Get ready to buy everyone’s home improvements
posted at 9:40 am on March 5, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
People opposed to the mortgage bailout have erupted in anger over the thought of having to subsidize their neighbors’ house payments when they’ve responsibly managed their own housing decisions. Diana Olick tells her CNBC readers and viewers that that’s not all we’ll subsidize. Thanks to a little-remarked portion of the bill, we’ll pay for their home-equity seconds as well.
Paragraph vi of the bill states:
While eligibly loan modifications will not require any participation by second lien holders, the program will include additional incentives to extinguish second liens on loans modified under the program in order to reduce the overall indebtedness of the borrower and improve loan performance. Servicers will be eligible to receive compensation when they contact second lien holders and extinguish valid junior liens. Servicers will be reimbursed for the release according to the specified schedule, and will also receive an extra $250 for obtaining a release of a valid second lien.
Olick erupts:
It’s not that I don’t get the reasoning. Sure, do all you can to help people pay their mortgage, like get rid of other debt. By why stop there? What about car loans? Student loans?? The second liens, in general, were used by borrowers to either buy more home than they could really afford or to use their homes as ATM machines. Yes, some people use home equity lines of credit to pay college tuition.
But I can’t tell you how many homeowners I’ve interviewed (and just take a look at David Faber’s documentary House of Cards to see more) who took out home equity lines to put in a pool or buy a fancy car or put an addition on the house that includes a fancy new kitchen with a Viking six-burner. And I’m supposed to pay for all that?
It’s one thing to suck up the bitter pill in order to save the greater housing market and keep families in their homes, but using taxpayer dollars to give homeowners a free ride on second liens is preposterous.
I know that I’ve been putting off some home improvements for some time to avoid taking out a second on my house. I’ve spent cash in savings instead to do things that I couldn’t avoid, like replacing the plumbing in my house when it went bad and getting a new sliding back door when the double-pane seal failed on the old one (and those who live in cold-weather climes know what that would mean). I replaced my roof with a combination of insurance and savings when a windstorm damaged it beyond repair. I’d like to replace the 15-year-plus carpeting in my house, or perhaps replace my eight-year-old car at some point, but I haven’t wanted to assume that debt.
Now I get to assume the debts of everyone who did decide to do all of these things to their own homes by pulling out equity that they didn’t really have. Maybe I can get a list of everyone who qualifies under Paragraph vi, so I can go to their house and enjoy their new carpets, their new barbecue grills, or their enclosed four-season decks. After all, I’m paying for them — I should get the opportunity to enjoy them.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Hey NoDonk, Do you think Obama would send me some bail-out money to go to telepromopter school?
Rovin on March 5, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Point?
Do you ever have one? What on earth are you babbling about?
It’s not faux outrage. Plenty of people are equally outraged over every aspect of what is going on.
The dirty little secret about AIG is that they insure a large number of federal pensions. When you are rapidly expanding the federal government, you’d better make sure AIG is still around.
reaganaut on March 5, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Need more tea parties.
getalife on March 5, 2009 at 10:28 AM
The deal with second liens is not as easy as it looks. Most of the time there is a separate lender holding the second and that lender still has to agree to write it off. One of the reasons there are not more modifications being done now is that the holders of the second liens are refusing to write them off. Lenders got into this mess themselves by promoting second loans along with the firsts so people did not have to pay for mortgage insurance. Most of the second liens are of this variety, not people who took out a second to pay for the gourmet kitchen.
I did the math yesterday and I will qualify for this program in a few months if I do not go back to work. I can knock over $1000 a month off my mortgage payment (the government will pay about half of that) and the government will pay me $5000 toward the principal over the next 5 years if I keep up may payments. It is a hell of an incentive for me to remain unemployed or another few months (or hide my income if I get some freelance work) and exhaust the rest of my savings, and for my husband not to go out and try to find a higher paying job.
If I go back to work at or near the salary I was making, in order to keep paying my mortgage as it is, I’ll end up paying all the new Obama Rich People’s Taxes and basically be working more than half of my time just to pay taxes. Why should I do that?
rockmom on March 5, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Count me in.
saiga on March 5, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Well I’m pretty sure it would take a 2×4 upside the head before some of these fans could even say “wha?”
And I’m no youngster, I’m in my 50s. Lost my home after a divorce and a business gone bad. My chances of getting another in this day and age? Not giving up hope, but it sure won’t be during this administration.
scalleywag on March 5, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Maybe I can get a list of everyone who qualifies under Paragraph vi, so I can go to their house and enjoy their new carpets, their new barbecue grills, or their enclosed four-season decks. After all, I’m paying for them — I should get the opportunity to enjoy them.
Good idea and to make it easier to know who got the cash how about we require each to post Obama’s new O recovery sign in their front window? We need to know who is making the recovery work.
Rocks on March 5, 2009 at 10:31 AM
This is EXACTLY what some people should plan on doing. This will be public information since taxpayer dollars are going to modify and refinance these mortgages. File a Freedom of Information Act request and publish the names. Let the responsible taxpayers find out where there money has gone. If they can do that with the Porkulus dollars we should be demanding that they do it with the mortgage bailouts.
Maybe we should ask the Obama kiddie korps to design a logo that everyone has to put on their house if they get the government bailout.
rockmom on March 5, 2009 at 10:33 AM
Obama…turning people who should be working into stay at home deadbeats collecting government handouts.
Lovely.
scalleywag on March 5, 2009 at 10:33 AM
LOL, great minds think alike!!
