F. U. President Bush

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Yeah, that's right. I said it. I'm all for giving folks a helping hand when they need it, and I am a person that HATES to hear about people falling on hard times, but no. What an A-wad this President is. Check this CRAP out:

Bush Mortgage Plan Will Freeze Certain Subprime Interest Rates for 5 Years

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration has hammered out an agreement to freeze interest rates for certain subprime mortgages for five years to combat a soaring tide of foreclosures, congressional aides said Wednesday.

Read More HERE (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071205/mortgage_crisis.html).

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

Excuse me? What? So, these people who signed for a low introductory rate, knowing DAMN good and well that the rate would expire, get to keep that rate past expiration. W! T! F!

Why did I bust my ass? Why did I arrange my budget and get a fixed rate (higher than an ARM rate)? Basically, I could have gone on down to the Eastlands, and got myself into a house that I cannot afford, and then not have to paid for the consequences of my poor decisions?

Oh no. No No No. Perhaps the President should have pushed a bill that guaranteed the "mortgage crisis" people could obtain an apartment post-foreclosure. Because everyone should be able to get a place to live.

It's not like the mortgage companies are using hidden clauses to jack up what was marketed as a fixed rate, kinda like what the credit card companies are doing. They are simply abiding by the contract that both parties greed to. The president should have made an aid package available, such as a 2500 dollar grant to cover rental deposit, and moving expenses in a time of need.

I get the feeling that this is to protect neighborhoods like Lowe's Island, Brambleton, etc. Foreclosures in a neighborhood ripple the property value down throughout the development. Once again, a bill pushed under the guise of "helping the little guy" is actually a bill to protect upper-class communities. I really wonder what these "certain subprime mortgages" are that qualify, and what about the people that already lost their house?

I wonder what this will do to the mortgage-backed Bonds market...

[Nanuk]

So if the President does nothing to help irresponsible poor people, you hate on him for that.
But as soon as he does something to help irresponsible poor people, you hate on him even more because you don't personally benefit.

:rolleyes:

All that hate's so unbecoming.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

So if the President does nothing to help irresponsible poor people, you hate on him for that.
But as soon as he does something to help irresponsible poor people, you hate on him even more because you don't personally benefit.

:rolleyes:

All that hate's so unbecoming.

It's not a matter of whether I benefit or not. There is no right to a mortgage in this country. That's a privelege extended to those who show they're responsible enough to maintain one. Yeah, everyone has a right to a place to live, but not the right to *own* that place. Otherwise, section 8 would *not* be for rental units...

Lemme put this into terms you'll understand:

There is a HUGE New Years Eve party in DC. HUGE. Literally everyone goes. D and I decide not to drink, and partake of the festivities because we want to be responsible people. Many others do not make this decision, and there is a record number of DUI's that night all over the area. Then the President comes along, and lightens the sentance for those convicted that night so they don't lose their licenses and can go on as though they never made that irresponsible choice.

Because driving is a privelege and so is a mortgage. You know how generous and giving my personality is, and I fully believe this is not deserved in the slightest. Apparantly a line has been drawn in my "liberal" mindset. I would think that would make you semi-pleased. So who's the hater?

[derricksonb]

Sounds like they're planning on bailing out the banking institutions like the did the airline industry after 9/11 more so than helping the little guy. Keep in mind that not all Interest Only mortgages were applied to the Million Dollar McMansions. I'm sure there are many of them in our own modest community.

[Nanuk]

It's not a matter of whether I benefit or not. There is no right to a mortgage in this country. That's a privelege extended to those who show they're responsible enough to maintain one. Yeah, everyone has a right to a place to live, but not the right to *own* that place. Otherwise, section 8 would *not* be for rental units...



Because driving is a privelege and so is a mortgage. You know how generous and giving my personality is, and I fully believe this is not deserved in the slightest. Apparantly a line has been drawn in my "liberal" mindset. I would think that would make you semi-pleased. So who's the hater?

I do see some progress in your thought process, and yes, I *am* proud of you for this baby step in the right direction. There is definitely no right to a mortgage, nor should the federal government be getting involved in the process. (Keep going down this road, City, and we'll make a good American conservative of you yet.)

I do disagree with your other premise though. There is no "right to a place to live" either. I would hold that once again, the federal government has overstepped it's constitutional bounds by creating a Section 8 program and giving some housing while billing everyone else. Yes, everyone has to live someplace, but for those not working or disabled, they need to be turning to family and friends or any of the numerous private charities that provide for such folks. While state governments may arguably adopt such programs if the state's voters approve, the federal government is out of place here. HUD needs to be abolished and the money currently thrown down that rathole needs to be used to pay for other, more appropriate programs or just returned to the taxpayers.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Yes, but we all know there is an alterior motive, just like the "tax cuts".

