Obama loses another point with me

[livendive 8]

Source

Quote

Show Your Support for a Responsible Economic Recovery Plan


We are facing a financial crisis as profound as any we have faced since the Great Depression.

Congress and the President are currently debating a bailout of our financial institutions with a price tag of $700 billion in taxpayer dollars. We cannot underestimate our responsibility in taking such an enormous step.

No Golden Parachutes -- Taxpayer dollars should not be used to reward the irresponsible Wall Street executives who helmed this disaster.

Main Street, Not Just Wall Street -- Any bailout plan must include a payback strategy for taxpayers who are footing the bill and aid to innocent homeowners who are facing foreclosure.

Bipartisan Oversight -- The staggering amount of taxpayer money involved demands a bipartisan board to ensure accountability and oversight.

OK, I agree with the first and third bullets, and the first half of the second bullet, but the part I struck out really pisses me off. Who in the fuck decided that the people who took out loans they couldn't afford are "innocent"? Granted, I don't know the details of the aid they're pressing for, but the very concept of calling them "innocent" is bullshit. They're at best naive, but by no means "innocent." I think those who were trying to buy themselves a family home should get some opportunity to rework their loan with reasonable interest rates for their credit rating. Those who were simply trying to invest in real estate and make a killing off of those trying to buy a family home? Fuck 'em. All should be considered guilty, and those with more than one home should take their losses all the way down to that one they need. Edit to add: and those who were investing in bonds backed by such loans? Fuck them too...let 'em eat it, and I don't care how far in either direction they camped from the "retirement" line.

Obama's still got my vote, but too much rhetoric like this will cost him it. Do people realize how much money we are talking about here? This country has existed for over 200 years and has accumulated some debt in the process. But over the last 3 decades, it's increased exponentially and now we're talking about adding 10-25 percent to it in one fell swoop because some people got greedy and others got stupid. Kiss my fucking ass if those people are "innocent"!

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[TheAnvil 0]

He never had my vote and that sure as hell didn't get him any headway in getting it either!

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Shotgun 1]

Yes, "innocent" was a poor choice of words there.

[1969912 0]

Aaahhh Grasshopper, you very observant.....

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[DSE 3]

I see your point. Flip side to that one is, however...
many of the people that bought into these loans were sold on them by unscrupulous banks and offerings that they perhaps lacked the intellect to realize were dangerous/unstable/whatever.
I'd say that more or less makes them "innocent" because they lacked the knowledge or ability to understand exactly what they were getting into.
Example that hits close to home...I have a mentally handicapped sister and her husband isn't exactly Einstein. They bought a house. They're losing their house, except that my brother and I have likely figured out a bail-out scenario. But not everyone is so lucky.
Additionally (and I could be way off base here), I'd bet that the savings of other social services that would come as part of any foreclosure would substandially offset any bailout funds or benefits offered to those facing foreclosure. I'm not an economist...so rip away. hell, I barely passed high school math.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

He never had my vote and that sure as hell didn't get him any headway in getting it either!

Woaw! This is bigger news that Clay Aiken is gay

[rushmc 18]

Quote

I see your point. Flip side to that one is, however...
many of the people that bought into these loans were sold on them by unscrupulous banks and offerings that they perhaps lacked the intellect to realize were dangerous/unstable/whatever.
I'd say that more or less makes them "innocent" because they lacked the knowledge or ability to understand exactly what they were getting into.
Example that hits close to home...I have a mentally handicapped sister and her husband isn't exactly Einstein. They bought a house. They're losing their house, except that my brother and I have likely figured out a bail-out scenario. But not everyone is so lucky.
Additionally (and I could be way off base here), I'd bet that the savings of other social services that would come as part of any foreclosure would substandially offset any bailout funds or benefits offered to those facing foreclosure. I'm not an economist...so rip away. hell, I barely passed high school math.

the banks had major are twisting from the gov to issue these types of loans. Yes there are bad apples out there but, because the law pushed it and the banks and lenders were forced to set credit levels and because Fannie and Freddie were buying the bad paper, there were no consequenses for doing it.

