Patterico's Pontifications

2/19/2009

Who Speaks for the Prudent?

Filed under: Current Events,General,Government — Jack Dunphy @ 12:55 am

[Guest post by Jack Dunphy]

Mrs. Dunphy and I have lately been toting up our annual obligations to the public fisc, and preparing to write our check for same. It has been a discouraging experience, to understate the matter considerably, as we ponder our contribution to the trillions of dollars soon to be gushing out of great chutes at the White House and the U.S. Capitol, then to be cast hither and yon across the countryside. As best we can discern, not one of those trillions of dollars will find its way into the Dunphy coffers. And by the way, until a few months ago, had you ever heard the word “trillion” tossed about the way it’s been lately? For the innumerate, a trillion is a thousand billions, and a billion is a thousand millions. We’re talking Real Dough here.

But I digress.

Mrs. Dunphy and I are not wealthy, but our balance sheet is in good order as we have been frugal with the money we have. We currently rent, but have been considering buying a home as we observe the downward trend in real estate prices here in Southern California and elsewhere. This downward trend is in large part due to the fact that people who have lived less frugally than we have are losing their homes to foreclosure. But today we are informed that President Obama will soon open up another spigot and bequeath untold billions of dollars on those very people, with the net effect being that the tax dollars of those, such as Mrs. Dunphy and myself, who have made prudent financial decisions will be used to subsidize those who have not and, even more insultingly, artificially prop up the real estate market and thereby discourage our purchase of a home.

With this in mind, I wish to point out a few things to those fortunates being stimulated with other people’s money:

1. The government has no money but that which it extracts from its citizens through taxation under pain of imprisonment.

2. The taking of that money from those who have earned it and then distributing it to those who have not is considered to be, in a different context, robbery.

3. People who are immunized from the consequences of imprudent decisions are very likely to continue making them. And, when their imprudence is once again revealed, they are just as likely to extend the greedy hand once more in expectation of further assistance from their fellow citizens.

It is Mrs. Dunphy’s and my misfortune to live in an area represented at all levels of government by liberals, so we would waste neither the time nor effort to petition any of them with our grievances. But my question, for anyone who’d care to answer, is this: Is there anyone in Washington willing to speak for those of us who are footing the bill for all this blessed stimulation but are left unstimulated ourselves?

–Jack Dunphy

83 Responses to “Who Speaks for the Prudent?”

  1. NO.

    Those of us who did NOT engage in Credit-card-games or bet on bottomless price increases to cover an adjustable-rate bet, those of us who did not seek out debt as a means to live beyond our means, we’re essentially considered unimportant-and why not? after all, it’s been ever-unpopular NOT to be irresponsible. Growing up is considered unfashionable, being responsible is viewed as stodgy, the illusion is more important than the reality-our media-saturated wannabee loaded culture tells us this from ABC to MTV.
    Basically, if you don’t spend yourself into a hole, you’re just not important to the people who run this country, they don’t need your support, because their supporters are EVERYWHERE, and breeding more as we write.

    I’ve become convinced that the makers of the movie “Idiocracy” are dead on about everything except the timing-we LIVE in Idiocracy. Stupidity and Irresponsibility are rewarded as virtues, while hard-work and frugality are punished, and Responsible behaviour is the highest of our modern culture’s sins.

    Daniel (b7eb26)

  2. Jack: Tax is theft, in another context, in the same way that education is kidnapping, in another context, flouridating the water is poisoning the public, in another context and shooting an attacker is murder, in another context.

    You object to paying for economic stimulus, while I object to paying for the U.S. Marine’s who’ve empowered Moqtada Al Sadr to impose Sharia on parts of Iraq that had not known it prior to the invasion.

    I object to paying for the missiles that leveled an entire city block in Baghdad, killing many innocents, because we erroneously THOUGHT Saddam was there — in other words, a war crime.

    But it did not occur to me to object to the war on the grounds that I shouldnt’ have to pay for it, even as galling as the fact that I did is.

    I wonder why it occurs to you that you shouldn’t have to pay taxes to support the policies of your democratically elected government.

    I can certainly understand why anyone might challenge the efficacy or necessity of the bank rescue and stimulus legislation, but I don’t understand what makes you think you should get to pick and choose which government programs you pay for and which you don’t.

