I agree. Although it would be interesting to see how much more giving would occur if people had more choice in their giving.
I definitely agree that helping out the less fortunate is the right thing to do. I think there are lots of great ways to do it. I also think that the closer to the problem an entity is, the more efficient and effective they can be in their help. That's why I like local and state help. That's why I almost without fail will be critical of any Federal programs. A bunch of congresscritters in DC have no idea how to best help someone in Homer, Alaska. But the City of Homer probably does. And the State of Alaska may as well. We need to quit relying on this notion of a large, centralized command and control Federal Government and bring the government and the power back to where it belongs, closer to the people. I completely agree with your last 2 sentences.
I hear you about centralized gov't but I am weary of state's power, also. I see how more local officials can represent the needs of their people better...in theory. But I live in SC and there's already a lot here that I can not stand. What happens in states like mine on abortion, social programs, environmental regulations?...it goes on and on. What if people are left stranded and unprotected by ineffectual state gov'ts?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I'd like to get bailed out of my credit card balance. :rolleyes:
Everybody has to shoulder the blame. From the people who lend others money knowing that they can't afford it, to the people borrowing too much money and not having a peek into the future. Yet the government looks pretty stupid aiding a bank and turning the other cheek on the people.
I personally don't think the bank or the people should get bailed out. Claim bankruptcy and start all over again.
If the government can subsidize J.P. Morgan's bailout of Bear Stearns, while J.P. Morgan was bidding over 1 billion dollars under its (One Equity firm) against India's Tata Motors to take over Ford's Jaguar and Land Rover division, then why shouldn't some type of pressure be put on banks to "assist" people. For christsakes the brokerage firms of Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and HSBC negotiated for Tata & Sons. I realize India is the new poster child on the economic block and I know this is what brokerage firms do, but damn, they are large part of this economic mess and any government assistance to this firms should be complimented with some small crumbs to the public. As a stockholder, I'm all for profits, as a citizen, I know my limitations and bailouts are shortfalls to the general public, not the companies.
Buying with adjustable mortgage rates under Bush was a good move if you switched by 2003. By 2004 there is no way you did not see your property value and property taxes skyrocketing. You had to see the interest rates on your credit cards going up, these are indications. Bush kept personal taxes downs and supplemented families with personal tax credits, this allowed to make payments without "thinking" about the interest rates. The States don't have that luxury, what Bush gave you, he took from the States, forcing the States to raise property taxes and taxes across the board.
Claiming bankruptcy under this economic climate, will be hit and miss because your home is more valuable than you. Just keep in mind that negotiating to stop foreclosure with a smaller payment will cost you in your interest rate, but whatever you do, don't go for an adjustable rate-to-fixed rate to your stop foreclosure. There are so many housing scams, even with time-honored banks, so be careful.
If the government wants to truly assist people struggling with their mortgages, they will allow them to refinance at a fixed lower rate with minimum penalties, anything else and your in the same boat.
Whether its a democrat or republican, taxes and interest rates are eventually going to have to increase.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
Why does "bail out" apply here, but at the same time "helping people" applies to someone who might have made a bad choice in a different situation (like having a child with no way to support it)?
Just wondering. Just as I am wondering where we draw the line, I'm wondering why you see the 2 terms differently. We're essentially talking having the government give people money because they've gotten themselves into a situation and need help. The only difference to me is connotation, I suppose.
And if we're just talking about connotation, I think of helping people as something people and charities do freely. When someone is coerced to provide something to another it doesn't feel quite like helping.
It is the connotation. Call me a dork if you would like to, i'm fine wit that, but, i like words and their connotation really resonates with me. Help has a very positive connotation whereas "bail out" has a rather negative one. You "bail" people out of jail.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
It is the connotation. Call me a dork if you would like to, i'm fine wit that, but, i like words and their connotation really resonates with me. Help has a very positive connotation whereas "bail out" has a rather negative one. You "bail" people out of jail.
I don't think you're a dork and didn't mean to imply anything like that in my post.
I agree that bail out has a more negative connotation, but to me, with government involved in the giving, it means that they've also been involved in a taking. That's where the negative comes in. Again, I am happy to freely give and I enjoy helping people and causes. But I don't enjoy having things taken from me by force and given to others and somehow have that construed to be positive.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Why does "bail out" apply here, but at the same time "helping people" applies to someone who might have made a bad choice in a different situation (like having a child with no way to support it)?