Bad apples ? Yes but our wonderful gov (Carter and Clinton) made it possible

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DSE 3]

Quote

[
Bad apples ? Yes but our wonderful gov (Carter and Clinton) made it possible

So Congress and the Senate had nothing to do with it? Weren't House/Senate predominantly conservative under Clinton and Carter?

[edit:

Quote

I'm guessing that the majority of people who are facing losing their homes right now are not mentally handicapped and that they just made bad decisions.

I don't disagree with that. RE-READ the point I initially responded to. "Everyone" is never innocent. But there are a lot of innocents that get caught up in this sort of whirlwind. I believe "collateral damage" is the correct term.
Coincidentally, local news here last night had a story about a mentally handicapped couple that are part of this downfall and are losing their home as well.

After seeing that story and my own experience, I applaud the government for making these programs available, and deplore the manner in which unscrupulous investors, banks, Wall Street took advantage of these people, selling money they knew wasn't sustainable.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

many of the people that bought into these loans were sold on them by unscrupulous banks and offerings that they perhaps lacked the intellect to realize were dangerous/unstable/whatever.
I'd say that more or less makes them "innocent" because they lacked the knowledge or ability to understand exactly what they were getting into.

We could use that logic to make a lot of adults not responsible for their actions. Should we require some sort of IQ test before allowing adults to sign legally-binding contracts?

I'm guessing that the majority of people who are facing losing their homes right now are not mentally handicapped and that they just made bad decisions. I don't think that most of them are "innocent" people who simply got taken advantage of. I've made a lot of bad decisions in my life too, but I've never expected other people to bail me out from those decisions.

One of the more recent bad decisions I've made was buying a house at the peak of a housing bubble, which is now worth significantly less than the mortgage we took out on it. Which sucks, but I don't blame anyone other than myself.

[kallend 1,673]

Quote

Quote

[
Bad apples ? Yes but our wonderful gov (Carter and Clinton) made it possible

So Congress and the Senate had nothing to do with it? Weren't House/Senate predominantly conservative under Clinton and Carter?

You're forgetting - when Bush invaded Iraq under false pretenses, it was Congress's fault for not stopping him. When the GOP controlled Congress (and White House) failed to pass banking regulatory reform in 2005, it was somehow the Dem's fault. When the GOP controlled Congress passed banking deregulation, it was the president's fault for not stopping them. It's all logical in rushworld.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

It's all logical in rushworld.

And then there's Kallend-world:

If it makes the Dems look bad, find a way to blame it on the Reps.

It's SO much easier when the decision tree only has one branch.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[warpedskydiver 0]

That unfortunately is the only way he sees things, all one sided.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

After seeing that story and my own experience, I applaud the government for making these programs available, and deplore the manner in which unscrupulous investors, banks, Wall Street took advantage of these people, selling money they knew wasn't sustainable.

Unfortunately, as with most government programs, there will be plenty of people who take advantage of the system. I don't mean to downplay your point or experiences because it's heartbreaking. I just don't see how the government will draw a line in the sand for who gets help and who doesn't. I also don't doubt there are "innocents" out there, but how do you define and separate the innocent from the irresponsible?

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[Ron 7]

Dave, I almost agree 100% with you.

We differ in the investment portion. Why would you protect a person who wanted to buy a bigger home than they could afford, but punish the guy that tried to invest in some bonds?

I agree that we need to be more careful in what we invest in...But why protect people who tried to buy more than they could afford, but punish anyone else that tried to better their life?