    Perhaps you and Mrs. D can enlighten me.

    Hax Vobiscum (edacf7)

  3. …I don’t understand what makes you think you should get to pick and choose which government programs you pay for and which you don’t.

    Hundreds of thousands of productive Californians did choose which taxes they would pay by leaving the Democrat quagmire of California.

    Perfect Sense (0922fa)

  4. Mr Dunphy wrote:

    This downward trend is in large part due to the fact that people who have lived less frugally than we have are losing their homes to foreclosure. But today we are informed that President Obama will soon open up another spigot and bequeath untold billions of dollars on those very people, with the net effect being that the tax dollars of those, such as Mrs. Dunphy and myself, who have made prudent financial decisions will be used to subsidize those who have not and, even more insultingly, artificially prop up the real estate market and thereby discourage our purchase of a home.

    It’s actually worse than that. If you bought a home within your means and have been able to stay current with your mortgage, you will be taxed to pay for those who bought beyond their means. In one way, the people with modest homes are going to be taxed to prop up the McMansion-buyers.

    I don’t like welfare for the poor very much, but at least I can take comfort in the fact that we are tryting to help the poor. But this is welfare for the well-to-do, just not quite as well-to-do as they thought.

    The discouraged Dana (3e4784)

  5. I’m seriously considering stop payment on my mortgage thereby qualifying for stimulous. So far, that’s the only way I can see to get some world saving stimulous. Sooner or later, the payers must revolt.

    krusher (266340)

  6. Comment by The discouraged Dana

    Good comment and totally agree. When we bought our home 11 years ago we borrowed 2/3 of what the bank said we qualified for knowing that there are always unplanned emergencies or expenses that pop up. Prior to purchasing we had paid off every bit of credit we owed.
    Since then our income has more than doubled but we haven’t really changed our lifestyle. The tax bite the last two years has been frustrating for the reasons you touched on.

    voiceofreason2 (590c85)

  7. Jack, there is a word for people like you under the Obama Plan: Suckers!

    Joe (17aeff)

  8. Dunphy, pay up you rich bastard! You live like a millionaire! Pay more taxes! Help the poor! Obama is GREAT!

    ** Leaving California is a start if you ask me.

    Hax, how about a Presidential line item veto at least or something similar?

    Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e)

  9. Hey Jack you asked

    And by the way, until a few months ago, had you ever heard the word “trillion” tossed about the way it’s been lately.

    Yes in fact I have. Bush war in Iraq.

    This bill is not for the reckless or speculators but will primarily benefit those that have lost their jobs and cannot afford their homes or in many cases were forced to buy overpriced property that has fallen in value. My daughter bought a home and even the crappiest were $250,000 and up.

    They needed a place to live so what could they do?
    Now his job is in jeopardy as the economy has fallen in defiance of what Bush told us when he cut those taxes for the top earners three years ago, and the value of their home has fallen. These kinds of people need help.. not a handout but help in the form of lowered interest rates or extended terms. Nothing more.
    And I paid my mortgage off last month so I will get nothing but in view of the loss of jobs and the deteriorating economic base of this country, I agree its time for a massive change in our entire economy and this is part of it.

    VietnamEraVet (543dfe)

  10. Hax: “I object to paying for the missiles that leveled an entire city block in Baghdad, killing many innocents, because we erroneously THOUGHT Saddam was there — in other words, a war crime.”

    Part of the problem in these kinds of “discussions” is the hijacking of vocabulary to mean what one thinks it means rather than what the word(s) truly mean. War crime my ass! Get with the program and re read the Geneva conventions on war.

    I object merely to paying for the “pseudo-education” of idiots like these.

    GM Roper who wants DRJ back (85dcd7)

  11. “They needed a place to live so what could they do?”

    It is called RENT! Something I and many others did until we could afford a “home.”

    Signed: Another Vietnam Era Vet who hasn’t lost his mind to the idiocies of leftism.

    GM Roper who wants DRJ back (85dcd7)

  12. Comment by Hax Vobiscum — 2/19/2009 @ 2:41 am

    Wrong in so many ways.

    You object to paying for economic stimulus, while I object to paying for the U.S. Marine’s who’ve empowered Moqtada Al Sadr to impose Sharia on parts of Iraq that had not known it prior to the invasion.

