If I made as many mistakes on my job as Neil Cavuto does, I'd have been fired long ago.

Are you union?

Is Cavuto?  I doubt it.

So...

Congress is getting "ready" to pass a bill authorizing up to 300 billion dollars. And when a news outlet reports it, MMFA maligns and says it is not true? Why castigate the media reporting what congress is doing, why not jump on congress for authorizing more money than what the CBO states is needed.

Oh I forgot...because Fox news said it....Ok

Hmmm?  Looks like we have a new weenie to roast.  Welcome to MMFA.

So the you can't dispute the real truth so you slander the person...how small.

 

Would you buy a used car from this man?

 

Only with your money.

 

Neither would I.

 

Hello.  If the homeowners bail and can't pay their mortgage, and if the FHA provides up to $300 billion in guarantees, we, the taxpayers are on the hook for that, then it's not misinformation to call it what it is.

Stop parsing. 

Maybe we can take all the people who have been foreclosed on down to the border and hire them to help build your beloved immigration wall in order to get their house back.

Your hatred of regular people knows no bounds.  Let's just leave it all to the free market - that will sort everything out.

Oh, yeah - lack of regulation on the housing market is what caused the problem IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Your hatred of regular people knows no bounds.  Let's just leave it all to the free market - that will sort everything out.

Oh, yeah - lack of regulation on the housing market is what caused the problem IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Wow.  Talk about serious misinformation there. 

The bottom line is multifold.  First, there are the home flippers who buy with an attempt to profit in several years due to the market conditions at that time - this is similar to what we call playing the stock market.  Then there are people who purchased more than they could afford, knowinging so, because they would only be responsible for that low amount for several years and looking to build quick equity via profit and resell.  Then there are people who shouldnt have been able to get any loans in the first place do to have minimal amounts in savings while living paycheck to paycheck, and spending a higher percentage on their mortgage than they could afford. 

Sure, there are good people out there in financial trouble right now.  But good people does not equate to smart people.  With anything in a financial market, things increase in price until they finally bust.  This is just another one of those times.  Oil did so in the 80's, and the housing market now.  If anything, I see it as a good thing.  The housing market prices are lowering back to levels that are benefitting first time home buyers and your average middle class person can now get a larger home for less money - i.e more affordable.

People need to understand that loans are given to people who do NOT have the money to purchase what they are trying to purchase.  Therefore, you need to have your own responsibility to spend what you can afford.

Bailing out homeowners offers no incentive to the people who are working hard and saving in order to purchase a home the right way, and being financially responsible. 

How about we use the tax money of the people who are saving to buy their first home on the people who overspent?  Yeah, makes sense to me.  Lets punish the financially responsible first time home buyer, and bring glorious benefits to people who were trying to scam the market in the same way the loan companies were.

Never ceases to amaze me.

I'm in the housing industry.  If you aren't then your entire post was pulled out of your a** with nothing but your hatred of regular people driving your opinion.

You seem to think that people that were foreclosed on were greedy real estate market players, always overextending to try to make another buck.

WRONG!  Most people who were foreclosed on either had their rates rise to unreasonable levels, lost their jobs, or had a medical calamity.

You have absolutely no idea what is happening in the real world and therefore you opinions are summarily disregarded as simply talking out of your a**.

Good God, Columbus.  It never ceases to amaze you?  That's because you don't have a clue what you're talking about--at least on this thread.  I'm a builder, and one of my partners (next door neighbor, best friend, and die hard Republican) owns a mortgage company, and his wife is senior VP at a large Michigan based bank.

Given the number of new homes they and I have built and sold over the years, I can tell you without a doubt that you don't have a clue.  The deregulation of mortgage banks is the main reason people are in this fix.

In the future, should you bitch about the fast food industry, I might believe what you say.

 

It is NOT parsing it IS misinformation

they're about to spend a lot of capital -- try 300 billion bucks of capital, the price tag of a housing rescue package

ARE they going to spend that much? The potential for spending that much is NOT they ARE going to spend that much. THAT is unquestionably misinformation its like saying if I had a variable homeloan since the interest rate COULD go up to 15% I AM going to see my mortgage rise that much.

ARE they going to spend that much? The potential for spending that much is NOT they ARE going to spend that much.

Lets see Solon.  If you know that you could potentially owe someone $10,000, but as little as $400, would you only keep $400 in your bank account in hopes that it doesnt go any higher?  If you say yes, then you're being financially irresponsible - similar to those who attempted to purchase a home that they couldnt afford in hopes to sell and profit in 5 years before their payments went up.

If you say no, then you will realize that you need to set aside the full amount of what you could potentially owe.  Thus leaving that $10,000 untouchable since it potentially already spent.

