freeze program for seniors, and also a property tax rebate.

But, that is just one of things we deal with when we own a home. If your taxes go way up, hopefully your home value has gone up also. Then you can sell your home and more to a more affordable area.
Venice09 on 11/30/2010:
Momsey, you probably have a good idea how much our taxes have increased over the years, same as New Jersey. A lot of people left my areas for that very reason. I had a specific need to stay, but if the market improves we're seriously considering calling it quits. The taxes just keep getting higher each year, to the point where it's no longer doable.
Venice09 on 11/30/2010:
Trmn8r, when the market was at its peak, many people took the money and ran, especially seniors. At the time, we needed to stay, and now that we're free to leave, the market is at its worst. I'm trying to hold out until things turn around, but it's not looking good.
trmn8r on 11/30/2010:
Venice - we sold in summer 2007. Down 10-15% from the peak I think. We felt a bit bad at the time, but ultimately we were lucky. My brother wanted to "rent and wait for the market to turn around." I can understand seniors leaving because taxes got so out of hand (though the programs I mentioned saved my mom 25-30%)

I'm sorry about your situation. Where are you thinking of moving? I loved growing up in Morris County NJ, but that was a different time.

What do you think of Christie? I am not into politics, but I am impressed with some of the issues he has taken on. I have to admit I haven't heard about results...
Venice09 on 11/30/2010:
Trmn8r, we're not sure what we are doing. It would kill me to sell now. I really didn't think the market conditions would go on for so long. I haven't even given any thought to where we'd go. I keep hoping one of the kids will want the house, but that's not looking good at this point.

Right now we're waiting, and thinking. New York is tough, with some of the highest taxes in the country. We're tired of it. I can't see going back to New Jersey since that's not much better. I don't know anything about Christie. I'm out of the loop. I really haven't been following it.
Anonymous on 11/30/2010:
Venice I have a lovely house in Virginia for sale. Only $199k! :)
trmn8r on 11/30/2010:
I got confused Venice - you are in NY. I lived there in the 80's. I remember thinking for years the income taxes were the worst thereof any state I had lived.

My mom was hoping one of use would want her house. It wasn't the same without mom and dad gone, needed a lot of work, and the taxes were out of sight. My brother is still in NJ - he didn't make it(:

Good luck.
trmn8r on 11/30/2010:
I was looking at Virgina. I have always loved the Shenandoah and Blue Ridge areas.

But... when I bought a car in Richmond a few years back, I spent some time chatting with the business manager, a northerner who had moved there 15 years earlier. She told me she still felt like an outsider, being seen as "from the north". That soured me a bit, with my obvious NJ accent (:
Anonymous on 11/30/2010:
I'm from Jersey too. I find people here are pretty friendly. But after living in Baltimore in the interim, anyplace else is friendly.
Venice09 on 11/30/2010:
Lee, that's a tempting offer, but I would never move south of where I am now.

The people in my town are very friendly, even with the onslaught of city people over the years. I really do love it here. That's probably why I'm still holding on.

Lee, what county in New Jersey are you from? I grew up in Bergen County and lived there until moving to New York.
Anonymous on 11/30/2010:
I'm from Atlantic City. I don't miss AC but there are areas of Jersey that I love like Voorhees.
Anonymous on 11/30/2010:'s cold up there now, isn't it Venice?
Venice09 on 11/30/2010:
Yes, it's cold, but I prefer it that way. I know there are some beautiful places in New Jersey, but we'd be in the same boat with the taxes. Like I said, we're waiting. I'm just not sure what for. Death, perhaps.. haha
Venice09 on 11/30/2010:
Oh, Lee.. I'm sorry for that comment. I know it's not funny.
Anonymous on 11/30/2010:
Both are a certainty...death and If you're up north, taxes may be what kills you. My parents owned their home outright. They paid $7000 for it in 1965. Every year around tax time, we braced for the annual fit my dad would have. He would carry on about those taxes for a solid week, then pay them and forget about it until the NEXT time. I think they were about $2000 back in the 80s. I was so glad when they moved. Then my dad ranted over paying for trash pickup which was free in Jersey.
Venice09 on 11/30/2010:
Our taxes aren't all due at once. They are broken down into three bills over the course of the year. So that helps, I guess.

I too ranted about having to pay for trash pickup when we moved from New Jersey to New York, but at some point it was added to the tax bill. We were still paying for it, but at least it wasn't a monthly bill.
jktshff1 on 11/30/2010:
Ya live ya learn ya die and forget it all.....
Venice09 on 11/30/2010:
I don't plan on forgetting anything, jkt. I'm taking it all with me. :)
momsey on 12/01/2010:
All these Jersey peeps, love it!!!

To answer trm8r's question about Christie, I'm a fan. He's making really hard decisions that are really ticking a lot of people off, but our economy is in such a mess, that something has to be done.

