News-Record.com

Gee what an original list.

Michael, you should contact Howard Dean. He has a job for you!

BTW, what's wrong with getting a second job or foregoing a vacation when one's home is on the line?
Politicians should steal other peoples' money to pay your mortgage while you go on vacation? Typical liberalism.

Neo,

gee what an original comment. just what we would expect from you. typical neoconservatism

Maybe the letter writer has not noticed that both Mc Cain and Obama, favorite song must be flippin and a floppin. Neo, I worked two jobs and took no vacations while my kids were in college. So I agree if you can not pay for your house, get a second job are a smaller house.

I do not disagree one should do whatever they can to keep the foreclosure wolf at bay. However, Dog and Neo make it sound like it is a simple matter to get a second job (or two since the loss of the first one is likely the cause of the impending foreclosure) or sell and downsize. It takes time, sometimes months, to accomplish these suggestions. Most often, people don't have months before they are being booted out.

I think it is most sad there are people who have so little compassion for their fellow man/woman.

Seriously, what is wrong with expecting someone to work 2 jobs and forego a vacation if that is what is needed to save their home?

Forget the 2nd job, go on vacation. The govt. will take care of you. The Senate voted 76-10 for a govt. mortgage rescue plan. From today's N&R:

"The centerpiece is a new $300 billion FHA program to allow debt-ridden homeowners who are too financially risky to qualify for govt. backed loans to refinance into safer, more affordable mortgages."

Lenders make risky loans, consumers make ill-informed choices in loans (which part of "adjustable rate" did you not understand?) and/or too much house to afford, and guess who gets to pay for the whole mess? Those of us who didn't make risky choices and bought homes we can afford of course.

As for the letter, the last sentence was rather sophomoric and right out of the moveon.org playbook. Probably the same for the rest of the letter.

I take this to mean you won't be voting for McCain.

I've been looking for a way to figure out which way to vote. I now know all I need to do is read the LTE to make an imformed pick.
However, I do not agree with the current planning to bail out dumb-ass greedy home buyers.

http://webmail.pas.earthlink.net/wam/MsgAttachment?msgid=6283&attachno=1&folder=INBOX&x=-1106075258

I never voted for Clinton.

I never voted for either Bush.

It's a voting record that I'm very proud of.

And I'll be damned if I vote for EITHER McCain or Obama.

What in the name of God is it going to take to wake people up to the fact that there is not a #@%&-ing shred of difference between these two candidates?!?

This country is COMPLETELY screwed, if THESE two are supposed to be the best that we are expected to choose from.

Overtaxed, you supplied a link to an attachment in your email. If you'll provide us with your email address and password, we'll be able to read it.

~

There is a bit of difference between these two candidates, Christopher, albeit sometimes difficult to discern. Here are the congressional ratings of widely known groups with seriously different points of view:

The scale is zero to one hundred with a higher score being preferred by the organization doing the rating.

American Conservative Union 110th Congress:
McCain ... 80
Obama ... 7

American Civil Liberties Union 110th Congress:
McCain ... 17
Obama ... 89

If one averages these ratings, inverting one or the other, one arrives at a consensus conservative rating of 81.5 for McCain and 9 for Obama; and a consensus liberal rating of 18.5 for McCain and 91 for Obama.

While I have reservations about Senator McCain on several issues, the difference between the candidates is somewhat more clear cut in my mind than it seems to be in yours, Chris.

~

"There is a bit of difference between these two candidates, Christopher, albeit sometimes difficult to discern. Here are the congressional ratings of widely known groups with seriously different points of view..."

Those are the opinions of a "conservative" group weighed against a "liberal" group.

Nothing could be more meaningless.

The ONLY thing that BOTH of these ideologies is after, is more power. Over as many Americans as they can get their slimy protuberances on.

And we are damned fools to keep going along with this #*$&-ing farce!

We aren't a free country anymore. Not as long as we still buy into the two party/"two philosophy" con.

You know what the moment was when I realized that George W. Bush was a completely hopeless blithering idiot? It's when he described America as "a land of two parties". He said this while visiting some foreign country. And I thought then, "My GOD what the hell has happened to America?!"

And if any fool DARES try to tell me to my face again why I should vote for either McCain or Obama, I swear to heaven, I will beat the living crap out of that person and tell the police that it was a mercy killing for the good of society.

(Yah, I'm more than a little honked-off...)

Christopher,

You might be more than a little honked-off, but you're not wrong either.

~

Christopher, I am not ABOUT to try to tell you anything AT ALL ... much less for whom to vote. Clearly, you have pretty well determined all you want to know on this or any other subject.

And as you are a man of God, having invoked His name in questioning what the hell has happened to America, undoubtedly you will accept any further answers only in the form of divine revelation.

Provided, of course, you don't have a stroke first ....

~

"I do not agree with the current planning to bail out dumb-ass greedy home buyers.”

Fascinating to me is the lack of discussion about the dumb-ass greedy mortgage brokers who’s incentive was to make a quick buck selling to bundlers what they knew was a bad loan .. or about the dumb-ass greedy bundlers who’s only incentive was to make a quick buck selling what they knew was a bad bundle to central bank funds, pensions and investors all over the world .. or about the proposed Treasury Department’s fund to buy risky mortgage bonds, using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy the risky loans, assuring dumb-ass U.S. taxpayers would be stuck with the bill, or …

No it’s 100% the fault of dumb-ass greedy home buyers.

Actually, Mr. Armstrong, I cannot but wonder if God has handed down His most divine intervention of all...

...by giving America EXACTLY what its people deserve...

...by letting them be ruled over by absolute morons.

"Fascinating to me is the lack of discussion about the dumb-ass greedy mortgage brokers..."

Your description is much more detailed JDR, however I did mention lenders who make risky loans at 8:25 this morning. I do agree on your synopsis, however I'm still wonder which part of "adjustable rate mortgage" consumers didn't understand. I was offered one of these babies at a lower initial rate and quickly said "fixed" rate please.

Yvonne,
I was in Greensboro last week, and most every store I went in had a job opening on their front glass. So I can not see were a second job in Greensboro would be hard to get. Seem to be over looking the folks get 2 % on their saving because of this screw up. If you did not read your contract, shame on you.

" .. I'm still wonder which part of "adjustable rate mortgage" consumers didn't understand."

Reported was at least one loan of over $500,000 to an unemployed ... the guy said "Hey if they're gonna loan it to me .. " Of course the not even payment was made .. but the broker fiully understand the part about of commission without responsibility.

Here's a bit funny .. even funnier were it not so tragic report from the mind of Ira Glass.

http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1242

Were people stupid? Sure. Were the weasels in EEEVILLLLLLLLLLL Corporations selfish greedy bastards that did great damage to our economy .. hell yea.

Of course the not even payment = Of course not even the first payment

The plan is hardly a bail-out, Dan and it's not costing the government 300 billion dollars (just in case you were wondering). The plan is voluntary and allows the FHA to reinsure up to 300 billion in problem loans and essentially goes like this:

Lenders have to write down their loans to 85% of the current value of the house. The borrowers pay a fee for the service and sacrifice a share of any later price rise to the government.

The government IS taking on more risk, but the CBO estimates the actual subsidy will be $1.7 billion over 5 years.

The reason it's necessary? Evicting a homeowner and selling the property is a long and costly process and a process that can destroy the value of the home while pulling down the value of neighboring houses which would only perpetuate the crisis.

The politicians say the plan will save 1.5 million folks from losing their homes. The CBO estimates half a million. Certainly, the government shouldn't save everybody's house, especially if they bought a house they really couldn't afford. In a case like that, the best answer would be to streamline the foreclosure process so that people who CAN afford the homes can buy them. But whatever.

" ... CBO estimates the actual subsidy will be $1.7 billion over 5 years ... "

So if this $1.7 billion to back up $300 billion in real estate assets is a "govt. will take care of you" plan .. what was the $30 billion set-aside to back up the $220 billion Bear Stearns debacle?

"..what was the $30 billion set-aside to back up the $220 billion Bear Stearns debacle?"

A corporate bailout by the govt., which I oppose as well. I agree there were greedy bastards that created this mess, both lenders and borrowers.

"Lenders have to write down their loans to 85% of the current value of the house. The borrowers pay a fee for the service and sacrifice a share of any later price rise to the government."

How many govt. bureaucrats will have to track this?

"...the CBO estimates the actual subsidy will be $1.7 billion over 5 years."

You believe a govt. "estimate"? If so I have a bridge to nowhere for sale.

I still believe this plan encourages irresponsibility. Make bad choices and the govt. will save your arse.
Meanwhile those of us who made sound decisions have to subsidize those who didn't.

It can be alluring, my wife and I looked at some shiny new large houses a few years ago. After doing the math we decided it didn't make financial sense.

"How many govt. bureaucrats will have to track this?"

Probably no more than the number of government regulators who sat on their hands while lenders were making loans to people like the guy in Rockefeller's post.

Your distrust of government estimates is your own problem. I don't have much else to go on at this point. Even if it's not $1.7 billion, it's probably not that much more and certainly not $300 billion like your original post implied.

I see it as just a way to soften the blow to the whole economy. It still won't save people who bought way above their means. I think it would help those who picked the adjustable rate since they thought they were getting a deal but then got hit hard when rates skyrocketed and home values plunged. Yeah, they fudged up but it wasn't only their fault...so if cutting them a little break helps the economy then why not?

And, like I said for the folks who actually bought homes they shouldn't have, put a fast-lane on the foreclosure process so the people with the cash can buy them up. Although, I doubt you'll find a politician who'll promote that idea.

"Your distrust of government estimates is your own problem."

It's not my problem alone, how about it being a problem for the Democratic Party?

Although there are many examples of govt. cost overruns, I'll use one example, the Medicare prescription drug fiasco:

"The Bush Administration relied upon the Medicare drug benefit's $400 billion price tag to win over skeptical conservatives in Congress. Within weeks of the bill's passage, the White House admitted they had underestimated the cost by $135 billion (35 percent)".

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/07/new_medicare_pr.php

My $300 billion quote was directly from the N&R as referenced. It it is inaccurate you should notify them.

I don't think I said it was bad to not always trust government estimates. But it's interesting that the example you give has nothing to do with the Congressional Budget Office. The quote is iffy, because it's $300 billion in backed loans, but I don't know what was in the rest of the article. Maybe it said something about the estimate of cost, maybe it didn't. I just wanted to clarify.

Dan: Help me through your logic.

You say distrust of government is “not my problem alone, how about it being a problem for the Democratic Party?” Then as an example you use Med. Part “D” where "The Bush Administration [Republicans, right?] used the “$400 billion price tag to win over skeptical conservatives in Congress” .. then admitted they “underestimated the cost by 35 percent”.

The higher number came EARLIER from the relatively non-partisan and reasonable accurate CBO while the WH "estimate" came out of someone’s WH bozo butt.

So why is that a Dem issue?

This is what drives me nuts. Lots of folks – like you – “say” the problem stems from both sides of the isle, but here you cite an obvious example - committed wholely by the R's, yet you emphasize “a problem for the Democratic Party”

It seems easy to infer that lots of folks – like you – are really shallow.

Tell me I’m wrong .. PLEASE.