I'm sorry, but that's how I feel. Everything that is touted by this man to be for "the little guy" always turns out to be for "the biggest guys". So excuse me if I'm skeptical...

I think it's to minimize foreclosures in newer communities, personally. Too bad that we won't know until it's too late.

[derricksonb]

I think it's to minimize foreclosures in newer communities, personally. Too bad that we won't know until it's too late.

City- Would you rather have your tax dollars bailing out American financial institutions protecting them from being bought up by Arab nations and stabilizing the value of the dollar or would you rather those funds be used to invade, bomb and occupy foreign nations?

[Nanuk]

Everything that is touted by this man to be for "the little guy" always turns out to be for "the biggest guys". So excuse me if I'm skeptical...



You mean the "biggest guys" that provide jobs and salaries to countless "little guys"? I know that you oppose anything that even appears to do anything good for even one wealthy person even if a hundred thousand middle-class or lower-class people benefit, but I don't recall you returning those fat tax rebate checks that you got via the Bush tax reduction even while you railed against them on the grounds that people who paid much more than you in taxes got commensurately more back at the same time that you got yours.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

I do see some progress in your thought process, and yes, I *am* proud of you for this baby step in the right direction. There is definitely no right to a mortgage, nor should the federal government be getting involved in the process. (Keep going down this road, City, and we'll make a good American conservative of you yet.)

Oh, I can hardly wait for the day when my self-importance places me above everyone else, even if only in my mind...


I do disagree with your other premise though. There is no "right to a place to live" either.

Um, yes there is. It's called the Housing Opportunity Act, or something like that, and it guarantees that you cannot be turned down for housing for certain specified reasons. Oh, and the government subsidizes the rent if they're the main source of your income, ie, welfare. It's the way it is. FWIW, I don't take advantage of these programs, but I take some small comfort in knowing that I could if I were ever knocked down.


I would hold that once again, the federal government has overstepped it's constitutional bounds by creating a Section 8 program and giving some housing while billing everyone else.

Yes, but it still exists, and my point was that these "rights" do not belong in terms of ownership, but since they really aren't, my point is actually moot.


Yes, everyone has to live someplace, but for those not working or disabled, they need to be turning to family and friends or any of the numerous private charities that provide for such folks.

Or to the warm, welcoming streets of the downtown. Some people don't have family like that, and many charities are religion-based, and perhaps a Jew wouldn't want to pretend to like Jesus in exchange for shelter, because pretending would be all that really is. My ex told me about a story - basically they would not let him into a Salvation Armyu shelter because he was gay and other men are in there. Uh Huh. So these options that you're suggesting as alternatives don't *always* work.


While state governments may arguably adopt such programs if the state's voters approve, the federal government is out of place here.

This is where we are today. Arguing from a belief, and not reality, isn't helping. There are several things Federal that should not be. But I accept thatb they exist, because they do.


HUD needs to be abolished and the money currently thrown down that rathole needs to be used to pay for other, more appropriate programs or just returned to the taxpayers.

And until that happens, it will still exist. I was referencing that government-sponsored housing assistance should not apply to owned homes. I believe your President has crossed another line.

[KatherineA]

In case no one has actually read the plan - I thought I should point out that is a Voluntary plan, reached by an agreement with the mortgage companies that does not involve any federal money going to the mortgage companies. The Department of the Treasury helped get the parties together to confer and to agree. This is not a Fed. statute, regulation or Executive Order. It is simply an agreement by companies to treat certain borrowers a certain way.

Govt. funds will be used (as I understand) to notify homeowners about the options and the agreement and the possibility that they could qualify with their lender for some sort of relief from their growing interest rate.

Here is a link to the Secretary of the Treasury's statement on this:

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/hp716.htm

[Chutney Daftcraft]

It is simply an agreement by companies to treat certain borrowers a certain way.


When I said government-sponsored, I really should have said government endorsed. That's what I meant. I'm aware that this is not a subsidy or anything.

But look at that sentance in the quote up there. What makes someone else so special that their mortgage rate doesn't reset like everyone else's (on an A.R.M.)? What type of agreement can someone like me expect from the President and my bank? Nothing - because I was a responsible man. I feel like Nanuk when I say this, but it feels like they're being rewarded for irresponsibility. There are several people that I know that will be able to take advantage of this, but that doesn't make it any better for me. I could have signed an ARM at 2.9% for 3 years, then the reset. Had I done that, I could expect to pay that 2.9% rate for a total of 8 years. But I was foolishly responsible, looking out for my future.

But I do admit - this situation appeals to my "sticking it to the sticker" side.