On the speech

Discussion in 'Politics' started by B_spiker067, Feb 26, 2009.

  1. B_spiker067

    B_spiker067 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,189
    Likes Received:
    0
    A master cabinet maker and small business owner was inteviewed on local TV news from his home.


    He said roughly:


    "Let me see if I get this straight. If I am having a hard time making my mortgage payment, I can get govt. aid and if I can just make my payment I get nothing? That doesn't sound right to me."


    It isn't right. It is the sound of the great wealth redistributor redistributing the wealth from a struggling cabinet maker businessman to his employees (and ironically enough back to wealthy banks too).

    *******************************

    Two doctors who happen to be a married couple make $120,000 to $130,000 each (+250,000 combined). They work a lot of overtime in their business attending patients. They aren't so interested in missing their kids' recitals anymore. Go figure.

    *******************************

    I agree generally only with Obama's plan for across the board education and energy source development.
     
  2. B_spiker067

    B_spiker067 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,189
    Likes Received:
    0
    We are interested in only two things - stemming the tide of homelessness and of having foreclosures devalue the property of our neighborhoods.

    To that end the govt. should find ways to compel those who can't reasonably refinance mortgages into 5 years leases paying between 22-28% of their monthly income in rent. And banks(servicing companies) who made poor loans forced into landlord status. At the end of five years further review or bankruptcy could deal with the issues.

    Those people who can refinance should not be allowed to do so without penalty. If you bought a home for $200,000 that is only worth $140,000 now, then you should be allowed to refinance at the $140,000 level. Except, the ownership is a partnership in which the bank has a $60,000 stake in that home. When you sell that home in the future the first $60,000 goes to the bank. None to little federal help to banks who do not abide by these guidelines and harsher treatment by bankruptcy courts to people who decline this type of option.

    These are un-fleshed but better plans than what this administration has put forth. It speaks to equity and fairness to all including those that played by the rules.
     
    #2 B_spiker067, Feb 26, 2009
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2009
  3. Bbucko

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,413
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    58
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunny SoFla
    The cabinet maker will get a tax cut. No cabinet maker in the universe makes over $250,000.

    Isn't it rather obvious that if he doesn't need help with his mortgage then he shouldn't be worried about what he's not getting to help him with something he doesn't need help with?

    Your posts are really, really unclear.
     
  4. B_spiker067

    B_spiker067 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,189
    Likes Received:
    0
    My posts are clearer than yours.

    You simply missed the point. I have no idea what the cabinet maker makes. I did not insinuate he made 250,000 or more.

    He made a point of morally right and wrong.

    And if he does not pay for his employees mortgages today he will in the future or his kids will. Kind of short sighted not to realize that.
     
  5. bigman420

    bigman420 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    146
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    God forbid the cabinet maker had bought a house that he could afford. Imagine that. Nope, he put himself in this situation.
     
  6. B_spiker067

    B_spiker067 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,189
    Likes Received:
    0
    How can so many miss the point. It is about right and wrong.

    For all I know his house is paid off (maybe not). He's talking about govt. handouts. An outright gifting of cash than can be given to those unable to keep their homes versus those who are struggling to keep their homes. What is to keep those struggling from just saying, "Hey, pass the cash hat this way bro."

    This place is overburdened with socialists to whom it has been proven by Obama that cash indeed does grow on trees. Here's a clue: it doesn't.
     
  7. bigman420

    bigman420 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    146
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    No spiker, I couldn't agree with you more, my post was insuating that the majority of people who are losing their homes these days are doing so because of their own mistakes. On a personal note, my father, who is a construction litigation lawyer, recently lost his house, of which he paid 20 years of the 30 years mortgage. Now he is directly tied into the housing market and therefore took a hit as hard as anyone when this current crisis emerged. But you know what's funny? If you ask him whose fault it is for losing his home, he'll tell you it was his cause he didn't invest his money right or save enough in case something like this happened. Now he had some other external circumstances such as high medical bills, but the point is his business was directly affected by this recession and he's still willing to take personal responsibility. He's not looking for a government handout, just working even harder to get back on his feet and I admire him even more for doing so. You are so right, socialism is not what this country was founded on and not the answer to the problem. It completely removes the incentive to achieve. And in five years when this country is on the verge of collapsing because we put a socialist in office (though I certainly didn't vote for him) who spent even more than Bush and gave everyone a false sense of security, we will realize the mistake we made, at least I seriously hope, but even more so I hope by then it's truly not too late to get things back on track.
     