For instance, we have the Meadowlands racetrack, which lost an obscene amount of money in 2009, I think like $10 million. Christie says we're getting rid of it. Makes sense, right? Well, everyone's crying about the people who will lose their jobs when it closes! I'm not saying that's not sad, but a $10 million loss in one year should be tolerated to keep a few jobs???
Venice09 on 12/01/2010:
Trmn8r, I wouldn't have wanted my parents' house. My father sold it after my mom died. He couldn't stand living there without her. I didn't want to live in the house either. He moved up here. It worked out for the best.
trmn8r on 12/01/2010:
Hey, a Christie fan. All I hear is people complaining about him. All of the issues I have become aware of make sense, like this Meadowlands deal. Hadn't heard that one.

That's the only place I have bet on a horse race. Mom told me to spend $10. Pay admission, bet on two races. Have fun. I lost on both, never went back. I can't understand why they can't make $$$, unless everyone is like I am.

When I heard him say teacher tenure should be revamped, I was like, hey this is my kind of guy. And I am a teacher.
momsey on 12/01/2010:
I'm still living in the same house that my parents bought 40 years ago. My dad died when I was young, and then I was still living with my mom when she died, and I just haven't escaped yet. Now I'm there with my own family and we've put a ton of work into it and I guess we'll be there for a while!
momsey on 12/01/2010:
trmn8r, there are plenty of Christie fans. Most teachers are not among them, of course. He's revamping a lot about public education (which obviously needs revamping!) and everyone is saying he hates teachers and hates kids. Silliness.
Close commentsAdd reply
Government should buy milk for school instead of pouring milk down the drain
Posted by on
Studies show that kids do not drink enough milk. Our government pays milk farmers to pour milk down the drain before processing it to keep milk prices high.

The government instead of pouring milk down the drain but to buy the excess of post processing and supply our school's with free milk for our kids.
Read 21 RepliesAdd reply
User Replies:
Eloise on 09/01/2009:
The government does offer free or reduced price milk to children. The milk is there, now the students need to drink it!
Anonymous on 09/01/2009:
Boards, cooperatives etc are necessary so farmers enjoy a decent enough profit to continue to in this case make milk. Many agriculture products throughout the world are controlled this way. Personally I wouldn't want to farm and I have no issue with farmers earning a living wage - they certainly don't get rich from it.
In the Pelosi/Obama world the state supplies you with everything..... In reality its called parenting if you want to supply or encourage your child to drink milk.
Anonymous on 09/01/2009:
Why are you blaming schools and the government for this? You know, kids also drink milk at home, too. Why not place a little blame with parents as well?
goduke on 09/01/2009:
Because, silly, it's the government's job to take care of us. They are supposed to ensure that everyone has a house, a car, 3 square meals, health insurance, an income, and a place to be buried.
Anonymous on 09/01/2009:
The government has been doing this for decades. And it's not just milk, it's most all diary products.
yoke on 09/01/2009:
Eloise, not everyone gets free or reduced lunch. You have to qualify for it. I won't let my kids buy milk at school. It is way to expensive. For what my 3 kids would pay for 1 serving I could get a half gallon of milk for the house.
Eloise on 09/01/2009:
Yoke, here in NC you can earn almost $50,000 a year and still qualify for reduced lunches.
Frenchie on 09/01/2009:
The government doesn't belong in any of this. When I was a child government was not involved and the dairy farmers made a decent living -- I know as I worked for one and helped deliver the milk.
We now have socialists running this country and in a few years the Marxist Obama will have all of you running to uncle for everything. Please read history.
Anonymous on 09/01/2009:
"We now have socialists running this country and in a few years the Marxist Obama will have all of you running to uncle for everything. Please read history"

L M F A O ...paranoid much? or just tune in to Fox for your information?
Anonymous on 09/01/2009:
did you also know, 9/11 was really a conspiracy masterminded by bush. so he had an excuse to go to war with iraq.
Anonymous on 09/01/2009:
Sounds about right
Anonymous on 09/01/2009:
Milk is way overrated. I drank milk every day growing up and I'm STILL short.
Anonymous on 09/01/2009:
Milk does a body good
Anonymous on 09/01/2009:
Says who steve?
Anonymous on 09/01/2009:
I don't drink milk because I don't want one of those little mustaches.
Anonymous on 09/01/2009:
says me.....and the
Anonymous on 09/01/2009:
It didn't do my body good
Anonymous on 09/01/2009:
Milk doesn't give you a hangover,or a belly...

Milk won't let you sleep with some troll after a few glasses...

Happy cows come from California!
Anonymous on 09/01/2009:
BA TW. The first statement on this entire page that made any sense.
Anonymous on 09/01/2009:
Milk would never pull the plug on Grandma
Eloise on 09/01/2009:
Littleyaya, Milk helps the bones grow strong not tall! LOL!
Close commentsAdd reply
Top of Page | Next Page >