Just wondering. Just as I am wondering where we draw the line, I'm wondering why you see the 2 terms differently. We're essentially talking having the government give people money because they've gotten themselves into a situation and need help. The only difference to me is connotation, I suppose.
And if we're just talking about connotation, I think of helping people as something people and charities do freely. When someone is coerced to provide something to another it doesn't feel quite like helping.
Assisting or helping people out in this economic home crisis is not issuing them a blank check, nor is it absolving them of their responsibility for payments. People took risk because the economy was right, the rates were steady and the tax cuts kept coming, that's the American way, right. Anyone seeking a home would have been a fool not to go for it.
What's the cost of supporting a homeless family vs allowing them to make smaller mortgage payments with a smaller interest rate over a longer period of time? What's the cost to the community of vacant houses - developers, lower property value, blight, etc. etc. What's the price to the State, lower income generating status, cut in public services, higher taxes, bad roads, etc. What's the cost to the remaining community taxpayers, all of the above, plus higher prices by transportation services, food, gas, electric, water, etc. so as the responsible taxpayer, you're still caught in the home crisis mess because you've now assumed the burden of paying for you, your family and the families that lost their homes, while the lenders receive a true bailout to restructure their business and profit.
I do agree with you that we have to draw the line when people, who have choices, make the wrong choice, it should not become our burden to bear.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
This whole thing is a complete pile of fucking oyster shit.
I bought a house in 2006. I didn't get suckered into any variable balloon bullshit. I'm not fucking stupid like the rest of America, I guess.
However. Fuck these pricks and their banks and their fucking suits.
I would also like a lower fixed rate than the one I already have. Fuck this. Why not a fucking 3% rate for me just like those fucking big banker fucks get?
The government has no business bailing these people out. Sorry, but you took a risk and it didn't pay off. I have two friends that are in the situation and they know they screwed up.
plus the money comes out of our pockets to bail them out
Or the banks' pockets, if they enforce fixed interest rates for a while.
... and the will to show I will always be better than before.
The whole "comes out of our pockets" thing confuses me. How? The money has already been paid. You paid your taxes, they're gone. I havent heard where taxes are going to be raised specifically for a program that will help these people?
Shit man, my U.S. government came up with billions (is it trillions now?) of dollars on the spot for a war, regardless of how you feel about it, but we cant come up with some money to help these people KEEP THEIR HOMES? Like i said before, lets find a way to make sure everyone benefits. No free rides. But not being jerkoffs and watching people suffer either. People get the relief they need to get back on track, and they have to pay the govt back when able...via tax returns being kept or payment plans or leins on their homes, etc.
These people have kids, babies, their mothers and fathers in old age living with them, etc. These homes being lost are in the neighborhoosds where parents thought their kids would go to school and play and grow up. The majority are first time home owners, finally reaching the american dream of home ownership, possibly the first home owner in their family history, only to have their credit ruined, their house forclosed, and then what? Many landlords doing credit checks now wont rent them an apartment?
Its sad that just because someone fucked up, and "they should have known better", they cannot get help. Thats what I have read in here over and over. They fucked up so fuck them. Yeah, thats nice.
At the end of the day, if my taxes need to go up 10-20 bucks a week to help 2 million people keep their home, so be it. I am for it.
All that's sacred, comes from youth....dedications, naive and true.
I agree that bail out has a more negative connotation, but to me, with government involved in the giving, it means that they've also been involved in a taking. That's where the negative comes in. Again, I am happy to freely give and I enjoy helping people and causes. But I don't enjoy having things taken from me by force and given to others and somehow have that construed to be positive.
They're already taking it from you. They're taking it from you and spending it on war, bridges to nowhere, and there own frivolous whims. Personally, i'd rather it be spent on what i choose to call "help" to those that desperately need it.
The individual charitable donation argument sounds nice, utopian, and altruistic, but there is a huge, fat, hairy, Jeff Goldblum sized fly in that ointment. It won't happen on a scale large enough. Never. The middle class is all but gone. The middle clas are the ones living paycheck to paycheck and barely making the ends meet. All this personal charity you speak of would have to come from te stinking rich anyway, and you know as well as i do that just aint happenin'. Te stinking rich didn't get that way by giving shit away. They are much more skilled at, and feel much more in their element when taking. It is no surprise it is the stinking rich who are most opposed to social programs like what were discussing.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
The individual charitable donation argument sounds nice, utopian, and altruistic, but there is a huge, fat, hairy, Jeff Goldblum sized fly in that ointment.
thanks for making me laugh out loud
All that's sacred, comes from youth....dedications, naive and true.