The problem, as see it, is they only way to make sure people buy what they can afford is either:

1. The banks quit making stupid loans. Or people wise up and quit asking for them.

2. The Govt states what amount you can buy given your income.

Wanna guess which one I agree with?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Amazon 7]

Quote

OK, I agree with the first and third bullets, and the first half of the second bullet, but the part I struck out really pisses me off. Who in the fuck decided that the people who took out loans they couldn't afford are "innocent"? Granted, I don't know the details of the aid they're pressing for, but the very concept of calling them "innocent" is bullshit. They're at best naive, but by no means "innocent." I think those who were trying to buy themselves a family home should get some opportunity to rework their loan with reasonable interest rates for their credit rating. Those who were simply trying to invest in real estate and make a killing off of those trying to buy a family home? Fuck 'em. All should be considered guilty, and those with more than one home should take their losses all the way down to that one they need. Edit to add: and those who were investing in bonds backed by such loans? Fuck them too...let 'em eat it, and I don't care how far in either direction they camped from the "retirement" line.

I really have to agree with you on this one. Individual homeowners.. yes..... help them to restructure to keep their home that they themselves live in. Those who are in business in the market to make a profit... you play the game.. you have to be prepared to lose your investment just as much as you are to be prepared to make a profit.

I have lost some on my investments... its part of the game....que sera sera.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

He never had my vote and that sure as hell didn't get him any headway in getting it either!

Face it Vinny.... he has a (D) by his name... that precludes you from even considering voting for him

[kallend 1,673]

Quote

That unfortunately is the only way he sees things, all one sided.

Irony score 12/10

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Irony score 12/10

You read my mind.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[livendive 8]

Quote

Dave, I almost agree 100% with you.

We differ in the investment portion. Why would you protect a person who wanted to buy a bigger home than they could afford, but punish the guy that tried to invest in some bonds?

You raise a good point, and I guess the distinction I see is a difference between someone who bought a home to live in and someone who bought a home to make a profit on. I also suggested we only allow them to restructure their loans to an interest rate appropriate for their credit. If they just flat-out bought too much home for their income and credit rating, I say let them sell & and buy something smaller or lose it and go back to renting.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[birdlike 0]

Quote

He never had my vote and that sure as hell didn't get him any headway in getting it either!

Yeah, I don't understand why Livendive can see so much of Obama's bullshit and still keep saying that he's got his vote, but is "losing points." Just how many points does Obama have to lose with Livendive before he actually loses his vote?

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

He never had my vote and that sure as hell didn't get him any headway in getting it either!

Yeah, I don't understand why Livendive can see so much of Obama's bullshit and still keep saying that he's got his vote, but is "losing points." Just how many points does Obama have to lose with Livendive before he actually loses his vote?

For lots of us Obama doesn't loose our vote unless McCain has a stroke, Palin resigns from the race, and the Republicans run some one like Ron Paul instead.

Even though he smells like liberal Lindberger.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

For lots of us Obama doesn't loose our vote unless McCain has a stroke, Palin resigns from the race, and the Republicans run some one like Ron Paul instead.

Amen

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

For lots of us Obama doesn't loose our vote unless McCain has a stroke, Palin resigns from the race, and the Republicans run some one like Ron Paul instead.

Amen

Then write in Ron Paul.

Jeez, people, vote with the strength of your convictions, already!

Or how about, vote for the Libertarian (I believe it's Bob Barr), and help a third-party gain a foothold in this country, as is desperately needed! That's probably what I'll end up doing, since Palm Beach County usually goes to a Dumbocrat anyway...

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

So backing one financial fuckup is better than the other? Alot of the people that got fucked were under ARMs

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[birdlike 0]

Quote

So backing one financial fuckup is better than the other? Alot of the people that got fucked were under ARMs

Who was sucker enough to get an Adjustable Rate Mortgage, see that teaser rate, get hypnotized by it, and then think that they would never get dicked by the bank and have the rate jacked way higher after the initial teaser period?!

Talk about your moronic wishful thinking! These are people, it appears to me, who allowed themselves, against all normal thought processess that should go on, that they would forever keep that wonderfully low introductory rate, and that the banks would never feel the desire to increase the rate to make themselves more money.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire