I didn’t say that the entire mortgage mess was his fault. I said that he AND HIS CRONIES were too busy with their pet projects of helping themselves to do their job of helping the american people. Do you understand what the word INACTION means? It means that he AND HIS CRONIES ignored it because it didn’t affect them and by doing so, made it worse. Stop wearing your politics on your sleeve. It’s not a good look.
[/quote]
It’s not the president and his cronies job to protect people from themselves. I very much understand what inaction means, and in this case inaction is the best course to continue on. Yes, ignoring it has made it worse in the short term, but you have to look at the big picture. Bailing out these homeowners will hurt the economy for years to come and set up homeowners and banks to make the exact same mistakes in the future, not to mention the damage it will do right now to investors, the value of the dollar, and other countries faith in our government. Nobody learns a lesson if they never have to face the consequences of a bad decision.
Again, it is not the government’s responsibility to fix the financial mistakes of individuals. Ignorance by the consumer is not a very good excuse either.
I stand by my statement about the morons. If one is ignorant enough to sign papers that give them hundreds of thousands of dollars worth or debt without understanding the terms, then they are indeed a moron.
I don’t believe that BB is sticking up for the homeowners, so I would be careful before defering to him, but maybe he would like to clear this up for us. I respect his opinion about writing these documents in laymens terms, and I agree that it would be a good thing, but I don’t think that it should be government mandated.
[quote]dk44 wrote:
I’m sick of govt bail out. This shit is just like gun control, the only ones who get fucked are the ones who do what they are supposed to do, will criminals obey gun laws?, fuck no, will dumbass that make 25,000 a year quit buying houses in Orange County, fuck no, will people on food stamps and wellfare quit having kids every 9 fucking months like breeder bulls, fuck no. But we sure as fuck keep rewarding dumbasses.[/quote]
Our whole system is built on passing on risk to someone else. People want to live in fantasyland and not have to deal with the shit they create. The Federal Reserve was created so bankers could get away with the very same stuff.
I truly think that, as a society, we are screwed. More and more, those who don’t want to face reality expect those who DO to solve their problems. What if they don’t want to? What if I, for example, don’t WANT to help the 19 year old with 3 kids or the recovering crack addict? The person with a $25,000 income who buys a $600,000 house? Then, they resort to the only thing that thugs and murderers are good at — physical force. Our society descends into some American version of Fascism.
Well, if one subscribes to the ideas of insta-credit via the Fed so then must one be in favor of bailouts. If you want artificially low rates then you must prepare yourself for the resulting malinvestment.
Borrowers receive the wrong signal to invest and look what happens. A healthy signal can only come unhampered from the free-market.
One cannot argue against bailouts and be in favor of artificial credit expansion – it is a contradiction that must be realized.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Now, would you mind explaining what stem cells have to do with a mortgage freeze? Or are you just looking to create an argument?[/quote]
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
tedro wrote:
Now, would you mind explaining what stem cells have to do with a mortgage freeze? Or are you just looking to create an argument?
GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN THE FREE MARKET![/quote]
First of all, we don’t have a completely free market anyways. Second, there is a big difference between the goverment interjecting in ethical issues dealing with human life and bailing out homeowners that didn’t read the fine print.
[quote]tedro wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
tedro wrote:
Now, would you mind explaining what stem cells have to do with a mortgage freeze? Or are you just looking to create an argument?
GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN THE FREE MARKET!
First of all, we don’t have a completely free market anyways. Second, there is a big difference between the goverment interjecting in ethical issues dealing with human life and bailing out homeowners that didn’t read the fine print.
[/quote]
Quite right! I argue that free enterprise should be allowed to operate. Government thinks it knows better than US what WE value. That is the real argument here.
The arguments are philosophically different but how government operates is exactly the same in each instance. They decide, and we deal with it – like it or not.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Yes, like embryonic stem cell research. What a golden age it will be when we create and destroy new life for the sake of research.[/quote]
On the bright side, we might finally be able to fix your problem.
Well, my inquisitive but fairly retarded friend, I’m questioning the odd notion that government intervention is always a bad thing when it deals with economic matters, but always a great thing when it supports the false, religion-based notion someone entertains.
So it’s not so much about mortgages and stem cells, but about someone’s particular aversion to government in some areas, but complete support of it in others. Either the government is too incompetent to steer the markets - and thus very likely too incompetent to regulate scientific research (or pretty much anything else) - or they are competent and informed enough to do both.
I just want to see how that person reconciles two opposing viewpoints about the same subject; or what particular insights he thinks he has on why bureaucrats too dumb to regulate mortgages are somehow entirely qualified to regulate research.
All of that probably went right over your misshapen hydrocephalic head, so to answer the next dumb question you’re probably preparing to ask: It is on topic to discuss the competence of bureaucrats in a thread that discusses said bureaucrats vis-a-vis mortgages. Stem cells are simply an example where most people applaud government intervention.
Now, dear beneficiary of the wonders of lead pipes plumbing, if you would please learn to read a bit more deeply into what’s written instead of confining yourself strictly to the first degree, ok drool boy?
[quote]pookie wrote:
On the bright side, we might finally be able to fix your problem.
[/quote]
I don’t see a bright side to the sacrificing of one innocent life to save another, but that is not the point here.