Why are we so worried about what the war costs? They're already taking it from us. Why are we so worried about the fed bailing out mortgage companies? They're already taking it from us. It is time to stop worrying about what the government is doing with our money. It has already been taken.
I suppose that's one way to look at it, but not my way. I will bitch everytime it is taken. I will bitch about what it is being used for - the war, bailouts, etc... It is still my money even though I have no control over it once the looters have it. I'm glad they manage to do good things with the money occassionally. But if I had $5,000 in my hand right now to give to the poor and the choice between giving it to the government or giving it to somewhere like the Union Gospel Mission in Seattle, I know which way I'd go, and I know which would be more effective at making sure that $5,000 actually went to help those in need.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
From my perspective, this problem arose when the industry allowed "zero" down loans. People that couldn't save anything for a down payment, were already one paycheck away from disaster. Basically, they looked at it like "well, its about what I pay for rent, so I can afford this mortgage payment", but the reality of homeownership was something they did not even consider. Things like repairs or annual increases for property taxes. Or what would happen if the economy took a dive and they lost their jobs.
We bought a new house through one of these mortgages. We only needed $100 down. The loan was for 120%, 5.9 fixed. Looking back, we were definitely NOT qualified for a mortgage. There used to be a reason that banks required 20% down. It shows that you can save money and be disciplined, which are attributes that you need to maintain a home. The lender only counts a portion of your expenses. It does not factor in daycare, credit card payments (over the minimum), taxes, child support, or future energy bills. These things add up. They totally disregarded the "golden rule" which most renters go by....make the rent in a week. We made our mortgage in 2 weeks. It took almost 2 years and lots of credit card debt to realize that we were short EVERY month. Luckily we searched for better paying jobs and restructured our loan.
I will hold the candle until it burns up my arm. I'll keep taking punches until their will grows tired. I will stare the sun down until my eyes go blind. I won't change direction and I won't change my mind.
Comments
I hear you about centralized gov't but I am weary of state's power, also. I see how more local officials can represent the needs of their people better...in theory. But I live in SC and there's already a lot here that I can not stand. What happens in states like mine on abortion, social programs, environmental regulations?...it goes on and on. What if people are left stranded and unprotected by ineffectual state gov'ts?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Everybody has to shoulder the blame. From the people who lend others money knowing that they can't afford it, to the people borrowing too much money and not having a peek into the future. Yet the government looks pretty stupid aiding a bank and turning the other cheek on the people.
I personally don't think the bank or the people should get bailed out. Claim bankruptcy and start all over again.
Buying with adjustable mortgage rates under Bush was a good move if you switched by 2003. By 2004 there is no way you did not see your property value and property taxes skyrocketing. You had to see the interest rates on your credit cards going up, these are indications. Bush kept personal taxes downs and supplemented families with personal tax credits, this allowed to make payments without "thinking" about the interest rates. The States don't have that luxury, what Bush gave you, he took from the States, forcing the States to raise property taxes and taxes across the board.
Claiming bankruptcy under this economic climate, will be hit and miss because your home is more valuable than you. Just keep in mind that negotiating to stop foreclosure with a smaller payment will cost you in your interest rate, but whatever you do, don't go for an adjustable rate-to-fixed rate to your stop foreclosure. There are so many housing scams, even with time-honored banks, so be careful.
If the government wants to truly assist people struggling with their mortgages, they will allow them to refinance at a fixed lower rate with minimum penalties, anything else and your in the same boat.
Whether its a democrat or republican, taxes and interest rates are eventually going to have to increase.
It is the connotation. Call me a dork if you would like to, i'm fine wit that, but, i like words and their connotation really resonates with me. Help has a very positive connotation whereas "bail out" has a rather negative one. You "bail" people out of jail.
I don't think you're a dork and didn't mean to imply anything like that in my post.
I agree that bail out has a more negative connotation, but to me, with government involved in the giving, it means that they've also been involved in a taking. That's where the negative comes in. Again, I am happy to freely give and I enjoy helping people and causes. But I don't enjoy having things taken from me by force and given to others and somehow have that construed to be positive.
Assisting or helping people out in this economic home crisis is not issuing them a blank check, nor is it absolving them of their responsibility for payments. People took risk because the economy was right, the rates were steady and the tax cuts kept coming, that's the American way, right. Anyone seeking a home would have been a fool not to go for it.
What's the cost of supporting a homeless family vs allowing them to make smaller mortgage payments with a smaller interest rate over a longer period of time? What's the cost to the community of vacant houses - developers, lower property value, blight, etc. etc. What's the price to the State, lower income generating status, cut in public services, higher taxes, bad roads, etc. What's the cost to the remaining community taxpayers, all of the above, plus higher prices by transportation services, food, gas, electric, water, etc. so as the responsible taxpayer, you're still caught in the home crisis mess because you've now assumed the burden of paying for you, your family and the families that lost their homes, while the lenders receive a true bailout to restructure their business and profit.
I do agree with you that we have to draw the line when people, who have choices, make the wrong choice, it should not become our burden to bear.
I bought a house in 2006. I didn't get suckered into any variable balloon bullshit. I'm not fucking stupid like the rest of America, I guess.
However. Fuck these pricks and their banks and their fucking suits.
I would also like a lower fixed rate than the one I already have. Fuck this. Why not a fucking 3% rate for me just like those fucking big banker fucks get?
They will still rake in billions.
Bitches.
Or the banks' pockets, if they enforce fixed interest rates for a while.
Shit man, my U.S. government came up with billions (is it trillions now?) of dollars on the spot for a war, regardless of how you feel about it, but we cant come up with some money to help these people KEEP THEIR HOMES? Like i said before, lets find a way to make sure everyone benefits. No free rides. But not being jerkoffs and watching people suffer either. People get the relief they need to get back on track, and they have to pay the govt back when able...via tax returns being kept or payment plans or leins on their homes, etc.
These people have kids, babies, their mothers and fathers in old age living with them, etc. These homes being lost are in the neighborhoosds where parents thought their kids would go to school and play and grow up. The majority are first time home owners, finally reaching the american dream of home ownership, possibly the first home owner in their family history, only to have their credit ruined, their house forclosed, and then what? Many landlords doing credit checks now wont rent them an apartment?
Its sad that just because someone fucked up, and "they should have known better", they cannot get help. Thats what I have read in here over and over. They fucked up so fuck them. Yeah, thats nice.
At the end of the day, if my taxes need to go up 10-20 bucks a week to help 2 million people keep their home, so be it. I am for it.
They're already taking it from you. They're taking it from you and spending it on war, bridges to nowhere, and there own frivolous whims. Personally, i'd rather it be spent on what i choose to call "help" to those that desperately need it.
The individual charitable donation argument sounds nice, utopian, and altruistic, but there is a huge, fat, hairy, Jeff Goldblum sized fly in that ointment. It won't happen on a scale large enough. Never. The middle class is all but gone. The middle clas are the ones living paycheck to paycheck and barely making the ends meet. All this personal charity you speak of would have to come from te stinking rich anyway, and you know as well as i do that just aint happenin'. Te stinking rich didn't get that way by giving shit away. They are much more skilled at, and feel much more in their element when taking. It is no surprise it is the stinking rich who are most opposed to social programs like what were discussing.
thanks for making me laugh out loud
That is true, but irrelevant and defeatist.
Why are we so worried about what the war costs? They're already taking it from us. Why are we so worried about the fed bailing out mortgage companies? They're already taking it from us. It is time to stop worrying about what the government is doing with our money. It has already been taken.
I suppose that's one way to look at it, but not my way. I will bitch everytime it is taken. I will bitch about what it is being used for - the war, bailouts, etc... It is still my money even though I have no control over it once the looters have it. I'm glad they manage to do good things with the money occassionally. But if I had $5,000 in my hand right now to give to the poor and the choice between giving it to the government or giving it to somewhere like the Union Gospel Mission in Seattle, I know which way I'd go, and I know which would be more effective at making sure that $5,000 actually went to help those in need.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0BBKjllSlU
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
We bought a new house through one of these mortgages. We only needed $100 down. The loan was for 120%, 5.9 fixed. Looking back, we were definitely NOT qualified for a mortgage. There used to be a reason that banks required 20% down. It shows that you can save money and be disciplined, which are attributes that you need to maintain a home. The lender only counts a portion of your expenses. It does not factor in daycare, credit card payments (over the minimum), taxes, child support, or future energy bills. These things add up. They totally disregarded the "golden rule" which most renters go by....make the rent in a week. We made our mortgage in 2 weeks. It took almost 2 years and lots of credit card debt to realize that we were short EVERY month. Luckily we searched for better paying jobs and restructured our loan.