    It was called “Sadr City” for a reason you know. His father had even more influence than Moqtada did (He doesn’t have a whole lot just now you know).

    I object to paying for the missiles that leveled an entire city block in Baghdad, killing many innocents, because we erroneously THOUGHT Saddam was there — in other words, a war crime.

    Wrong again, possibly in two particulars (I don’t recall an entire city block being “leveled”, but of course you make a lot of claims that you never back up.) It would definitely not be a war crime… it was war. We were at war with the country of Iraq and had a legitimate target according to intel. Using missiles to “level” a city block would be a war crime if the intent was to just do it and ignore that it was a civilian area. According to your own undocumented assertion, that wasn’t the case.

    But it did not occur to me to object to the war on the grounds that I shouldnt’ have to pay for it, even as galling as the fact that I did is.

    I call BS. I’m sure you objected, loud and often. It certainly occurred to you just now, didn’t it? That means you identify with the sentiment.

    I wonder why it occurs to you that you shouldn’t have to pay taxes to support the policies of your democratically elected government.

    When those taxes are collected in a socialist manner instead of a democratic manner, we have every right to object. There was no voter referendum to levy those taxes, the democratically-elected government representatives didn’t even read the legislation they voted on, and to this day there is not one single person who can honestly say they are fully aware of every provision that legislation entails (including the President who signed it).

    I can certainly understand why anyone might challenge the efficacy or necessity of the bank rescue and stimulus legislation, but I don’t understand what makes you think you should get to pick and choose which government programs you pay for and which you don’t.

    I’ve said before that is exactly what should happen. If enough people designate their tax dollars to fund a program, it gets funded. If they don’t, it gets dropped. Want to bet which program gets fully-funded the quickest… the military or the auto-makers? NASA or the NEA? How about the FBI or ACORN?

    Since Patterico appears to believe you add some value here, why don’t you make a conscious decision to discuss topics in good faith. Or, you may continue your inane contrariness and we can bring back the “Ignoring trollish behavior” standby to respond to your every comment. Nothing more, nothing less. That’s really all you deserve anyway.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  13. Jack- No, sorry.

    Rewarding bad behavior is what liberalism is all about. Teen pregnancies get subsidized, and the money is taken from married couple with children to do it.

    tyree (5624c2)

  14. VietnamEraVet.

    If you already paid your mortgage why don’t you be a good dad and pay your daughters too.

    “I agree its time for a massive change in our entire economy and this is part of it?”

    To bail out your kid from buying a shitty house when she should have rented a nice one?

    [Over-the-top insults deleted.]

    Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e)

  15. I would propose that there are things that are exclusively the purview of government, like invasions and missile attacks, which if engaged in by individual citizens would be clearly inappropriate; and other things, like providing for the poor and living within ones means, where government can/may/should have a role to play, the extent of which is a matter for debate.

    Let’s not mix these two.

    Pious Agnostic (291f9a)

  16. Here is what we should do, take away Vet benefits from those other than the physically impaired.

    How is that nutsack?

    Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e)

  17. GM Roper-
    You are right about the vocabulary. Liberals like Hax read 1984 and said, “Wow, we could totally make this work.”

    They started eliminating words like “negro” and “retarded” because they were “negative” and started changing words like “marriage”, “soldier” and “is”. They even invented new words like “Pig” to identify “Policemen”.

    tyree (5624c2)

  18. Who speaks for the prudent? Unfortunately, just Ron Paul.

    Joe (17aeff)

  19. Every dickhead Libtard should VOLUNTARILY increase their tax withholding. It is easy …. just put 0 on Dependents, refuse all tax credits and return the stimulus checks.

    Hey, it is Patriotic to pay more taxes. Be a patriot!!!!!!!!!

    ** no wonder I wish these after-birth ill. not one ounce of intellectual honesty or humanity in them **

    Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e)

  20. Where is my bailout?

    I owe over $1.5mm to various financial institutions?

    Should I stop paying and ask for help?

    Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e)

  21. Comment by Obama über alles!!!!! — 2/19/2009 @ 6:22 am

    And who is going to spend 20 to 30 years in the military as a hobby before settling down to start a career?

