Who's personally helped by the stimulus?

[TimC]

I liked it better when we laughed at people living in ditches and poked them with sticks.

[Kid Cid]

but...but...but....don't you people realize? people who have made good economic choices carrying more water for people who made bad economic choices is how we as a society define PROGRESS and FAIRNESS.

I had a retort all lined up until I realized

[Caveman_Nick]

The list could go on and on an on. We all have dollars from our own pockets that go towards programs that do not benefit oursleves. Its part of living in a society. This current stimulus plan is sensitive because it is current...but really, isn't this just another in a long list of things we have been doing all along?

 

You might not know this about me, but I am against the Federal Government taking money from Americans and redistributing it in this fashion. Almost entirely, completely against it.

 

I am not deeply against it on a state level. Our country is supposed to operate on the principle that governments at the state, county and town level deal with these issues.

 

Just as an example of the kind of problems created by the Fed Gov trampling on it's constitutional charter in this fashion, look at how the Fed Gov forces states to comply with federal standards by threatening to cut off aid for whatever program is related to the federal standard. Why should the Fed Gov even have that money to distribute for those state programs, let alone be able to affect state law by threatening to cut the funding off.

 

The Government is outside of it's design. This stimulus is just the most recent and glaring shining example of that.

[whomper]

all fair points by my point is some poeple who were fiscally responsible and hard working went under because of conditions they didnt cause. These are people that may have had a decent reserve that got sucked up rather quickly.

[Perchoutofwater]

You might not know this about me, but I am against the Federal Government taking money from Americans and redistributing it in this fashion. Almost entirely, completely against it.

 

I am not deeply against it on a state level. Our country is supposed to operate on the principle that governments at the state, county and town level deal with these issues.

 

Just as an example of the kind of problems created by the Fed Gov trampling on it's constitutional charter in this fashion, look at how the Fed Gov forces states to comply with federal standards by threatening to cut off aid for whatever program is related to the federal standard. Why should the Fed Gov even have that money to distribute for those state programs, let alone be able to affect state law by threatening to cut the funding off.

 

The Government is outside of it's design. This stimulus is just the most recent and glaring shining example of that.

[Perchoutofwater]

all fair points by my point is some poeple who were fiscally responsible and hard working went under because of conditions they didnt cause. These are people that may have had a decent reserve that got sucked up rather quickly.

 

Whomp, that has happened since the beginning of time, and what charities are for. One of the favorite things about my church is the church welfare program. If you are doing all you can, and still can't make it the church will jump in and help. The bishop will interview people in trouble, and see what they need and what they are doing, and provide them with what they need. I think a lot of us would rather help of fellow man directly or through charities that are more efficient with our money than the government, and are more likely to discern those that are trying to make it and need a hand up and those that are the professional needy. The more local the help, the better the help because the locals will know the problems in that area better, and less of the funds will be wasted on bureaucracy. The federal government is now doing what used to be done by charities and local governments, but they aren't doing it as wisely or as cost effectively.

[Pope Flick]

All you critics - what option do you want? Do nothing and force everyone into foreclosure who's on the edge?

 

Do you realize how that would actually effect you worse as neighborhood blight spreads towards you?

 

It was a screw job in, and it's a screw job out. The train has left the station, and we're all on it. I, for one, would like them to fix the tracks before it becomes a wreck that consumes us all.

 

As details are emerging on this, from my understanding if you're in over your head you are not helped. People more along the bubble's edge are the ones benefitting - as are most homeowners since your home values won't drop in the tank if you have 4 foreclosures sitting on your block.

 

And hey - I'm all for foreclosing on dipAthenas. I also want prosecutions of anyone involved in fraud and all involved in fraud excluded from this plan - which again it's my understanding that that's the case. I want a crack at one of those homes people have to bail on. But I don't want to buy into a neighborhood with 5-15% foreclosures.