  8. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    Uncle B., the point the gentleman interviewed was making is the same one that rolls through my own mind:

    How is it equitable for the fucktard who unwisely mortgaged himself past his eyeballs to receive government aid to stay in his house, when more financially responsible folks like myself who bought more modest homes they could actually afford get a pat on the head?

    It's wrong on many levels. Back when we bought our home in 2003, our bank was willing to lend us nearly three times what the house we did buy finally cost us. But I was smart enough to know how our finances budgeted out. Technically, I could have made the payments on that full loan amount...but that's it. No new cars, no boat, no trips or vacations, no savings building up...and no cushion to absorb any unforseen adverse events. I made the conscious decision to buy a home that I could afford to double-pay the mortgage on AND be able to afford many of the things I mentioned without having to leverage myself further with credit cards AND sock away money for rainy days and eventual retirement.

    What it sounds like we're being told is that I could have chosen the irresponsible route...enjoyed the bigger home in the nicer zip code AND still had all the goodies on credit without bothering to save for the future...and when it came time to pay the piper, Uncle Sam would be there to save my ass because I was one of so many people acting just like me. Fuck that bullshit.

    Sorry, Mr. Irresponsible Jackass...get the fuck out and find an apartment you can affort the rent on. Uncle Sam should make the banks take some of that bailout money they got and cough up to Mr. IJ whatever equity he might have in the place, but that's it.

    The more I think about public money being used to cushion the falls that irresponsible assholes, both individual and corporate, rightfully deserve, the madder I fucking get.
     
  9. bigman420

    bigman420 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    146
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    God I fucking love the way this thread is going, let's really kkeep sticking it to these irresponsible socialist assholes.
     
  10. Guy-jin

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,835
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    669
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    You chose the correct path, no?

    And are you currently facing foreclosure? Are you going to be in debt for the foreseeable future? No?

    You're thinking to yourself, "Goddamn, having a really strong central government and a bunch of zaibatsu-style banks running the country really fucks everything up."

    I'm like you: I have literally no debt. I have retirement savings. I have no money troubles. I pay my taxes. I'm not defending these people who fucked everything up for us at all.

    But I see no reason to be more enraged by this than I was by the government using my tax money to pay for a War I never believed and that benefited us in literally no way, shape or form. To the contrary, at least this has the possibility of helping. Will it? Time will tell. (And before anyone comes along to "call me out" for making the comparison to Bush's War as if they're unrelated, I suggest you stay on point here instead. I use the comparison because both things are questionable uses of my tax money that I don't agree with, and the War was something I agreed with even less than I agree with this whole housing bill and stimulus package. And because I will fuck you with a gravy boat if you go down the War in Iraq path, I promise.)

    I will say, however, that I feel less anger at Mr. Irresponsible Jackass next door than I do towards Chairman Irresponsible Jackass at Conglomo-Bank USA and Congressman Irresponsible Jackass who didn't bother to do shit about it. These morons were pushing credit cards on anybody who could put a pen to paper and letting them spend money that quite literally didn't exist for material goods. And then, when it came time for the individual to pony up the dough, he just declared bankruptcy and was home free. It's not like these banks didn't know that was going on. As long as things were peachy-keen, the banks didn't give two craps that they were lending money that didn't exist to people who were using it to buy material goods with actual value.

    We never should have become a credit-based society. That's ultimately what fucked this whole thing up. And unfortunately, I tend to agree with the people who think this whole plan is not going to fix things. It may pull us out of the depths of this recession and get houses to sell again, but it's not going to fix the economy because the economy worldwide now depends on credit--something ethereal and meaningless that has no physical value--to run.

    I just wish somebody would man up and admit that the way credit cards, leases and loans worked before is finished for good. Outlaw it. Cart the CEOs out back and shoot them in the head until we find someone that doesn't give Joe Sixpack with the foreclosed house and a credit score of negative one million a Shittybank Mastercard with a $500 limit that he can go buy an Insignia Plasma at Costco with before declaring bankruptcy for the umpteenth time.

    Anyway, I'm safe. I've got great investments. I'm putting all my money into firearms. :biggrin1:
     
  11. Mr Ed in Mass

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,685
    Likes Received:
    568
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Massachusetts,The most corrupt of the 57 states.
    Yesterday, I heard on the local radio, about a couple who kept remortgaging their house every chance they could.They used their home as an ATM.Their $70K mortgage ended up at $437K.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted