I hope GWB blocks this blantant special interest handout...

The $300 billion housing bailout bill, currently stalled in Congress, promises to rescue homeowners and save the economy. Comprising the core of the bill is a $300 billion increase in FHA lending permitting banks to offload their riskiest mortgages onto American taxpayers in exchange for realizing losses that would be all but a certainty. In order to ensure there are sufficient special interests handouts to appease everyone, a new policy has been included that enables homeowners to deduct up to $1,000 in property taxes even if the homeowner does not itemize. Additionally, the bill provides money to local governments to buy foreclosed properties in an attempt to reduce “blight” and prop up the values of houses in depressed areas. All of these proposals may have noble intentions, but they are misguided pork-laden attempts at preventing further pain in the housing market.

http://www.beyondthemargin.net/2008/06/housing-bailout-close-to-fruition.html

Exactly why is this a bad thing? In theory it will cost us next to nothing while keeping thousands, if not milions, of people their homes. Yes, The government is helping its citizens, but isn't that what a government is for?

Exercitus wrote:Exactly why is this a bad thing? In theory it will cost us next to nothing while keeping thousands, if not milions, of people their homes.  Yes, The government is helping its citizens, but isn't that what a government is for?

Are you crazy?  It will cost us next to nothing?    It will cost us billions in taxes.  

Wow, I suppose you think the Government should help you decide what you eat, what you drive, how much you drive, where you should live, when you should die, where you should go to school, what profession you should be in, what clothes you should wear, what their fabric content is, how many kids you can have and how many have to be aborted, what doctor you should go to, what medical services you can have or can't have..afterall, the Government is there to help its citizens.  SOCIALISM, SOCIALISM, SOCIALISM, CONTROL, CONTROL, CONTROL, REGULATION, REGULATION, REGULATION, TAXES, TAXES, TAXES....  Freedom and Liberty are the answer to the human condition, not Socialism.  Personal Responsibility cannot be bailed out, it must be taken by the people who ignored it when they took out loans they knew they couldn't afford when the balloon burst.

The mortgage problem was caused by Clinton and his Administration.  Let Clinton and the Democrats, instead of the taxpayers, cough up their own personal money to bail out the people who should never have gotten mortgages to begin with.   I have my mortgage with Countryside.  They gave me the mortgage I asked for which I based on what I could afford.  Those people who got mortgages based on the Clinton theory of loaning money and the pressure they put on the lenders got mortgages they should never have been granted.  What did they think would happen when their ARM ended and they had to pay higher interest rates?  What did they think would happen when their balloon mortgages burst on them?  They probably thought the Government would bail them out.  

What has happened to American strength of character? The one percent of homeowners who are facing the loss of their homes apparently lost sight of any personal responsibility by looking at that Democrat handout.  Liberalism always generates the opposite of its stated intent.

In theory, all the government is doing is insuring mortgages so if they continue to pay we will actually make money on them. Now, there are other facets of the bill but I believe I heard the figure 10 billion (not much for the entire economy). Now, This bill helps lenders (generally) not borowers so you won't be helping people who made bad decisions, just those who thought they could believe AAA backed securities.


I fail to see how this is connected to my clothing. Socialism and freedom are not mutually exclusive. I can be completely free and still recieve healthcare from the government. As for taxes, I would be happy to pay for the knowledge that I, nor my children, nor my children's children will ever go hungry or die because they didn't go the right insurance company. The purpose of government is to level the playing field so you don't have people starving while otheres crap in toilets made of gold.

How is Clinton connected to this? He's been out of office for seven years. Not to mention that he had nothing to do with investors personal decision to lend to buyers.


You are a working class citizen who is looking to buy your first house. You can just barely afford it and have dreamed of owning your roof for all of your life. But, once you buy your house your beloved child is diagnosed with cancer. Suddenly, in addition to paying for your house you have to find the cash to pay for your child's medical bills. When it comes down to defaulting on your house or you kid what do you choose? Now, how common is this story.... who knows but it doesn't matter. I believe that the government is there to help the people and gaurd them from all threats both physical (like terrorism) and economic. Sadly, today we seem more concerned with our own pockets than the wealfare of our peers.

Exercitus wrote: The government is helping its citizens, but isn't that what a government is for?

NO!

