OWS movement: We've seen this before!

[apple0154]

1) Call the manufacturer and find out who the authorized dealer in your area, and contact them. If the roof is guaranteed, it is by the manufacturer, and there will be another authorized distributor in your area, and they will honor the warranty. Any problems? The Better Business Bureau.

They won't honor the warranty if the problem was the installation.

2) If there is no authorized dealer, or you can't contact the manufacturer, find out who bonded the company and contact them. Tell them your situation and they will take your claim. It usually takes less than 30 days to get your money. Again... any problems? BBB!

Assuming the company was bonded.

3) Go online and search for others who may have had similar problems with the same company. Perhaps they have contacts you aren't aware of? Try to find out as much information as you can about the owner, and contact them if possible.

The reply from the owner will be, "We declared bankruptcy."

4) If all else fails, join others in a class action lawsuit against the manufacturer, or whoever bonded them. Report the installation company as well as the manufacturer to the BBB, SBA, and local Chamber of Commerce. In addition, if it has to do with your home, your local homeowners association, as well as the American Homeowners Association.

If the product was faulty. In most cases it's the installation.

5) Contact your insurance company, most policies cover you in this scenario.

That's a possibility.

The point I was making is the installer might have done 10 or 20 jobs over the summer and then declared bankruptcy. The company's assets consisted of a rusty pick-up, a ladder and a nail gun. Once those items have been disposed of there's no more money available for repairs. Let's say the money the installer received for those 10 or 20 jobs (his pay check, if you will) was spent on buying a car or a boat. Why should he be able to keep those things?

 

[The Dude]

Dixie is that the alabubba cousin marrier scale?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

They won't honor the warranty if the problem was the installation.

They will if it was installed by one of their authorized dealers. If they refuse... Better Business Bureau and Small Claims Court.

Assuming the company was bonded.

We've been through this, if they aren't bonded, they aren't an authorized dealer or installer, and it's up to you to obtain this information before doing business with them.

The reply from the owner will be, "We declared bankruptcy."

You don't know that until you contact them.

If the product was faulty. In most cases it's the installation.

Regardless, the manufacturer has a reputation they wish to uphold, if they are reputable, they will take care of this.

That's a possibility.

The point I was making is the installer might have done 10 or 20 jobs over the summer and then declared bankruptcy. The company's assets consisted of a rusty pick-up, a ladder and a nail gun. Once those items have been disposed of there's no more money available for repairs. Let's say the money the installer received for those 10 or 20 jobs (his pay check, if you will) was spent on buying a car or a boat. Why should he be able to keep those things?

Again, anyone who touches anything related to your home, is likely going to be bonded, and it's up to you the consumer to ensure they are. I won't argue that your scenario is not possible, but I will say, if such a scenario happened, it would be the last such business that person ever owned, because their reputation would be shot. Worst case scenario, you file a homeowners insurance claim.

Let's be clear, there is no law we can pass or action the government can take, which will completely eliminate any and all corruption in business. Regardless of what we do, there will always be con artists and people taking advantage of others in our society. You can't stop that, it's not possible. What you seem to be advocating, is literally throwing the baby out with the bath water. Since we can't stop every single possible dishonest capitalist, we must eliminate capitalism! That's your idiotic solution, and it's untenable.

 

[Bfgrn]

Did you even bother to look at how those charts were created? Nope. You just cut and pasted them hoping they would tell the story to back up your position. In reality, as I pointed out and you ignored, the 'slant' for those charts is done by readers posting their opinions on the articles that Daily Slant CHOOSES to post from those sites. Meaning they aren't even evaluating the site in general but rather the articles cherry picked by the Daily Slant for review. My guess is that you had NO idea this is how they arrived at the data for the charts. My guess is you still won't be able to figure out the problem with this method. Bottom line, you highlighted EXACTLY what I am mocking you for. You cut and paste with NO clue as to whether or not what you are cutting and pasting is valid. You just HOPE it is.