Maybe Michelle can have a contest to design the new logo.
rockmom on March 5, 2009 at 10:34 AM
ZING! Perfect!
scalleywag on March 5, 2009 at 10:34 AM
How about a government database ala “transparency” so we can see who the benefactors of this mortgage bailout program will be? I want to see who qualifies after the bureaucracy gymnastics is said and done, complete with property location, value and household income. Curious minds wanna see what the Ogabe admin defines as “demonstrated hardship”.
RepubChica on March 5, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Remember the good old days when people were responsible for their own debt and our government just made sure no one was invading our shores?
CarolynM on March 5, 2009 at 10:39 AM
And seeing as how Acorn’s not very busy, they can distribute their Messiah’s signs.
Rovin on March 5, 2009 at 10:42 AM
Well, there’s a difference, ernesto.
In principle the money for AIG is in the form of loans. Loans are supposed to be repaid; they’re not legally easy to discharge.
I was hoping that there would be a provision to split eventual equity gains in the mortgage assistance program participants’ homes with the federal government, ernesto, but there’s not even that.
Can’t I be outraged on that basis? How is it that I want a better deal for the feds on this than you do?
DrSteve on March 5, 2009 at 10:44 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/05/jon-stewart-eviscerates-c_n_172057.html
The best evisceration of this faux populist outrage from the wealthy I have EVER seen. Jon Stewart owns all of you.
Also I love how no one is posting the polls on this issue. A majority of Americans think this is “unfair” and a majority think that it’s necessary to save the housing mortgage.
DeathToMediaHacks on March 5, 2009 at 10:45 AM
****!!!!
I find myself almost wishing I had bought that 120K house a year and a half ago that I backed out of before I signed any paper work which I had strong doubts about being able to pay for instead of the 80K house I did buy just over 6 months ago now that I knew I could in fact afford on my own.
Maybe I should hurry up and make all kinds of improvements and additions with equity I don’t have and get a bailout. I could use a one car garage at least. Maybe add an additional bedroom. Fix up the bathroom.
Seriously though, where does it stop? There seems to be no end to this.
Yakko77 on March 5, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Hey, I’m not there yet. I was actually shocked to realize that I could qualify for the program. I don’t think I am the type of person they had in mind. And that is very alarming to me, because if I can qualify so can thousands of other upper-income people like me with large expensive homes. ($729,000 gets you a LOT of house in most areas, just not in California or the NYC or DC metro areas.) There are a ton of folks like me out there who bought big homes with two incomes and can’t pay the mortgage on one income now that one of the owners has lost their job. It’s my own fault for buying a bigger house than I needed, though in my case, I relocated into a very hot market in 2004 at the height of the boom, and there were not any smaller or less expensive homes on the market for sale or even for rent that offered decent schools for my kids. I took a gamble and I lost. I’m willing to face the music and just admit I guessed wrong about my own job and the market. But I don’t see a lot of other folks passing up an opportunity for free government writedowns of their mortgages.
rockmom on March 5, 2009 at 10:46 AM
I’d buy eggs by the hundreds and let them get good and rotten before throwing them at all these houses.
Yakko77 on March 5, 2009 at 10:47 AM
I’m with you Ed. I bought my home in 2007, just refinanced (both times 20% down in 30 year fixed). I’ve put thousands into the house out of pocket to pay for needed repairs – a new roof, new insulated garage door, and plumbing. I have other repairs that I want to do, but I’ve got the money to do it – no loans for me. I wont do the repairs unless I have the money to pay for them outright.
And I absolutely loathe the fact that others who made bad business decisions will be bailed out and that I’ll be paying for their exorbitant home improvements because they’ll be rolled into their mortgage assistance program bailout.
These programs do nothing but eliminate the risk of loss from bad business judgment, and it undermines the markets.
lawhawk on March 5, 2009 at 10:48 AM
This is Directive 10-289.
GunRunner on March 5, 2009 at 10:49 AM
But we’ll lay down on our backs for wall street firms who are getting ten times the amount of money set aside for helping troubled homeowners (all with solid payment histories I might add).
DeathToMediaHacks on March 5, 2009 at 10:49 AM
I am looking forward to the statistics and demographics of who all gets this assistance.
Does it all end up going to one type/group of people?
Is there some form of discrimination inherently built into the program to favor one group/income over another?
For example, what if it ends up helping mostly white people from Democrat heavy counties in California making between $45,000 and $75,000 a year? Where will the cries for unfair begin and end? How will the programs rules be loosened to let in those outside that group?
albill on March 5, 2009 at 10:50 AM
The main criteria seems to be people who got loans through fannie mae and freddie mac, which would make sense as the government essentially owns those mortgages.
DeathToMediaHacks on March 5, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Piker. My jeep turns 27 this month.
Vashta.Nerada on March 5, 2009 at 10:53 AM
What a pathetic fanboi you are. Are you really trying to be the biggest hypocrite you can?
Far too soon to tell, kiddo.
DrSteve on March 5, 2009 at 10:53 AM
“I truly think this is a stupid idea, but for all the stupid people out there that need help because of their stupidity, there’s enough stupid people who will not care if I take their money and give it to the stupider ones……” Barack Obama
Rovin on March 5, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Who cares what an elitist Soros-owned “comedian ” thinks? Think most of us have better things to do than listen to a guy who laughs more at his own jokes than his audience. You’re the one that’s “owned”. Remember that. We are the ones who are free.
RepubChica on March 5, 2009 at 10:54 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/05/business/05specialist.html?_r=1&ref=business
Will there be a set of tea parties staged by the right against securities firms who robbed their investors blind? NOPE! Because you guys do nothing but apologize for the crimes of the rich while demonizing the struggles of the poor. The predictability of your slavish devotion to the wealthy would be funny if it weren’t sad.
DeathToMediaHacks on March 5, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Doesn’t work for loans taken out after January 1 of this year. So you can’t scam your way into the program now. At least they made sure of that.
What I cannot fathom is why they did not peg the loan limits to the median area home price. Like I said, it is ridiculous for the taxpayers to bail out people like me. The median home price in Philadelphia is something like $200,000. If they had even doubled that, I would not be eligible. If a laid-off construction worker in North Philly needs help to stay in his house, I don’t have a big problem with that. I do have a problem with the government helping out laid-off executives and lawyers.
If your mortgage balance is $729,000 and you bought your house a year or two ago and put 20% down, you may be living in a house that is worth nearly $1 million. Am I supposed to feel sorry for you because your business failed or your law firm cut you and now you’re having trouble paying for your million-dollar house? There are going to be laid-off Wall Street guys getting bailed out here.
This should be pissing off the liberals who hang out here as much as it does the rest of us.
rockmom on March 5, 2009 at 10:56 AM
DeathToMediaHacks on March 5, 2009 at 10:55 AM
You’re all unthinking zombie hypocrites! SQUAAAAWK! I am the transcendent man, free of all hyprocrisy, led by my own lights! SQUAAAAWK! Now let me get back to copying and pasting from HuffPo and rubbing one out to Olbermann! SQUAAAAWK!
DrSteve on March 5, 2009 at 10:58 AM
But I thought ACORN was going to pay my mortgage…….and fill my gas tank………how do I get that free cable for life that The Messiah talked about………….
Cinday Blackburn on March 5, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Ed, I loved this part:
“Maybe I can get a list of everyone who qualifies under Paragraph vi, so I can go to their house and enjoy their new carpets, their new barbecue grills, or their enclosed four-season decks. After all, I’m paying for them — I should get the opportunity to enjoy them.”
Kind of the converse of ACORN’s attempt to prevent foreclosures isn’t it? Maybe we should organize BBQ’s and pool parties (or even Tea Parties!)at some of these houses we’re all paying for…
secarr on March 5, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Exactly. Why wouldn’t they? It’s just insane. Next thing you know we’ll be reimbursing people who took hits in the stock market, too. When will it end? Maybe four years from now.
scalleywag on March 5, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Exactly, we had to practically have a revolt to modify welfare…and Clinton out of fear signed it.
Now we have reverted back, and even further then prior to what Gingrich did.
The welfare roles were greatly reduced, and along with that was more pride…now we will not only have more welfare families, but along with that will be the anger, and shame that they carry…this is going to be a long 4 years.
right2bright on March 5, 2009 at 10:17 AM
There is no shame among most of the welfare class. In Vegas, the government condemned a section 8 housing complex because of toxic mold. A few days ago the paper ran an article blasting the state for not moving those people into better housing soon enough. The people interviewed for the article said they couldn’t understand why the government was KEEPING them there while their children were getting sick from the mold. The “reporter” never asked if they had made any attempt to move themselves.
Jvette on March 5, 2009 at 11:00 AM
So….nothing to say about your sides slavish devotion to apologizing for wall street while demonizing the bad choices of the poor?
DeathToMediaHacks on March 5, 2009 at 11:00 AM
What happens when the owner sells? After he gets a little equity built up, will he get to keep his capital gains? He should have to forfeit some/all of it depending on how much “public assistance” he received in terms of lowered principal, 2% interest, etc.
The whole thing makes me feel sick and like a big fat sucker. Now we learn that the FDIC will be insolvent soon. I want to cash out all the rest of my savings/IRA’s/401-k, (half of what it was just 8 months ago), spend it, take out a big honkin’ second mortgage, fix up the double-wide and screw everything. Why pay off my credit cards? Maybe I’ll get a new car. Jeesh. I’m mad and getting madder every day. What it this teaching our citizens?
Do this right thing? No. Game the system, that’s what it’s teaching us.
Sorry for the rant.
Sloan Morganstern on March 5, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Should, but it won’t. They voted for this crap, maybe this is what they “hoped” for, instant debt gratification.
scalleywag on March 5, 2009 at 11:03 AM
In the midst of your class warfare vitriol, do you ever pause to evaluate the bases of your arguments? The commenters on this site have been very vocal in their opposition to bailouts to Lehman Bros., AIG, et al. just as much as they oppose bailouts of the fools who borrowed more than they could afford to pay back.
patriette on March 5, 2009 at 11:04 AM
I don’t have a “side,” you idiot. Forgive me for denying you your precious broad brush. Can you function without generalizations, or are they necessary to your basic operations?
DrSteve on March 5, 2009 at 11:05 AM
It’s called double dipping. Of course he’ll keep it, the government isn’t going to oversee this kind of thing. The sign in the yard thing is the best idea I’ve heard in weeks. Then when the 4 sale sign goes up it’s time to pay the piper and all your neighbors will know about it.
scalleywag on March 5, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Barry O, I could use new carpeting now that my children have grown
Bevan on March 5, 2009 at 11:07 AM
I thought the dems would overreah by 2010. Little did I know it would take 6 weeks. Now they are giving themselves an 11% increase in funding for Congress including a pay raise. can you say let them eat cake. but in this case the them is taxpayers.
