Here comes Housing Czarina Hillary to the rescue
One of the questions I suggested for yesterday’s debate dealt with the Bush/Hillarycare for housing initiatives that have been in the works since last summer–and which I’ve been covering extensively. Unfortunately, the debate barely scratched the surface. When Mitt Romney asserted that we need to “Stop the housing crisis,” no one followed up. How exactly? Romney was never pressed. McCain prattled on about job retraining and education. Huckabee commended the president’s non-bailout bailout approach (despite having earlier made tougher, clearer comments unequivocally opposing bailout measures). Fred Thompson talked about the need for a Clintonesque “fiscal stimulus.”
Hillary Clinton has indeed found her voice. It’s inside all of the GOP candidates!
In Hillary’s New Hampshire victory speech, I noted that the subprime meltdown was prominently mentioned. Her pollsters and strategists know it is playing well. I reported back in August that her campaign was soliciting housing sob stories:
Well, now guess what? Hillary’s launching a full-scale Housing Czarina and Economic Stimulus campaign– and you can bet she’ll be armed with anecdotes:
Amid growing signs of trouble in the U.S. economy, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton will propose a $70-billion package today to stimulate the economy and will urge Congress to stand ready to offer a $40-billion rebate to taxpayers if the slump continues.
The New York senator’s economic package, to be announced in a speech in Los Angeles, includes temporary measures to quickly inject money into the economy and help middle-class families, including housing aid, to stem foreclosures; energy assistance; and liberalized unemployment insurance.
The initiative, larger than an economic stimulus proposed last month by former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, one of her rivals for the nomination, comes as Clinton is trying to build on her victory in the New Hampshire primary. The package dovetails with her efforts to appeal to middle- and lower-income workers, an important part of the coalition that has backed her in early voting…
She’s moving to the left of Edwards to steal his faux populist thunder:
…Among Democrats, Edwards has proposed a $25-billion jobs plan and urged Congress to be ready to pass $75 billion more upon evidence of a recession.
Like Edwards’ plan, Clinton’s approach differs from the last time Congress — then controlled by Republicans — enacted an economic stimulus plan. That 2003 law provided aid to states and tax breaks for businesses and individuals.
Clinton’s plan packages new proposals with ideas she has championed in the past. A memo describing the plan says it meets her three principles for economic stimulus: fast-starting, temporary and progressive. The plan is designed to be immediate and to last only through 2008.
Key elements include a $30-billion fund to help states and cities stem foreclosures in the subprime mortgage crisis, and a 90-day moratorium on subprime foreclosures.
She will also propose $25 billion in emergency home-heating assistance and $10 billion to expand unemployment insurance.
If economic conditions worsen, Clinton plans to say, Congress should provide $40 billion in direct tax rebates to middle-class families.
Is there anyone in the Republican Party who stands in clear and direct opposition to Hillarycare for the housing market? Where are fiscal conservatives? The White House is infected with the bailout virus. The Senate has only one member willing to say “Suck It Up.” And based on last night’s remarks, the leading GOP presidential candidates are all on board the Bush/Hillarycare for housing gravy train.
Which means maximum pandering to homebuyers who made bad decisions–at the expense of the majority of responsible taxpayers.
God save us from “bipartisanship.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Hang Right Politics » She wants sob stories?
- Michelle Malkin » Obama on Hillarycare for housing: Me, too! Me, too!
- Do we really need a $30 Billion infusion into the Housing Market? » Pasadena California Real Estate Blog
- Michelle Malkin » The Democrat food fight in Nevada; Update: Denny K is out; Update Clinton on Obama race flap: “We both have exuberant and uncontrollable supporters;” Update: “What’s a white male to do running against a woma
- Michelle Malkin » SC Democrat debate: Punch, Judy, and Silky
- Michelle Malkin » The Sunday talk shows open thread
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Subprime crisis
Mudville Gazette
» Spring
Redstate
» The Honeymoon Is Not Quite Over . . .Stop The ACLU
» Can’t Wait To See What Racist Al Thinks Should Count For HimPower Line
» Minnesota Senate Recount, Update IINewsBusters.org
» Obama Attorney General Nominee Eric Holder Helped Enable 2000 Elian Gonzalez SeizureGateway Pundit
» Radical Gays Kick & Beat Christian Woman in San FranciscoHotline On Call
» Leakage Fallout: Pritzker's A No GoStop The ACLU
» Judge Orders 5 Gitmo Detainees ReleasedJawa Report
» Democrats Abused Power in Probe of Joe the Plumber
I had to recently change my address on voter registration. For the first time I’m now Unaffiliated. They’re all making me ill. I mean I’m not gonna run out and vote (D) or anything. I haven’t lost my mind completely. I just felt like the party has left where I was when I voted for Reagan 1. I’m still there.