That goes the same for this bill.  $300B needs to be set aside over the term of the bill, because it could potentially already be spent.  And when you factor in that the $300B would then be guarunteed to the lenders, whom you blame for the problem to begin with, the tax payers (including those who are responsible and saving to have their 20% down and a mortgage they can afford) are going to be paying for this.

Its a croc.

Your point is both flawed AND irrelvant. IF it MIGHT cost me 10,000$over 20 YEARS then I dont have to put the whole 10,000 away right now. I can just always have enough credit to cover each YEARS installment and pay is it goes. It is also IRRELEVANT as it MIGHT cost me 10 grand is NOT saying I AM going to spend 10grand and THAT is what Cavuto DID. I dont care what you think about the program. I want to see some help for the homeowners. I agree they are partially to blame along WITH the predatory lending practicises brought on by the revokation of Glass Steagal. We have ALWAYS had socialism for the rich and powerful in this country, we constantly bail out the big guy, lets do some bailing out of the little guy. None of this is relevant to the POINT of the MMFA article which is that Cavuto misled. No question about it he did.

And, Columbo- IF this is something that needs to be funded IMMEDIATELY for the future, don't you think it would be better to stop wasteful spending in Iraq NOW to provide homes to Americans here, NOW?

Im not in favor of the Iraq war, but lets face it - that $500B in Iraq would only be directed to Afganistan, Pakistan, and Iran.  So thats really a moot statement.

Now, if the war was not taking place, I still would not be in favor of putting that $500B towards the housing market in the proposed bill.  And I am all for cutting spending - pork barrel projects, welfare reform, benefits for non citizens, etc.

Im not in favor of the Iraq war, but lets face it - that $500B in Iraq would only be directed to Afganistan, Pakistan, and Iran.  So thats really a moot statement.

Not if we elect a Dem Pres. and a lot of of Dem Congressman and hold their feet to fire. 

So basically, Im saying the bottom line question isn't WHEN does this need to be funded.  The bottom line is that this is not needed at all, and is an insult to honest, financially responsible americans, including those who do not own homes.

We bail out big bussiness every time they screw the pooch. Why not for ONCE bail out the little guy? I agree they deserve some of the blame for this crisis.

Its called the lesser of two evils.  Don't have to like it, nor do I.  They bail out the big guys because they control the jobs.  If there are no jobs, then no reason for an FHA because people wont afford to be able to pay taxes, much less buy a house, due to losing their jobs.

Its comprable to that old saying "you can pick your friends, but you cant pick your family".

No its called seeing it the way you WANT to see it. Either is a choice. Exactly how many jobs are involved in a large financial institution? As many as when factories close and go overseas? We let THAT happen. How much money will be lost if these mortgages go down?What will happen to the value of homes in general? Will I lose thirty percent of the equity in my home? How many jobs will then be lost in the construction industry? The supports FOR the construction industry? No it is NOT all about jobs it is about PRIORITIES, it is FRAMED as being about jobs.

As many as when factories close and go overseas? We let THAT happen.

LET that happen?  Cmon, wake up man.  Time to come back to earth.  We forced them out.  If you are talking about factories, then look no further to our friends in the government and the EPA.  Everytime you increase regulations, you increase the cost of production.  Well, its a bubble that bursted long ago when the option of importing the same product is cheaper than building it here.  Regardless your view on Unions, they certainly did not play a role in keeping the factories here either.  There becomes a problem when your skills stay on the same level, yet you want to keep increasing your wages, as well as the wages of everyone else.  Again, another reason the bubble burst.

 How much money will be lost if these mortgages go down?What will happen to the value of homes in general? Will I lose thirty percent of the equity in my home?

If these mortgages go down?  Well, roughly $300B as it stands now on this bill, not to mention the job losses and pull outs of the mortgage investment market.  Values of homes are coming back to earth.  They increased at a rate unheard of, and it was only time before they got to a point that people cannot afford the property tax or the cost of purchasing.  Again, for the masses and the market, this is a good thing.  If you bought and are trying to sell, well, those are the bad parts of an investment.  There is nothing in writing that says a home value is always going to increase, just like the value of a dollar is not going to actually be a dollar. 

No it is NOT all about jobs it is about PRIORITIES, it is FRAMED as being about jobs.

Whos priorities?  Do you think decreasing home values are the priority of a first time home buyer?  Do you think increased EPA regulations and corporate taxes are the priorities of corporations looking to invest in the USA vs other countries?  Do you think its my priority to bail out my neighbor because he cant afford his house that he never should of bought in the frist place, where as that extra money from my taxes could have gone towards my future childs college fund?  Its not all about jobs, but it is about jobs in general, its about personal responsibility, its about self reliance, and future wealth for your OWN family.

