The Republican Thread

[mr_genius]

so i'm not trying to screw you here Y2HH, i actually like you even though we disagree on everything

 

but i was banned a week and a half ago for saying "your head is up your ass"

 

mods, why is this post different?

 

Cause u said ass probably

[Balta1701]

Agreed, so instead of throwing money at the status quo, why not throw the money at creating more opportunities. Ditto with the schools. Instead of throwing money at the schools, throw it into the communities. Shoot, at this point i'm almost ready to pay those kids to show up and get decent grades. You graduate you get a free ride to a community college. Something along those lines. Hopefully a good percentage of those students would take that deal and at least for some generations there'd be some movement up in society.

I don't know that there's data supporting it, but I'd be all-in for the concept if someone could establish that it would produce good results in terms of getting people to finish college.

 

Problem of course is finding the money, and spending = bad.

[StrangeSox]

Agreed, so instead of throwing money at the status quo, why not throw the money at creating more opportunities. Ditto with the schools. Instead of throwing money at the schools, throw it into the communities. Shoot, at this point i'm almost ready to pay those kids to show up and get decent grades. You graduate you get a free ride to a community college. Something along those lines. Hopefully a good percentage of those students would take that deal and at least for some generations there'd be some movement up in society.

 

I'm all for ending QE3 and sending checks directly from the Fed to citizens.

Edited September 19, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

I'm all for ending QE3 and sending checks directly from the Fed to citizens.

 

Too bad that money goes to the banks, not the citizens.

[Balta1701]

Too bad that money goes to the banks, not the citizens.

The Fed might or might not be able to send money directly to citizens, but the only thing stopping Congress and the Fed from figuring out how to do so togehter is the Congress.

[StrangeSox]

Too bad that money goes to the banks, not the citizens.

 

Exactly. Instead of giving the banks more money by buying mortgage-backed securities, just go out and cover some damn mortgages directly.

[Y2HH]

Exactly. Instead of giving the banks more money by buying mortgage-backed securities, just go out and cover some damn mortgages directly.

 

It's hard for them to want to fix things like that, when it doesn't benefit them...you know, the rich lawmakers that pretend to want to help regular people, but when they have the chance to do so...what do they do? They bail out their rich banker friends, instead...multiple times.

 

If they truly wanted to fix the economy, they should have just used QE to prop the ENTIRE housing market...quite simply...instead of giving money to the banks that they mostly refused to lend out, they should have just given it to the banks in the form of principal only mortgage payments to every home owner that made less than 200k (as a family), and owned a house worth less than -- oh, I don't know, let's say 500k as an example. That would have eased the burden on the people as their mortgage payments would be far lower, eased the burden on banks as the houses would no longer be in foreclosure, and flooded the market with money, both in the form of the banks getting huge principal payments that they could now lend out AGAIN, and the people would now have more money to spend, not to mention not losing their houses.

 

But of course, neither side would have agreed to do that...even if either side claims they would have.

 

Because it doesn't benefit them or their friends in the short term.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Y2HH

[EvilMonkey]

Exactly. Instead of giving the banks more money by buying mortgage-backed securities, just go out and cover some damn mortgages directly.

I have zero desire for my tax dollars to be used to help some dumbass that bought 4x the house they could afford just because times were 'good'. And simply being underwater doesn't mean you need any 'adjustments'. If you can still make the payments, then just too damn bad that your house isn't worth what it was. If you lost your job and need help, sure, come up with a program for that. Otherwise I don't want to pay YOUR mortgage, just like I don't want to pay your student loans either.

[Y2HH]

I have zero desire for my tax dollars to be used to help some dumbass that bought 4x the house they could afford just because times were 'good'. And simply being underwater doesn't mean you need any 'adjustments'. If you can still make the payments, then just too damn bad that your house isn't worth what it was. If you lost your job and need help, sure, come up with a program for that. Otherwise I don't want to pay YOUR mortgage, just like I don't want to pay your student loans either.

 

You don't have to do that, though. As with anything, you do this with rules attached. You don't bail out people that bought houses far above and beyond what they could afford. But by that token, you also don't bail out the banks that lent them the f***ing money in the first place.

 

There is, however, a HUGE subset of people that fall in the middle that did deserve the help...and helping them as I suggested would have fixed everything they attempted to fix, only it wouldn't have just benefited the rich.

[mr_genius]

Too bad that money goes to the banks, not the citizens.

 

Obama needs to pay back all those bribes, er, campain contributions.

[mr_genius]

I have zero desire for my tax dollars to be used to help some dumbass that bought 4x the house they could afford just because times were 'good'. And simply being underwater doesn't mean you need any 'adjustments'. If you can still make the payments, then just too damn bad that your house isn't worth what it was. If you lost your job and need help, sure, come up with a program for that. Otherwise I don't want to pay YOUR mortgage, just like I don't want to pay your student loans either.

 

I totally agree

[StrangeSox]

I have zero desire for my tax dollars to be used to help some dumbass that bought 4x the house they could afford just because times were 'good'. And simply being underwater doesn't mean you need any 'adjustments'. If you can still make the payments, then just too damn bad that your house isn't worth what it was. If you lost your job and need help, sure, come up with a program for that. Otherwise I don't want to pay YOUR mortgage, just like I don't want to pay your student loans either.

 

How long could you afford your reasonably priced house if you lost your job for 2-4 years starting today? Would you just be another "dumbass?"

 

Should we keep subsidizing your mortgage with the tax credit? I don't want my tax dollars to pay for YOUR mortgage!

[Balta1701]

I have zero desire for my tax dollars to be used to help some dumbass that bought 4x the house they could afford just because times were 'good'. And simply being underwater doesn't mean you need any 'adjustments'. If you can still make the payments, then just too damn bad that your house isn't worth what it was. If you lost your job and need help, sure, come up with a program for that. Otherwise I don't want to pay YOUR mortgage, just like I don't want to pay your student loans either.

There is a simple and historically accurate reply here.

 

"Economics is not a morality play".

 

It doesn't matter whether you don't want your money going to bail out a homeowner, if that helps the economy its the right move. It doesn't matter whether you don't want your money going to bail out a wall street bank, if that saves the financial system its the right move. You can take steps to make things more moral if you'd like, but they can't prevent things from working.

 

If you want to apply morality? Great. Fix the system so wall street can't blow itself up.

[EvilMonkey]

How long could you afford your reasonably priced house if you lost your job for 2-4 years starting today? Would you just be another "dumbass?"

 

Should we keep subsidizing your mortgage with the tax credit? I don't want my tax dollars to pay for YOUR mortgage!

Well, you are obviously a dumbass since you didn't read my part about having a program for people just like you mentioned.

 

edit: if you are asking me personally I can go about 2 years, maybe a little more. I planned ahead. In fact, I was out of work for almost 18 months and never missed a payment, because I planned ahead.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Alpha Dog

[StrangeSox]

Well, you are obviously a dumbass since you didn't read my part about having a program for people just like you mentioned.

 

You're right, I focused on your deflection that allows you to dismiss the entire idea as helping "dumbasses" (unlike the banks?!).

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't know that there's data supporting it, but I'd be all-in for the concept if someone could establish that it would produce good results in terms of getting people to finish college.

 

Problem of course is finding the money, and spending = bad.

 

Why would their be anymore spending? Presumably they go to college and get a good job and become a economic plus to society. They're not in jail or in public housing and they can pay for themselves. And again, they're not creating a new generation of people uninterested in obtaining an education and moving up in the world.

[Jenksismyhero]

You don't have to do that, though. As with anything, you do this with rules attached. You don't bail out people that bought houses far above and beyond what they could afford. But by that token, you also don't bail out the banks that lent them the f***ing money in the first place.

 

There is, however, a HUGE subset of people that fall in the middle that did deserve the help...and helping them as I suggested would have fixed everything they attempted to fix, only it wouldn't have just benefited the rich.

 

Who's going to determine that? And how many people would use the "oh the predatory lending got me! I was dooped! I knew I only made 1500 a month but that 3200 mortgage payment seemed totally doable in 5 years into the future!"

[StrangeSox]

Well, you are obviously a dumbass since you didn't read my part about having a program for people just like you mentioned.