Obama lost Cramer one of the most radical leftists in Wall street. that is bad. Olick from the article was on CNBC last week talking up the bill. Now when the details come out she is dumbfounded. Obama lost Santelli, Cramer and now olick from CNBC. Mattews is getting upset. Its been 6 weeks and the media is already starting to turn on Obama. the funny thing is that the economy is going south because of the fear of Obama’s policies. just wait until those policies kick in. Cap and trade? Increased cig taxes, increased taxes on everyone. That $500 child tax credit Bush signed will expire in 2010 along with all the other Bush tax cuts. That means everyone with 2 children will see their taxes go up $1000.
the tax cut of Obama is not a tax cut it is simple less withholding. Obama is doing what I have been doing for years now. Lowering the amount of withholding. Wich means mor emore now but less come tax return time. Thus the Jan, Feb and Mar spending next year will be impacted as well as in 2011.
No we have only began to feel the pain. Dow will hit 3.000 possibly 1,500 by 2012. Unemployment will hit 15-20% And interest rates if they start to climb will destroy this country.
Try paying the interest on $15 trillion at a 7-10% rate. Most of the USA budget will go to service the debt.
Unless of course we default or print more money which will lead to massive inflation.
The only way to help the economy is to cut spending and take the savings from that spending and begin paying off that $15 trillion debt. Then that money will be used by the private sector that invested in gov debt to invest in other forms of economic activty.
unseen on March 5, 2009 at 11:07 AM
There you go again. Last time I’ll respond to one of your inane postings. Our devotion is to CAPITALISM not the wealthy, you know the life’s blood, the engine of our country that’s made us prosperous for centuries. You’re sounding frustrated today.
And BTW, what’s your hatred of the rich all about? It’s apparent you are resentful and jealous–an indoctrinated peon of Leftist class warring.
Remember, you TOO can be rich, DTMH, if you didn’t spend so much time on your butt trying to belittle our nation’s economic force and watching dumbass, corny J Stewart. A fact I’m very delighted to bring to your attention!!
RepubChica on March 5, 2009 at 11:09 AM
DTMH –
The Fannie/Freddie part of the program is for refinances of loans that Fannie and Freddie own. That really should not bother anyone, as these are not big mortgages (until last year the loan limits were under $400,000 for most of the country) and you are right, because we now own Fannie and Freddie it is in our best interest to refinance these loans rather than foreclose on them.
It’s the other part involving loan modifications that is the problem. If your debt to income ratio is over 31% and your mortgage balance is as high as $729,000 you can qualify if you have no more liquid assets that you can use to pay your mortgage.
If I take advantage of this program, YOU will end up paying almost $500 a month to subsidize my new mortgage, and you will pay $5000 to write down my principal over the next 5 years if I continue to make my payments. You will pay my lender – a stupid mortgage company that made a ton of bad subprime and Alt-A loans and has lost $7 billion in the last two years, and is now owned by a greedy Wall Street private equity fund – $1500 to modify my loan.
I live in a 4000-square-foot, 5 bedroom, 4 1/2 bath home on an acre of land in an exclusive development of 22 “executive” homes. And I am eligible for a government bailout. I have at least three neighbors who are either unemployed or divorcing who are also eligible for it. My next door neighbor works on Wall Street and still has a job, but if he loses it he will be eligible for the program as well.
Pissed off yet?
rockmom on March 5, 2009 at 11:11 AM
DTMH being owned. Booyah!
RepubChica on March 5, 2009 at 11:11 AM
You know for people who scream about liberal bias as an excuse to ignore sites like huffpo or newspapers like the NYT, why on EARTH do you listen to the idiots over at CNBC about…anything? For example
October 2007 Cramer says “you should be buying things..and accept that their overvalued and accept that their going to go higher I know that sounds irresponsible, but that’s how you make the money”
December 2007-CNBC lets Hank Greenberg (AIG’s biggest investor) on the air and let everyong know in reference to concerns over sub prime mortgages “their exposure is something they can handle”
February 2008-”the market just won’t quit no matter how individual businesses are performing”
Mach 2008-Cramer says “Bear Stearns is FINE!”
April 2008-CNBC says the following about Merril Lynch:
1. Raised 12 billion in capital
2. Has no need to raise capital
3. Has 82 Billion in liquidity
Also in April 2008
CNBC roundtable says “worst of this subprime mess is over”
June 2008-CNBC analysts say “Lehman brothers is no Bear Stearns, way better management”
November 2008-”Fundamentals are coming back into play, people are starting to their confidence back.”
How does this network remain on air? Why are people using their advice on this topic. They’ve never been right about anything. And they allowed the CEOs of these banks to get on TV all last year and LIE and say “everything’s fine.” But no no. We’re mad at OBAMA. It’s Obama who forced the financial media to keep investors totally in the dark. It’s Obama who forced CEOs to lie about their practices/books on TV on the networks people used to guide their savings. It’s OBAMA! He did it all! Well didn’t he?
DeathToMediaHacks on March 5, 2009 at 11:12 AM
And BTW, what’s your hatred of the rich all about? It’s apparent you are resentful and jealous–an indoctrinated peon of Leftist class warring.
Apparently, being rich is now bad, although the employees of companies who provide products the rich buy such as boats, planes, cars and HDTV’s might have something to say about it.