Oh that is bunk. The EPA? Are you saying we are obligated to allow the corporations to poison our land, air and water or let them go somewhere that they DO? We are obligated to allow the DEATHS that will occur from such poisoning? Remember the superfund? THAT was public cost, that is taxpayers paying for EXACTLY that kind of poisoning. You people just worship power NOTHING that puts constrains on them for the good of society should get in the way of their SACRED right to make as much money as possible no matter the societal costs. Unions? Please both Japan AND Europe have a higher average wage than the US and have had for decades and they are not hemmoraging jobs to the third world. We COULD do something about it. Change the tarrif structure put a punative tax on factories that leave the US for no societal protections in order to change from lavish profits to simply obscene profits. That is again the rightwing spin and not necessarily representative of reality. IF the mortages are guaranteed the  housing prices will still go down yes back to reality as you stated I agree with that but if something like that is NOT done they could plummet right down to the core and less homes will be built that is my point meanwhile the same amount of money is going to be leant across the board if Bear Stearns goes down then someone or several entities will still loan that money and will still need approximatly the same amount of people to loan it so it would be  a readjustment but not a wholesale hemooraging of jobs that would not be replaced as what will happen if the construction industry is hurt by houses going down well past what they should be to panic levels. AGAIN this is all about priorities. You keep giving rationales why we need to shovel money to wealth and power but let the guy on the bottom just suffer. That is a CHOICE it is not religious dogma it is no the ONLY alternative. We CAN choose to help the little guy. Yes some of them were irresponsible. No where NEAR as irresponsible as the Savings and Loan industry was when THEIR crisis hit and we sure bailed THEM out. It was a societal choice as is THIS. We are always ready to help power why not for once help the little guy

Never did I comment that I am opposed to environmental regulations that poison our land...my point was that if you impose those, you best be ready to lose companies to countries who do not impose those.  Thus the arrival of China - directly mimicking our rise to power via the Industrial Revolution. 

You cannot punish people for determining that investing in the US is not worthwhile because the regulations force you to make less money compared to doing business somewhere else.  In this day in age, punishment will get you nowhere - in direct response to your tax tarrifs on companies.  You need to give a reason for companies to WANT to do business here.  You need to prove that the market is worthwhile, and that the people are on your side.  If not, then just smile and walk in to your nearest walmart for your daily needs.

In response to your "help the little guy" argument, the only way I would be for that in this case, is if the lenders were found guilty by US Court, and forced to guaruntee predatory loans to those people who they gave them to.  I'd be all for that.  But forcing the tax paying citizens to do it is bunk, plain and simple. 

The bottom line is that you think you can fuse together social compassion and the investment market.  You cannot.  They need to be targeted seperately, while not pushing one down in order to pick another up.

Ah but you CAN punish them. Or to be more accurate you can take away the incentive to poison OTHER lands by imposing a tariff that takes away the financial incentive to take your factory to where you can poison the land. The US has by far the most important market in the entire world. Countries that want to be world players MUST sell here. AGAIN that is a choice a priority. Of COURSE you can mesh compassion and markets it is another societal CHOICE we have compassion for CORPORATIONS that screw up. What is the difference? We bailed out the Savings and loan industry that made loans no reasonbly bright ten year old would make BECAUSE they knew the taxpayer woud bail them out and there WAS NO REAL RISK. There is NO religious dogma at work here. We CAN make the societal decision that THIS time we will for ONCE bail out the little guy instead of ONLY the powerful interests. You can argue this isnt a good idea but the There Is No Alternative argument is bogus of COURSE there is it is a societal priority and we can always change that. There will be no court findings they got Glass Steagal overturned so there WOULD be no malfeasance found when they did EXACTLY what they wanted to KNOWING there was no risk since the taxpayers would bail them out. Just like we always do. Whatever we do with THEM I am just saying why not extend to the little guy the same consideration we have ALWAYS had for the rich and powerful. Your arguments would be more palatable to me EXCEPT we always do this for power and never for those witout power.

What you are proposing is a revamp of our entire free market economic system.  There is a reason that prospering countries adopted our system...because it works.

You and I can agree to disagree.  And chances are, whatever happens is not going to be the way that either of us would want it to be.  Our voices are 2 in 300+ million, 99% of whom are going to side with the decision that benefits them personally.  Its a natural response when it involves your personal wealth, and can impact your life and standard of living.

However, you are free to think your idea is best, and I can think mine is best.  However in both cases, I raise the following scenario:

You can wish in one hand and crap in the other, see which fills up first.

No revamping the tarriff system would NOT be a revamping of our entire free market system. You can PRETEND your free market idoloty is the only possible way that it is religious dogma that doesnt need any rationale it is just the only alternative. You can PRETEND your delusions represent reality but that doesnt mean anything except that YOU are delusional.

My ability to play the economic system and investment markets, while living a conservative and above standard lifestyle prove otherwise.

