Comments on: The times are a-changing indeed

By: the consultant

the consultant — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:54:11 +0000

this is not about you…this is about the economy…there
are also people in homes a lot smaller than you who cannot
afford to live their 70,000-150,000 in the midwest who
got snookered into adjustable rate and other creative
financing mortgages..multiply that by a couple of million
and you get a bubble and a collapse.you don’t seem to
be able to see the whole problem..just your particular
situation..thats called not being able to see the forrest
for the trees…you have one choice and one only..give
the 700 billion to the banks…that is already the choice
of the bush administration..or the alternative..use
the 700 billion to fix the housing problem..not everyone
gets the same benefit..you would get a tax credit…
under the plan I am talking about…so you would get
300-400 per month that you are not getting now..

By: I missed out

I missed out — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:49:15 +0000

So the people who own there home that they can not currently pay for. They do not own a 2nd home. They pay less than what I do and there homes are much larger than they should be living in. Will be able to continue to live a better quality of life. Something is wrong here.

By: the consultant

the consultant — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:25:50 +0000

those people will not be bailed out..to qualify you would
have to be a one home owner..no speculation on other
houses or second homes etc..its a question of solving
the economic problem..what you are not looking at is
that your house will be worth a lot less if all housing
continues to be devalued…and deflation kicks in…
that would be good for people all in cash..and very
few are…most people are leveraged up to their
eyeballs…the point is that housing is the focal
point of the economic mess…and you would get your
tax credit to make it a fair deal…now understand
this is not the proposal sitting in the congress
they still want to bailout the banks..this is
the proposal that economists are talking about
to replace the 700 billion facility

By: I missed out

I missed out — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:57:45 +0000

Housing issue
I have lived within my means all of my life. I live in a modest house which I can afford. Some of my friends live in homes that are much bigger than the one I live in. These homes are new and have many modern up to date features. There mortgages were less than mine because they used creative financing. Some of them are currently having problems paying for there house. Some of these people also have 2nd & 3rd homes becaue they used used the same creative financing. Why should these people continue to live a nicer quality of life than I do. If we bail these people out my taxes will go up I will continue to live modesly and these other people will continue to benefit.

By: ed1

ed1 — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:45:58 +0000

Con: My reference, of course, was to social security and medicare. I simply pointed out that we pay throughout our lifetimes for these things; they aren’t outright hand-outs.

By: the consultant

the consultant — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:04:05 +0000

your point is well taken..but in fact we haven’t
really bailed out the financials…we have simply given
them access to funds…we need to deal with the
housing issue…first and foremost before we continue
to piss away 700 billion

By: Generation X

Generation X — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:22:02 +0000

Where does this all stop. We have already bailed out the financials institutions. AIG still wants more money. The auto industry wants money. As a nation we have to deside how far will we go to prop up companies. In my career if we don’t change with the times and adopt with the current market it will be over for me. Who will bail us out.

By: the consultant

the consultant — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:45:46 +0000

ED1 The argument is hardly specious..the government has
already decided to spend th 700 billion..do you want
it to go to the banks who are already not putting it
back in the credit system or do you want to relieve the
housing collapse…there is nothing specious about it
just the way you are going to use the money not WHETHER
you are going to use it

By: ron

ron — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:23:31 +0000

So what is your point.

By: ed1

ed1 — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:45:02 +0000

1446mre: I’ve seen this specious argument before. Fact is, we PAY for Social Security and Medicare throughout our working lives. That the government finds ways to squander most of the money is another matter.

By: I missed out

I missed out — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:29:16 +0000

So then with your thinking. We should bail out the auto industry and the airline industry again when they have problems. AIG also needs more money so they should also be bailed out. Who knows tomorrow the {pick an industry} will have a prob lem so they should aso be bailed out. Where does it stop. What generates my income is slow so should we have our hands out also. Maybe we will. Everyone else is benefiting

Why souldn’t I.

