Leaning on gov't largesse to get you through a rough patch

[muck]

When personally faced with a grim financial situation (as described below), would you lean on the federal government for assistance?

 

I've set this up as a poll so that you can vote and not have to explain yourself (in case you'd feel a bit like a hypocrite if you had too).

 

**********************

 

Situation:

 

1) Your income (whether salary, commission, self-employed) is down by 50% from a year ago.

 

2) You have used 75% of your savings and investments (including tapping your 401(k) and/or life insurance policies) to cover your nut over the last 12 months.

 

3) If you don't get your income back up to where it was historically within 3 months, you will have to start defaulting on your debts (including your mortgage and business debts) in order to simply buy food and other basic necessities (scaled down health insurance, electric bill, etc), risking bankruptcy and/or getting "kicked out on the street".

 

4) You think there is only about a 10-20% chance that you'll be able to close enough business / get a new job fast enough that will forego the problems outlined in #3 above.

 

5) You qualify for a "homeowners assistance plan" recently launched by the federal government which would give you a reduction in your monthly mortgage payment by 40% (say, from $3,000 / mo to $1,800 / mo). If you were approved for this sort of a mortgage reduction, you would buy yourself at least an additional three months, so you'd have 6 months to get your income back to "normal" levels before facing defaults (which may mean using the rest of your savings to get there) -- you think there is a 80%+ chance you could get your income back up in that amount of time.

 

Question 1: Would you (and/or your spouse) apply for the "homeowners assistance plan" in hopes of dropping your mortgage payment to a level that would allow you to (hopefully) get through the very rough patch?

 

Question 2: If you answer "no" to Q1, what scenario would have to occur before you'd apply for a "hand out" from the federal government that you qualified for?

 

Question 3: If you said "yes" to Q1 and you were able to get your income back to normal levels, how would you feel about the federal government?

 

Question 4: Would taking advantage of the "homeowners assistance plan" (under any circumstance) go against your conscious / morals / etc?

[Clubfoothead]

What's largesse?

[millerx]

I had to answer " I don't know how I'd feel, this is a really hard decision " on all of them because I went to government schools.

 

Wait, can I sue the gov't school system for not knowing? I'm pretty sure they taught me something about suing during my indoctrination.

[Azazello1313]

it's kinda like people who were FOR the bush tax cuts saying to people who were against them, "well, why don't you just give the money back if you're against it?"

 

it's silly. you pay what taxes the current law requires you to pay, and if you qualify for some government-created benefit, you take it. IMO, it doesn't make you even a little bit of a hypocrite to go along and abide by whatever the current law is, even if you opposed the law or think it misguided. it's all part of the social contract, really.

 

edit to add: question 3, "If you answered "yes" to Q1 (or answered "yes" to Items 2-6 in Q2), how would you feel about the federal government because they provided a mechanism for you to keep your house?", doesn't have an accurate answer for me as an option. my feeling toward the government in that situation wouldn't really be good (gratitude) or bad (shame), it would be rather indifferent.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Azazello1313

[muck]

What's largesse?

 

Arguably, a poor choice of words?

[Perchoutofwater]

it's kinda like people who were FOR the bush tax cuts saying to people who were against them, "well, why don't you just give the money back if you're against it?"

 

it's silly. you pay what taxes the current law requires you to pay, and if you qualify for some government-created benefit, you take it. IMO, it doesn't make you even a little bit of a hypocrite to go along and abide by whatever the current law is, even if you opposed the law or think it misguided. it's all part of the social contract, really.

 

edit to add: question 3, "If you answered "yes" to Q1 (or answered "yes" to Items 2-6 in Q2), how would you feel about the federal government because they provided a mechanism for you to keep your house?", doesn't have an accurate answer for me as an option. my feeling toward the government in that situation wouldn't really be good (gratitude) or bad (shame), it would be rather indifferent.

 

This pretty much mirrors my thoughts.

[yo mama]

What's largesse?

opulence

 

And me: no. *I* wouldn't take the assistance. That said, I can easily forsee a situation where I'd be forced to choose between my principles and marital relations with the Mrs.

[Ursa Majoris]

it's kinda like people who were FOR the bush tax cuts saying to people who were against them, "well, why don't you just give the money back if you're against it?"

 

it's silly. you pay what taxes the current law requires you to pay, and if you qualify for some government-created benefit, you take it. IMO, it doesn't make you even a little bit of a hypocrite to go along and abide by whatever the current law is, even if you opposed the law or think it misguided. it's all part of the social contract, really.

I agree with this.

[wiegie]

And me: no. *I* wouldn't take the assistance.

I wonder how much your creditors will appreciate your high ideals?

Edited August 6, 2009 by wiegie

[Ursa Majoris]

opulence

It's not opulence, it's generosity.

 

–noun

1. generous bestowal of gifts.

2. the gift or gifts, as of money, so bestowed.

[bushwacked]

What's largesse?

 

It's kind of like goatsee.

[Clubfoothead]

Student loans are immoral?

[cre8tiff]

Student loans are immoral?

 

zing!

[Big John]

And if you voted third party?

[whomper]

opulence

 

 

Oh yeah. That made things clearer. Thanks

 

It's kind of like goatsee.

 

 

[TimC]

If you have a $3,000/month mortgage payment and you're asking for Gubment handouts, then you deserve to be flogged on the street. That is the majority of your problem. Government assistance should and always should be short-term help to keep people from starving on the street and an adequate shelter (not a room at the f'n Bellagio) until they find more work. This person simply can't afford the lifestyle they lived when times were artificially good.

[paulzale]

When personally faced with a grim financial situation (as described below), would you lean on the federal government for assistance?

 

I've set this up as a poll so that you can vote and not have to explain yourself (in case you'd feel a bit like a hypocrite if you had too).

 

**********************

 

Situation:

 

1) Your income (whether salary, commission, self-employed) is down by 50% from a year ago.

 

If you cannot live on this, then you are over extended to begin with, shame on you! As a country we need to get back to common sense finances, debt is not something to be taken lightly and shouldn't be used for nice to haves or wants!

 

2) You have used 75% of your savings and investments (including tapping your 401(k) and/or life insurance policies) to cover your nut over the last 12 months.

 

You still have 25% to use then you should think about selling your house and downsizing, getting a second job, etc. handouts are not the answer, personal responsibility is!

 

3) If you don't get your income back up to where it was historically within 3 months, you will have to start defaulting on your debts (including your mortgage and business debts) in order to simply buy food and other basic necessities (scaled down health insurance, electric bill, etc), risking bankruptcy and/or getting "kicked out on the street".

 

Not, true there are other options, just not as easy or appealing as a handout, see point 2 above

 

4) You think there is only about a 10-20% chance that you'll be able to close enough business / get a new job fast enough that will forego the problems outlined in #3 above.

 

10% is better than 0%, get creative, don't give up, look at taking matters into your own hands!

 

5) You qualify for a "homeowners assistance plan" recently launched by the federal government which would give you a reduction in your monthly mortgage payment by 40% (say, from $3,000 / mo to $1,800 / mo). If you were approved for this sort of a mortgage reduction, you would buy yourself at least an additional three months, so you'd have 6 months to get your income back to "normal" levels before facing defaults (which may mean using the rest of your savings to get there) -- you think there is a 80%+ chance you could get your income back up in that amount of time.

 

Probably should have only had an $1,800 mortgage to begin with or been a renter and not a home owner. Home Ownership is not a right and one needs to be able to handle expenses and shouldn't extend themselves over 50% of gross income for necessities to live.

 

Question 1: Would you (and/or your spouse) apply for the "homeowners assistance plan" in hopes of dropping your mortgage payment to a level that would allow you to (hopefully) get through the very rough patch?

 

No

 

Question 2: If you answer "no" to Q1, what scenario would have to occur before you'd apply for a "hand out" from the federal government that you qualified for?

 

Only reason I can think of is long term or permanent disability

 

Question 3: If you said "yes" to Q1 and you were able to get your income back to normal levels, how would you feel about the federal government?

 

Question 4: Would taking advantage of the "homeowners assistance plan" (under any circumstance) go against your conscious / morals / etc?

 

[bIt does go against my personal beliefs, however if repayment was required then I would be more accepting. Again, this is another loan then to live beyond ones current means. I have issue with this.][/b]

 

See Bold above. I am pretty conservative to say the least, but the Mrs's and I spent some of 2007 and all of 2008 on one income, which was roughly 60% less than what we were previously making. We cut out the nice to haves and depleted our savings, but didn't have to touch any retirement savings. It was getting to the point of down sizing, before she went back to work. Maybe we were lucky, maybe I am too proud, but handouts were not an option, we never collected unemployment or any sort of handouts!

 

In general we have gotten "fat" as Americans and think we deserve/need the opulence we currently have. There is a lot than can be cut out to make ends meet, cell phones, cable, newspaper, AC, dining out, clothes, the list goes on and on. I know this doesn't apply to people in certain situations, but I think it applies to most of those wanting a handout!