I’ve never understood why being successful angers libs so much, especially when they are so hypocritical about it.
Bishop on March 5, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Not especially. This is wha is wrong about folks willingness to describe my arguments as “class warfare.” I completely recognize that a lot of these programs are subsidized by taxes from wealthy individuals like yourself (house sounds fabulous btw) so I don’t see a reason why you shouldn’t also take advantage of this type of program. It’s the kind of “supply side” thing I can get behind, because people from all income brackets benefit. Also folks in your bracket will have to pay slightly higher taxes in 2010, being able to take advantage of this program seems like a fair trade to me.
DeathToMediaHacks on March 5, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Nothing! The government decided it was too hard to follow up and take any part of the equity the homeowner may gain after being bailed out. There was an equity sharing provision in the FHA “Hope for Homeowners” program that Congress passed last year, but almost no modifications have been done under that program because it didn’t do anything about the second liens. That’s why they have come back with this “new and improved” program that gives much more generous terms to both the homeowner and the lender.
rockmom on March 5, 2009 at 11:17 AM
As a renter that’s saving for a home (or WAS saving for a home, rather. Now I’m saving in case I lose my job), I’ve come to find out that everything my Mother and Father taught me about fiscal responsibility has been wiped away by a single individual.
We as a country are no longer the same people that we were 30 or 40 years ago. I’m not even old enough to have lived in those Era’s, being an early 80′s baby. But through my short life, I’ve seen an extremely rapid shift in the style of thinking that brought us the booming economy we used to have.
It was all downhill since Clinton was elected. We don’t live in America, we live in a welfare state, where few work hard so that many don’t have to.
It’s sick, and I am personally angry, enraged, and filled with hatred towards anyone over 60, as they’ve raped my generation and generations after me of the freedoms and lifestyle that we would have worked to sustain had we only been given the chance that was afforded to that generation.
That generation has robbed my generation. I think we should just pull the medicaid and medicare programs and let these old bastards die painful deaths to show them what we think of how they treated us. Filthy rapists
leetpriest on March 5, 2009 at 11:18 AM
I don’t hate the rich. I hate that our nation and political discourse looks at abuses of the law (and of the publics trust) by the high ups at wall street and other corporations and shrugs their shoulders in a kind “boys will be boys” attitude. On the flipside, pages and pages and hours and hours of vitriol are spent demonizing a single mom on foodstamps. If I seem like I’m “harping” on the rich it’s because your perspective is so skewed you think ANY critic of our society’s hypocrasy is class warfare.
DeathToMediaHacks on March 5, 2009 at 11:19 AM
DTMH,
Again, your failure to grasp basic logic syllogisms renders your argument ridiculous.
People who justified spending more than they could afford or who bought overvalued assets because a cable news personality told them to SHOULD be taken to the cleaners — not given a portion of their more responsible neighbors’ income.
Obama, though not the sole architect of this crisis, used his position as a “community organizer” to successfully sue and blackmail lenders (citibank) into participating in the subprime industry by arguing that poor blacks deserve a mortgage whether they can afford it or not. (Which begs the question: why aren’t you demonizing ACORN and its foot soldiers as much as you demonize predatory lenders?)
Now that the entire system has collapsed, Obama’s trying to fix rampant, irresponsible spending by pushing more rampant irresponsible spending.
So yeah, we’re mad at Obama.
patriette on March 5, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Pathetic. We’re upset with Obama because there are flaws in the policies, and some of us have discussed these flaws in detail. That is demonstrably true no matter what Jim Cramer said about Bear Stearns. CNBC’s credibility is orthogonal to our arguments.
But no, you crank up your conflate-o-matic and continue to spew your illogical crap all over the place, in service to the idea that we’re sloppy thinkers here. You’re a fool.
DrSteve on March 5, 2009 at 11:22 AM
WTF?!?! I bought my house two years ago, put the inheritance I got from my Father’s estate into it for improvements, got ass-raped in taxes for my troubles, and NOW I HAVE TO PAY FOR SOMEONE ELSE’S?!?
They are going to push regular people just too far. And it’s gonna be ugly.
crazy_legs on March 5, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Why is it that your concept of personal responsibility does not extend to the MSM. Oh wait it totally does except for when that branch of the MSM (in this case CNBC) are mouthpieces for “free market” philosophies and the conservative economic agenda. The people at CNBC are paid millions of dollars to provide a service, they market themselves as financial advisers and really they represent a whole class of financial advisers who (with few exceptions) walked lock and step with the stuff spewed out over CNBC’s airwaves. These folks KNOW they have influence and they have used it to direct the lionshare of savings investment and they did so without even the slightest HINT of taking responsibility for their words and actions and your response is to say “oh well.”
DeathToMediaHacks on March 5, 2009 at 11:25 AM
If you tax the wealthy more than you tax the poor, what makes you think the wealthy will do what it takes to provide jobs for the poor?
Wealthy people are greedy, dummy! If you start taxing them, they’ll lay people off to offset cost, they’ll cut 401k’s, they’ll cut medical benefits, and force salaried employees to work harder to offset the loss. So essentially, you’re also punishing the middle class, and the poor.
Aside from this, since making money subjects you to government rape, the will to make money decreases, as does the will to invent and create, as that leads to making more money.
Great idea! Why the hell didn’t I think of that? I mean here this whole time I was praising the technology boom that occurred during the Bush Adminsitration, when I should have been praising the socialist agenda of the Clinton administration that all but halted the growth and development of technology!