So YOU say. You are working two jobs and you arent among the wealty elite. I am working one job and doing extremely well and I dont see it your way. Perhaps your delusions are just extended beyond your fantasies about what constitutes a free market.

Yes, 28, not among wealthy elite...on paper tax return.  write offs are a blessing, and so is the ability to legally "move" income around.

What you are proposing is a revamp of our entire free market economic system.

No, this would be a correction of failed GOP economic policies of the from the 1980's onward.

restated:

No, this would be a correction of the failed GOP economic policies from the 1980's onward.

restated:

No this would be a correction of the failed GOP economic policies of the 1980's onward. 

Riiiiight.  It was the republicans who forced out industries and companies to sacrafice our GDP and standard of living to save a few caribou ;-)

See again you want to blame ecology. You are flat out delusional. There are no Caribou in the 48 states. Your brainwashing is complete. Your recital ability of the Limborg hivemind talking points is impressive your grasp of reality not so much.

Yes that's right, but not to save wildlife, just labor costs.

LOL to save labor costs?  care to explain that?

Riiiiight.  It was the republicans who forced out industries and companies to sacrafice our GDP and standard of living to save a few caribou ;-)

• - Columbus1492 / Thursday May 8, 2008 10:31:43 PM EDT

Shelter is primary.  A job is a means to that end.

Shelter does not mean owning home.  If you cannot afford shelter, we will provide section 8 housing.  If you cannot get a job, we will provide you with free money, courtesy of the people working for a living.

But that might end up costing as much or more as a well manged bailout plan.

Very possible - we should get rid of both and be done with it.

Sure lets increase homlessness. I mean it wont be YOU so what do YOU care how much other people suffer. I am so glad Americans arent as selfish hardhearted and softheaded as you.

increase ability to be homeless = increase in motivation to get up off lazy butt to get a job, and put down the crack pipe.

Sure because no one is homeless except crack addicts and lazy people. You are ignorant and disgusting. Does it really feel so good to think you are so much better than people who might have had a catastropic illness or had their job go overseas after working for 15 years or had a bad accident at the wrong time of life. How good it must feel to be so much BETTER than the unfortunate. I see someone down and think there but for the grace of God go I and think about how we should help YOU see someone down and think how much better you are than they are and arent they in just the best position to kick their teeth down their throat. You are an embarassment to our entire species.

Well, proves my kickboxing classes are paying off.  Thanks for the props!

It only proves you are a souless heartless piece of human debris

IF it MIGHT cost me 10,000$over 20 YEARS then I dont have to put the whole 10,000 away right now. I can just always have enough credit to cover each YEARS installment and pay is it goes.

And where is the money for these "installments" coming from?  If a person declares bankruptcy or runs out on their home, the people paying for their own homes are going to pay for someone elses in addition?  Do you realize that what you are citing as payment resolution is the same problem to which the people in the housing crisis fell for? 

My interest rate is 5%, yeah it may go to 15%, but i have the next 5 years to worry about that.  And boom!  5 years comes up awful quickly. 

Im not for bailing out the big guy either.  And although I didnt like the bail out of bear stearns, I will stand by the overwhelming support of it by economists, since their predictions of what could have happened had we not may have been catastrophic.

Home purchasing is a privelage, and owning a home is not the same as needing shelter.  If you cannot afford to own, then you rent.  Plain and simple.  A socialized version of the small guy trying to get ahead in life, bailing out another small guy becuase his materialized investment went sour is flat out wrong in every sense.

There is no room for "compassion" in financials investments.

You are misstating the point. Are you really claiming the variable mortgage means that in five years it goes directly from five to fifteen percent? THAT is not how it works in the second year it would go to seven or eight then the third year, and so on. The installments would be paid on credit IF THEY HAPPEN and that is the point. There is NO QUESTION that phrasing a POTENTIAL cost as THE cost is misinformation. You are willing to go with the economists that the socialism for the rich is necessary but that the little guy should sink or swim. Yeah what were the odds. Always its stand WITH the powerful and against the weak for the conservatives there is ALWAYS a rationale for giving more money to wealth and power and its anathema to help those in real need. There is ALWAYS room for compassion. Public policy is made by US the citizens ARE the top layer of goverment. WE can decide what the priorities are and we are not obligated to worship at the alter of Ebeneezer Scrooge. Searching for whatever reason you need to find to rationalize giving more to power and ignoring the needs of those hurting is a CHOICE it is not religious dogma. The world will not end because we CHOOSE as a society to help those in need whether they screwed up or not and decide NOT to find a reason to give MORE to wealth and power.

Geez man, you started off ok, then went on a liberal tangent based on class warfare - I'm almost surprised your hatred for SUV's wasn't brought up.

