how-to block ads
|
dogma
Premium
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV
| reply to No_Strings
Re: SoCal & The Economy ~ Financial Markets ~ Housing ~ Etc
said by jig  :steve forbes ... he distinguished between "solvent people" and "people who got in over their heads", and then proceeded to say that "we need to help the solvent people,... we'll see. it depends on how many people are watching closely whether or not something like that could get passed in congress. so, do you think the "we need to protect the rich so they can distribute to the poor" argument is going to work this time? said by No_Strings :I don't think there should be a bailout. I've tried to be consistent about that. If one is to occur, though, trying to apply some misguided Robin Hood approach will make it worse. I would think why jig is aghast, as am I, is just who defines whom is "Solvent" and who "got in over their heads"? Common sense would seem to say everyone in need of a "bailout" certainly "got in over their heads".
Will Forbes head up this economic segregation goon squad? Sorting out which are the pretty people who get PUBLIC ASSISTANCE to the tune of $700,000+, and which are the ugly people that don't?
With respect to;
said by No_Strings :If on the other hand, your goal is to take money away from people who have earned it through hard work and smart decisions and use it to reward those who have dug their own hole, you'll probably be disappointed by whatever bailout, if any, emerges. I suspect that you are an absolute Libertarian. One who under no circumstances would you ever take a thin dime from the government? | |
No_Strings
Premium,Mod
join:2001-11-22
The OC
Host:
Wireless Networking
All Things Unix
Cox HSI
Qwest
Efficient
| I've been known to exaggerate to make a point, but Jesus, dogma , you take it to an extreme.
I don't know what, if any, criteria have been proposed to sort the wheat from the chaff in the Forbes proposal. I also don't support a bailout. I simply said that Steve's logic was sound - don't bother with the terminal cases; focus on the ones who can be helped.
As for taking a thin dime, I benefit from government money just like you do. I drive on federally-funded highways and rode my bike this morning in a county park. I contribute more than I benefit by wide measure and I resent that. I pride myself on being self-sufficient. I don't borrow money unless I absolutely have to, like a mortgage, or when it's more convenient, like my car loans. Home improvements are done with cash, credit cards are paid monthly, etc.
The world would be a far better place and the economy would be bursting at the seams if more people took my approach instead of looking for someone else to blame or fund their misjudgments and misfortunes.
And yes, the pretty people should get priority over ugly ones, thin over fat, well-mannered over rude and intelligent over dull. But, that's why they don't let me run things. | |
jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA
| reply to No_Strings
said by No_Strings : If one is to occur, though, trying to apply some misguided Robin Hood approach will make it worse. well, i got the distinct feeling that "solvent" people were the ones buying a second or third house, the ones providing the funds that were loaned, etc (so they could continue to offer home loans, he said).
i haven't thought about it much, but preclude bailout for anyone not actually living in the house as their sole residence? and the business property bailout would have to be gone over with a fine tooth comb. rental properties get no bailout? sole proprietor manufacturing plant property does? refinances from what would have been affordable payments would not, but first time loan would?
it gets complicated fast, and i just can't imagine a scenario where someone with 10 houses on loans wouldn't be able to slip through the cracks and take the rest of us to the cleaners. similar to whats happened in LA.
i don't think we're opposed on this, i certainly don't want to see a bailout, and certainly not a lopsided one. | |
Lovehound
join:2005-08-18
Northridge, CA
| reply to No_Strings
said by No_Strings :If on the other hand, your goal is to take money away from people who have earned it through hard work and smart decisions and use it to reward those who have dug their own hole, you'll probably be disappointed by whatever bailout, if any, emerges. That would be me. I've been very conservative with my finances, and I object to my tax money being used to subsidize people who are too stupid, too greedy, or too careless to manage their own finances so as to not need a government bail out.
said by No_Strings :The world would be a far better place and the economy would be bursting at the seams if more people took my approach instead of looking for someone else to blame or fund their misjudgments and misfortunes. I'm one too, in fact even more conservative because I always save up for a new car rather than financing. I'm appalled by all the people who spend all their income, who live month to month, who think that buying a house with zero down and artificially low interest rate is a good idea. This was a train wreck waiting to happen, and now (mixing my metaphors) this house of cards is crashing down, and even the conservative people will be hurt. | |
|