[whomper]

Whomp, that has happened since the beginning of time, and what charities are for. One of the favorite things about my church is the church welfare program. If you are doing all you can, and still can't make it the church will jump in and help. The bishop will interview people in trouble, and see what they need and what they are doing, and provide them with what they need. I think a lot of us would rather help of fellow man directly or through charities that are more efficient with our money than the government, and are more likely to discern those that are trying to make it and need a hand up and those that are the professional needy. The more local the help, the better the help because the locals will know the problems in that area better, and less of the funds will be wasted on bureaucracy. The federal government is now doing what used to be done by charities and local governments, but they aren't doing it as wisely or as cost effectively.

 

 

But it is happening on such a large scale that the means of help you allude to could never keep up.

[Kid Cid]

All you critics - what option do you want? Do nothing and force everyone into foreclosure who's on the edge?

 

Do you realize how that would actually effect you worse as neighborhood blight spreads towards you?

 

It was a screw job in, and it's a screw job out. The train has left the station, and we're all on it. I, for one, would like them to fix the tracks before it becomes a wreck that consumes us all.

 

As details are emerging on this, from my understanding if you're in over your head you are not helped. People more along the bubble's edge are the ones benefitting - as are most homeowners since your home values won't drop in the tank if you have 4 foreclosures sitting on your block.

 

And hey - I'm all for foreclosing on dipAthenas. I also want prosecutions of anyone involved in fraud and all involved in fraud excluded from this plan - which again it's my understanding that that's the case. I want a crack at one of those homes people have to bail on. But I don't want to buy into a neighborhood with 5-15% foreclosures.

OK, so let me ask you this and I'm not trying to be a jackass, I'm really trying to make sense of all this.

 

If the gov't did nothing, would it mean the end of life as we know it? Could it cause the collapse of our Fed gov't? Or would it be 10-20 years of hardship where we as a country would have to restructure everything into a more stable structure? If it doesn't cause the collapse of the gov't, which way leaves us better in the long run, propping up the existing structure or creating a new one?

[Perchoutofwater]

But it is happening on such a large scale that the means of help you allude to could never keep up.

 

Why? Part of the problem at least in my opinion is that Federal Government getting involved in areas it had no business to get involved in. I guarantee my governor knows better than Obama and congress what my state needs. My county commissioners and city council representatives know what my neighbor needs more than the governor does. We could take care of the problem in the same way, on a local and state level, and cut out some of the middle man and save a bunch of money. For some reason I don't see my county commissioner signing on for a high speed rail system between Disney World and Vegas, of course Harry Reid isn't my county commissioner.

[Pope Flick]

OK, so let me ask you this and I'm not trying to be a jackass, I'm really trying to make sense of all this.

 

If the gov't did nothing, would it mean the end of life as we know it? Could it cause the collapse of our Fed gov't? Or would it be 10-20 years of hardship where we as a country would have to restructure everything into a more stable structure? If it doesn't cause the collapse of the gov't, which way leaves us better in the long run, propping up the existing structure or creating a new one?

 

 

I think the honest answer is: no one really knows. Look at what's happened in the past 6 months. A House Rep was on CSPAN last week saying a Sept 15th run on the banks had all electronics shut down for the day because the system would have been insolvent overnight. Hyperbole? Tough to say but the simple fact that we can even speak in serious tones of events that would have been science fiction a year ago cuts to the seriousness of the situation.

 

I'm down with the 'market correction' end of it. I was priced out of a home ayear ago, and now it's potentially 12-18 months away. I wouldn't have bet ten cents a year ago that would have been possible (I live in LA).

 

So I'm standing by what I said - at least in regards to the mortgage plan - above. Do you want foreclosed homes sprinkled around your neighborhood to the tune of 1 in 6?

Edited February 19, 2009 by Pope Flick

[Perchoutofwater]

I think the honest answer is: no one really knows. Look at what's happened in the past 6 months. A House Rep was on CSPAN last week saying a Sept 15th run on the banks had all electronics shut down for the day because the system would have been insolvent overnight. Hyperbole? Tough to say but the simple fact that we can even speak in serious tones of events that would have been science fiction a year ago cuts to the seriousness of the situation.

 

I'm down with the 'market correction' end of it. I was priced out of a home ayear ago, and now it's potentially 12-18 months away. I wouldn't have bet ten cents a year ago that would have been possible (I live in LA).

 

So I'm standing by what I said - at least in regards to the mortgage plan - above. Do you want foreclosed homes sprinkled around your neighborhood to the tune of 1 in 6?

 

I would prefer it to be set up where the cost of the program was paid by those that are using it. Let the government garnish wages over a period of time, and when the house sells take part of the proceeds that amount to what that individual burrowed from government. The idea of a bunch of vacant houses isn't that realistic either. People will buy them at a reduced price and then rent them.

[Caveman_Nick]

All you critics - what option do you want? Do nothing and force everyone into foreclosure who's on the edge?

 

 

The simple fact is that I don't have an answer. I don't pretend to have an answer on this that would keep 5 million families in their homes. I also can't say that I think the "best thing" is to let these families hit the streets.

 

Here is my problem, and I will sum it up using another situation: GM is in bad trouble. Has been for a while. So we gave them 15 million dollars in order to get their crap together and come up with a plan, which sounds more and more like it will be bankruptcy. So we talk about throwing more money at them.

 

They are in the position they are in because of bad practice. Their practices are not ever going to significantly change as long as the money faucet is on. We are rewarding their bad business practices by keeping them afloat with government money instead of letting them choose to change or go down.

 

Why does that make sense?

 

What's the difference if you take that situation and turn it towards people that are defaulting on their mortgages because of past bad practices? Will these people learn to handle their money properly by getting their situation fixed by the government, or will they learn that they can stretch and if the trip they will get bailed out by those of us that are carrying the load in earnest?

[Pope Flick]

The simple fact is that I don't have an answer. I don't pretend to have an answer on this that would keep 5 million families in their homes. I also can't say that I think the "best thing" is to let these families hit the streets.

 

Here is my problem, and I will sum it up using another situation: GM is in bad trouble. Has been for a while. So we gave them 15 million dollars in order to get their crap together and come up with a plan, which sounds more and more like it will be bankruptcy. So we talk about throwing more money at them.

 

They are in the position they are in because of bad practice. Their practices are not ever going to significantly change as long as the money faucet is on. We are rewarding their bad business practices by keeping them afloat with government money instead of letting them choose to change or go down.

 

Why does that make sense?

 

What's the difference if you take that situation and turn it towards people that are defaulting on their mortgages because of past bad practices? Will these people learn to handle their money properly by getting their situation fixed by the government, or will they learn that they can stretch and if the trip they will get bailed out by those of us that are carrying the load in earnest?

 

 

Let me go on record saying I don't want aid to go to a house that will be foreclosed on within 12 months regardless. I also know in something this big there are going to be people gaming and taking advantage but may more will be helped than doing the gaming. Many more.

[Caveman_Nick]

Let me go on record saying I don't want aid to go to a house that will be foreclosed on within 12 months regardless. I also know in something this big there are going to be people gaming and taking advantage but may more will be helped than doing the gaming. Many more.

 

So you agree that by creating a culture of "fixing" these problems that we are creating a situation in which these problems will repeat because of a lack of realized consequences?

[Pope Flick]

So you agree that by creating a culture of "fixing" these problems that we are creating a situation in which these problems will repeat because of a lack of realized consequences?

 

 

No. Because I don't see loaning practices as jumping off a cliff again anytime soon. As I said, people need to be prosecuted.

[Ursa Majoris]

No. Because I don't see loaning practices as jumping off a cliff again anytime soon. As I said, people need to be prosecuted.