WOW...You really are emoting.

Seems pretty clear to me:

Daily Slant is here to help you to stay informed. Each morning we gather and post the most important Political opinion and discussions on the web. Since major newspapers won't come out and tell you, our user community will read the articles and decide if they are written by LIBERALS or CONSERVATIVES.

Here is the way it works: over time as more users vote, the more accurate the 'slant' results become. YOU claim that Real Clear Politics has a balanced view of the world. No one who voted agrees with you. Hey, I admit to being a liberal, but most of the sites I use at least register some conservative slant. YOUR 'balanced view of the world' is 100% right wing.

So keep emoting...maybe a LMAO or yelling 'MORON' will make you FEEL better Capt...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

WOW...You really are emoting.

Seems pretty clear to me:

Daily Slant is here to help you to stay informed. Each morning we gather and post the most important Political opinion and discussions on the web. Since major newspapers won't come out and tell you, our user community will read the articles and decide if they are written by LIBERALS or CONSERVATIVES.

Here is the way it works: over time as more users vote, the more accurate the 'slant' results become. YOU claim that Real Clear Politics has a balanced view of the world. No one who voted agrees with you. Hey, I admit to being a liberal, but most of the sites I use at least register some conservative slant. YOUR 'balanced view of the world' is 100% right wing.

So keep emoting...maybe a LMAO or yelling 'MORON' will make you FEEL better Capt...

Is this your new strategy captain cut and paste? Project your own emotions onto me? Stating the FACTS of how the site creates its charts obviously got you quite worked up.

Tell us genius.... WHO are their readers? You and I could read the same article and rate it completely differently given our own political views.

Again... they are not rating the site. They are rating the cherry picked articles from the sites. Something you probably hadn't noticed.... had you?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

WOW...You really are emoting.

Seems pretty clear to me:

Daily Slant is here to help you to stay informed. Each morning we gather and post the most important Political opinion and discussions on the web. Since major newspapers won't come out and tell you, our user community will read the articles and decide if they are written by LIBERALS or CONSERVATIVES.

Here is the way it works: over time as more users vote, the more accurate the 'slant' results become. YOU claim that Real Clear Politics has a balanced view of the world. No one who voted agrees with you. Hey, I admit to being a liberal, but most of the sites I use at least register some conservative slant. YOUR 'balanced view of the world' is 100% right wing.

So keep emoting...maybe a LMAO or yelling 'MORON' will make you FEEL better Capt...

Is this your new strategy captain cut and paste? Project your own emotions onto me? Stating the FACTS of how the site creates its charts obviously got you quite worked up.

Tell us genius.... WHO are their readers? You and I could read the same article and rate it completely differently given our own political views.

Again... they are not rating the site. They are rating the cherry picked articles from the sites. Something you probably hadn't noticed.... had you?

Now are you going to continue pretending that site has any value? Or are you going to grow up and realize that it doesn't and maybe, just maybe get back to actually answering the questions posed to you?

Let me guess... you will continue avoiding answering them, cause that is not in captain cut and pastes arsenal?

 

[Alias]

Remember everyone. Obama and the left embraced this crap.
http://www.krem.com/news/northwest-news/133700298.html

 

[Bfgrn]

Is this your new strategy captain cut and paste? Project your own emotions onto me? Stating the FACTS of how the site creates its charts obviously got you quite worked up.

Tell us genius.... WHO are their readers? You and I could read the same article and rate it completely differently given our own political views.

Again... they are not rating the site. They are rating the cherry picked articles from the sites. Something you probably hadn't noticed.... had you?

Now are you going to continue pretending that site has any value? Or are you going to grow up and realize that it doesn't and maybe, just maybe get back to actually answering the questions posed to you?

Let me guess... you will continue avoiding answering them, cause that is not in captain cut and pastes arsenal?