They keep talking, but I keep tuning out. Can we draft Kyl? Anyone? Bueller?
Good Morning, feeling fresh with a morning dose of Fred-Mania!!
“Suck It Up” should be the Mantra for the Republican Party.
The thing that keeps bothering me is that Republicans TRYING to be conservatives vs. the other way around.
Is the republican party totally screwed over because there’s nobody that understands what it really means to be a conservative?
“Paging Mr. DeMint”
The follow-up question SHOULD have been:
“If the government bails out all of those people who took risky gambles and are now suffering for their poor choice, aren’t the “Middle Class” going to have to pay for their mistakes?
Although I am sure there are cases in which people did all they could to purchase a house in their price range and get the best loan they could, I have an even stronger feeling that the majority of the people did no research, didn’t come up with a budget to figure out how much they could afford, etc. I bought my 2nd house a year and a half ago and I did everything a responsible person should do. Sure, I would have loved to get a bigger house and spend another $50 grand, but that would have been irresponsible. When these same people are irresponsible again, do we come to their rescue again? I wonder if some of these people who are in trouble have brand new cars or new flat screen tvs?
This really makes me sick, why do responsible middle class people always get screwed? Is there ever going to be someone in washington to stick up for us?
will our gov’ment also bail us out of our auto loans that we couldd not afford? How about paying off my “lifetime membership” at the gym ? Just because I’m too lazy to read the fine print or too irresponsible to buy only what I can afford should not mean that I can’t have evey thing the Jones’ have. I’m a ‘good’ person who’s just made some poor choises.
The solution for the housing is crisis is Personal Responsibility. Don’t live beyond your means ! Get educated, learn a skill. Take charge of your own life. End the government entitlement mentality.
You Know.. That 100,000 dollar fishing boat sure would be nice, I’ve wanted it my whole life, do you think the government will cut me a check ? I guess I’ll just go get it and see where the cards fall.
Truly, seriously, this woman is scary! Hell bent on power, she’ll shill for whatever achieves her greedy will.
The biggest problem is that its a winning idea. The whiners, the lazy, the stupid outnumber the producers and will vote for those who play Robin Hood.
Our nation is one of principles, and one of the oldest is that you get what you earn. It is what creates the opportunities that bring people to this country from all over the world. But it is turning into “you can get what the majority wants to take away from someone else.” WHERE IS THE POLITICIAN WITH THE STONES TO SAY NO?
I cannot beleive this is about bailing out home buyers as much as it is about bailing out the BANKS. The BANKS made it too easy to obtain a loan when they knew the borrowers were upside down. So congress is now the bucket for sinking banks.
Hill is on the sub-prime meltdown crap because she’s in bed (figuratively speaking) with health care, law and Wall Street. Remember her ability to turn $1,000 dollars into $100,000 dollars almost over night? She is paying back the elitists who control America’s economy. All her promises of free health care, bail outs and whatnot is a huge freaking pay-off. And the dolts who support this crone don’t even realize that THEY ARE THE ONES WHO’LL PAY FOR IT.
And isn’t it interesting that every time the economy needs a little “stimulating” it’s the Federal Reserve that steps to the fore? That private central banking organization owned by the very same banks to whom they lend money…and our government? Hmm. “Let’s do a little stimulating, eh there Bernie-baby?” Every bit of stimulation generates a prime rate return to the Fed and it’s ownership. Every dollar lent by the Fed to our government accrued more debt to the shareholders. So, in reality, the national debt of billions if not trillions of dollars is money owed to the private bankers. Sure, let Hill do a little stimulating. It’s a Clinton trait. They stimulate and we get screwed.
I don’t fish, but I do take pictures. Last year when I bought another digital camera I settled for a good $2000 package that would do what I needed. But I sure would have liked to go for that $12.5K just-for-the-body camera that will take pictures of the kitchen sink all by itself and the lenses that can take crystal clear pictures of the moon on the low zoom settings. However, I didn’t want to spend more money on a camera than my truck was worth.
On a serious note, one can only hope that some conservatives with fiscal responsibility take control of the house and senate this year. This stimulus package can be proposed by the POTUS, but someone has to fund it. Let’s hope they say “NO.”
Just like President Clinton did just after taking office in ‘93, this is a BANK BAILOUT. We saved them from the Mexico bankruptcy and we’ll asve them from individual bankruptcy. Both sides know the national consequences after Penn Square back in the mid 80s. And the banks know who will bail them out — they’re like spoiled children.
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
I hear you #13
Vote for me. I’ll give you everything you want, FREE!!! Wait, don’t look behind that curtain.
This is very scary.
This mindset of bailing out people who made irresponsible, poor decisions, with money extracted from responsible taxpayers at the point of a gun (for that is what the power of the state to tax the citizen ultimately means), further erodes our society and culture.
If the socialists/leftists…yes, I’ll say even Communists/fascists (for that is essentially what the Democrats are, and what the policies are that they are trying to force upon us) further implement their plans for the rest of us, including:
unlimited, uncontrolled immigration; the further facilitation of voter fraud;
and yet higher and higher taxes on society’s productive members;
we will in not too long a time have a situation in which the majority of voters pay no taxes.
Then, what voice will taxpayers have on taxation at all?
What will voters who already get a free ride care about extracting an even sweeter ride, and further grinding down the taxpayers?
Unfortunately, I fear this may ultimately provoke a hotter war than the nonshooting culture war in which we are currently engaged.
God help us if the Democrats take the White House and both houses of Congress, and continue to pervert the legal system with the installation of additional leftist “judges”.
I have to agree “God save us from bi-partisanship” everything that the Congress has passed in its name is a disaster for each American that produces something to earn a paycheck. This bailout is bad juju for the entire economy and it is best in the long run to “suck it up” and let the irresponsible lending industry twist in the wind instead of rewarding them for bad business practices. They have earned their reward of record losses and should reap the full effect. Once the economic pain passes like it always has in the past the industry will recover as long as they learn from their greed. Rewarding them with a taxpayer bailout teaches them nothing and will only encourage them to continue their unscrupulous business practices.
Do you mean like the Bush tax cuts that are about to expire?
A different perspective from the other side of the world on the looming sub prime crisis in particular and economy in general, here.
#17 granite –
Yep x 25..
Seems obvious the Atlas Shrugged scenario will have to be implemented. Only instead of Who is John Galt, they’ll be crying Where is John Galt? Answer: You killed him off you dumb sons-*&-%itches!!!!
“What we are in now is a Cold Civil War” — Mark Levin
#21 On January 11th, 2008 at 9:55 am, Monte Hall said:
‘#17 granite –
Seems obvious the Atlas Shrugged scenario will have to be implemented. Only instead of Who is John Galt, they’ll be crying Where is John Galt? Answer: You killed him off you dumb sons-*&-%itches!!!!
“What we are in now is a Cold Civil War” — Mark Levin’
Exactly.
We are currently in a nonshooting civil war.
That’s exactly right. Sure some people made stupid decisions. But it’s the banks who are ultimately responsible for this.
The reason there is even an application process when trying to obtain a loan is so the bank can make sure that you can afford it. The banks failed us here.
I’m all for doing your homework and making sure you aren’t getting hosed. But so many people trust bankers to have their best interests in mind. I mean, banks should have the customers best interest in mind since if they can’t pay everyone loses. People trusted these institutions and these institutions failed them.