Exercitus wrote:

You are a working class citizen who is looking to buy your first house.  You can just barely afford it and have dreamed of owning your roof for all of your life.  But, once you buy your house your beloved child is diagnosed with cancer.  Suddenly, in addition to paying for your house you have to find the cash to pay for your child's medical bills.  When it comes down to defaulting on your house or you kid what do you choose?  Now, how common is this story.... who knows but it doesn't matter.  I believe that the government is there to help the people and gaurd them from all threats both physical (like terrorism) and economic.  Sadly, today we seem more concerned with our own pockets than the wealfare of our peers.

BOO-HOO. I will play the WORLD'S SMALLEST VIOLIN for that POOR COUPLE. PEOPLE WHO CAN AFFORD A HOUSE CAN AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE.

BEING FREE AND EASY WITH OTHER PEOPLES MONEY IS NOT COMPASSIONATE. IT'S PATHETIC.

No? What is the use of goverment if it does not help its citizens. In my mind the only reason a government should exist is to help its citizens, any other reason and it wouldn't exist.


Insurance companies don't want to pay. They will do anything in their power not pay for major medical procedures, after all, this is capitalism, they exist only to make money. Not to mention anything about the price of insurance today.

The real point I was trying to make was that things happen that you cannot forsee. Why should we not pay for the bolt from the blue, they are quite rare and therefore inexpensive to fix. However, they do wonders for the health of the country.

Exercitus wrote:No? What is the use of government if it does not help its citizens. In my mind the only reason a government should exist is to help its citizens, any other reason and it wouldn't exist.

The role of government is not to 'help' its citiziens.  The governments job is to provide freedom for those that want to help themselves.

Exercitus, your comments on the housing bill bailout, do not show an understanding of the problem or the solution.  


You are a working class citizen who is looking to buy your first house. You can just barely afford it and have dreamed of owning your roof for all of your life. But, once you buy your house your beloved child is diagnosed with cancer. Suddenly, in addition to paying for your house you have to find the cash to pay for your child's medical bills. When it comes down to defaulting on your house or you kid what do you choose? Now, how common is this story.

Would you please stay on point. People who had children that were diagnosed with a terrible illness did not cause the mortgage sub-prime mess and because now they cannot pay for their mortgage.  Yes this does happen. Is there something that can be done to keep those that face this situation from losing there home? Maybe, but it does not have any major part in what has happened with the current foreclosures and is a totally separate issue.

The news media reports high numbers of home in foreclosures.  What you need to know is there is a difference between the numbers of homes receiving a foreclosure letter in the mail and as opposed as to how many homes are being actively foreclosed upon.  Don’t pay your mortgage one month.  You will get a letter in the mail stating that you are in default and foreclosure may be started. The numbers of actual foreclosure is about 1% of all home mortgages. You need to look at the actual number of homes in the final process of foreclosure.  Up until that time it can be stopped.

How is Clinton connected to this? He's been out of office for seven years. Not to mention that he had nothing to do with investors personal decision to lend to buyers.

The Clinton administration allowed the bases for the regulation that created the ability for these mortgage brokers and companies to hand out loans to people who could not realistically pay for them. It set up regulations to encourage lenders to promote bad decisions making and put nothing in place to that would then penalize those lenders for actions that end affecting the entire economical health of this country. Now are legislature is doing the same thing.

In theory, all the government is doing is insuring mortgages so if they continue to pay we will actually make money on them

Our government will not make money on this.  The government is backing the loan. It the homeowner does not pay, our tax money pays the lender. The homeowner doesn’t get to keep his home and now we get to pay again for social programs he may end up on.  If the homeowner pays the lender gets the money.


One of the problem mortgages are the ARMs and the other is 100% + loan to value ratio loans.

The ARM mortgage was developed to be primary used for a specific type of purchasing situations.  ARM mortgage delays the amount of interest ones pays now and pushes it off to a pre-determined time in the future. You still have to pay it. It is just a matter of when. Someone whose income was going to greatly increase, or someone who would be receiving a sum of money in the future would be two circumstance that an ARM mortgage would then be a good choice.  
This mortgage is not meant to purchase a home in the hopes that the market value would increase in huge increments.

