Housing stimulus

[jug]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem In my opinion, everyone who is legally qualified for a nickel of this idiotic government largess should take as much as possible. There are many people who read this board who have lived responsibly all their lives, bought reasonable houses, paid off their mortgages as soon as they could, and want nothing from the government except to be left alone. .

Keep in mind that those who rule are the most apt to take all they can. Geithner did not pay taxes, Daschle among others.

These elites make the rules us "treadmillers" are to follow. They've never held "real" jobs, nor worried about getting by. So take all you can, it's yours, only suckers live by the "golden rule" of not taking from the government. In reality, those who control the gold, rule. Take it all.

jug

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OAG I looked at that data at the site too. I wonder how many (have income) but do not have to EVEN file and how they get that number (I doubt it is in there). Wonder how many are "under the table" workers. Guess they get that from the Census but that data is outdated quickly. Nice thing now is, if you pay, you are going to pay more.

And, with the new "refundable tax credits" the IRS will be writing more checks to people who pay zero income tax. It looks like welfare, but I guess it isn't because it is a "refundable tax credit."

[deepc]

An individual who doesn't need the money, and doesn't believe it's right to give it away to others, yet takes their "share" has no integrity.

Those of us who are ineligible due to our wealth, savings, hard work, or whatever and who don't change our situation to take the money are not "chumps".

I am a firm believer in karma, those who lived high on the hog and now will be bailed out by all of us will remain losers regardless of what is done, and won't know it. I feel sorry for those who are smarter than them and sell their integrity to take what they deem is their share.

Reminds me of the kids under the pinata fighting for tootsie rolls.

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepc I feel sorry for those who are smarter than them and sell their integrity to take what they deem is their share.

The government says what each person gets, what their "share" is. What I "deem isnt important (or the money wouldn't be taken from me in the first place). They write the rules in a particular way for a good reason, I'm sure this is all well thought out. We should play by those rules and help them accomplish the goals of this program (spend all the allotted money)

And how much bad karma accrues to the folks in DC who are taking from those who played by the rules of decency and common sense to give to those who did not?

To anyone waiting for "karma" to even things out, enjoy the wait. I say that "the Gods help those who help themselves." In this case, "helping yourself" is also helping the country. Let me know how that "karma" spends. Meanwhile each of us should do what we can to recapture the resources the government took from us and put these resources to productive use. It is the right thing to do.

[deepc]

Well samclem we're gonna have to agree to disagree. Here's another couple Heinlein quotes for you, he's one of my favorites too:

"A competent and self-confident person is incapable of jealousy in anything. Jealousy is invariably a symptom of neurotic insecurity."

"Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal."

"Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed."

[OAG]

Round 3: Santelli's Manifesto: Behind the Shout Heard 'Round the World - General * US * News * Story - CNBC.com

[Leonidas]

Has anyone been able to download the document that Gibbs and Santelli were waving around? The front page of both look the same from what I can see on the video, four paragraphs of plain text with a text box at the bottom. There's nothing like that on the white house web site. I found something similar, but it's definitely not the same document. Or it has undergone extensive changes from what Gibbs and Santelli had.

http://www.treas.gov/initiatives/ees...iveSummary.pdf

Edit to add: I found it on the Treasury website here: http://www.treas.gov/initiatives/ees.../FactSheet.pdf

Gibbs was wrong - it was not on the white house website. I found it though a link at FinancialStability.Gov. Hmmm, there is definitely some kind of oxymoronic thing working with that website name!

[FIRE'd@51]

I liked Rick Santelli's suggestion that the WH put up a poll on the web site asking Americans what they think of the plan.

[Leonidas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FIRE'd@51 I liked Rick Santelli's suggestion that the WH put up a poll on the web site asking Americans what they think of the plan.

That would be interesting. CNBC had a poll asking who wanted to join in the Chicago Tea Party, but it's gone now. Last time I was able to see it there were 95% in agreement with 90,000 votes.

Okay, I've looked over the two documents I referenced and the one currently available on the white house website seems to be an updated version of the one linked on the treasury site. The changes on the first page seem to be mostly reformatting, but the second page is very different. The second thing I noticed is that the newer version is about 3 1/2 to 4 pages shorter.

When I get a chance I'll see how significant the changes are, but for the moment I've got to hit the grocery for something to throw on the grill tonight.

Taxation is going to be a big issue for the next few years, especially for anyone in retirement.

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepc Well samclem we're gonna have to agree to disagree.

Fair enough. As I said, I was firmly in your camp until recently, so I think I understand your reasoning. Just to re-iterate: This isn't (just) about "getting mine", but really what I believe is best for the country.

[TromboneAl]

I see two main complaints about the housing plan. One is that it rewards the bad people who bought too much house. The other is that it may not work. Let's look at the just the first complaint:

Here's a hypothetical situation. Let's say there's a mortgage bailout plan that would solve the financial crisis. In this hypothetical situation, it is guaranteed to solve the crisis. The economy and stock market will recover in 8 months, and everything will be OK.

The problem is that this plan rewards the people who bought McMansions that they couldn't afford. The money comes from people who made wise decisions, and lived within their means. IOW, the bill requires that you "pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills."

Summary: Your retirement is saved, but you have paid for bad people's mortgages.

Would you support this hypothetical plan?

[deepc]

Well we're already paying their bad mortgages through the results of this whole mess.

Here's a question: Some of the wealthier folks in town here have had notices of foreclosure posted in the local paper on their properties, these are the notices for public auction found in the legal notices. Even though the dates for the auctions come and go, there doesn't seem to be any change in home ownership. Their SUVs and such remain, they continue living in the house. One in particular had their house on the market for over two years, just had the auction, and nothing. So, is this a scam or what? Seems funny that the ones around here living high on the hog seem to be doing just fine, yet foreclosed upon.

[TromboneAl]

Here's an interesting article about the federal mortgage assistance that almost all of us have received at some point, paid for by taxpayers who do not own a home.

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl Would you support this hypothetical plan?

Yes, but only if we (the taxpayers) could get a share of equity (should there be any) in their house.

[2soon2tell]

Since we cannot change this government stimulus plan how about those who do not need the money but legally qualify for it take it and put it aside for their kids and grandkids. They will bear the brunt of having to repay this mountain of government debt.

My $.02 but with the inflation in the pipeline induced by the government printing presses this will soon be $.04.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl Summary: Your retirement is saved, but you have paid for bad people's mortgages. Would you support this hypothetical plan?

Sure, if me and everyone I care about is dead in 8 months.

The problem with your hypothetical is that it stops at that 8 month recovery point. Life goes on. So, even in a hypothetical, those people who were rewarded for taking risk will encourage that behavior (in themselves or others - "hey, those guys got a free ride"), so it perpetuates the cycle of bad behavior. And it will probably just be worse next time.

So no, I don't like that scenario.

I have not read through the details, maybe someone can help here - is there anything in these plans that pushes the cost back on the ones who took the risk? If it does, it would be more palatable to me. Something like, OK, we will extend the terms of your mortgage, cut your rate to such-and-such, BUT.... you pay that back PLUS interest and costs over time, or as your equity or income increases. Something like that.

-ERD50

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl Here's an interesting article about the federal mortgage assistance that almost all of us have received at some point, paid for by taxpayers who do not own a home.

That was an interesting article, but I disagree with you that the mortgage deduction is " paid for by taxpayers who do not own a home."

When you rent, the landlord deducts interest as a business expense. This lowers the average cost of being a landlord, and that (in a free market) will lower the rents that will be charged to make a reasonable profit.

The mortgage deduction just puts the homeowner on the same footing at the renter is the way I see it.

The really interesting part of that article to me was, there apparently never was a specific "mortgage deduction", it just always was there because interest paid was netted against income (if I read that right). Plus, the idea that it helps people afford homes, when they point out that most take the standard deduction and mostly the "rich" benefit. Another case of Congress saying they want a progressive tax system, but throw in complications that turn parts of it regressive, and never bat an eye, and even promote it as "progressive", when it is not.

-ERD50

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl Here's a hypothetical situation. Let's say there's a mortgage bailout plan that would solve the financial crisis. In this hypothetical situation, it is guaranteed to solve the crisis. The economy and stock market will recover in 8 months, and everything will be OK. . . . Would you support this hypothetical plan?

I understand that you are trying to break down the issue into bite size chunks, but it doesn't help me grapple with the issue because the "given" is so huge. Like "If biting into a stolen candy bar would allow an individual to magically be awarded a million dollars (hypothetically), would you be in favor of people stealing candy bars?"

But, more fundamentally, I think maybe the pre-crisis situation answers your question: People were being rewarded for bad behavior (including getting into mortgages they couldn't afford). House prices were going up, unemployment was low, the market was going up, and our retirement savings were growing. That's the situation that we were in, and it is the situation we would be in even if everything went perfectly after a huge taxpayer tax infusion (your first premise). Still, in retrospect, was everything really alright? I think we all know the answer, I think we all know the root causes, and I think it is right to be suspicious of a "fix" that papers over the root causes while pretending to address them. Especially if the fix costs hundreds of billions of dollars. In fact, the situation would be worse than before: Before, some of those taking the risk might have understoofd they were rolling the dice. In the "post bailout" scenario the whole cohort of irresponsible borrowersw has learned a very unfortunate lesson--Daddy wil bail me out if something bad happens-it wasn't my fault--I was a victim!