By: the consultant

the consultant — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 23:42:19 +0000

yes in principal you are correct…but when the situation
is endemic…ie the entire economy is affected…then
the rules change I like you pay my mortage (in fla)
and don’t default but these are not ordinary times
so your choices are limited..if all of those homeowners
actually default and lose their homes you will be more
adversly affected economically in terms of the tax
increases you will have to pay than if the govt steps
in now

By: I missed out

I missed out — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 22:31:09 +0000

Consultant you said a lot. The fact is I still live in my small home and pay a monthly amount to a bank. When other people live in a much larger house with all of things in it that I do not have they also pay a monthly amount to a bank. With your option some of these people will be paying a lower amount than I am paying. There is something wrong there. These people should crash and burn and the true value of the house will come out. At that time I might beable to pay for it because the value will come down.

By: the consultant

the consultant — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 22:07:26 +0000

good point..except if you are given a continuing tax
credit for 7 years, the governement is recognizing that
you saved and did not live over your means…the plan
which is CONSERVATIVE. does not give the 700 billion
to the banks to stimulate credit..because so far it
hasn’t worked..the banks have hoarded the money or
bought other regional banks…what is proposed
will deal with the housing crisis by
allowing those who either got taken by mortgage
lenders who didn’t disclose the ultimate cost of
the mortgage or simply made bad financial moves
to stay in their homes while paying their mortgages
off just like you..only on terms that allow them
to continue to do so…they would still owe the principal
balance of the mortgage..they would still make payments
the government agency would still get the asset if their
was a default…solving the housing problem is the key
to fixing the economy and getting consumers to be
comfortable in spending their money again..in order
to do this rather than enabling the banks…lets enable
the homeowners..either way the 700 billion is gone..
and you will be paying for it…the issue is where
do you want it to go..to the wall street guys who
created the mess..or to the average guy who has seen his
income go way down and the value of his house go way
down..and you as the good citizen and good creditor
that you are will reap two rewards…1. your tax credit
and 2. the ultimate value of your home may go up again

By: I missed ot

I missed ot — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:10:20 +0000

I guess I missed out on my $50,000 salary. I should of bought a million dollar home. Then I would have a problem paying the mortage and taxez. Then I would have everyone else pay for it. While I live like a king.

By: 1446mre

1446mre — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:10:38 +0000

we already have a type of socialism..we have always
had it..the fdic…fannie and freddie, social security
medicare..its just a question of how best to save the
housing market

By: ed1

ed1 — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:05:28 +0000

Any handicapper knows that you never bet a horse to suddenly change form unless you have fixed the race. The horses will almost always perform as their history indicates they will perform. The same is true with humans. (see recidivism as defined by Dan Webster) Brokers and bankers and politicians and businessmen who steal will (despite mother’s stern talk-to) will continue to do so, even if they already have millions (see Enron and myriad other examples that you can come up with while just lounging on your Sunday easy chair). The same is true with people who don’t pay other people back the money that they have “borrowed.” If we’re to have socialism, let everyone benefit. This way, even as we fool ourselves that we have “educated” the uneducable, that we have put everyone into a responsible job (that we, despite the obvious, cannot admit is beyond his ken so that everything disintegrates, and so that individual excellence eventually disappears entirely, everyone can get fat and kid themselves that we are “progressive.”

By: not fair

not fair — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:48:28 +0000

In the long run people who speculated or bought homes they could not afford in the long run would benefit much more than a $3000 yearly benefit. You are still handsomely rewarding people who bought this they could not afford.

By: the consultant

the consultant — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:35:18 +0000

you didn’t read the entire proposal it contained a tax
credit for owner occupied houses by people who make their
payments on time…3000 per year…a credit against
net income not a deduction…my proposal would reform
mortgages for those approaching or in foreclosure,.its
a better way to spend the 700 billion rather than just
giving it to the banks..the problem is the housing
market..solve that and everything else follows…
I too did not buy a bigger home then i could afford
and people like you and me although we have to bail
out those who are way over their head…we also
get to cut our mortgage payments with the credit…
obviously it would not apply to second homes or
those who have specuated ….they would lose whatever

By: not fair

not fair — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:48:17 +0000

Consultant you want him to fix the mortgage market. Why should someone who speculated or bought a house that they could not afford benefit. Many people including myself had opportunities to buy bigger homes and bye investment properties that we could not soundly

afford. How will we be compensated for being financially conservative.