I didnt claim they would go up to 15%, but that they could.  Its the market, its not a for sure thing...else it wouldnt be an investment.  You talk about this little guy as if you are the only one out there.  Im a little guy, just as you are.  Im not in the wealthy tax bracket, I dont own a company, I dont have hundreds of thousands in stocks, I dont own 3 homes.  But what I do know is the concept of personal and financial responsibility.  I take responsibility for my actions, and you should do the same, along with everyone else out there.  I dont have the time, the money, or the patience to live everyone elses life for them, and its not the governments responsibility to do so.

I work on salary, putting in more hours than required, and I have a second job for the sole purpose of putting it all in my retirement fund.  Im 28 yrs old, and becuse of my conservative lifestyle and financial responsibility, im in a better retirement position than the average 40yr old.  Now because I make wise decisions for whats best for me and my future family, its my responsibility to pick up the slack for the ones who tried to make a quick buck and overspent outside their means?  You will have a helluva time trying to persuade me otherwise.  Theres 300+ million people in this country, and the time to take charge of your own life instead of depending on everyone else to help you out is over my friend. 

Companies and countries have fallen throughout time becuase they felt they have the means and support of everyone else, and if they fell, the others would pick them up.  That is not todays society, nor is it going to be the near future.  I wont cry because my neighbor lost his job and keep doing what im doing, but I will work harder to prevent encountering the same fate.  Thats what seperates the successful from the masses.  Self responsibility.  The "whats mine is mine, and whats yours is mine" game is complete and utter BS.

 

This would ring truer if you were less sanguine about the EXTRAORDINARY wealth transfer to the military /industrial complex.

Military strength and the industrial revolution are what built and sustained this country.  How easily we forget....

Heeeeey, you said you were off to bed.......... 

...........This country can no longer afford the over 100 scattered bases around our world empire.  We just ain't got the scratch anymore to afford such feelings of power and world dominance.  America is the new Great Britain.

We can't afford our world empire any longer with over 100 bases.  America is the new Great Britain.

NO a committed working class and unparalelled natural resources built this country. The PRIORITIES we had were not the only ones that could have been successful. Wasteful military spending public cost to private profit which is part and parcel with the Pentagon shovelling money to targetted industries and all the rest of your appologies for shovelling public money to the rich were just what happened. Our country became great in spite of such wastefulness not because of it. When the GI bill expanded the middle class beyond anything it had been before THAT was public policy that caused our economy to boom. That and the rest of the world was devestated by WW2 and our infrastructure was relatively intact. Then again any reason to kill vast numbers of people sounds good to warmongers like you. Genocide would be fine if it helped your portfolio gain a few percentage points. You are sick, seek professional help immediatly

Geez man, you started off ok, then went on a liberal tangent based on class warfare - I'm almost surprised your hatred for SUV's wasn't brought up.

I didnt claim they would go up to 15%, but that they could.  Its the market, its not a for sure thing...else it wouldnt be an investment.  You talk about this little guy as if you are the only one out there.  Im a little guy, just as you are.  Im not in the wealthy tax bracket, I dont own a company, I dont have hundreds of thousands in stocks, I dont own 3 homes.  But what I do know is the concept of personal and financial responsibility.  I take responsibility for my actions, and you should do the same, along with everyone else out there.  I dont have the time, the money, or the patience to live everyone elses life for them, and its not the governments responsibility to do so.

I work on salary, putting in more hours than required, and I have a second job for the sole purpose of putting it all in my retirement fund.  Im 28 yrs old, and becuse of my conservative lifestyle and financial responsibility, im in a better retirement position than the average 40yr old.  Now because I make wise decisions for whats best for me and my future family, its my responsibility to pick up the slack for the ones who tried to make a quick buck and overspent outside their means?  You will have a helluva time trying to persuade me otherwise.  Theres 300+ million people in this country, and the time to take charge of your own life instead of depending on everyone else to help you out is over my friend. 

Companies and countries have fallen throughout time becuase they felt they have the means and support of everyone else, and if they fell, the others would pick them up.  That is not todays society, nor is it going to be the near future.  I wont cry because my neighbor lost his job and keep doing what im doing, but I will work harder to prevent encountering the same fate.  Thats what seperates the successful from the masses.  Self responsibility.  The "whats mine is mine, and whats yours is mine" game is complete and utter BS.