Blaming people for living outside their means is misguided. These people only scratch the surface of the problem. There was an institutional breakdown here. Federal intervention isn’t unprecedented when financial institutions fail. I understand that’s against conservative principles, but I’d be a lot more convinced if someone had a better alternative than “suck it up.”
Life can be very, very tough; and, sometimes, frankly, it stinks.
I agree that the banks should have to take their lumps and hits, too - and hopefully learn that greed has a price.
However, it is not misguided to blame people for living outside their means.
That’s part of the thrust of this thread’s discussion:
In essence, how much of the excess and recklessness of how many of the excessive and reckless (includes “people” and banks) should the responsible taxpayer be screwed over for?
Huh??? If I take out an auto loan today for his-and-her Dodge Vipers and subsequently default on my loans, who else is to blame besides me? Dodge? The dealer? The bank?
Critique if MM’s post:
Why associate short term economic stimulus with Clinton? Clinton (Bill, that is) tried a stimulus package (”jump start the economy”) but was blocked. Other presidents have done it. The Bush tax cuts and deficit spending were, at first, a stimulus like this. I think “Clintonesque” is a generic work for anything you don’t like, no matter who does it and no matter whether Clinton did it.
You are not privy to Clinton (Hillary) strategy. Don’t presume otherwise.
Rusty,
What are we surprised that you would say such nonsense? Let’s just attribute the sub-prime mess to institutional deficiency but leave out the other greatest factor in its downfall: the consumer? Please tell me you’re not serious.
Rusty, we don’t even SAVE to put down a down payment on a house. Instinctually people know that they’re getting something now to get hosed tomorrow. It makes me sick. Yes, there are uneducated consumers out there and very, very gullible people, but most people know that debt will suck you down a hole of no return. Just look at our national credit rating, the value of the dollar.
The real issue is that the federal government loosened standards for mortgage lending. With looser and looser lending standards, anybody, and I do mean anybody, could get a sub-prime, no money down, ARM for a house that they certainly had not business buying without proper financial planning. So are you saying we honest, financially responsible tax payers have to bail out these dead beats (lets face it that’s what some of these people are)?
Yes, there were genuine victims but there are way too many people (millions of them) claiming that they didn’t know what they were doing. It’s called: READ THE FINE PRINT. This also goes for pay day loans too. Not everybody can own their own home (unless it’s state provided) and we now know the reason why.
Clinton’s message is seductive to clueless, irresponsible consumers. You can keep making mistakes that derail the economy and bring down an entire industry (which they did and which they get to walk away from). The sub-prime mess is a good example of why prudent financial planning, and less impulsive, financial decisions are required.
Rusty, I hate to insert reality into this issue but this country and its citizens live on credit and it’s KILLING US. It’s time for responsibility and accountability on all sides: federal, business, and consumer. Without it, the same old thing (in a new, misleading package) will just pop up again.
Oh, and, Rusty, a lot of these
“victims,” in the immortal words of Kathy Griffin, can go suck it. I may be sympathetic, but looking at my portfolio
right now, I’d say a lot of selfish people (consumers and bankers) are costing ALL OF US big time. Oh, and by the way, I’ve never trusted bankers… especially when they come up with lovely little lies like the CDO.
Beware of the changing (hijacking) of the subject; and of the pointing to other bad behavior to try to excuse bad behavior, folks.
As RetFireman and others have recommended:
JUST
IGNORE
HIM (THEM)
All these bums are about bailing out one of the paying contributors. Hildabeast is paying back the bankers (the very same thieves who own the Federal Reserve…they make money regardless of the outcome but in this case they make lots and lots more).
It’s the same with Universal Health where the politicos pay-off all their hospital exec friends and multi-national contributors (GE Health Care, BIG Pharma etc.). Everything FREE comes with a very STEEP price. Our founders gave their lives for freedom from taxation and tyranny. Now, all the contemporary entitlement slaves and the anointed plantation masters (our elected elite) want to super-size their government hand-outs and pay-offs. Meanwhile, the constitution makes for a great coaster onto which one can set their glass of Chivas. “Pour one for me too, Teddy.”
Maybe if would help if we banned the words greed, stupid, deception and predatory from the analysis.
What happened is that both borrowers and lenders made rational decisions. However, those decisions incorporated risk. And even when both parties are fully cognizant of that risk, sometimes risk bites you in the backside.
My question to anyone who claims that the lenders were foolish and the borrowers were greedy (or vice versa) is this: Why didn’t you recognize the impending disaster? You could have personally profited by short-selling the lender’s stock.
#19 tax cuts are always temporal, subject to the whims of and immediate need for demagoguery or spending, whichever is more effective.
#30 all the loans were collateralized, right? Why do they have losses? Bad loan, take the home. Aren’t the losses a function of the bank’s overhead and a revenue model built solely on churning their base? They are only growing revenue and making money as long as they turn over new loans. Credit worthiness aside, there had to be a basis for valuing the loan amount which would cover the bank’s exposure in the event of default. Without going into the finance details, this all seems to be cooked and contrived in order to create another bail-out. Am I missing sometin’?
“Why didn’t you recognize the impending disaster?”
Ummm…because there exist such things as a busy day job and life?
“You could have personally profited by short-selling the lender’s stock.”
Sure, and thus cynically compounded the problem.
So now she can start crying…again…and she can claim, “I feel your pain!”
At the risk of sounding like one of those whaked out Liberal conspiracy nuts…”Something smells rotten in the Clinton bedroom.”
How’s THAT for a mental image for a Friday morning?
I don’t know much about finances, or the housing market. But 3 years ago I had a great job, and my husband had a great job and we bought a house we could afford, but it was overpriced, in retrospect. Fast forward three years after I no longer have the great job but a baby. We want to sell, but can’t. We weren’t sub-prime, we had excellent credit and financed with big-name lenders. So the housing market stinks, and our house is down 125K from it’s peak value. I assume this is because of the foreclosures.
We had started a short sale, but decided to SUCK IT UP. We’re renting out our basement to help pay the mortgage, and riding it out. I don’t want a bail out, we’ll take care of ourselves.
When Hillary was requesting stories I sent mine in, I told her how much I loved my Zero Down, Interest Only 5 yr ARM and that it was a smart way to buy a home, FOR SOME PEOPLE.
I didn’t hear back from the campaign but I did get some solicitations for money.
IT’s Friday. On the advice of RetFireman, No Troll Food For You!
#9 “The biggest problem is that its a winning idea. The whiners, the lazy, the stupid outnumber the producers and will vote for those who play Robin Hood.”
This example is always used incorrectly. If you actually read Robin Hood, you’ll see that he took the tax money from the government, and gave it back to those who paid the taxes. Politicians use it now as a reason to increase taxes, taking from what the “rich” earn to give to the poor. Robin Hood is a shining example of less government and fewer taxes, and I hate how it’s been corrupted by socialists.
I’m not in the business and I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but…
I suspect the problem is not on the balance sheets, but in the income statements. When the teaser rates expire, higher payments kick in and borrowers are less able to make payments. This causes a cash flow problem for the current holders of the loans. Cash is the lifeblood of any business, especially highly leveraged sectors like the mortgage industry.
When the cash flow for any business dries, it becomes a crisis–no matter how pretty the balance sheet looks.
I think this is the ideal solution too. But it just won’t work for some people. Not everyone has a basement to rent.
I hope everything works out for you. And that your tenant helps with the chores.
Actually short-selling a stock that’s overvalued doesn’t compound problems, it alleviates them. It’s analagous to letting the air out of a balloon through the stem rather than through a pinhole. Boom.
#36 On January 11th, 2008 at 10:58 am, Patchthebun said:
“I don’t know much about finances, or the housing market. But 3 years ago I had a great job, and my husband had a great job and we bought a house we could afford, but it was overpriced, in retrospect. Fast forward three years after I no longer have the great job but a baby. We want to sell, but can’t. We weren’t sub-prime, we had excellent credit and financed with big-name lenders. So the housing market stinks, and our house is down 125K from it’s peak value. I assume this is because of the foreclosures.
We had started a short sale, but decided to SUCK IT UP. We’re renting out our basement to help pay the mortgage, and riding it out. I don’t want a bail out, we’ll take care of ourselves.”
Good for you. Hang in there.