    I’m unsure what your point is here or how it could possibly relate to this topic. Was that sarcasm?

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  22. Trollish behavior includes making ridiculous statements in an effort to attract attention. I, for one, choose not to participate.

    The “Vietnameravet” should be grateful for the opportunity to pay taxes to fund his priorities, chief among them buying votes with his money.

    in many cases were forced to buy overpriced property that has fallen in value.

    Who knew that those banks were dragging people in off the street and forcing them to sign those papers ? In fact, what happened was that lots of young people who think trees grow to the sky saw an opportunity to make some money by betting on housing. They lost.

    About three years ago, we were thinking of remodeling and I decided to look at what new houses were like. Maybe it would be less trouble to sell and buy a bigger place. I was appalled at the small lots and high prices and wondered who would pay so much for so little. Now we know.

    There is this thing called renting. Actually, buying a house with no down payment is renting by another name. I just wish I was smart enough to sell then and rent. I know a couple of people who did do that. They were incredibly wise.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  23. Stashiu,

    I think people who volunteer my resources for their benefits should first volunteer theirs.

    I have no beef with Vet Benefits.

    I have a beef with a Vet coming here and claiming his daughter needs our help in spite of the fact

    1) He paid his mortgage
    2) He could pay his daughters
    3) He could forgo his Vet Benefits and save Gov.t money

    So …… calls for generosity on one part should start with their being generous FIRST.

    Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e)

  24. In addition to my $1.5mm in loans, I lost over $0.5mm in the stock market. Money I saved and deferred from consuming when I first got it.

    Where is my bail-out package?

    Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e)

  25. Thanks, I see now… I prefer the reminder to him that his daughter could rent instead. I doubt he has benefits (other than as a VA beneficiary, which is a different program and only covers people who were in at least one day and have no other medical coverage). Such an unhinged lefty from that era is probably not a retiree. He likely did his tour, got out as soon as he could, and has lived off the reflected “glory” of victimhood ever since. The belief in his own absolute moral authority is pretty clear.

    He’d be glad to remove Veteran’s Benefits because it wouldn’t harm him at all and severely wound the evil military-industrial complex that still takes orders from Bush and Cheney. Actually, he could even be Jesse Macbeth.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  26. Why should anyone pay his mortgage?

    All housing will be public housing. Welcome to the Project.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  27. The Prudent have a new moniker: Suckers.

    Techie (6b5d8d)

  28. 1. I don’t view taxation as comparable to robbery.

    2. Yeah, this is really irritating. Mrs. JRM and I own Generic Home, and we made absolutely sure we could afford it. Subsidizing bad behavior is disastrous in many ways.

    –JRM

    JRM (355c21)

  29. Dang, my cool link didn’t work

    http://www.spiritofbaraka.com/images/koyaanisqatsi/fullsize/KoyanisA499.jpg

    Pruitt-Igoe housing project ready to be demolished.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  30. When is The One Lightworker going to reimburse me for the value my car has lost after all these years of driving it around?

    Techie (6b5d8d)

  31. Stash – Long time … How the hell are you?!

    JD (ee54a5)

  32. Hax and VEV are idiots, as has been proven by their own words here many times and I, for one, refuse to respond further to them.

    And, after what Abel did this morning, prudence requires me to just be a reader, for I might say something that I would regret (or not).

    This is a sad day for CA, and the country.

    AD - RtR/OS (9e0ed8)

  33. JRM: I don’t view taxation as comparable to robbery either, as long as the money taken from me is used for what is authorized by the Constitution. But when it’s taken from me and then handed over to someone else for the purpose of buying his vote or some other political expediency, I consider it akin to theft.

    The question at the bottom of all of this discussion is: What claim can one citizen make on the fruits of another citizen’s labor?

    Jack Dunphy (1bb566)

  34. I have never heard of anyone being forced to buy a home that they could not afford, VeV. Care to explain?

    Hacks is being its normal mendoucheous self. Shocka.

    JD (ee54a5)

  35. But it did not occur to me to object to the war on the grounds that I shouldnt’ have to pay for it, even as galling as the fact that I did is.

    Well, we knew you’re no Thoreau.

