Anothoer Bad Idea, bailing out homeowners

Forums: Current Events
Email this Topic • Print this Page

wow, another chapter in "The Politics of American Convenience"

awww is your house too expensive? don't work the government will make it all better... :wtf:

FOXNews.com - Bush Administration Announces New Program to Aid Faltering Homeowners - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

the NEW American family, 2.5 kids, a home being saved from foreclosure by Big brother, bankruptcy being saved by debt consolidation loans & a dog who's the most responsible household resident...

no thank you

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,104 • Replies: 22

No top replies

@Silverchild79,

agreed. it's your own dumbass fault for singing an ARM loan when you damn well knew it was going to go up in rate shortly.

once again, the hardworking american who pays bills on time and pays taxes gets the shaft.

Thank you socialism!

no wonder the derkas laugh at us. our country IS a joke.

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;53317 wrote:

wow, another chapter in "The Politics of American Convenience"

awww is your house too expensive? don't work the government will make it all better... :wtf:

FOXNews.com - Bush Administration Announces New Program to Aid Faltering Homeowners - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

the NEW American family, 2.5 kids, a home being saved from foreclosure by Big brother, bankruptcy being saved by debt consolidation loans & a dog who's the most responsible household resident...

no thank you

Instead you prefer bailing out banks who made equally bad financial decisions... at the cost of the taxpayer?

Awww... shares down? Want the government to make it better?

2 Replies

@Silverchild79,

It seems people now and days are too soft when it comes to their own personal responsibility.

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

It's a complicated issue...

Yeah some folks jumped on the bandwagon and bought homes they couldn't afford when the interest rates changed. Some of them were people who were truely trying to live beyond their means but a lot of others simply wanted the american dream of owning their home and their ain't nothing wrong with that.

2 Replies

@John cv,

John;54950 wrote:

It's a complicated issue...

Yeah some folks jumped on the bandwagon and bought homes they couldn't afford when the interest rates changed. Some of them were people who were truely trying to live beyond their means but a lot of others simply wanted the american dream of owning their home and their ain't nothing wrong with that.

I work in a part of town that's exploding in terms of brand-spanking new housing developments. The homes are nice, run-of-the-mill, middle-class, cookie-cutters in the range of $100,000 to $150,000. The vast majority of owners are working-class minorities. On a gut-level, I get the sense that this was part of some sort of Affirmative-Action-oriented, home-ownership campaign. :wtf:

0 Replies

@Sabz5150,

Sabz5150;54909 wrote:

Instead you prefer bailing out banks who made equally bad financial decisions... at the cost of the taxpayer?

Awww... shares down? Want the government to make it better?

Exactly,here in the UK,the Northern Rock Bank,has had to be bailed out (nationalised),Public money being used to bail out the Private Sector.

0 Replies

@John cv,

John;54950 wrote:

It's a complicated issue...

Yeah some folks jumped on the bandwagon and bought homes they couldn't afford when the interest rates changed. Some of them were people who were truely trying to live beyond their means but a lot of others simply wanted the american dream of owning their home and their ain't nothing wrong with that.

There is nothing wrong with the American Dream but if you buy something you can't afford I don't have sympathy.

1 Reply

@rex b,

I thought you Socialists loved that sort of thing.

2 Replies

@Pinochet73,

Pinochet73;55082 wrote:

I thought you Socialists loved that sort of thing.

Feel sorry for the homeowners over here that done nothing wrong,the bank f*cked up bit time.

1 Reply

@Pinochet73,

Pinochet73;55082 wrote:

I thought you Socialists loved that sort of thing.

And I thought you righties hated it.

What color are these flip-flops? Red?

0 Replies

@Sabz5150,

Sabz5150;54909 wrote:

Instead you prefer bailing out banks who made equally bad financial decisions... at the cost of the taxpayer?

Awww... shares down? Want the government to make it better?

hello words in my mouth, I never said that in the slightest

**** the banks too, let them lose money. What they did was unethical and the only way you keep it from happening in the future is if you hold them accountable

1 Reply

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;55233 wrote:

hello words in my mouth, I never said that in the slightest

*** the banks too, let them lose money. What they did was unethical and the only way you keep it from happening in the future is if you hold them accountable

It's not what you're saying... it's what you're not saying. It's the nonstop "socialist government handouts" rhetoric that everyone even near the Right love to beat their collective drums to. However, when it comes to the corporations, that beat goes silent and instead becomes the scribbling sound of a pen writing a check we can't clear.

Why?

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

couldn't tell you, it's not my philosophy, I'm against corporate bailouts. I've gone so far as to say that American Corporations who reincorporate off shore to avoid taxes should have a 30% terrif on all goods sold in the US, hell I'd be in favor of passing a law saying that all customer service departments for products sold in the US must be located on US soil, I hate outsourcing as well

but bailing out homeowners is a bad idea, it only adds to the entitlement philosophy that is breeding in our country (the politics of american convenience) which could lead to socialism.

the short answer is the government shouldn't really bail out anybody, unless it's a vital social service such as energy or utilities, and the government should never bail out a consumer as it violates the concept of a free market

1 Reply

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;55252 wrote:

couldn't tell you, it's not my philosophy, I'm against corporate bailouts. I've gone so far as to say that American Corporations who reincorporate off shore to avoid taxes should have a 30% terrif on all goods sold in the US, hell I'd be in favor of passing a law saying that all customer service departments for products sold in the US must be located on US soil, I hate outsourcing as well

Then how is this not the "socialism" you fear from bailing out consumers?

Quote:

but bailing out homeowners is a bad idea, it only adds to the entitlement philosophy that is breeding in our country (the politics of american convenience) which could lead to socialism.

Again, not even a peep about the corporate bailouts which costs us, the taxpayer, quite a bit of money (as if we already haven't been stuck with a bill bigger than all the money we'll ever see in our lives). This weighs HEAVILY towards this "entitlement philosophy", but in a much worse way. Screw the taxpayer, get yourself stuck in a rut, then screw the taxpayer AGAIN to get you out. Lather, rinse, repeat. Know what that is? Corporatism (or modern day neo-corporatism), a Mussolini favorite. Walking upon the backs of the bruised.

Oh no.... can't regulate, that's SOCIALISM! (cue scary music)

Quote:

the short answer is the government shouldn't really bail out anybody, unless it's a vital social service such as energy or utilities, and the government should never bail out a consumer as it violates the concept of a free market

Bailing out ANYBODY for ANY REASON (I could give a **** if it's a "vital service", we'll replace your irresponsible ass) violates the concept of a free market.

Problem is, this is no free market. Too many dollars in too many pockets rigs this game.

1 Reply

@scooby-doo cv,

scooby-doo;55117 wrote:

Feel sorry for the homeowners over here that done nothing wrong,the bank f*cked up bit time.

Oh no, Scoob. Don't soften up. IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT, DAMMIT, AND YOU KNOW IT. It was that frig'n Bush, with Cheney standing right behind him, drooling, panting and gently braying like an old donkey. Always, always, always, always blame EVERYTHING on Dick'n Bush.:wootSMILEY:

SCOOBY!!!!! DID YOU KNOW THAT EVEN YOUR PERSONAL SHORTCOMINGS ARE BUSH'S FAULT??? Yeah, it's true. He's to blame for everything you've ever done wrong.

1 Reply

@Sabz5150,

Sabz5150;55253 wrote:

Then how is this not the "socialism" you fear from bailing out consumers?

Again, not even a peep about the corporate bailouts which costs us, the taxpayer, quite a bit of money (as if we already haven't been stuck with a bill bigger than all the money we'll ever see in our lives). This weighs HEAVILY towards this "entitlement philosophy", but in a much worse way. Screw the taxpayer, get yourself stuck in a rut, then screw the taxpayer AGAIN to get you out. Lather, rinse, repeat. Know what that is? Corporatism (or modern day neo-corporatism), a Mussolini favorite. Walking upon the backs of the bruised.

Oh no.... can't regulate, that's SOCIALISM! (cue scary music)

Bailing out ANYBODY for ANY REASON (I could give a **** if it's a "vital service", we'll replace your irresponsible ass) violates the concept of a free market.

Problem is, this is no free market. Too many dollars in too many pockets rigs this game.

I want change, man. I want it bad. Gimme some change. It's TIME for change. I want a woman, or a Black. I want change with understanding. I want a conversation about understanding, and I want to know the bigger context. Obama is Wright, is he not?:cavt-126-asard:We need to understand the context of Black churches -- the context!!!!!

1 Reply

@Pinochet73,

Pinochet73;55304 wrote:

I want change, man. I want it bad. Gimme some change. It's TIME for change. I want a woman, or a Black. I want change with understanding. I want a conversation about understanding, and I want to know the bigger context. Obama is Wright, is he not?:cavt-126-asard:We need to understand the context of Black churches -- the context!!!!!

Because we know the context of White churches, no? I think we call the pieces of that puzzle "Megachurches" and "Televangelists". You know, the people who say God caused 9/11 because we're a sinful country or God cause Katrina because of a gay pride rally...

People like Robertson and Falwell (It's a d*ck in a box!), Hagge and Parsley. You said that you did not like Hagge and his rants... are you aware that McCain actively sought the support of Hagge?

Then there's Rod Parsley. If he were born differently, that name would have led him to rock and roll fame. Anyway, this guy... well, he's more of the same. Big ol megachurch televangelist that thinks anything not Christian needs to be eradicated.

Best thing about this particular wacko is he's McCain's "spiritual advisor". Look 'em up...

Obama came out and said "Hey, that ain't cool!" when Wright started breathing fire and brimstone. He never sought Farrakhan's support, either. McCain and his two buddies? Quite the opposite.

It's not more change that I am looking for, but less of the same. "100 Years!" is the same ol song and dance.

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

White churches? Lets go back to home loans...

Even the Lowest intellect knows that if they have 4 kids and work at mcdonalds they cant afford a 150,000 dollar house. Even if the note is only 450 a month (For the first two years.)

1 Reply

@rugonnacry,

rugonnacry;55313 wrote:

White churches? Lets go back to home loans...

Even the Lowest intellect knows that if they have 4 kids and work at mcdonalds they cant afford a 150,000 dollar house. Even if the note is only 450 a month (For the first two years.)

Well, kinda puts the general intelligence level into perspective, doesn't it?

0 Replies

Anothoer Bad Idea, bailing out homeowners

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know