Did anybody say government invervention is ALWAYS a bad thing? I don’t remember reading that anywhere. It is however a bad thing in this case, but it is quite a stretch to compare the governments intervention in bailing out the ignorant with intervention in protecting the life of an innocent person. And by the way, the protection of human life is not exclusively a religious based notion.
How silly of me. I forgot we must be in total defiance of our government or total peons, there is no in between is there? Down with the free thinker.
Again, these are obviously two very different subjects. Whether or not beaurocrats are qualified to regulate research is a completely different story. Can one not be an expert in one field and dumb in another? Now, I am not saying that politicians are experts in scientific research, but that is irrellevant. The point is a ban on creating embryos for research is a good idea as it protects innocent life.
A mortgage rate freeze is a bad idea as it bails out the ignorant and hurts the economy. These issues are completely disjoint. Banning embryonic research has nothing to do with a free market. This is like saying a company can kill me and harvest my organs for research. According to you, I can’t argue against this because I am against government intervention, and all is fair in a free market. Riiiight.
Actually, it is quite clear what is going on. You are trying to mold the discussion into one of your liking so that you can later declare yourself the winner of the arguement. You saw no room to create a logical arguement against the mortgage rate freeze, so you had to take one little statement out of Headhunter’s post and create an arguement that you believe you will win.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Did anybody say government invervention is ALWAYS a bad thing? I don’t remember reading that anywhere.[/quote]
Who gives a fuck what you remember? Don’t you think there’s a reason I was specifically replying to Headhunter and not just throwing that mid thread by itself?
You might want to consider that some of us here have an history that goes back way before you decided to grace us with your engaging and oh so witty repartee.
That’s completely wrong. No one ever “wins” an argument around here. Not me, not you, no one. We exchange opinions and discuss ideas… it could be interesting if you were able to participate in a more mature way, instead of looking for useless details to nit pick about.
And you give me way too much credit. Molding discussions “to my liking” sounds like a cool trick; but the only way I get to discuss something is if others decide to participate too. If you think I’m getting too much of the spotlight, you might try posting something interesting yourself instead of throwing those little hissy fits of jealousy.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Who gives a fuck what you remember? Don’t you think there’s a reason I was specifically replying to Headhunter and not just throwing that mid thread by itself?
You might want to consider that some of us here have an history that goes back way before you decided to grace us with your engaging and oh so witty repartee.
[/quote]
Very well, then. But you should also consider that this is a public fourum, and when multiple people are arguing a similar point, you are bound to get responses from others.
I had to laugh a little about the irony that this post questions my maturity.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Very well, then. But you should also consider that this is a public fourum, and when multiple people are arguing a similar point, you are bound to get responses from others.[/quote]
No shit, Sherlock. Thanks for the tip.
Responses are fine. Whiny posts about taking threads off-topic or my magical thread molding powers are just annoying.
First this has nothing to do with the regular mortgage market. This is only dealing with the secondary market. The high risk market. And the high risk market is run by people who give loans to high risk people, thereby taking on that high risk.
This “bailout” involves no money from the government. It is simply companies agreeing to freeze their interest rate instead of increasing it. Simply turning an ARM into a fixed rate for 5 years.
And this will not hurt the economy, just the businesses that took the extra risk giving loans to high risk people. And they should have taken that risk into account. If their math was wrong, they will go under.
Pretty much if you do not qualify for a regular mortgage, it means you are much more likely to not pay, or become incapable of paying. That higher risk means higher interest rates, which makes it even harder to keep paying.
Seriously if you do not qualify for a regular mortgage, it most likely means you should not get a mortgage. May not be the right time.
Also (as I tried to tell my brother,) never ever get an ARM. Stick with a fixed rate. If rates go down significantly, (unlikely now,) you can always refinance. If they go up, your rate stays the same.
The only thing an ARM does is transfer the risk of the market from the bank to the person taking out the mortgage.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
tedro wrote:
Now, would you mind explaining what stem cells have to do with a mortgage freeze? Or are you just looking to create an argument?
GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN THE FREE MARKET![/quote]
That’s just silly. There’s no ban on using embryonic stem cells. Bush didn’t want the federal government to fund new lines. In fact, Bush’s stance with regard to embryonic stem cells is more in line with the principles of a free market; if investors think there will be a profitable future in such research, let those investors provide the funds to do so.
As to bailouts, my primary concern is that too many bailouts only encourage people to make hasty, risky investments. While society has little interest in putting large numbers of people out of their homes, it has even less interest in insulating people from the consequences of their poor choices.
I tend to agree with BostonBarrister that the system currently in place unduly punishes average consumers, and that we have to find real-world solutions to prevent these sorts of things from happening again. And I caution anyone staunchly against any kind of bailouts to consider the effect on our economy and housing markets if large numbers of houses all over the country go into foreclosure. It isn’t a simple problem.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
That’s just silly. There’s no ban on using embryonic stem cells. Bush didn’t want the federal government to fund new lines. In fact, Bush’s stance with regard to embryonic stem cells is more in line with the principles of a free market; if investors think there will be a profitable future in such research, let those investors provide the funds to do so.
[/quote]
I agree. I was just arguing the point that government makes it difficult for science by funding certain research it deems worthy (mating rituals of mosquitoes!!) and not funding others. Because there is a huge influence from government in the sciences the free market tends to be stifled in that area.
Let’s put it this way: can I have $100 million to fund a new particle accelerator?