Are you daft by choice, or design?
leetpriest on March 5, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Congress votes itself an 11% raise, Obama serves $100 steaks and keeps the White House so warm that his wife runs around sleeveless in the dead of winter– that worked out so well for Louis XVI, didn’t it?
obladioblada on March 5, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Wow. I guess it is hard for me to think like a liberal.
BTW, I agree with you about the whining rich people. It is a bit unseemly to cry about a tax rate going up from 35% to 39%. I don’t know why conservatives always paint themselves into a corner defending the affluent. I do think there is a macroeconomic issue though. I am a believer in the Laffer Curve – at some point you raise tax rates too much and you get diminishing returns and less economic activity as the rate of return for business owners becomes too small. I just don’t know where that point is – but neither does Barack Obama, and he isn’t being honest about that.
rockmom on March 5, 2009 at 11:26 AM
DeathToMediaHacks on March 5, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Security firms were operating within the law that your government promoted while Barney and Chris told Fannie and Freddie to buy these loans and bury them—idiot. Franklin Raines was paid millions to fornicate taxpayers that are picking up the tab today.
“crimes of the rich”???? Oh, you mean the folks that pay out over 80% of the income taxes collected so the poor can sit on their collective @sses wondering when their check will be mailed?
One question Hacks: Did you ever in your youth save up and pay cash for something you really wanted or did your folks say if you whined enough you could have it for free? I’m getting really sick of you and your kind that preach this rich vs poor crap when this nation provides every opportunity for anyone to make a decent living while this government attempts to punish those who succeeded. When the “poor” are afforded more welfare dollars and saftey nets than the stiff working to pound out fifty grand and still make ends meet, then f**k the poor, and FY too! Do us all a big favor and move down to Venezuela and bitch to that government about your downtrodden poor.
Rovin on March 5, 2009 at 11:26 AM
When are RENTERS UNITED going to revolt?
neuquenguy on March 5, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Because it’s too easy creating hatred of the rich and successful by the “victimized” poor. The libs can’t seem to resist this opening to power.
RepubChica on March 5, 2009 at 11:27 AM
So answer me this — why isn’t Obama’s justice department moving to put any of these “high ups” in prison? Why have NO charges been filed? Why are these people free to continue? Why is Bernie Madoff still alive?
Could it be that Obama and the Democrats know that they are cut from the same bolt of cloth? Could it be that lobbyists representing the thieves have Obama and all of our congressmen in their pockets?
Why don’t you put your money where your mouth is? How about a little wager?
My collie says:
CyberCipher on March 5, 2009 at 11:28 AM
CNBC talk show hosts are “financial advisors”?! Thanks for the laugh, Death. The left’s paranoia about the influence of talk show hosts is truly astounding. And yeah, I DO hold media accountable for their words and actions when those words and actions are false. Which is why I don’t read the New York Times. Or take my financial advice from CNBC.
But ultimately, we’re responsible for our own financial decisions. One shouldn’t buy an $800,000 home on a $45,000 income and they rely on the defense that “CNBC said it was ok.” Grow up.
patriette on March 5, 2009 at 11:30 AM
C’mon, Ed. You know that 99% of the second liens they’re talking about are the 20% portion of an 80/20 combo loan. That’s how people bought houses they couldn’t afford, but getting a loan that paid 100% of the purchase price. This is less about paying for people’s home improvements and more along the lines of the cram down program.
Kafir on March 5, 2009 at 11:31 AM
Yet you think that ten percent of the population (the ‘rich’) paying 70% of the taxes is not fair enough, and you want them to pay more to subsidize bad behaivor like having children out of wedlock or drug use. There’s a reason the rich are rich and the poor are poor, and it is not lack of government intervention.
Vashta.Nerada on March 5, 2009 at 11:31 AM
SOB! I am always “rich” at the wrong time and poor at the wrong time. My timing sucks!
neuquenguy on March 5, 2009 at 11:31 AM
Because these wall street types are dining with Chris Dodd and advising the Obama campaign.
patriette on March 5, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Think we could get the Brits to come burn down D.C. again?
Tom
marinetbryant on March 5, 2009 at 11:34 AM
That’s just wrong. On so many levels.
scalleywag on March 5, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Well I have a theory on this. For about a generation the majority of people who opposed tax increases on the top bracket were not people in those brackets. They were people who HOPED to be in that bracket one day. These are the Joe the Plumbers of the world. It had a lot less to do with the economic damage such a tax increase would pose to job creation (as we saw under Clinton that damage was nil) and more to do with people’s sense of identity and what kind of person they were. Because our political discourse divided the nation into “good producers” (all entrepeneurs no matter how small their incomes/corrupt their practices) and horrible parasites (anyone who got assistance from any public entitity anywhere) more Americans bought into this notion that ANY taxes on the rich were subsidizing the “parasites.” Unfortunately what the 80s should have told us and what this is definitely telling us is that there are just as many “parasites” in that class of producers as there are “welfare queens” but it’s a hell of a lot harder to investigate how our system allowed for parasites to emerge at the top ranks of the investor class (especially since their incomes and power make exposing them harder) than it is to point to the single mom you personally see/judge in the grocery store.
