Obama Rewards Sub-prime Borrowers and Society's Deadbeats with Housing Bill

yeah I am sure I could, but I make the choice to live in a smaller apartment where I cannot have a backyard and a dog or a garage to do projects in because I want security.

I know if I lose my job I can afford my lifestyle for a long time while I find another one.

It makes some people mad that they made the correct moves and the ones that made poor moves are being saved.


I am not saying what should be done to correct the problem but expect some hard feelings from people like me. And the reason people in homes they cannot afford the loans on are getting more hate than banks is because it is alot easier to understand their bad choices.

 

I understand the sentiment, but that happens in many many places in our society. Besides, you're still probably in a better place than the people getting assistance.

I could use some help with my family's mortgage, but this plan won't help me. I'm not going to be pissed or jealous, though, because hopefully I'll benefit indirectly in the long run.

 

i agree, especially for people who've made sacrafices. i can understand the frustration

 

and higher housing prices.

on the surface I do not see how this is not just making a new smaller bubble under the bubble that is popping.

 

Possibly. Although I think I already asked why the people who would be assisted by this plan should be considered deadbeats.

It would appear that this bill targets those who've accepted their responsibilities and are current with their payments, and who are in situations that are most likely to not go into foreclosure after the assistance ends. So if it works as planned it won't be helping deadbeats and the same problem won't continue. It may not work as planned, but that's always a possibility with these kinds of things.

And again the goal is to stabilize the housing market as part of a larger plan to help the economy. That's the benefit I'm looking for. Whether I own a home or not, I want to be more secure in my job, I want my family members to be more secure in theirs or have more options to choose from when looking for one. If injecting money into the housing market in this way helps stimulate the economy or keep it from crashing further, that is already a benefit.

 

50% of americans are deadbeats my friend, look around you. The top 5% of society pay almost all the taxes that make this world function. The rest of the world basiclaly just take up air and work worthless jobs. If you sit back and look at our economy the bulk of jobs being lost are jobs being lost to technology....that means you're worthless. A doctor or lawyer cannot be replaced by a machine but cashiers and factory workers can and the new costco on richmond did just that, its all self checkout not 1 cashier. Cars can be built by machines now and we do not need to pay teams of worthless people to build them by hand. I'm sorry there is nothing for these people to do but that's why people get educated. I got a degree for free because of a scholarship, then I worked for 3 years to save money and then got my MBA to get a higher paying job.

Obama's dream of employing americans is nice but lets face facts. For instance a computer engineer in america needs a plasma tv and a 3 series beemer to "live" and thus he charges tons of money. I hop onto elance.com and higher a developer in indonesia for $10/hr to be a computer engineer and help my company out for cheap and all he wants out of life is important things like food and shelter. The American standard of living is really high and it has to fall for us to compete in the world.

 

the implication is that if you're poor/democrat and you receive assistance from the government, you're a deadbeat. if you're rich/republican and you receive assistance from the government, you're patriotic.

 

you know why you're considered a deadbeat if you get a dem handout vs a republican handout. My father for instance is a franchisee with many small businesses, when he gets a tax refund from a republican president, he opens up another business and employs 10 more people. When Obama taxes him up the wazoo he doesn't invest in a new business and create more jobs then wants to maintain his standard of living so he lets a few employees go. Workers a re a luxury in most of those businesses. Do they function with 4 or 5 people? sure, is it easier on the owner with 8 or 9? Absolutely. My father employed almost 160 people last year, now its down to around 120. He is making the same money but it cost 40 people jobs to do so. It's a bad economy but people still want to maintain their lives before the look at the lives of their workers and that is never gonna change, so it would behoove the economy for the president not to punish the wealthy like wants.

 

You know this is just the beginning of the gravy train. First it'll be just for those who "played by the rules". Then it'll grow to add those who are barely missing their payments. Then for those whose mortgage payment is x% of their gross income. Then for those with 14 kids. Then for the cousin who injects Boli into baseball player's asses.

 

That's a pretty nifty trick blaming your dad's lay offs on Obama for tax increases that haven't happened during a time when he wasn't President.

Did they teach you that in business school?

 

I'm not blaming it on obama but the economy is slow now and the only way for him to maintain his lifestyle and not share his slice of the pie is to lay off people.Now as far as what I learned in business school,wouldn't a good way to get private investment up and running again be to increase the rewards for investing capital by 1) cutting the capital gains tax and 2) cutting the corporate tax? And wouldn't a way to get consumers to spend more be a permanent reduction in the marginal income tax rates (as opposed to a one time check in the mail)? The reason... Read More we are those common sense solutions are not being considered is that they put power in the hands of people instead of government, and we can't have that.

 

As was already mentioned, he hasn't paid any taxes from the Obama administration yet. So any layoffs he's made haven't been because of anything Obama has done.

Furthermore you have a Masters and don't understand a thing about sample data?

Your story of your father is not reflective of more scientific studies which show that tax breaks get less return for the economy than things like unemployment benefits, food stamps etc.

 

how American

 

Not to drag this discussion to a partisan level

but i wonder what some people had to say last year when bush proposed a similar program

http://www.smartmoney.com/spending/deals/president-bushs-mortgage-plan-who-qualifies-22239/

 

Imagine a married couple in Sacramento, CA. They've been married since 2000, the husband works for the state and the wife is a teacher. They have lived in a small apartment with low rent in order to increase their savings. They've paid off their student loans from college and have about $70,000 saved up.

In 2006 they find a nice three bedroom/two bath home available for $325,000 that's not too far from where they work. They put down $65,000 and keep $5,000 in their savings account. They pay $2000 a month on their 30 year fixed mortgage and continue to save about $800 a month.

Then, in 2007, the wife gets laid off. She gets work as a substitute teacher, but they still lose over $800 a month in income, so they aren't really saving any money any more but are still able to pay their bills. A year later, the husband gets laid off. They use up a large chunk of their savings while he looks for a job in his field for two months. He is able to find a job as an assistant in his uncle's roof repair business, but his pay is about half what it was before.

By late 2008 they've used up their savings paying bills including mortgage. Meanwhile, they put up the house for sale but nobody is buying. The house has decreased to $250,000 and is still dropping. They still owe about $255,000 on the home. They're using credit cards to help with bills but since they didn't use credit cards much before they don't have a lot of space left. They have never missed any payments but have gone from owning a home and having significant savings to having a negative net worth and few options other than to stop paying the mortgage. But they don't stop paying the mortgage because they consider it their responsibility.

Are these people deadbeats? Why?

Under the mortgage plan outlined by the Obama administration, they get relief to be able to pay their mortgage. Eventually one or both of them finds a full-time job that is closer to their previously level of income. They get to keep their home. Their neighborhood avoids one more foreclosed property. They can afford to purchase more instead of scrimping and saving every penny just to reduce the amount of debt they accrue every month.

This is a plausible case, and it shows that it is entirely possible to make relatively good decisions and still be eligible to use and benefit from the plan. I imagine a lot of people who would benefit will have actually made more poor decisions than the fictional couple above. There will be a broad range of how much each individual "deserves" the assistance versus those that are not worthy. However, my personal opinion is that it takes a lot more than a few bad decisions for someone to earn the label deadbeat, and I think it is very likely that many people who are directly assisted by this plan will not be put into a similar situation again in the future.

 

You don't know what people have gone through in their lives to get the jobs that they have. You don't have the right to judge people on the exterior because you don't know them. What the hell do you do for a living anyways?

 

I'm calling BS on zantabak's MBA because he writes at about a 4th grade level. There is a writing portion of the GMAT.