We got somewhat “not favorably treated” by the housing market.
We built a house ~24 years ago, and sank an additional ~ 50% or so of the building cost into it as improvements.
So, 3 years ago we move (new job)…but, the house sells for barely more than the original construction costs.
To add insult to injury, the new house we bought is more than twice as expensive, but smaller, half-a$$ built, on less than half the land.
Yes, the housing market stinks.
But, we did not ask the government (which, after all, is you, us, and all of the taxpayers) for a bail-out.
We sucked it up.
Oh, almost forgot - raised and educated three kids during this time. (Again - no government “help”.)
You stick to your guns, Patchthebun!
“Actually short-selling a stock that’s overvalued doesn’t compound problems, it alleviates them. It’s analagous to letting the air out of a balloon through the stem rather than through a pinhole. Boom.”
OK, then letting the buyers and lenders take their lumps, without screwing the rest of us taxpayers, should have the same efferct, and allow the market to self-correct.
I’ll only vote for Hillary if she gives me that 59 Les Paul sunburst I’ve been lusting after. And since they go for between 200,00 and 400,000 I’m sure she’ll comply. And I’m not greedly the one for 200,000 would be just fine, Sarc. Off.
Umm…effect…
Apologies.
All the people who are responsible financially, who did not take out loans they knew they could not pay, should use Hillary’s form and submit their story. “I was responsible, and now the government is going to screw me over.”
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) - courtesy of Karl Marx or more lately Hillary Clinton.
- wouldn’t Alinsky be proud of her?
What is wrong with this country, what happened to personal responsibility, integrity or character.
I have limited time to compose and post this comment, but I am so frustrated by all this talk of a housing bail-out that I have to get this off my chest.
In 1995, after years of scrimping and saving to pay off a relatively small parcel of land in our county’s seat, my family and I built a modest little house consisting of three small bedrooms each with its own very small closet, one small living room, a combination kitchen and dining room that, like the other rooms, are very small, and one small bathroom, all of this collective smallness to house four regular-sized people!
To pay for our “cozy cottage,” we ate our meals at home, bought clothing only as needed, and continued to drive (and repair) our 1992 Toyota Corolla and 1996 Chevy Corsica.
Now we could have secured a larger loan and built a much larger house; and we could have traded-in our vehicles and for the latest models, bought the latest fashions, and ate out whenever the notion struck, not just on birthdays and the few other special occasions we ventured out, but we knew we could not afford it!
We chose to budget out non-essentials and live within our means, sacrificing the nights out and the new cars, in the hopes of someday paying-off our house so we could then build on the additional space we so desperately need!
Fast forward to the present: With our home now paid for, and the years of sacrificing to meet each mortgage now behind us, come Aunt Hillary and Uncle Sam to say it was all for nothing!
That we should have taken the larger loan and built our dream-house, that we should charged all the new clothing and furniture we wanted, that we should have financed those new SUV’s - because now, after all our years of doing without to remain financially solvent, the U.S. government is going to step-in and pay for everything!
I do not want to see anyone lose their home - for years we were scared to death some calamity would happen and cause us to lose ours - but this bailout is UNFAIR!
It is unfair to those people who did without the non-essentials of a bedroom and bathroom for every family member, a two-car garage, and an in-ground pool in the backyard, in order to assume a home-loan debt they could manage!
I do not resent people being helped to keep their homes - many of which are quite spacious and elegant I may add - nor do I pretend to know what the answer is to this problem, but I do know the injustice of working hard and doing without, only to have “Uncle Sam” come-along years later and make you out to be a patsy for not having taken the easy road out of debt.
And by-the-way, is it just me, or doesn’t the proposed bail-out send the message to our kids to run-out and buy any and everything you want, then just file bankruptcy when the bill comes due?
It just “ain’t” right!
#49 DBNinKY:
Well said.
Amen.
It’s called vote buying: “I, Her Greatness, will give you lots and lots of magic free money.”
Where would Dem pols be without the promise of a big government teat? Their voter base is composed in significant part of parasites, and large sums of cash headed their way trigger the sucking/voting reflex. So too does crying in front of a television camera (daytime Soap conditioning) trigger the drooling/voting reflex. Gag.