This is quite hilarious. First, you are in such an emotional frenzy, you fire off two posts in response. Then, you have deemed the site inappropriate and unqualified because it doesn't fit your dogmatic mind.

I KNOW...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

This is quite hilarious. First, you are in such an emotional frenzy, you fire off two posts in response. Then, you have deemed the site inappropriate and unqualified because it doesn't fit your dogmatic mind.

I KNOW...

It's okay, he gets emotional and feisty because he is a Gay Catholic. Don't blame SF, he was born that way... well, Catholic, anyway... I think he probably learned to be Gay. Haven't you figured out yet? Most Libertarian Seculars have a God Complex, they want to live in a society where THEY get to decide all the rules, because they have superior knowledge on everything. If the rest of society would just sit down and shut up, and let the Libertarians run things, we'd all get along just fine! That's how they see it, and there ain't no changing their minds.

 

[cancel2 2022]

The huffpo has a liberal slant, however since the aol merger, that is up in the air. I'm not sure how liberal it is anymore. Maybe it still is, but Arianna, IMO is nothing but a money-grubbing opportunist, so if aol tells her to right wing it up, she will. I don't go there anymore so I'm not sure. Would you believe they banned me several times for calling men the pigs that they are? But the sexist, women-hating rants were okay. IF anyone ever tells you Democratic men (I'm not going to call them libs, the commentors in my experience are by and large yellow dogs, not libs) aren't sexist the huffpo comments section is a great place to start. Try a DSK story, or Julian Assange. Anyway, they banned me for slicing and dicing a few women-haters there.

The Politico though I have to laugh on. Liberal? On what planet? They're nothing but inside-the-beltway, smarmy, stenographers. They are in no way liberals, or even Democrats.

Arianna Stasinopoulos was considered to be very much on the right when she was in England, prior to moving to the USA.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

OK, let's say you hire a roofing company. The company offers a 10 year warranty. You have the roof replaced. The following year the roof leaks and when you try to call the company you find out the number is no longer good and further investigation shows the company went bankrupt a few months prior.

Question: Who fixes your roof?

Someone who's hired by the funds available under the funds that the BB has, which comes from the fees and bonds that are required.

 

[apple0154]

Again, anyone who touches anything related to your home, is likely going to be bonded, and it's up to you the consumer to ensure they are. I won't argue that your scenario is not possible, but I will say, if such a scenario happened, it would be the last such business that person ever owned, because their reputation would be shot.

In a city of millions how far do you think word of mouth goes? Also, as I explained, the business changes names but the same people operate it. "Joe's Windows" becomes "John's Windows" and the scam continues.

Let's be clear, there is no law we can pass or action the government can take, which will completely eliminate any and all corruption in business. Regardless of what we do, there will always be con artists and people taking advantage of others in our society. You can't stop that, it's not possible. What you seem to be advocating, is literally throwing the baby out with the bath water. Since we can't stop every single possible dishonest capitalist, we must eliminate capitalism! That's your idiotic solution, and it's untenable.

It is very tenable. That's where government comes into the picture. Rather than anyone opening a business without any experience, not to mention with plans to rip off customers, the government can set standards. No one can set up an office and pretend to be a doctor. Why should they be allowed to open an office and pretend to be a window installer or a hairdresser or a roofer or .....

You keep talking about the customer being responsible for "due diligence". That's exactly what got the world to the edge of financial collapse. Alan Greenspan knew about the bogus financial instruments ( see: "The Warning" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/) but believed that after enough people lost money others wouldn't participate and the insidious invisible hand of the marketplace would correct everything. How did that work out?

It appears some people's idea of Capitalism is the right to use any and all means of deception and under handed tactics to get money from others. Do we have to question why people try to rip off the government by cheating on their taxes or gaming the system when society honors people who made money by convincing others to take on debt which they couldn't afford?

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

They will if it was installed by one of their authorized dealers. If they refuse... Better Business Bureau and Small Claims Court.