And way heavier regulation since business has proved it can't do it itself.

[Perchoutofwater]

And way heavier regulation since business has proved it can't do it itself.

 

There is plenty of regulation out there. The problem is our government has made up so many laws and regulations, they no longer enforce half of what is on the books. It also doesn't help that the agencies and companies that are being regulated are contributing the the campaigns of the congressmen that are in charge of their oversight.

[i_am_the_swammi]

The idea of a bunhc of vacant house isn't realistic either. People will buy them at a reduced price and then rent them.

 

Hmmm...then why isn't this happening right now? And just who would finance these investment purchases? I would guess 60-70% of investment purchases made in the last 5 years were done so with the help of a note tied to their primary residence. Don't expect financing like that to be readily available anytime soon. Do you really beleive there are an abundance of speculators out there that could absorb 18% of the housing inventory?

 

And what makes you think the banks will sell these houses at a significantly reduced price? The banks would be better off just letting them sit until the market turns, then sell them into the upswing. If the banks were to sell them at a loss, they'd have historic write-downs. They'd likely never recover without government help. So we'd be back to square one...

 

On another note, the US is in for a very rude awakening over the next 6-24 months when it comes to defaulting mortgages. Home mortgages were the first shoe to drop. Commerical mortgages are next, and the outlook for what it will mean to everyone is exceptionally grim. For the many of you that likely have investment dollars in funds tied to real estate, be prepared....the collapse of the commercial real estate market will be astounding. banks are in for a lot, and I mean A LOT, more pain...

[Pope Flick]

On another note, the US is in for a very rude awakening over the next 6-24 months when it comes to defaulting mortgages. Home mortgages were the first shoe to drop. Commerical mortgages are next, and the outlook for what it will mean to everyone is exceptionally grim. For the many of you that likely have investment dollars in funds tied to real estate, be prepared....the collapse of the commercial real estate market will be astounding. banks are in for a lot, and I mean A LOT, more pain...

 

 

Any suggestions on what to short?

[Ursa Majoris]

There is plenty of regulation out there. The problem is our government has made up so many laws and regulations, they no longer enforce half of what is on the books. It also doesn't help that the agencies and companies that are being regulated are contributing the the campaigns of the congressmen that are in charge of their oversight.

The one I'm thinking of is mandatory minimums for lending or somesuch. Another is forcing the loan originator to keep it.

 

I'm aware this will stifle creativity, unfairly punish some people, limit business profit, blah blah but considering the mess we're in right now I'd rather over regulate than go through this crap again in a couple decades.

[Perchoutofwater]

The one I'm thinking of is mandatory minimums for lending or somesuch. Another is forcing the loan originator to keep it.

 

I'm aware this will stifle creativity, unfairly punish some people, limit business profit, blah blah but considering the mess we're in right now I'd rather over regulate than go through this crap again in a couple decades.

 

Until the CRA, the banks did this on their own without any problem.

Edited February 19, 2009 by Perchoutofwater

[cre8tiff]

Until the CRA, the banks did this on their own without any problem.

Just ask Keating.

[Perchoutofwater]

Just ask Keating.

 

Good point, but again, weren't the regs on the books, the people in charge just weren't paying attention? I'm asking, that was really before my time and I haven't really read up on it too much.

Edited February 19, 2009 by Perchoutofwater

[Ursa Majoris]

Until the CRA, the banks did this on their own without any problem.

No-one was forced to loan anyone anything, certainly not without documentation. No-one was forced to slice and dice thousands of mortgages into unrecognizable and unattributable packages and sell them, still less buy them. These idiocies were entirely the invention of business looking for a fast buck - now we're all paying.

 

I know you always think business can regulate itself, the gubment needs to go away blah blah but the history of business is littered with profiteering, dishonesty and stupidity, as well as shortsightedness and exploitation. Government regulation is an absolute essential, otherwise we'd still be slaving for railroad barons at 50c a day.