 

Personal Responsibility and understanding we don't deserve everything our little hearts desire is key here.

 

Finally, student loans are not immoral as long as they are paid back, however not paying it back is stealing and that is immoral!

Edited August 6, 2009 by paulzale

[paulzale]

If you have a $3,000/month mortgage payment and you're asking for Gubment handouts, then you deserve to be flogged on the street. That is the majority of your problem. Government assistance should and always should be short-term help to keep people from starving on the street and an adequate shelter (not a room at the f'n Bellagio) until they find more work. This person simply can't afford the lifestyle they lived when times were artificially good.

 

Exactly, see my rant of a post!

[TimC]

Exactly, see my rant of a post!

 

You are a dying breed. I salute you, sir. I would starve on the street before I accepted one penny of help....okay, I'd at least cut DirecTV down to basic service.

[muck]

As a side-note, I was unemployed when my daughter was 18 months old and did not accept unemployment (even though I qualified), and depeleted all savings, sold the house, moved into an apartment, and, by the grace of God and a ton of hard work, I was able to dig out.

 

However, now that I have four kids, I am finding that my positiion would probably change. I mean, if I'm sitting in an apartment, just trying to get a business stated, I probably take the unemployement.

 

Related to this ... if the government gives a tax cut to people in your tax bracket, are you going to say "no thanks, that's a handout"?

[paulzale]

TimC Do you walk around shaking your head trying to understand how we got here? I do!

 

I consider myself blessed to live the life I do, but I am not that old, nor do I understand debt, that people incur. During the year plus without 2 incomes, I really wanted to cut cable and high speed internet, but it wasn't worth the argument with the Mrs's since we could make ends meet, but we were definitely getting close to having that discussion!

 

A lot of family and people see me as "hard" or "unsympathetic", however, I am quite the opposite of this. I do think that doing the right thing is most often the hard thing and people chose the easy route in life!

[paulzale]

As a side-note, I was unemployed when my daughter was 18 months old and did not accept unemployment (even though I qualified), and depeleted all savings, sold the house, moved into an apartment, and, by the grace of God and a ton of hard work, I was able to dig out.

 

However, now that I have four kids, I am finding that my positiion would probably change. I mean, if I'm sitting in an apartment, just trying to get a business stated, I probably take the unemployement.

 

Related to this ... if the government gives a tax cut to people in your tax bracket, are you going to say "no thanks, that's a handout"?

 

Muck, I applaud your hard work and wouldn't fault you in your current situation for taking unemployment. Tax cuts are not very real IMHO, they usually only amount to a few hundred bucks and no I wouldn't give it back, however I firmly believe in a flat % tax across the board and that government needs to be run like a business and not allowed to operate in a deficit. That my friend is another argument

Edited August 6, 2009 by paulzale

[Avernus]

See Bold above. I am pretty conservative to say the least, but the Mrs's and I spent some of 2007 and all of 2008 on one income, which was roughly 60% less than what we were previously making. We cut out the nice to haves and depleted our savings, but didn't have to touch any retirement savings. It was getting to the point of down sizing, before she went back to work. Maybe we were lucky, maybe I am too proud, but handouts were not an option, we never collected unemployment or any sort of handouts!

 

In general we have gotten "fat" as Americans and think we deserve/need the opulence we currently have. There is a lot than can be cut out to make ends meet, cell phones, cable, newspaper, AC, dining out, clothes, the list goes on and on. I know this doesn't apply to people in certain situations, but I think it applies to most of those wanting a handout!

 

Personal Responsibility and understanding we don't deserve everything our little hearts desire is key here.

 

Finally, student loans are not immoral as long as they are paid back, however not paying it back is stealing and that is immoral!

 

 

hell yes....I have scheduled my cell phone to be cut off in 2 days, my Cable bill is taken down to $30 a month, I have my Home Theater setup about sold and it's not like I am hurting....I just want to unfatten myself and have the money better prepared elsewhere...

[wiegie]

government needs to be run like a business and not allowed to operate in a deficit.

uh, ever heard of something called a corporate bond? businesses have deficits all of the time and often for very good reasons

[AtomicCEO]

uh, ever heard of something called a corporate bond? businesses have deficits all of the time and often for very good reasons

 

Plus, didn't we just have to spend a trillion dollars to keep some of the biggest businesses in the country from imploding? Lets not run our country like that.