On mortgages, the loan holder’s payments for the first half of the loan time are mostly interest and very little goes to reduce the principal of the loan. The person who buys and then has to sell in just a few years never reaps any benefits to paying all that interest on the mortgage.  An ARM mortgage was meant to make the home purchasable on a smaller income that was going to greatly increase before the term of the ARM changed.
The ARM reduced the overall amount of how much interest was paid in the first set years of that mortgage when they did not have the income. It allowed the property owner to increase his income in the future to then cover when that interest finally had to be paid. These homeowners where not suppose to be depending on change in value to cover the interest when it finally came due to pay it.
What people where doing that caused the sub-prime problem was taking ARM mortgages out on these homes somehow hoping that in a few short years the home would be worth a tremendous amount more than when they bought it and then when they refinanced they would have gained equity. The brokers and mortgage underwriters chose to ignore the fact the so many of these ARM holders did not fit what the ARM was first designed to be for.
In some cases, there may have been some applicants that did not understand exactly how the ARM worked and they agreed to a mortgage that they could not pay for and if they had understood that upfront they would never had agreed.  
Realistically, there are very few people who fit the qualifications for an ARM mortgage.
Some states require an attorney to be involved in any real-estate transactions but that is more on the end to determine that the property can legally be sold to the buyer.  The cause of this mess is on the money end and the brokers, mortgage companies and banks.

100% or more of your home value being used to base how much money you get on a loan.  This type of loan gives you no equity or negative equity on your home and now if you need to sell you do not receive enough to pay off your debt let alone anything to be able to use as a down payment on another purchase or ever on rental security.

In my opinion the only people that should be given any help is those that were mislead by any of brokers, mortgage companies or the banks.  I do know that some of these brokers were offering a lower interest rate on standard loans if you borrowed a higher amount than you first asked for. I refinanced in 2004, based on evaluation of my home. I only wanted to refinance at 80% of that value and our broker pushed hard to get us to increase that amount to the full 100%. The carrot was a ½ point reduction in the loan.  That can add up to be a lot of money over the long haul. I would not. If real-estate values dropped that would have left me owing more on the loan than I had equity in my home taking into account that real-estate values go up and down. Something that has not been talked about is how many people took on more than they could afford with this type of pressure.  The broker gets a bigger commission when he sells a loan for more money.  The rest went into this with their eyes wide open. They decided to take the risk and they lost.
If they had bet on a horse at the race and it lost would you be willing to pay off their debt.


The purpose of government is to level the playing field so you don't have people starving while otheres crap in toilets made of gold.

No, the purpose of government is allowing one to live their life in liberty and in the pursuit of happiness

I believe that the government is there to help the people and gaurd them from all threats both physical (like terrorism) and economic

We have added other things to the purpose of government over the years and if we keep going you will not have any freedom. Every new law that is added takes away some portion of your freedom. Some laws, we agree, can take some of that freedom because to loose at little of that freedom here keeps one from loosing a lot of freedom later. Socialism, if one allows it will never stops because there is always something else to add to the list. When people finally get tired and stand up against socialism they fight back. This fight is sometimes with words and sometimes with arms. If they loose it ends up as Communism.

Two things:  First, Clinton was not the only one on capitol hill at the time,  if I'm not mistaken, he had a republican congres for most of his two terms.  Seccond. If it was his fault, why hasn't it burst before now.  It has been seven years.    It seems to me that you are almost compalining that the government did not regulate this area of the market enough.  I maintain that it was not the government that forced the companies to give their loans but their gamble on the market.  


However, I do see where you're coming from and am beginning to agree with you.  I have one last question on this  subdject though:  In theory, wouldn't this bill help the economy from going into a comlete tailspin, saving most of us more money than it costs?




How can you say that one can persue happiness when their wages are so low they have no hope of rasing themselves from poverty.  That's not the persuit of happiness, that's no better than slavery, which is definately not liberty.




Do not say that communism is bad, in theory, it is one of the greatest forms of government ever devised.  The only problem is that it never works.  It allways seems to devolve into a dictatorship.  What you detest is not Communism itself, for we have never seen it, but what it can become.  Socialism does not take from your freedom.  It makes sure that you will allways have reasonable shot at hapiness and that allways means liberty. The left does not have to move toward Communism any more than the right must become Fascist.

Some laws, we agree, can take someof that freedom because to loose at little of that freedom here keepsone from loosing a lot of freedom later.

Exactly what kind of freedom are you talking about losing?  Every bit lost opens the door for a little more to be lost later.