 

You started out stupid and stayed stupid. I am just suprised you didnt talk about your shrine to the worship of Ebeneezer Scrooge. I talk about the little guy for the reason I STATED. We have always had socialism for the rich in this country. As usual to the simpleminded choosing THAT priority isnt class warfare but pointing it out IS. That is simplemindedness at its core. No one takes care of me. I do fine. I am in no danger of losing my home. I have good financial security and make  a very good living the difference between us is that I care for people besides myself. I DO care if my nieghbor loses his home apparantly you couldnt care less what happens to anyone but YOU. To the extent we care about one another to the extent we see that we are all in this together we make this a better country. To the extent we make things better for ALL instead of saying I got mine and you can either get yours of DIE we improve the country itself. To the extent we ONLY care about ourselves and ignore the privations of our brothers we become smaller and make this a meaner and darker place for all of us to live. Again we DO take care of wealth and power when THEY screw up the costs are socialised THIS IS A CHOICE, a priority NOT religious dogma it is NOT the only alternative.

Wow.  Sounds like you need to take a breath of fresh air, and recite that poem to your PETA society.  I care about other people, and firmly beleive that people in general are good and caring.  However, I will only sacrafice what i feel I can give to others, not what someone else wants to take from me.  I am not an open shop, a thrift store, where everything on the shelf is free.  You may want it to be, but thats not going to happen.

If you want people to start making changes and helping out others, then you ought to stop here, and start convincing those people who need help to start showing some personal responsibility. 

Sounds to me like YOU ought to increase your medication turn stop letting the Limborg hivemind do your thinking for you and for once in your life think for yourself.

Sure you care about others as long as it doesnt inconvienince YOU. That is so very big of you. What you mean is you SAY you care about others and that is the depth of your committment to that ideal. AGAIN this priority is a CHOICE. One we have made for decades at least. We DO socialize the costs of CORPORATE malfeasance or stupidity and let those on the bottom sink. We DO bailout powerful interests no matter what and let those in need suffer. THAT is a choice. I see no reason why this time we do the opposite. Let Bear Stearns sink and take care of the little guy. YOU are just buying that there is no alternative to shovelling money to power when THEY screw up and letting those on the bottom suffer when THEY screw up. That is a societal choice it is NOT religious dogma

Hate to tell ya, Im not religious, so that part of the rant is meaningless.

Also, I am not for big firm bailouts.  I am not for guarunteed loans to bail out corporations either.  Im not a fan of oil being traded as a commodity on wall street, and im not for an increase in capital gains tax. 

And if you think that people losing their homes becuase of god awful financial investments is somehow linked to having nothing, you are gravely mistaken.  It just means that they will have to move into an apartment and save like the rest of the people who are financially responsible, and how they should have in the first place.  This is not a case of people coming down with a plague, or a hurricane leveling their homes, or someone stealing their identities.  These are people who made poor personal financial decisions.  That warrants no bailout from me. 

 

I AM religious but I made no mention of religion in my post so that part of your reply was stupid.

You finally make a good point. No this isnt going to kill them. There are other places I would rather see the committment. My whole argument is we ALWAYS do this for powerful interests. These loans might never have BEEN made except they knew there was no risk and the taxpayers WOULD bail them out. I am just saying why not this ONCE extend that same courtesy to those without power those who cannot afford to buy their own lobbyists and Senators.

Because by doing so, you are insulting the responsible people who bought a home the correct way, or are saving up to purchase a home.  Thats why.

Now, im all for changing the structure and policy of loans and predatory loans, and government backing of them.  But...be prepared for sky high interest rates, and needing a credit rating of 750+ to get approved.

No it isnt. Helping someone who needs it is NOT an insult to those who dont need it. This argument could also be applied to the corporations why isnt it an insult to WORKING Americans who DONT get balied out everytime we step in to bail out those in power?

Because they dont need it, they want it.  They didnt NEED to buy a house, they WANTED to buy a house.  Owning a home is not an entitlement.

But being wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice IS an entitlement?AGAIN this is a societal choice. We DO bail out power. We are DOING IT AGAIN. Your constant worry about wealth and blackhearted indifference to the suffering of your niehbor is duly noted.

1492 would be oh so happy for the return of Hoovervilles.  You're right Solon, he does need professional help.  I sure hope you don't come down with cancer, lose your job and your insurance, 1492.  Then it's off to the flophouse for you, buddy boy, because I'm sure you wouldn't accept a hand-out, no sir-ee.

You really do make me ill.

I am just saying why not this ONCE extend that same courtesy to those without power those who cannot afford to buy their own lobbyists and Senators.

Also, what is the point of putting a stop to bailing out one side, when all you are doing is positioning the terrible financial decision makers to make another bad investment...dont worry, the american people will bail you out again...out of courtesy.