 

edit: if you are asking me personally I can go about 2 years, maybe a little more. I planned ahead. In fact, I was out of work for almost 18 months and never missed a payment, because I planned ahead.

 

Why am I forced to subsidize YOUR mortgage with tax credits? Why won't that lazy 47% ever learn to take responsibility and start being makers, not takers!

[StrangeSox]

Who's going to determine that? And how many people would use the "oh the predatory lending got me! I was dooped! I knew I only made 1500 a month but that 3200 mortgage payment seemed totally doable in 5 years into the future!"

 

Who cares if it gets the economy functional again and gets people working?

[Balta1701]

Why would their be anymore spending? Presumably they go to college and get a good job and become a economic plus to society. They're not in jail or in public housing and they can pay for themselves. And again, they're not creating a new generation of people uninterested in obtaining an education and moving up in the world.

I'd be happy to do a lot more things that are an economic plus to society over the long run. Now's a great time too since interest rates are negative relative to inflation over the 10 year period. But that actively requries spending money.

 

It doesn't matter if it's a good investment in the long run to invest in education, bridges, high speed rail, electric cars, dams, solar power, smart grids, whatever...those can all be great investments in the long run, but when you have people who are focused solely on "Cutting spending", good investments get cut when they are listened to.

[Y2HH]

Who's going to determine that? And how many people would use the "oh the predatory lending got me! I was dooped! I knew I only made 1500 a month but that 3200 mortgage payment seemed totally doable in 5 years into the future!"

 

Someone can determine it, just like they determine that you have to put down 20%.

 

I'd say, to even be generous, if you bought a house worth 5x your salary, you're good to go...but above that? Foreclose. Too bad if you were duped. The point of this is to help those that CAN sustain what they have after they're helped...not to help those that would take the help and then fail anyway, and go into foreclosure. You'd do the math, and see if the people you are helping would then be able to continue on from that point...it would stabilize housing.

 

But let's not pretend we couldn't run some numbers and come up with a way of helping some people, versus just handing it to the banks that helped cause it all.

 

You also only help on primary mortgages, not people that own 50 houses.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Y2HH

[Jenksismyhero]

Who cares if it gets the economy functional again and gets people working?

 

People shouldn't be rewarded for being stupid. The banks shouldn't have been bailed out, and these idiots should have lost their homes. We're not talking about people 2 years away from owning their home outright. We're talking about idiots that took on a 30 ARM with a balloon payment a few years down the line that was way more than they could afford. They don't deserve to keep their home.

[Y2HH]

People shouldn't be rewarded for being stupid. The banks shouldn't have been bailed out, and these idiots should have lost their homes. We're not talking about people 2 years away from owning their home outright. We're talking about idiots that took on a 30 ARM with a balloon payment a few years down the line that was way more than they could afford. They don't deserve to keep their home.

 

...and innocent bystanders shouldn't be hurt because of something out of their own control. I did everything right, and because of the crap the banks pulled, my taxes got to triple...how does that help anyone?

 

No, people shouldn't be rewarded for being stupid, but neither should banks...the point of this is to help those that were caught in-between the stupidity of both.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'd be happy to do a lot more things that are an economic plus to society over the long run. Now's a great time too since interest rates are negative relative to inflation over the 10 year period. But that actively requries spending money.

 

It doesn't matter if it's a good investment in the long run to invest in education, bridges, high speed rail, electric cars, dams, solar power, smart grids, whatever...those can all be great investments in the long run, but when you have people who are focused solely on "Cutting spending", good investments get cut when they are listened to.

 

But again, you're not spending anymore money. How much does it cost to go to a community college for four years? 15k? How much is the City going to spend at John Stroger or assisted living or whatever else? Probably near the same or more. You're talking about the same time frame roughly, so it's not like pay it now and wait for the investment to pay off.

[Balta1701]

But again, you're not spending anymore money. How much does it cost to go to a community college for four years? 15k? How much is the City going to spend at John Stroger or assisted living or whatever else? Probably near the same or more. You're talking about the same time frame roughly, so it's not like pay it now and wait for the investment to pay off.

Who pays for the person's food and shelter while at the community college?