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  36. Jack you should understand President Obama’s homeowner rescue plan has three parts none of which is a giveaway or makes suckers out of frugal people the way Repubs would have you believe. It consists of three parts.
    One is to help those who are paying mortgages but have a tough time because of the job situation. It would enable them to get more favorable terms such as lower interest rates and longer payback time.

    The other would help those that have high interest rates but cannot renegotiate because the value of their houses have declined. It would enable them to refinance with better terms.
    And the third would pump money into Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae so banks can start lending money again.

    All of these measures help everyone, not just distressed homeowners because if the housing market collapses everyone will get hurt. And none of this is a giveaway and none is to help speculators or those that recklessly bought in over their heads.

    And believe this. Repubs will do all in their power to criticize and pick at this bill and since nothing is perfect they will find fault. But in the end it is Republican economics of deregulation and their belief that all you have to do is give tax breaks to the top 1% and like magic the free market will cure it all. Thats what caused this mess and not because some gay congressman pushed for loans for minorities as Repubs would like you to believe.

    VietnamEraVet (543dfe)

  37. Hi JD,

    I’ve been offline mostly… health issues and trying to have a life. Since neither really got much better, here I iz! ;)

    Racist.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  38. VietnamEraVet, you once again shown an utter disdain for facts and history. Your parroting of the incoherent Democrat line of spin attempting to absolve themselves for the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac does not change the fact that there were no specific “Republican” policies at the root of the housing bubble deflation / credit market crisis.

    SPQR (72771e)

  39. Does anyone else want to guess how much in taxes Hax actually paid for the war ? Or for anything else?

    California has just taken a big step to oblivion. There are NO spending cuts in that bill. Not one state employee loses his/her job. It makes “smoke and mirrors” seem a solid plan.

    What is especially amusing are the comments after that story. There are a few disgruntled taxpayers writing about leaving. Then there are the lefties (plenty of them reading the SacBee) writing that taxpayers leaving is a myth. They say the people aren’t leaving because of taxes; it’s just that the jobs are leaving.

    Oh.

    The fact that 1.5 million net taxpayers have left in the last decade is no worry to them.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  40. VietnamEraVet wrote:

    Hey Jack you asked

    And by the way, until a few months ago, had you ever heard the word “trillion” tossed about the way it’s been lately.

    Yes in fact I have. Bush war in Iraq.

    Really? Then perhaps you ought to check your sources. If you check this site, which runs what it purports to be a running war in Iraq costs, you’ll see a number just short of $600 billion. This site notes that the total budget authority is slightly less than $600 billion, but claims total costs of $636 billion. Both of these are anti-war sites.

    So, if you’ve heard the word “trillions” thrown around concerning the Iraq war, you’ve been listening to some rather uninformed people.

    The Dana who can look things up via Google (3e4784)

  41. Obama über alles wrote:

    In addition to my $1.5mm in loans, I lost over $0.5mm in the stock market. Money I saved and deferred from consuming when I first got it.

    Where is my bail-out package?

    You needn’t worry; after reading that comment, the Infernal Revenue Service is auditing you to determine precisely how much of a bailout you will get!

    The Dana who has tremendous plans for his $13 a week bailout (3e4784)

  42. For fun and profit, I’d love to hear the trolls explain what they consider “deregulation”.

    Techie (6b5d8d)

  43. The other would help those that have high interest rates but cannot renegotiate because the value of their houses have declined. It would enable them to refinance with better terms.
    And the third would pump money into Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae so banks can start lending money again.

    And none of this is a giveaway and none is to help speculators or those that recklessly bought in over their heads.

    Could someone explain to me how these two sentences don’t contradict each other? Unless politicians are now mindreaders, how are they going to prevent the risk-takers and reckless spenders from re-financing.

    Also, because of Freddie and Fannie’s gigantic screw-ups in the past, the obvious solution is to shovel money into those holes faster?

    Techie (6b5d8d)

  44. Techie asked:

    For fun and profit, I’d love to hear the trolls explain what they consider “deregulation”.

    Well, while I doubt I’d be considered a troll here, I know the liberal definition of deregulation: any change that allows a corporation to make money is considered deregulation. Conversely, any change which inhibits a corporation from making money is known as :economic justice.”

    Please make a note of it.