Because the score right now is bailing out power 100 bailing out the little guy?ZERO. So what you are saying is it is wrong to EVER bail out the little guy even though we have already bailed out power so many times to show we shouldnt bail either one out AS WE BAIL OUT POWER AGAIN? Please. We have doled out socialism for the rich for many decades the FIRST time we talk about bailing out the little guy it becomes a hysterical we CANT do that because we shouldnt bail out either one. Though we both know power will CONTINUE to be bailed out. How about we do at least a couple of small guy bail outs and STOP bailing out power THEN I will listen to this argument again. Until then its just another rationale why we HAVE to give to power until it hurts and those without power can go off and suffer in silence.

oh boy, another socialism for the rich paragraph.  seriously man, enough of the "the man is holding me down" crap.  the next time i hear that from someone on welfare checks while walking down the street with a cell phone and a $200 pair of air jordans, im going to tell them how the man is holding me down.

Ok back to seriousness....

I say the government puts its fist down, and says enough is enough.  No one....personal nor corporate, will get a dollar from american tax payers as a bail out from here on out.  That goes for you Fannie Mae, and you Joe Schmoe who tried to flip that house.  You made the choice, now deal with it.

Thats my view.

And the next time one of your stupid delusional fantasies makes you spew out an ignorant stereotype that has so little to do with reality I will laugh AGAIN. There is no question we have always had socialism for the rich. That is axiomatic. RISKS are socializied its that simple. A whole lot of our economy is public cost to private profit. We DO bail out power everytime. You SAY we shouldnt do that either but we ARE doing that and as long as they can afford their lobbyists and pet Senators that is going to continue. It already HAS been our pattern for a very long time the FIRST time its about the little guy you want to get hysterical. Even IF, and its never going to happen, you could stop the bailouts of power it has already been done many MANY times why not for ONCE let our public dollars go to help the guy on the bottom like we have for the guys on the top for DECADES?

Final Answer: because its ridiculous.  and it will be vetoed anyway, thank god....so I rest my case.  Off to bed, I need to buy someones house tomorrow at 35% below market value....

Its only ridiculous to the congenitally selfish greed worshippers. May you some day rediscover your soul. May you some day care about someone NOT living in your home. May you someday become an actual human being.

Great stuff Solon.  ( and nice straight man work Columbus)

May you some day care about someone NOT living in your home.

Mission accomplished.  Fiance has her own home.

You mean a female NOT made of rubber actually shares a bed with you? I have to go vomit now.

If a person declares bankruptcy or runs out on their home, the people paying for their own homes are going to pay for someone elses in addition?---Columbus

They're paying a big annual fee per person to jail millions in this country right now.  I thinks it's 30k or 50k/year? 

Yup...and how many of those people in jail are illegals and shouldnt have been here anyway?  Can you answer that?

But that's a different debate.  It's a big percent but signifigantly under half.  The point is "you can 'me' now or you can pay 'me' later."

Oh god......that's "you can PAY me now....."

Now its a different debate?  Seems you started on a tangent with your jailed topic that had nothing to do with housing.  But typical liberal response.

My point was that this problem leads to homelessness which then results in more people ending up in prison which also cost a lot of money.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/i/illegal-aliens.htm

 

 Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers

 

are Mexican nationals here illegally-Fiction!
National statistics would tend to suggest that this claim is not true.  A 2007 report by the Immigration Policy Center said that among men 18-39, which represents the majority of prison inmates, the incarceration rate of foreign born was 0.7 percent while the incarceration rate of native born was 3.5 percent.   Foreign born Mexicans had an incarceration rate of 0.7 percent in 2000 compared with 5.9 percent for native born men of Mexican descent

The Scrooge auditions are downstairs, bare to the right.

It could cost $3 Billion, $30 Billion, $300 Billion or anything below, but by the language in the bill, the government (we the taxpayers) are on the books for $300 Billion.

See how easy it is to spend someone elses money without worrying how much it will cost?

IF it goes that high and it might. It is STILL misinformation to say it IS the cost instead of it MIGHT be the cost.

That's like saying your insurance company is on the hook for the total amount of your house! Fact is, the chances of it burning down are slim - thousands of homes are insured to protect the ONE that DOES burn down!

FHA is INSURING $300 billion - not loaning it!  The money still comes from the lenders, and is secured by AT LEAST - 85% of the value of the home!  Show me ANY other area of the government where their costs/expenses/budget is "covered" by an 85% asset?  No way!

That' like saying that Fannie Mae is "on the hook" for $1 Trillion.  A little ridiculous when you look at it that way....

Well, here's my opinion. I don't think it's so much as parsing with a simple graphic. It's a bit too much to explain. If these fellows did not talk about the details of the bill and the supposed cost of this bill, according to the congressional budget office, then it would be parsing.

Also, $300 billion, the limit, is nothing compared to the invasion of Iraq.

When I have no way to back up a reason to support an increase of spending, point to the Iraq war as a baseless counter claim.  Now I'm starting to get how this works.