We've been through this, if they aren't bonded, they aren't an authorized dealer or installer, and it's up to you to obtain this information before doing business with them.



You don't know that until you contact them.



Regardless, the manufacturer has a reputation they wish to uphold, if they are reputable, they will take care of this.



Again, anyone who touches anything related to your home, is likely going to be bonded, and it's up to you the consumer to ensure they are. I won't argue that your scenario is not possible, but I will say, if such a scenario happened, it would be the last such business that person ever owned, because their reputation would be shot. Worst case scenario, you file a homeowners insurance claim.

Let's be clear, there is no law we can pass or action the government can take, which will completely eliminate any and all corruption in business. Regardless of what we do, there will always be con artists and people taking advantage of others in our society. You can't stop that, it's not possible. What you seem to be advocating, is literally throwing the baby out with the bath water. Since we can't stop every single possible dishonest capitalist, we must eliminate capitalism! That's your idiotic solution, and it's untenable.

 

[christiefan915]

Arianna Stasinopoulos was considered to be very much on the right when she was in England, prior to moving to the USA.

Here, also. She didn't get more liberal until the late '90s.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

In a city of millions how far do you think word of mouth goes? Also, as I explained, the business changes names but the same people operate it. "Joe's Windows" becomes "John's Windows" and the scam continues.

Unless the person used a fake Social Security number, this "SCAM" is impossible. Under corporate bankruptcy laws, they would not be able to own and operate another business for 12 years. Long time to wait to continue your scam.

It is very tenable. That's where government comes into the picture. Rather than anyone opening a business without any experience, not to mention with plans to rip off customers, the government can set standards. No one can set up an office and pretend to be a doctor. Why should they be allowed to open an office and pretend to be a window installer or a hairdresser or a roofer or .....

Like I already said, THEY CAN'T! Most everything of a professional nature, requires a certification or license of some kind, even the girl who cuts your hair, has a certificate posted at her station. No one can set up a business and pretend to be an authorized installer of any kind of windows, without doing it illegally. Again, there is no system we will ever obtain which will completely eliminate any and all fraud and corruption... that is not reality based. This is why we ALREADY HAVE over 1,000 Consumer Affairs, Consumer Rights, Consumer Advocacy, and Consumer Complaint organizations in America, both private and public, at the local, state and national level, and this is why we have state attorney generals.

http://www.consumerworld.org/pages/agencies.htm

Check out this link for a comprehensive list of agencies who are dedicated to helping the consumer who has experienced the kind of thing you mentioned.

You keep talking about the customer being responsible for "due diligence". That's exactly what got the world to the edge of financial collapse.

There is no level of protection the government can offer the citizenry, that does not require the citizen to use some level of "due diligence." (...Short of maybe, Totalitarian Fascism or something.) What got the world on the edge of financial collapse, was Democrat politicians who thought it would be cool to tell the banks and lenders to make loans to people who weren't credit-worthy. The same kind of mindless twits as you are, envisioning a Utopian world, where everyone got a home, regardless of their ability to pay for it.

Alan Greenspan knew about the bogus financial instruments ( see: "The Warning" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/) but believed that after enough people lost money others wouldn't participate and the insidious invisible hand of the marketplace would correct everything. How did that work out?

Greenspan and others warned about the crisis for months, John McCain filibustered to try and stop Dodd-Frank, citing it would "collapse the housing market" and no one would listen. It worked out terribly, just as it always does when government interferes with capitalist ventures in the private sector. I thought you were going to make some profound point to support your idiocy?

It appears some people's idea of Capitalism is the right to use any and all means of deception and under handed tactics to get money from others. Do we have to question why people try to rip off the government by cheating on their taxes or gaming the system when society honors people who made money by convincing others to take on debt which they couldn't afford?