    The English professor Dana (3e4784)

  45. Techie – I suspect that their definition of deregulation mirrors the way the describe decreasing the rate of growth as a cut. Deregulation is when the Dems want to place onerous regulations on business, and the Reps agree to a little less reguation than the Dems originally proposed.

    JD (ee54a5)

  46. “Economic justice” — one of those key phrases signaling a political agenda alert.

    Thanks, TEPD

    Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  47. Dana, I am still amortizing security losses from 2000. I think any audit might result in a bigger refund.

    Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e)

  48. Excuse me. I have to go. Someone is trying to force me to enter into a mortgage that I cannot afford.

    JD (ee54a5)

  49. There is some merit in the Obama proposal on mortgage relief. The problem is moral hazard. Fannie and Freddie have $7 trillion in mortgages now. Many of those bad loans are in their portfolio. I have no objection to subsidizing interest rates as it might avoid foreclosure for homes that are owner occupied and have adjustable loans. If the owners can pay a subsidized rate without reducing the principal, it might be beneficial. Foreclosed houses quickly deteriorate.

    A second problem is the existence of large condo complexes half finished in Las Vegas and Phoenix, and probably Florida. They are probably best bought at a distressed price and demolished. It will be cheaper. What I fear is that the decisions on who gets subsidized will depend on politics, like ACORN’s “foreclosure free zones.”

    Cramming down principal balances will result in more costly mortgages in the future. No matter how hard they try, Democrats cannot repeal laws of economics.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  50. No matter how hard they try, Democrats cannot repeal laws of economics.

    But that won’t stop them from trying.

    Techie (6b5d8d)

  51. I just do not understand why someone needs a bailout on their mortgage if the value of the house is less than the mortgage. If you pay your mortgage, stay in the house for 20 – 30 yrs the house should still be of more value than what was paid for it. Guess I was/am really stupid because I always made sure that I could pay for what I bought.

    LYNNDH (975d26)

  52. I blame Bush.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  53. Obama’s plan calls for the expansion of failed Democratic policies.

    SPQR (72771e)

  54. VietnamEraVet 36 -
    One is to help those who are paying mortgages but have a tough time because of the job situation. It would enable them to get more favorable terms such as lower interest rates and longer payback time.

    You mean it would enable the government to take over their mortgage, so we all assume the risk, the bank and the buyer learn no hard lessons, the government will never foreclose, and they become public housing. And this for no reason because if it made good business sense to give more favorable terms the bank would do it.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  55. Hey, I’m upside down on my car loan. Can I refi for the current value of the car and ignore those extra few thousand I bought the car for? I’ll just tell the gummint VeV wants to cover the other part.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  56. VietnamEraVet 36 -

    The other would help those that have high interest rates but cannot renegotiate because the value of their houses have declined. It would enable them to refinance with beter terms.

    They have a decision. Stay in the house or declare bankruptcy. I faced the same thing in the 90s. Naturally, every homeowner who wants a new house in an area where housing prices have declined will jump at the opportunity for you and me to put them in one. Once again, a big colossal reward for irresponsibility, with taxpayers picking up the tab, and the risk.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  57. You’ll be delighted to know that one of the many billions in the “stimulus” is going to tax relief for Paul G. Allen.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-stimulus-saves-microsoft-billionaire-hundreds-of-millions-phew-2009-2

    After all, anybody who gave $200k to Democratic interests (and 30k to liberal Republicans) shouldn’t have to shoulder a share of the taxes. Jack Dunphy and the Mrs. should! (And Patterico too!)

    http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Paul_Allen.php

    Now, that appears to only account for donations through the primaries. (And he was a Hillary guy). Wanna bet he doubled up after the convention?

    Still, even assuming he did, not a bad ROI: 400k in, 1,000,000k out. The only thing that gets you a return like that is bribes campaign contributions.

    Jack, now you know how to get a tax break. Just give $200k or $400k to Feinstein, Boxer, etc.

    Kevin R.C. O'Brien (9394f3)

  58. VietnamEraVet 36 -

    And the third would pump money into Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae so banks can start lending money again.

    The Federal Government should not and is proven not to be qualified to participate in the mortgage business. The Government will inevitably decide based on politics (racial or otherwise), instead of on what makes sense from a business economic standpoint. Not one dime should go to those organizations that have already squandered billions and participated in corrupting our congress.