And therein lies the basic difference between Republican and Democrat strategies.
The Republican solution; let the taxpayers keep more of their money, and they’ll decide where to spend it.
The Democrat solution; raise taxes on just about everybody, they’ll decide where to spend it, and you taxpayers can go play in traffic.
Absolutely. I’m the last person to argue for government intervention.
But I’m not going to join the chorus villifying the borrowers as stupid and the lenders as greedy.
Why? I believe 99.9% of all parties made considered, rational decisions. The lenders had a process for scoring loan applicants that they considered creditworthy. After all, not every applicant was approved.
Borrowers had to examine the payment schedule at the time and note the payment increases when the teaser rates expired. So call them guilty of overconfidence, not stupidity.
I question whether we would apply the same standards to entrepreneurs as we have been to borrowers now in default. A sizeable porion of startups turn into bellyups. When a small businessman declares bankruptcy, do we razz him for his greed and stupidity? Or do we say, “Nice try. Sorry it didn’t work out. Dust yourself off and have another go at it.”
I have respect for the risk-averse individuals who purchased less house than they could have. They made a savvy decision that protects them in down markets such as that we now face.
Somebody should remind the Clintons that when the average citizen needs to get a mortgage, the average guy can’t call Terry MacAullife and say Terry: “We would like to buy the biggest and nicest house in Westchester County. Can you please buy it for us and then some time later, maybe we can pay you back if we choose to. But we are such special people that maybe we won’t want to”.
#51 On January 11th, 2008 at 11:42 am, PokerGuy said:
‘It’s called vote buying: “I, Her Greatness, will give you lots and lots of magic free money.”’
Exactly!
As discussed above, how long before the taxpayers are outnumbered and outvoted by the nontaxpayers, and thus come completely under the grinding boot of the Communists/fascists?
#53 On January 11th, 2008 at 11:44 am, TexasTiger said:
“OK, then letting the buyers and lenders take their lumps, without screwing the rest of us taxpayers, should have the same efferct, and allow the market to self-correct.
Absolutely. I’m the last person to argue for government intervention.
But I’m not going to join the chorus villifying the borrowers as stupid and the lenders as greedy.”
You bring up good points; it’s a pleasure discussing with you.
I think folks here are steamed up because Hillary’s not talking about organizing and coordinating a voluntary donation campaign.
She’s talking about - what else? - sucking more out of the taxpayers, about a coerced bailout.
That’s coerced…with the full power of the government…including the power to break into your house and send you to jail.
How is it an economic stimulus to take billions of dollars from the nations workers, use 85% to 90% of it to pay the drones of the bureaucracy, and then dribble the remainder out to (usually) useless projects? Another round of (permanent) tax cuts will actually do the job, thank you.
Michelle, I was actually thinking of the following yesterday, and the appropriate thread popped up.
Bank of (Illegals in) America is proposing to buy Countrywide, the subprime lender for $4 billion. Philanthropic, no? No. If just about every candidate, Congressperson and the President are all for bailing out the mortgage business, it’s gravy day for the Bank of Illegals. They buy them out cheap, get partly reimbursed by the taxpayer, and end up with 1/4 of all US mortgages. Sweet huh? You can imagine most candidates wanting to milk that cash cow for contributions.
Follow the Money and Question the Timing…
The “Housing Bubble” I believe people have been calling it. Out here in California, we have been watching prices go so high that you couldn’t afford a house in the worst neighborhood in town. Seriously, when you can’t afford to live in an area where you run the risk of dying in a drive by every night…I would say it is out of hand.
They have been talking about that bubble popping for years now, but it kept growing. “How big will it get?” “Maybe it will never pop?” “Be ready for when the ‘Housing Bubble’ pops”. Well, once again, no one listened and once again, the Democrats have found a whole bastion of new voters.
“What about me? Help me oh Mighty Government Overlords and Masters. Shine thy wealth upon us so that we may never learn from our mistakes. Give unto us all that you have, so that we may always want more and more and more. We promise, h Democrats, to always be forever in your debt, to be forever subserviant towards you, and to keep you in office inperpetutity, claiming that Republicans do not care…only Democrats will give us what we cry for…our baby’s bottle and change our diapers.”