No... It appears you are a retarded little fuckwit who doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about, and is too stubborn to realize it. It appears you think government has the ability and manpower and money, to stop every single bit of illegal, immoral, unethical, and fraudulent activity, without the consumer even having to lift a finger or pay attention to the world around them. Does the government walk down the street with you to keep you from stepping in front of a bus? WHY NOT, MORON? Don't you think we have the right to be protected from being run over by a bus? Why should it be put on the citizen to "look both ways?" What if someone can't turn their head, or have poor eyesight? What if the bus driver is drunk? You want to draw up these ignorantly impossible scenarios, so you can have the government play Superman, and come to our rescue. Maybe the government should put a person in every home, so you don't stick your finger in a light socket or shower with your television set? Shouldn't people have the right to be safe in their own homes? FUCKING IDIOT!

 

[Bfgrn]

Unless the person used a fake Social Security number, this "SCAM" is impossible. Under corporate bankruptcy laws, they would not be able to own and operate another business for 12 years. Long time to wait to continue your scam.



Like I already said, THEY CAN'T! Most everything of a professional nature, requires a certification or license of some kind, even the girl who cuts your hair, has a certificate posted at her station. No one can set up a business and pretend to be an authorized installer of any kind of windows, without doing it illegally. Again, there is no system we will ever obtain which will completely eliminate any and all fraud and corruption... that is not reality based. This is why we ALREADY HAVE over 1,000 Consumer Affairs, Consumer Rights, Consumer Advocacy, and Consumer Complaint organizations in America, both private and public, at the local, state and national level, and this is why we have state attorney generals.

http://www.consumerworld.org/pages/agencies.htm

Check out this link for a comprehensive list of agencies who are dedicated to helping the consumer who has experienced the kind of thing you mentioned.



There is no level of protection the government can offer the citizenry, that does not require the citizen to use some level of "due diligence." (...Short of maybe, Totalitarian Fascism or something.) What got the world on the edge of financial collapse, was Democrat politicians who thought it would be cool to tell the banks and lenders to make loans to people who weren't credit-worthy. The same kind of mindless twits as you are, envisioning a Utopian world, where everyone got a home, regardless of their ability to pay for it.




Greenspan and others warned about the crisis for months, John McCain filibustered to try and stop Dodd-Frank, citing it would "collapse the housing market" and no one would listen. It worked out terribly, just as it always does when government interferes with capitalist ventures in the private sector. I thought you were going to make some profound point to support your idiocy?



No... It appears you are a retarded little fuckwit who doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about, and is too stubborn to realize it. It appears you think government has the ability and manpower and money, to stop every single bit of illegal, immoral, unethical, and fraudulent activity, without the consumer even having to lift a finger or pay attention to the world around them. Does the government walk down the street with you to keep you from stepping in front of a bus? WHY NOT, MORON? Don't you think we have the right to be protected from being run over by a bus? Why should it be put on the citizen to "look both ways?" What if someone can't turn their head, or have poor eyesight? What if the bus driver is drunk? You want to draw up these ignorantly impossible scenarios, so you can have the government play Superman, and come to our rescue. Maybe the government should put a person in every home, so you don't stick your finger in a light socket or shower with your television set? Shouldn't people have the right to be safe in their own homes? FUCKING IDIOT!

Always the ridiculous and polarized 'all or none' argument from you Dixie. WHY is that? Are you such a zealot that ONLY a total hands off government is the answer? Maybe government can't stop a bus from flattening you, but it CAN prevent predatory credit card companies who authored laws and 30 page applications from using 'Bernie Madoff' tactics to swindle consumers.

Also, your typical lack of history prevails...Dodd-Frank was AFTER the housing crisis. But, it wouldn't surprise me if John McCain thought it would prevent a crisis that hit 2 years earlier...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Always the ridiculous and polarized 'all or none' argument from you Dixie. WHY is that? Are you such a zealot that ONLY a total hands off government is the answer? Maybe government can't stop a bus from flattening you, but it CAN prevent predatory credit card companies who authored laws and 30 page applications from using 'Bernie Madoff' tactics to swindle consumers.

Also, your typical lack of history prevails...Dodd-Frank was AFTER the housing crisis. But, it wouldn't surprise me if John McCain thought it would prevent a crisis that hit 2 years earlier...

We don't have a "totally hands off government" and we never have! So, no... I don't think that's the answer, and I never said it was. Last I checked, Bernie Madoff was serving a prison sentence for his tactics, so I highly doubt any legitimate companies are legally using his tactics. Most Conservatives I have known in my life, are really big on law and order, and no one is advocating we abandon our laws and allow people to do whatever the fuck they please... that's more of a liberalish/libertarian stance, I would think.

I misspoke about Dodd-Frank, but it was Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank who loosened credit requirements for Freddie and Fannie, which ultimately led to the financial collapse. You can read all about it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/business/05fannie.html?pagewanted=1

 

[Bfgrn]

We don't have a "totally hands off government" and we never have! So, no... I don't think that's the answer, and I never said it was. Last I checked, Bernie Madoff was serving a prison sentence for his tactics, so I highly doubt any legitimate companies are legally using his tactics. Most Conservatives I have known in my life, are really big on law and order, and no one is advocating we abandon our laws and allow people to do whatever the fuck they please... that's more of a liberalish/libertarian stance, I would think.

I misspoke about Dodd-Frank, but it was Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank who loosened credit requirements for Freddie and Fannie, which ultimately led to the financial collapse. You can read all about it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/business/05fannie.html?pagewanted=1

Fannie and Freddie were not the cause of the financial collapse Dixie. Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#ixzz1dWidL2nb

Fannie, a for-profit company, acted irresponsibly because it was seeking big profits just like other financial institutions. That's a very different proposition than bringing on the crisis. Dean Baker:

There's a small problem in this story. The worst junk mortgages that inflated the housing bubble to extraordinary levels were not bought and securitized by Fannie and Freddie, they were securitized by Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Lehman and the other private investment banks. These investment banks gobbled up the worst subprime and Alt-A garbage that sleaze operations like Ameriquest and Countrywide pushed on homebuyers.

The trillions of dollars that the geniuses at the private investment banks funneled into the housing market were the force that inflated the bubble to its 2006 peaks. Fannie and Freddie were followers in this story, jumping into the subprime and Alt-A market in 2005 to try to maintain market share. They were not the leaders.

 

[Alias]

Now people are dying at the Occupy sites. Don't forget folks, this movement has been embraced by the demonrat party.

 

[apple0154]

Unless the person used a fake Social Security number, this "SCAM" is impossible. Under corporate bankruptcy laws, they would not be able to own and operate another business for 12 years. Long time to wait to continue your scam.

I explained this before. The "owner" is listed as the brother or wife or son but the same guy does the work. They have nothing to lose in bankruptcy as the "business" doesn't own anything worth while.

Like I already said, THEY CAN'T! Most everything of a professional nature, requires a certification or license of some kind, even the girl who cuts your hair, has a certificate posted at her station. No one can set up a business and pretend to be an authorized installer of any kind of windows, without doing it illegally. Again, there is no system we will ever obtain which will completely eliminate any and all fraud and corruption... that is not reality based. This is why we ALREADY HAVE over 1,000 Consumer Affairs, Consumer Rights, Consumer Advocacy, and Consumer Complaint organizations in America, both private and public, at the local, state and national level, and this is why we have state attorney generals.

I'm not talking about an "authorized"dealer. Are you saying a guy can't buy windows from a window manufacturer, print up a business card and place an AD in the local paper saying he installs windows?

There is no level of protection the government can offer the citizenry, that does not require the citizen to use some level of "due diligence." (...Short of maybe, Totalitarian Fascism or something.) What got the world on the edge of financial collapse, was Democrat politicians who thought it would be cool to tell the banks and lenders to make loans to people who weren't credit-worthy. The same kind of mindless twits as you are, envisioning a Utopian world, where everyone got a home, regardless of their ability to pay for it.