Chip Cummings had it right - it's $300 billion in INSURED loans, which the lenders have to make happen anyway. According to the bill, the FHA can only insure up to 85% of the value of the home, the lender writes down the loss on the rest - this is not a "bailout", but rather a way to convert those pending losses (spelled f-o-r-e-c-l-o-s-u-r-e!) into saveable loans at a fixed rate for homeowners who qualify.  No investments, no stated income, no silly lending - real verified income and doable deals.

The PROBLEM is going to be with implementation. As on who is a loan officer in the industry, it always sounds better than it works.  We still have to get the lenders to agree to finance these things, and not just "shove" their bad/marginal loans off to someone else to foreclose on.

To do NOTHING is stupid!  Wayne Rogers doesn't understand that the trickle-down theory of these foreclosures will impact OTHER homeowners (who did NOTHING wrong), entire neighborhoods and cities - with lost tax revenue, crime, theft, vandalism, drugs, etc.  If these houses go empty, investors ultimitely will have to come in (at pennies on the dollar) to fix it up and re-stabalize.  Wait - maybe that's what Mr. Rogers wants, since he's an investor.  Chip Cummings is well known in our industry, and knows how the FHA system works better than some of those on Capitol Hill!

You see, 1492 will only be happy when he's got the only non-foreclosed house on his street.  Then he can have his own little block party right in the middle of the road with no worries about traffic.  He can even sun bathe in the nude and not worry about the neighborhood kids.  Hell, he can even shoot target practice in his back yard and not worry about waking anyone up.

Sounds like your wet dream to me, 1492.

My dear friends (Libs and Conservatives): The "Big Cooperations" that the government has bailed out are major players in the already shaky economy, I am sorry to brake it down like this, but, Bear Stearnes is more ECONOMICALLY important then an average citizen, plain and simple. I already know this will get twisted into "you don't like hard working Americans" and "you just favor the Big Co's  or even better Big Oil," but this is the hard truth.

The problem is that as Columbus previously mentioned, too many in this country are trying to tie emotions into our Economic machine, sadly it doesn't work that way. Attaching human emotion into a system that is built upon many layers of complex formulas and various levels of organization will not get you anywhere. That mindset will do nothing more then inhibit you to think rationally.

Nobody in this country is entitled to own or have a home, car, health care or whatever else. Everyone has the right to PURSUE the dream of owning home etc. I wish that everyone could reach the self actualization level on the Maslow pyramid, but unfortunately many will never even come close to that goal.

We (the taxpayers) cannot support bad decision making, lack of financial responsibility and irresponsible housing market speculators by introducing and passing such a bill, there is NO economic incentive or return if you will with this bail out.

What will be my incentive to pay my mortgage now? You see, this is where all of the "great' socialist regimes have failed time and time again. You take out the competition, you take out the incentive to be a better and more productive contributor to the society, you take out the Free Market that built this country and what do you have left?

When you reach a point in the future where everyone is more or less at the same place economically, where everyones contributions to the society are "equal" and "fair", who will be here to pick up the slack and pay the way for those who mismanaged their lives?

The "2% elites" that the Liberals despise so much are the ones who pay 40-46% of the bills in this country. What happens when there are no more "2% elites?" I encourage everyone on here to go and do some research on these "Big Oil" and " Big Cooperations" companies and just see what their tax rates RELATIVE to their income, then look up how much of their "filthy" money goes into building the roads, hospitals, schools, charities etc. You see, the emphasis is always placed on how much these Industries make, very few care to know how much money Uncle Sam takes out of their pockets and stuffs it into "his" pork barrel projects.

If this were to pass (I think Bush has his veto pen out), the money would be wasted on so many different levels:

1) Who would decide what mortgage gets to be refinanced?

2) Who would provide oversight and ensure that there is no corruption or waste?

3) What happens when this money runs out? Do you turn everyone else away at that point, or do you somehow mandate that this should be a future standard?

4) Would all the states receive same amount of funding regardless of their size, or is there some kind of formula that the Government would use in order to appropriate these funds adequately?  

5) Regarding the question above: Who would be charged with determining whether that formula is fair to all citizens?

6) What happens if the Government refinances the mortgage and the loan goes belly up again?

What would happen is that we would allow our Government to grow and expand its wings even more. We would empower more and more Government control and bureaucracy. Why is it that the same people who can't stand the Government, who constantly claim that "Washington is broken," the same ones who consistently point out Governments failures with most of the programs that have been created by the D.C. gang are so quick to pull the trigger and allow the Government to grow more and more...more rules...more regulations...less Liberty...less Freedom...

I have posted this with a hope that at least few people will read this and think about it. I have not used any derogatory or profound vocabulary and I will wait and see if someone on here will come out and call me a right winger, Bush lover, Limbaugh ditto.ss etc.

Take care 

 

is this the bill with the tax breaks for developers, allowing them to write off current losses against past gains?  i think so.  that's the real rub of this deal.  if so, that's the reason the prez will veto it.