Yes, they have what they want. A new reason to “Save the People From Themselves”. It is what the Democrats do best. Whether it is by legislation or by entitlements or just straight-up hand-outs, they save them from themselves.
To have Bush in on it…well, it only shows that almost 8 years of being beaten down by these…well I just can’t say here else Michelle’s people will yank the post…may just have got to him finally. He is really starting to cave towards the end and I think he just can’t handle hearing about what a skink he is anymore and would like to coast as much as he can this last year.
Thank you oh Mighty Overlords. Thank you so for the bounty with which you bestow upon us at your whim.
Your pound of flesh you ask for will be coming forthwith.
I’ve really been blessed to have met people in my life that have taught me some valuable lesson’s. I’m 47 own the deed to my 2,250 sq. ft. house including my unfinished basement, have not ever had a credit card therefore no credit card debt. I am virtually debt free with the exception of power, natural gas, cable bill etc…. The fact is I have been fiscally responsible my whole 27 yr. married life. What I don’t have is anything I can’t pay cash for (not bragging just thanking God for the blessing’s). Our taxes went up $200.00 this year, the increase was not passed until Oct. 2007 so we had a little bit of a struggle with Christmas but we made it out of this challenge. So starting this month we cut our cable back to standard, we used to eat out once a week and are scaling back to once a month, we are going to cut back on some of the fun stuff we do every year to make up the difference. This is what responsible people do, they see the challenge and take it on reminding themselve’s that the government is not here to take care of you cradle to grave, and yet the responsible people have to pay the price for the irresponsible people who want to take advantage of the system. Because your responsible you should pay a penalty? This is on the same idea of wealth distribution your responsible so you must pay for those who are not. The problem is that I’m not and I’m sure many of you are not independently wealthy but if the time come’s I don’t think I should have to pay my hard earned cash for those who choose to do nothing or make bad finacial decision’s. The problem with Billary is she is not only wanting to redistribute the wealth of the rich but that of the middle class therefore destroying the middle class, that’s the real plan here.
granite:
Might be wishful thinking, but I don’t think anyone on this site has any illusions about what Hillary’s up to.
The only voluntary donations Hillary’s concerned about are those that go into her pocket.
#57: On January 11th, 2008 at 11:57 am, Chuck said:
“Economic stimulus? We don’t need no stinking economic stimulus!
[ apologies to John Huston ]”
Excellent!!!
“How is it an economic stimulus to take billions of dollars from the nations workers, use 85% to 90% of it to pay the drones of the bureaucracy, and then dribble the remainder out to (usually) useless projects? Another round of (permanent) tax cuts will actually do the job, thank you.”
Exactly!!!
The vast majority of our tax money is used for nothing more than, to use your wonderfully accurate description, “to pay the drones of the bureaucracy”.
Remember, all these bureaucrats need cost of living raises, benefits, and retirement plans; sometimes they need more staff, which continues the snowball effect.
And on, and on.
Here’s my story that I submitted to Hillary’s blog:
Should have added some fake tears at the end…
As a 26 year veteran “drone of the bureaucracy”, I thank you.
If only those who pay income taxes were allowed to vote we wouldn’t hear any of this socialistic drivel from the candidates.
#64:
My father tops that; including his time in the military, he worked for Uncle Sam for 30 years.
Unquestionably, the military is one of the rare things that our government does right, that is essential, and that is UNDERfunded.
We should spending MORE on our soldiers, their equipment, and their benefits.
I believe “the drones of the bureaucracy” refers to administrators and bureaucrats.
Sorry, but the government, for the MOST part, is way too big, way too ineffectual, and way too expensive…and first and foremost concerned with maintaining itself, growing, and invading and metastasizing into more and more areas of control.
#65 On January 11th, 2008 at 12:27 pm, Ditkaca said:
“If only those who pay income taxes were allowed to vote we wouldn’t hear any of this socialistic drivel from the candidates.”
Exactly!
Some background information for you:
Bernanke Remarks 01/10/08