I think he’s being quite honest about it. He’s proposing the kind of income tax increase you mentioned, are you thinking he’s goig to sneak other tax increases in along the way? Are his proposed business tax loopholes putting us anywhere near that “equalizing” point where productivity goes away?
rockmom on March 5, 2009 at 11:26 AM
DeathToMediaHacks on March 5, 2009 at 11:36 AM
No, CNBC was paid millions by advertisers who had their own agenda, and gave advice on air for free. Individual investors taking advice from CNBC got exactly what they paid for.
Vashta.Nerada on March 5, 2009 at 11:39 AM
So….nothing to say about your sides slavish devotion to apologizing for wall street while demonizing the bad choices of the poor?
DeathToMediaHacks on March 5, 2009 at 11:00 AM
There was a time when only a small percentage of people were invested in the market. Now, with IRAs and 401(K) accounts, millions are. No one is apologizing for Wall Street, but Wall Street didn’t cause this collapse.
As for demonizing the poor. You are so fond of the red herring. OOOH the poor poor people who are going to lose their homes. Guess what. Most of these foreclosures are for people who wanted a home they couldn’t afford. Or those who tried to make a killing in the flipping market. Or those who took out second and third mortgages wiping out any equity they may have accrued to renovate their house, buy a car, put in a pool or take vacations.
Since I live in Vegas, one of the hardest hit areas for foreclosures, I know of what I speak. People living paycheck to paycheck, who didn’t save a dime and have now found themselves underwater, making less money thanks to a drop in the tourism business(Yeah, thanks Pres, conventions are canceling left and right)are in danger of losing a house they shouldn’t have bought in the first place.
For years, Vegas had the fastest growing population and the developers loved it. They built and built and built McMansions and people were more than happy to buy. Now, there is a glut of housing and people are leaving in droves.
Illegal immigrants have swarmed us, buying up the pre-owned houses by having three or families pool together and living in one home.
As someone said in an earlier post, there are actually only 5 states that have created a lot of this problem. If you look closely you will see that the illegal populations are huge in these states, that three of the states are highly dependent on tourism, and two of those states have had population booms in the last couple of decades.
As usual, you have nothing constructive to say, just want to throw a couple of bombs. Get your facts straight and stop already with the violins for the poor.
Jvette on March 5, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Hey dippy, I challenged you on the other post to list your link when you said Specter voted for the Card Check bill…where is the link.
You have a habit of stating lies, then running off and not owning up to them. Then began spreading your garbage on other posts.
Show me the link where Specter voted for the current Card Check bill.
Your incessant lies, and misstatements identify you with what a tool you are.
right2bright on March 5, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Well I don’t believe in the death penalty so I’m not sure if Bernie Madoff should be killed per se (though the bad part of me wants to see him sent to Gitmo or something). As to why Obama isn’t moving to put people in jail? Well because I don’t think that vengeance is productive. But I’m one of those people who are ideologically consistent. I don’t think vengeance wars or vengeance prosecutions are OK. If the issues at the root of this crisis are corrected via a new set of tough regulations, via executive pay caps at firms getting federal money, via a reformed tax sytem, via an emphasis on slower, more stable growth over the long term, via healthcare reform then I’m good. He doesn’t have to “make them pay” he just has to exclude them from key decision making and based on their howling and crying that’s happening.
DeathToMediaHacks on March 5, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Or maybe I just didn’t go back to that thread calm down and quit like…stalking me around the site. That happens too often around here. Specter voted for card check last summer (no doubt knowing it wouldn’t be signed into law by Bush). I read it on 538.com, I’m not super excited about searching for it again.
DeathToMediaHacks on March 5, 2009 at 11:42 AM
Hmm, I can’t buy a house because I know that I can’t afford the payments. So because other people are too stupid to realize that maybe they shouldn’t buy a 500,000 dollar house on an adjustable rate mortgage, I’m to be punished for being prudent by increasing my tax burden in order to pay for their idiotic decisions?
do you make the same distinctions for crack dealers, gang members, and prosties? It is just a bad choice in their lives after all….
mjk on March 5, 2009 at 11:46 AM
It was the party that most closely follows your ideology that could have defeated all of the bailouts. It was this same party that’s been in control of congress for 2 years now.
Didn’t your boy Obama just give a 3rd or 4th bailout to AIG? Wasn’t it members of the party that most closely follows your ideology that allowed Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac get away with cooking their books to line their pockets(I’ll post the video with your buddies Maxine Waters, Arthur Davis, and Barney Fwank if I need to)?
Sounds like you need a new ideology to support your statement.
leetpriest on March 5, 2009 at 11:46 AM
So you’re lying??? Or Lazy?
mjk on March 5, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Hmmmmm….Cinnabon…
Hey, wait! Are you trying to distract me from… from… what were we talking about? Lunch?
dominigan on March 5, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Social Engineering………….
………… you just gotta love it when a plan comes together.
Seven Percent Solution on March 5, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Fixed. Putting people in jail for committing a crime is justice, not vengeance.
leetpriest on March 5, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Dems and GOP are a hell of a lot closer to each other than they are to anything I believe in. There would be no bailouts under my administration. But you no doubt will say “why did you support Obama.” 1. First Dem I’ve voted for in a Presidential election, John Kerry could suck a nut. 2. Obama represents a shift towards the left in some aspects for the Dems. 3. I continue to hope that Obama’s election will cause more progressive members of the Democrats to win some local elections/state house seats/primaries for congress etc. And we can start going further and further left, but have to start somewhere.