Have you not seen television programs showing people who were persuaded to remortgage their home when the lender knew they wouldn't be able to repay it?

Greenspan and others warned about the crisis for months, John McCain filibustered to try and stop Dodd-Frank, citing it would "collapse the housing market" and no one would listen. It worked out terribly, just as it always does when government interferes with capitalist ventures in the private sector. I thought you were going to make some profound point to support your idiocy?

Obviously you never watched the video "The Warning". I posted the link. Why do you insist on continuing to make a fool out of yourself?

No... It appears you are a retarded little fuckwit who doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about, and is too stubborn to realize it. It appears you think government has the ability and manpower and money, to stop every single bit of illegal, immoral, unethical, and fraudulent activity, without the consumer even having to lift a finger or pay attention to the world around them. Does the government walk down the street with you to keep you from stepping in front of a bus? WHY NOT, MORON? Don't you think we have the right to be protected from being run over by a bus? Why should it be put on the citizen to "look both ways?" What if someone can't turn their head, or have poor eyesight? What if the bus driver is drunk? You want to draw up these ignorantly impossible scenarios, so you can have the government play Superman, and come to our rescue. Maybe the government should put a person in every home, so you don't stick your finger in a light socket or shower with your television set? Shouldn't people have the right to be safe in their own homes? FUCKING IDIOT!

The government can easily rectify the problem. Start by ensuring the people who open a business are qualified to do the work. Second, any money received from a business that goes bankrupt is returned. For example, let's say a restaurant goes bankrupt after one year. If the fridges and stoves are not paid for the supplier can probably repossess them but what about the people who supplied the food and billed on a monthly basis? The way things work now they will be out of luck if the business does not have collateral to cover the cost. The law should be changed so that if the restaurant owner drew a salary or made money over the year and, say, purchased a car the car is sold and the supplier is paid.

This idea of encouraging people to open their own business when they have no idea how to run a business is nonsense. Check out how many small businesses go bankrupt the first year. If they rented a space the landlord is out of luck. If the suppliers haven't been paid they are out of luck. If people bought a defective product or service they are out of luck. Meanwhile, if the company made money, at any time, the owner of the business gets to keep that money. That, my intelligence challenged friend, is what happens when companies that are LLC or INC (incorporated) or LTD (Limited) go bankrupt. While different countries have different designations that's the part of capitalism that can be corrected. It is nothing but a government supported system that risks, if not actually encourages, the rip off of fellow citizens.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I explained this before. The "owner" is listed as the brother or wife or son but the same guy does the work. They have nothing to lose in bankruptcy as the "business" doesn't own anything worth while.

So should we pass a law that when someone files bankruptcy, their entire family is included in it? I mean, how else would you stop this? The whole purpose of establishing a business entity, is to avoid liability of personal assets, should the business fail. If you remove that protection, no one would ever take the risk and open a new business. I won't say the scenario you gave is impossible, it's just not "the norm" by any stretch. It is indeed, rare, for such an operation to function for very long, without eventually doing something illegal and the scammers sent to jail. Most people who have businesses related to home owners, have valued and cherished reputations, which gives them the edge on their competitors, they won't risk that reputation by doing dishonest work.

I'm not talking about an "authorized"dealer. Are you saying a guy can't buy windows from a window manufacturer, print up a business card and place an AD in the local paper saying he installs windows?

Most window manufacturers, as well as roofing manufacturers or siding, or anything else, is going to REQUIRE installation from an "authorized dealer" precisely because of scenarios like you described. If some con does a shitty job installing "Acme Windows" then it reflects poorly on Acme Windows! The window company has a reputation to uphold, they don't want consumers thinking their windows are faulty because some idiot who didn't know what he was doing installed them, so they will not sell windows to anyone but authorized dealers. These selected dealers have usually gone through some kind of training program or workshop, and have been certified by the window company, ensuring they know what the hell they are doing and are reputable. So no... I reject your notion that some yahoo can just print up a business card and start installing windows... not in America... not in 2011... maybe in 1911.

Have you not seen television programs showing people who were persuaded to remortgage their home when the lender knew they woluldn't be able to repay it?

Now wait a minute... It's up to the lender to tell you if you are able to pay a loan back? They are responsible? Shouldn't the person taking out the loan know whether they can pay it back? Is that asking too much, in your opinion? And why would I, as a lender, make a loan KNOWING the person couldn't repay it? You do understand how lenders make money, right? So please explain why any SANE lender would do such a thing? It makes absolutely NO sense, it's contrary to the fundamental purpose and objective of the lender. What happened with Freddy and Fannie, is... government subsidies were used to give loans to low income families, and they couldn't repay the loans.

Obviously you never watched the video "The Warning". I posted the link. Why do you insist on continuing to make a fool out of yourself?

I don't watch propaganda flicks. I know about "the warning" and like I said, John McCain was warning Barney Frank and Chris Dodd all through the 90s, when they were passing the eased credit requirements for Freddy and Fannie, and no one wanted to listen to him. Conservatives have warned Liberals about this shit for the past 30 years, since 1977, when they began all this touchy-feely low-interest low-income money loaning. The chickens finally came home to roost, and now you want to spin this all onto Republicans and make it their fault. It's been a LIBERAL idea from the start.

The government can easily rectify the problem. Start by ensuring the people who open a business are qualified to do the work.

In most cases, they do! Certain businesses require special permits or licensing, certifications, etc. Again, we don't live in 1911 America, we live in 2011. There is a whole entire network of groups designed to protect the consumer, I posted the link earlier... hundreds of them... agencies you can contact if you feel you have been a victim of fraud or whatever. There are hundreds of "watchdog" groups, who monitor activities of various suspicious companies and investigate complaints from consumers. So to pretend these don't exist by continuing to ignore I have pointed them out, is just plain ignorant.

Second, any money received from a business that goes bankrupt is returned. For example, let's say a restaurant goes bankrupt after one year. If the fridges and stoves are not paid for the supplier can probably repossess them but what about the people who supplied the food and billed on a monthly basis? The way things work now they will be out of luck if the business does not have collateral to cover the cost. The law should be changed so that if the restaurant owner drew a salary or made money over the year and, say, purchased a car the car is sold and the supplier is paid.

For the most part, a bankruptcy means all of your assets are liquidated. This doesn't include personal assets, that is the whole entire reason for establishing a business. Again, if you remove this, no one would EVER open a business, it just would not be worth the risk. Think about it... you want to open a business doing something you love... it's your dream... but if you open this business and things don't go well and your business fails, you lose everything you own? Why would anyone risk all they own? It is for this very reason we invented businesses.

This idea of encouraging people to open their own business when they have no idea how to run a business is nonsense.

Check out how many small businesses go bankrupt the first year. If they rented a space the landlord is out of luck. If the suppliers haven't been paid they are out of luck. If people bought a defective product or service they are out of luck. Meanwhile, if the company made money, at any time, the owner of the business gets to keep that money. That, my intelligence challenged friend, is what happens when companies that are LLC or INC (incorporated) or LTD (Limited) go bankrupt. While different countries have different designations that's the part of capitalism that can be corrected. It is nothing but a government supported system that risks, if not actually encourages, the rip off of fellow citizens.

Who is encouraging that? Should the only people who can open businesses, be people who "know how" to run one? How would you determine this, if no one could open one and find out? Don't you kind of have to open a business and see if you know how, before you can say you do know how? I see a flaw with your logic here. But let's see if we can morph your idiocy into a realistic policy, and say we decide that if you ever have a failure, you can't open another business... well guess how many famous and successful American businessmen I can name, who failed their first time out? DOZENS and DOZENS! So you would do something detrimental to economic growth and advancement, by implementing your profoundly stupid ideas.