By: Tim Hays

Tim Hays — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 02:57:22 +0000

Jiminy, I like you.

(Laughs) I still do not know whether the “weather vane” was a compliment, or a joke.

But. . .see you after the inauguration. I like your keeping me confused.

Faithfully yours,

(Reagan) Republican Tim Hays

By: Tim Hays

Tim Hays — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 22:17:59 +0000

Foghorn leghorn here. lol

By the way, it was the great Chuck Heston in Planet of the Apes to whom I was referring.

I’ll have to try out that foghorn voice sometime soon.

Like the late, great John Facenda? (NFL Films.) He made third-and-long sound like Armageddon.

By: Jiminy Cricket

Jiminy Cricket — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:42:14 +0000

You mean Tim Hays? LOL. Just kidding. But rather than a fog horn, Tim is more like a weather vane.

By: TugboatAnnie

TugboatAnnie — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:20:07 +0000

I suppose he can’t help it, but the man has a voice like a fog horn.

By: Tim Hays

Tim Hays — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:40:11 +0000

The election is over. There’ll be another one in four years.

In the time being, the president-elect forges ahead, in a manner similar to Ronald Reagan’s. In fact, the two have many good similarities.

Here are some facts to chew over.

Mr. Obama won by more than seven million votes nationwide. His victory is equivalent to the 1980 win by RWR and the non-incumbent party. It was a definite repudiation of the incumbent party by centrists—you know, those folks who have bills to pay.

Mr. Obama’s public speaking skills are sine qua non. Forget who’s writing his speeches: HE is delivering them. Unflappably.

We are in an economic crisis not dissimilar to that of the great “misery index” suggested in 1980 by Reagan.

The bigotry of the knucklehead far right will be overcome once his first ten days in office (to borrow from Huey Long) are established.

It’s the “liberals” who will turn on him first. (Opinion, not necessarily fact.)

In a more perfect world, John McCain would be finishing his second term as president, having overcome the forces of evil from Texas in the 2000 primaries. That didn’t happen. So I won’t romanticize the past.

“We are here, and this is now.” (Which movie icon said those words in a prominent film 40 years ago?)

We are Americans first, Republicans second.

President-elect Obama is good for America. He has only to thwart those who supported him and now claim, “IT’s OUR turn.” That will be his first enormous task as president.

If he proves worthy of the challenge, and revives our economy, he could serve for eight years. Otherwise, he could be like Carter, or the first President Bush.

Disclosure: I voted for John McCain on election day.

By: EnglishMajor

EnglishMajor — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 00:18:32 +0000

Right. I and two million college students are going to meet weekly to check out his Utube oratory on foreign investments and the consumer price index. Who’s got the keg tap?

By: the consultant

the consultant — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:39:21 +0000

he can tape as many messages as he wants…but until
the housing market is stabilized it won’t make
a bit of difference…all mortgages coming up
for adjustment have to be reformed at the original
interest rate to keep people from going into foreclosure
all homeowners now late on their mortgage payments have
to have their mortgages reformed to reduce the monthly
payment based on a government subsidized 4% rate
interest only until housing values come back but
at least for 7 years..for anyone else who does
pay their mortgage on time and says..why should everyone
who can’t get help the government should either guarantee
a 4% interest rate based on a 30 year amortization period
or offer a 4000 tax credit per year to each home owner
the housing market will then stabilze…inventories will
be decreased…and consumer spending will be stimulated
avoiding a deep recession….all that money that is
supposedly going to the banks needs to be redirected to
the housing issue…