    There are reasons why Obama’s plan stinks. It is the worst case scenario. There is NO reason any more for anyone in the US to pay their mortgage, and that is supposed to be a good thing for our economy.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  59. so banks can start lending money again

    I am refinancing. There is a 60 day delay for settlement due to the huge demand for mortgages. I’m in PA, my in-laws in CT and NH echo this.

    There is no credit crunch for those with good credit. None. Nada. It is a lie told by a fearmonger signifying politics.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  60. The negative on this plan is the limited experience so far with mortgage renegotiations. They have a delinquency rate of 36% at three months and 50% at six months. The Obama plan allows up to 105% loan to value so it may be just a waste of money. There is no way he can sort out the speculators except by requiring owner-occ. The best plan may be an interest rate subsidy that is month to month as long as the owner is not delinquent. Once they miss a payment, foreclose.

    Of course, it will be political so we will see tons of waste. What else is new ?

    Mike K (8df289)

  61. The negative on this plan is the limited experience so far with mortgage renegotiations. They have a delinquency rate of 36% at three months and 50% at six months. The Obama plan allows up to 105% loan to value so it may be just a waste of money. There is no way he can sort out the speculators except by requiring owner-occ. The best plan may be an interest rate subsidy that is month to month as long as the owner is not delinquent. Once they miss a payment, foreclose.

    Of course, it will be political so we will see tons of waste. What else is new ?

    Mike K (8df289)

  62. We run a small business. We used to pay in annual taxes the equivalent of four to five times the median wage in our county. Not anymore. Starting last year, when the liberal avalanche was beginning to be evident, we started hunkering down. The funny thing about owning your own business is you can still decide whether you want to earn more money or not. My husband cut down on productivity, working on average only 5 hours per day. We’re not buying any new business equipment, we’ve fired some employees, and we’re cutting hours. We’re aiming for less than $45K of taxable income this year, a fraction of what we used to earn. Our house is paid off, our cars are paid off, our business debt is paid off. We have enough cash to “go John Galt” for a couple of years if necessary. We just decided we’re not paying any more for the liberal programs this state and this country are addicted to.

    If other business people are reacting the same way, then we have definitely not reached bottom yet.

    Anna (26cc81)

  63. Amphipolis, I am told that all new loans are requiring 20% down payments which would put a lot of these people in trouble out of the zone. The problem this creates is higher interest rates down the line as banks have to factor in the risk of future delinquency and the cram down provisions. I don’t know how great that cost will be since foreclosure is also costly. I suspect that the days of 5% down are gone except for this crisis. I still have a couple of kids who will want to buy homes one day. I probably have the last home I’ll buy.

    Mike K (f89cb3)

  64. I actually heard this morning the 20 pc rule was being shelved for a 100 pc mortgage.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  65. Anna, a lot of wealthy people live on a lot less than they could, also. I had a girl friend a few years ago (21 come to think of it) who was worth about $60 million at the time. She had her homes and cars and stuff paid for. She paid cash for everything and basically didn’t need much more than she had. She lived on about $60,000 a year. Some of those people will pull in their horns, too. Why pay tax when the money can sit in investments and accumulate value? Her kids were all grown but one and he is grown and married now. She also has homes in several states and can choose her principle residence.

    This is one of the things that caused the Depression. Not everybody rich lost their shirt in 1929. A lot just laid low.

    Mike K (8df289)

  66. 5% down was never a good idea. I see no reason why the taxpayers should assume the risk this implies. And many of these federal loans were 0% down – insane. This no longer a business, this is an entitlement.

    People should have no reason to expect that they can afford a house after graduating from college. It may take years to save, and they may never make it. That’s called personal responsibility. If they get one with less down, they pay more, because the risk is more. It is their decision. And if it goes wrong, let them rent.

    That’s the real world, at least it was before the government got the insane idea that having a house is a right.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  67. We have friends that got a federally guaranteed loan with 0% down last summer. Why should the taxpayers assume that risk? Where is that in the constitution?

    The Federal Government is not God. There is a limit to its resources. Now watch the dollar devalue, an undocumented tax on us all, hitting the prudent savers hardest and rewarding those who are most in debt.

    Home ownership is a good thing for the community because people care for what they have invested in. But this is not home ownership. It is a housing project.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  68. I lived with a 10.5% loan for eight years and ended up selling for lass than half of what I bought for. I could not refinance.

    So I stayed in my little home and payed down my debt, chump that I am.

    If they want to default, fine. Let the bank take the home or give them better terms. It is their agreement, the taxpayer has nothing to do with it. The easier we make it to default, the more people will do it. Duh. So we have a self-fulfilling prophesy. The safety net encourages people to jump.

    Obama wants to be your personal savior. Housing is no longer a matter between you and your banker, it is now political. A chicken for every pot. Until we run out of chickens.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  69. Didn’t someone once say that socialism is great right up to the point where you ruin out of other people’s money?

    JD (ee54a5)

  70. Everyone should just go outside, look to your Left (of course) and pay one of your neighbor’s mortgage payments. It would be far more efficient than sending that money to the government.

    JD (ee54a5)

  71. But, JD, if you cut out the government you will increase the unemployment rate. Your plan kills administrative jobs.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  72. I’m free Saturday and Sunday. I hope some organization leads a Sacramento protest. I’ll be there.

    EBJ (2fd7f7)

  73. The American Dream was once something couples strived to achieve. It was assumed to involve hard work and disciplined sacrifice. Now it is just another entitlement.

    Obama’s solution is political, not financial. So look for feel-good buyouts. They are easy for the government and they score politically. The hard work of saving resources and wisely investing them, the lack of which brought about this crisis, will diminish exponentially.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  74. There is no credit crunch for those with good credit. None. Nada. It is a lie told by a fearmonger signifying politics.

    I agree. I’m inundated with offers to refi. Fool that I am, I was frugal and am thus creditworthy.

    The obvious answer to Mr. and Mrs. Dunphy in this atmosphere is to borrow up to the limit on your house, have a bunch of babies via IVF, go on welfare.

    All of these things were happening in the Depression but in greater numbers (read
    Shlaes’ book). Obama knows that, but he is using it to create his dependent class of pigs sucking at the public trough. 91% of us are completely making our payments! What’s the big deal, except politics, of the losers who arent?

    Patricia (89cb84)

  75. Obama’s response to the crisis is actually quite different from Roosevelt’s:

    There is nothing to fear but fear itself
    Franklin Roosevelt

    Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse
    Barack Obama

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  76. I suspect that the days of 5% down are gone except for this crisis.

    I certainly hope so – I was one of the suckers who always put 20% down payments on my condos, whereas my neighbors put down 10% or less. What a fool I was, living within my means.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  77. Rick Santorelli’s rant on CNBC is getting a lot of attention.

    SPQR (72771e)

  78. SPQR, what was his gist?

    I saw snippets.

    Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e)

  79. Everyone should just go outside, look to your Left (of course) and pay one of your neighbor’s mortgage payments. It would be far more efficient than sending that money to the government.

    Comment by JD

    Strange as it may seem, something like this happened to my sister. A few years ago, she got a notice that her property taxes were delinquent and the city was going to have a sheriff’s sale of her house. Since she had been paying her taxes on time, she was distressed, to say the least. It turned out the city had been crediting her payments to the house next door for years.

    Of course, it was Chicago where nothing is surprising.

    Mike K (f89cb3)

  80. I agree. I’m inundated with offers to refi. Fool that I am, I was frugal and am thus creditworthy.

    I had the enjoyable experience of a refinancing offer phone call that ended when the service rep on the other end of the phone checked my account and discovered I had a better loan than the one they were offering.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  81. Heh, I get mortgage refi offers all the time. The fact I inherited the sub-standard house I own and have no mortgage doesn’t stop the calls.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  82. Now that the government has established this standard, will we ever go back? Won’t people cry that it’s unfair when they are foreclosed upon ten years from now when people today get a bailout?

    This is yet another thing that the democrats will never end… because the dependency creates votes.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  83. I had the enjoyable experience of a refinancing offer phone call that ended when the service rep on the other end of the phone checked my account and discovered I had a better loan than the one they were offering.

    Heh. That’s why you’re in good shape.

    John, don’t you want to refi and buy 10 new cars and put in a couple of swimming pools!!? You never have to pay it back!!

    Patricia (89cb84)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3592 secs.