DeathToMediaHacks on March 5, 2009 at 11:49 AM
I’m glad to hear that you openly admit that justice is unimportant to you. I would also like to commend you on your candor in admitting that you do not believe that there should be any consequences for bad behavior. Since you feel that way, I’m sure you won’t object if I send ninja collie over to your home this evening to ransack everything in your possession, and terrorize your family. Collie, are you up for the assignment?
My collie says:
Good idea, collie. Since DTMH doesn’t believe in punishing others for their crimes, we should insist that HE HIMSELF pay for their crimes. It’s only FAIR, ya’ know.
CyberCipher on March 5, 2009 at 11:50 AM
I just said I don’t feel like looking it up so clearly lazy. Unless you don’t believe me and then you can call me a liar if you want. Or you could just google Specter and Card check….oh fine I’ll do it.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2009/03/03/specter-v-toomey-again-pennsylvania-will-be-tough-for-a-conservative-to-win.html
How hard was that…christ. And this isn’t even the thread for it.
DeathToMediaHacks on March 5, 2009 at 11:52 AM
You know NOTHING of our Lord. I suggest that you quit invoking His Name, lest you incur His wrath.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on March 5, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Looks like somone is cranky…did we not go on our walk today?
DTMH’s Shep-Lab Mix says:
DeathToMediaHacks on March 5, 2009 at 11:55 AM
*throws my shep-lab mix a bone shaped like a crucifix,* don’t eat it all at once girl!
DeathToMediaHacks on March 5, 2009 at 11:57 AM
If the tax increase were only in the top marginal rate, it wouldn’t be so bad. But increasing capital gains taxes, limiting deductions and removing the cap on the amount of income subject to Social Security and Medicare taxes pushes the rate far above 39%. At some point the return isn’t worth the time and risk involved in running a business. This isn’t greed, it’s a sober assessment of risk and reward.
By the way, small businesses use their after tax income for capital expenditures. If you don’t have the cash to fund your business, you don’t expand it or even replace worn equipment.
And no, our income isn’t over $250k, but it is dependent on small business.
obladioblada on March 5, 2009 at 11:57 AM
ernesto,
If you think nobody around here was upset about AIG, Detroit, TARP I, etc.
Then you quite clearly have not been paying attention.
If your point is that unless we complain about everything that outrages us, each time we complain, otherwise we can’t complain, then you haven’t been listening to anybody.
MarkTheGreat on March 5, 2009 at 11:58 AM
No, he isn’t being honest at all. I don’t know where we are on the Laffer curve and neither does he. I do know that the total revenues collected from the top 5 percent of earners went UP in the last Administration as their tax rate was slightly reduced. I do know that just as it is infantile to cry about the top rate going up by a small percent, it is far more dishonest for the President to put out a budget document that says the small decrease in that rate over the last 6 years is the proximate cause for the economic collapse, and that putting it back where it was will pay for an 11% increase in federal spending.
rockmom on March 5, 2009 at 11:58 AM
MarkTheGreat on March 5, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Yet you think that ten percent of the population (the ‘rich’) paying 70% of the taxes is not fair enough, and you want them to pay more to subsidize bad behaivor like having children out of wedlock or drug use. There’s a reason the rich are rich and the poor are poor, and it is not lack of government intervention.
Vashta.Nerada on March 5, 2009 at 11:31 AM
Also, the taxes collected are used to fund entitlements the government has no business dolling out in the first place.
This government meddling in an attempt to create a “fair” outcome and distribution of resources has been tried over and over and failed every time to lift the poor out of their poverty. Instead all that happens is the elimination of the middle class so that these countries have two classes, the wealthy elites who control everything and the poor who are dependent on governments largess for everything.
Jvette on March 5, 2009 at 11:59 AM
DeathToMediaHacks
your haterd will consume you. the country is the world’s superpower becauser of the rich and wealthy. The upward mibility brought to you by capitalism. what Obama wants to do is pick the haves and the havenots. Be it from personal longing, precieved slights, a lifetime of racism whatever. In capitalism the winners and losers are not picked they win or lose based on their ability. In comunism/socialism the winners/losers are chosen by the elites.
As long as you are part of the group you are ok. but as the even the leaders of Soviet Union found out the meaning of you being in the group is always moving and changing one day you might be in the group the next you are not and you have a one way ticket to the gulag. Capitalsim is the fairer system. You choose how well you do not someone else.
unseen on March 5, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Just like you know NOTHING of God, you know NOTHING about my dog, as well.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on March 5, 2009 at 12:00 PM
You do realize how insane it is of you to type the words “you’re arguing with a dog” as if you hadn’t written all the words your “collie” had said before right? This is your shtick.
DeathToMediaHacks on March 5, 2009 at 12:01 PM
From those that are responsible to those that are irresponsible.
It’s full on bizzarro world.
jukin on March 5, 2009 at 12:02 PM
this is a pathetic excuse for a president.
moron.
sandlin71 on March 5, 2009 at 12:02 PM
except those I benefit from.
1) Making college more affordable only gives the colleges license to increase their costs. It is no coincidence that the greatest increases in college costs occurred while govt was picking up most of the tab.
2) The person going to college does so in hopes of getting a greater income. As such, they are investing in themselves. If the increase in income is not enough to cover the loan, then you shouldn’t make the investment. The metal shop down the street wants to replace it’s metal cutters with new computerized laser cutters. They will be a lot more efficient and save it lots of money. Should the govt subsidize that investment as well?
MarkTheGreat on March 5, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Better to have a talking dog, than to serve Satan — like you and your kind.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on March 5, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »