Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
native_Houstonian

Bush signs bill for housing relief

Recommended Posts

Chronicle article

Thoughts? Discussion?

My first reaction is...what happened to personal responsibility in this country? Why do I have to pay via increase taxes to help those out who live in much larger, more expensive houses than I do, because I am fiscally responsible and live within my means and didn't sign my name to a convoluted ARM mortgage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chronicle article

Thoughts? Discussion?

My first reaction is...what happened to personal responsibility in this country? Why do I have to pay via increase taxes to help those out who live in much larger, more expensive houses than I do, because I am fiscally responsible and live within my means and didn't sign my name to a convoluted ARM mortgage?

Yes, very un-Republican...then again, Bush is no conservative.

What a disappointment he's been -- especially in his second term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, very un-Republican...then again, Bush is no conservative.

What a disappointment he's been -- especially in his second term.

He was a failure even before being re-elected. Anyone that voted for him a second time should never be allowed to vote again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He was a failure even before being re-elected. Anyone that voted for him a second time should never be allowed to vote again.

Oh, you're just a Bush hater.

I don't like him because he's not a conservative...he's a sellout and a globalist traitor, IMO. Had he stuck to conservative Republican principles then I would support him. But, he hasn't so I can't support him.

I don't think knee-jerk swinging to radical liberalism/Marxism is going to save this country from Bush's mistakes -- quite the contrary in fact. It'll just hasten our country's demise that much quicker.

Edited by Disastro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, you're just a Bush hater.

I don't like him because he's not a conservative...he's a sellout and a globalist traitor, IMO. Had he stuck to conservative Republican principles then I would support him. But, he hasn't so I can't support him.

I don't think knee-jerk swinging to radical liberalism/Marxism is going to save this country from Bush's mistakes -- quite the contrary in fact. It'll just hasten our country's demise that much quicker.

I don't see a bailout of a huge corportation, to save the hides of a bunch of rich bankers, as particularly liberal or Marxist. I see it as cronyism and desperation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the government should be bailing out people who had no business taking out the loans they did.

But then we are becoming more and more a nanny state nation everyday.

Edited by KatieDidIt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would ask 'what about public fiscal responsilibity.' Or corporate? Or just plain old illegal lending practices that became the institutionalized norm over the past few years (a'la Indy Mac and Countrywide)?

There's a pretty damn long list of handouts and bailouts that trump this:

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/07/12/12...ts/index_01.htm

[Note that it needs to be updated to include Bear Stearns, Fannie/Freddie, and all the lending institutions on the Fed's special lending program teat.]

But, private citizens should be allowed to fail, because they're just lazy ignorant slobs (with no means of raising capital through creative accounting) who get what they deserve? Even Bush understands the political suicide of continuing to subsidize banks on the backs of citizens during a not-recession.

I find it amazing that people want to zero in on 400,000 individuals getting a chance to re-finance, as opposed to

"The Treasury Department gains unlimited power, until the end of 2009, to lend money to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or buy their stock should they need it. The Federal Reserve takes on a new "consultative" role overseeing the companies".

Edited by crunchtastic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He was a failure even before being re-elected. Anyone that voted for him a second time should never be allowed to vote again.

That is a bit harsh, you seem almost....I can't think of the word, but I'm sure someone will help me with that later...

I didn't vote for him (Bush) in his first term, but I voted for him on the 2nd term for several reasons, but I was NEVER a bush Fan.

As far as this bill goes; being the independent that I am, have several things I like and dislike about it.

I'm not fond of the bail out, but I see the necessity of it. But in full disclosure, I haven't read the bill, nor have I any more knowledge of it than what I have heard on the news about it.

The thing that kinda' concerns me is what kind of backdoor concessions were made for Bush to withdraw his threat of a Veto of this bill to the point he was almost embracing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see a bailout of a huge corportation, to save the hides of a bunch of rich bankers, as particularly liberal or Marxist. I see it as cronyism and desperation.

My point was the more the government "bails out" the closer we come to a Socialist state.

That's undeniable.

The more power the citizen gives to the government, the more power the government will expect...and this includes intrusion into your personal liberties and freedoms.

Anyway, I also have a problem with this bailout because these banks should never have made these loans (although they were under pressure to do so). It's not surprising that people who live beyond their means cannot afford to pay their mortgages.

Also, I view this bailout as a slap in the face to those of us who live within our means and pay our bills.

I guess this bailout means we can all not pay and expect Uncle Sam to bail us out, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point was the more the government "bails out" the closer we come to a Socialist state.

That's undeniable.

The more power the citizen gives to the government, the more power the government will expect...and this includes intrusion into your personal liberties and freedoms.

Anyway, I also have a problem with this bailout because these banks should never have made these loans (although they were under pressure to do so). It's not surprising that people who live beyond their means cannot afford to pay their mortgages.

Also, I view this bailout as a slap in the face to those of us who live within our means and pay our bills.

I guess this bailout means we can all not pay and expect Uncle Sam to bail us out, right?

I agree with you wholeheartedly, my only issue with the whole banking fiasco is ARM lending to those who were enticed by the low rates, but were ignorant of the potential increase in rates in the future.

The only "bailout" that I would find agreeable to is to freeze the rates to those that have purchased a home to a "reasonable" rate, let the buyers continue to pay and then call it a day.

I guess I lost my conservative street cred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point was the more the government "bails out" the closer we come to a Socialist state.

That's undeniable.

The more power the citizen gives to the government, the more power the government will expect...and this includes intrusion into your personal liberties and freedoms.

Anyway, I also have a problem with this bailout because these banks should never have made these loans (although they were under pressure to do so). It's not surprising that people who live beyond their means cannot afford to pay their mortgages.

Also, I view this bailout as a slap in the face to those of us who live within our means and pay our bills.

I guess this bailout means we can all not pay and expect Uncle Sam to bail us out, right?

I'm in total agreement that this bill is wrong in many, many ways. But I still won't accept that it represents a move any closer to a Socialist state. The only power we're giving the government is the power to waste our money. They are not providing any service to us at all. What we have is a state that is Capitalist in theory, and in propaganda, in always claiming the power of the free market. But when it suits the Powers, they intervene in all sorts of non-free-market ways. I think that makes it a dysfunctional, hypocritical capitalist state, but still capitalist in principle and propaganda, not socialist.

I guess I'm arguing this point to death because I think it does socialism a disservice to associate this kind of irresponsible bailout with socialist economics. It would be better to either openly embrace certain socialist structures, or to truly function in a capitalist, free market way. In which case we would end public education and a whole host of other programs. (I have a strong libertarain streak, by the way, which is sort of a strange feature in a way-left liberal...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm in total agreement that this bill is wrong in many, many ways. But I still won't accept that it represents a move any closer to a Socialist state. The only power we're giving the government is the power to waste our money. They are not providing any service to us at all. What we have is a state that is Capitalist in theory, and in propaganda, in always claiming the power of the free market. But when it suits the Powers, they intervene in all sorts of non-free-market ways. I think that makes it a dysfunctional, hypocritical capitalist state, but still capitalist in principle and propaganda, not socialist.

I guess I'm arguing this point to death because I think it does socialism a disservice to associate this kind of irresponsible bailout with socialist economics. It would be better to either openly embrace certain socialist structures, or to truly function in a capitalist, free market way. In which case we would end public education and a whole host of other programs. (I have a strong libertarain streak, by the way, which is sort of a strange feature in a way-left liberal...).

Someone mentioned "nanny state" earlier...and that's what this bill represents. The term nanny state is synonymous with socialism -- which, by the way, is a failed system, but hey...that doesn't seem to be preventing our slide towards said failed system.

Anyway, the government should LESS power -- not more. The less the better.

Anyone who puts their trust in big government "nanny-ism" is a fool who deserves no freedom whatsoever.

But, again...this thing is a slap in the face to any fiscally responsible and productive member of this society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with you wholeheartedly, my only issue with the whole banking fiasco is ARM lending to those who were enticed by the low rates, but were ignorant of the potential increase in rates in the future.

The only "bailout" that I would find agreeable to is to freeze the rates to those that have purchased a home to a "reasonable" rate, let the buyers continue to pay and then call it a day.

I guess I lost my conservative street cred.

I'm more for "let them fail". Government, banks and irresponsible borrowers all deserve the opportunity to experience failure.

But, such is the of the "accept no responsibility" society we have become.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He was a failure even before being re-elected. Anyone that voted for him a second time should never be allowed to vote again.

ne of the best reasons to vote for Bush was to keep Gore and Kerry out of office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm more for "let them fail". Government, banks and irresponsible borrowers all deserve the opportunity to experience failure.

But, such is the of the "accept no responsibility" society we have become.

I'm quite with you, for those that purchased WAAAAY beyond their means, I agree. Let them fail, but does that allow for those that simply wanted a modest house but not given full disclosure of the terms? I've sat at tables when some of these things are done and there are times when you need a lawyer or accountant on YOUR side to help explain what it is that you're signing.

Most banks just want you to sign with as little explanation as possible so they can hurry up and get the next person in line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm quite with you, for those that purchased WAAAAY beyond their means, I agree. Let them fail, but does that allow for those that simply wanted a modest house but not given full disclosure of the terms? I've sat at tables when some of these things are done and there are times when you need a lawyer or accountant on YOUR side to help explain what it is that you're signing.

Most banks just want you to sign with as little explanation as possible so they can hurry up and get the next person in line.

Yeah, that's true...

I guess I'm thinking a mostly about the so-called "house flippers" who got in over their heads. From what I have read/understand, a lot of the people who now find themselves in trouble had homes they had no intention of actually living in.

I am sure that's not true in all cases...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I fail to understand is that both Houses of Congress passed this bill, and Bush simply approved it, so why heap all the blame on Bush? Why not blame Congress?

That

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone mentioned "nanny state" earlier...and that's what this bill represents. The term nanny state is synonymous with socialism -- which, by the way, is a failed system, but hey...that doesn't seem to be preventing our slide towards said failed system.

Anyway, the government should LESS power -- not more. The less the better.

Anyone who puts their trust in big government "nanny-ism" is a fool who deserves no freedom whatsoever.

But, again...this thing is a slap in the face to any fiscally responsible and productive member of this society.

You are not willing to use these terms in an informed way, so there's no point in discussing it further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, that's true...

I guess I'm thinking a mostly about the so-called "house flippers" who got in over their heads. From what I have read/understand, a lot of the people who now find themselves in trouble had homes they had no intention of actually living in.

I am sure that's not true in all cases...

When you're throwing the bath water out, be sure there isn't a baby inside.

Sticking to ones belief to ideology is admirable, as long as common sense doesn't suffer for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I fail to understand is that both Houses of Congress passed this bill, and Bush simply approved it, so why heap all the blame on Bush? Why not blame Congress?

That's been the story of Bush's terms in office. He doesn't make law. His job id to "execute" the law, thus the term "Chief Executive". Congress makes laws. Bush can only approve or veto. Yet Bush gets all the blame for everything.

I like Bush personally, and I think he has done a fair job. Not great, but fair. But he is not the monster many try to make him out to be. He's simply a convenient whipping boy for when people are unhappy about the way things are.

I don't hate Bush, but he DOES have the power of the veto and likely enough support in Congress to block any attempts to overturn it. That's my problem with him on this issue...

Then there's Ramos and Campean...and those Marines accused of murder in Iraq...Bush has a tendency to hang people out to dry...with the exception of Scooter Libby that is.

That's not a good character trait. And let's face it...he's a globalist. Plus, what's his thing with Mexico? He seems completely unwilling to do anything about the illegals.

So, yeah...not a good President in my book. But, you know what they say about opinions...lol!

When you're throwing the bath water out, be sure there isn't a baby inside.

Sticking to ones belief to ideology is admirable, as long as common sense doesn't suffer for it.

Whatchootalkinbout?

I said "I am sure that's not true in all cases..."

That was my baby-proof disclaimer! LOL!!!

So there! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess I'm thinking a mostly about the so-called "house flippers" who got in over their heads. From what I have read/understand, a lot of the people who now find themselves in trouble had homes they had no intention of actually living in.

The terms of the provisions will not apply to flippers. Only owner occupied primary residences.

Sevfiv has kindly attached the actual bill. I recommend reading it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't hate Bush, but he DOES have the power of the veto and likely enough support in Congress to block any attempts to overturn it. That's my problem with him on this issue...

Then there's Ramos and Campean...and those Marines accused of murder in Iraq...Bush has a tendency to hang people out to dry...with the exception of Scooter Libby that is.

That's not a good character trait. And let's face it...he's a globalist. Plus, what's his thing with Mexico? He seems completely unwilling to do anything about the illegals.

So, yeah...not a good President in my book. But, you know what they say about opinions...lol!

Whatchootalkinbout?

I said "I am sure that's not true in all cases..."

That was my baby-proof disclaimer! LOL!!!

So there! :P

Nice try.

But I was referring to THIS quote:

I'm more for "let them fail". Government, banks and irresponsible borrowers all deserve the opportunity to experience failure.

But, such is the of the "accept no responsibility" society we have become.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice try.

But I was referring to THIS quote:

yah...what's your point?

I stand by that one...

I'm tired of watching Uncle Sam bail out irresponsible idiots. It's ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yah...what's your point?

I stand by that one...

I'm tired of watching Uncle Sam bail out irresponsible idiots. It's ridiculous.

The point is that while you were aiming at the "flippers" you neglected to think that it also included the many "honest" homeowners that were tangled up in this mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point is that while you were aiming at the "flippers" you neglected to think that it also included the many "honest" homeowners that were tangled up in this mess.

Um no, go back and read the last line again... :D I haven't made any comment worthy of running from, dude... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I stand by that one...

I'm tired of watching Uncle Sam bail out irresponsible idiots. It's ridiculous.

It may be ridiculous, but it is the American way.

Open the link in post #8. Ain't nothing new in fact, it's recurrent US policy.

Perhaps you have a garage full of gold bars, but I would not recommend letting the entire system fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is a bit harsh, you seem almost....I can't think of the word, but I'm sure someone will help me with that later...

I didn't vote for him (Bush) in his first term, but I voted for him on the 2nd term for several reasons, but I was NEVER a bush Fan.

I'm sorry my stance seems harsh, but it's true. Bush is only partly to blame for the mess we are in. The other people to blame are his enablers... voters. In 2004, Bush had already passed the Patriot Act, attacked Iraq, etc.. To vote for Bush back when it was popular and walk away now is crap, and a pathetic excuse for your own short-sightedness. Your judgment was completely wrong back then, and thus I do not trust your judgment in the future. I know it's harsh, but I want our nation to kick butt again... not crumble under the stupidity and excuses of an apathetic and misguided public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry my stance seems harsh, but it's true. Bush is only partly to blame for the mess we are in. The other people to blame are his enablers... voters. In 2004, Bush had already passed the Patriot Act, attacked Iraq, etc.. To vote for Bush back when it was popular and walk away now is crap, and a pathetic excuse for your own short-sightedness. Your judgment was completely wrong back then, and thus I do not trust your judgment in the future. I know it's harsh, but I want our nation to kick butt again... not crumble under the stupidity and excuses of an apathetic and misguided public.

Well, it's not going to "kick butt again" with either Obama or McCain (sad to say)...

So what are ya gonna do? Obama will lead us to socialism and McCain is just going to continue as Bush III.

So, we're screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To vote for Bush back when it was popular and walk away now is crap, and a pathetic excuse for your own short-sightedness.

I didn't realize you had a crystal ball to show my intention on why I voted for Bush.

perhaps you care to illuminate my reasons for doing so? It might help me see the errors of my ways.

For the record: I'm voting for McCain, but I would have rather have had Clinton or Hucklebee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ne of the best reasons to vote for Bush was to keep Gore and Kerry out of office.

Isn't that the truth. Why is it that for most elections it comes down to voting against someone, instead of voting for someone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read through this entire thread, hoping that I would find a little intelligent debate. Other than sevfiv, who posted a link to the actuall bill, and crunchtastic, who actually read the link....nothing. zip. nada.

Sure would be nice to see those throwing buzzwords around, and claiming failures all around by various institutions would show that they knew what the words they use actually mean, but that would probably be a bit much to ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Red, I tried. I should have known that as soon as we got to the "nanny state is synonymous with socialism" part, any chance of discussion on the credit crisis and the implications of the bill was not gonna happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, Red, I tried. I should have known that as soon as we got to the "nanny state is synonymous with socialism" part, any chance of discussion on the credit crisis and the implications of the bill was not gonna happen.

Yeah, and don't forget, "which, by the way, is a failed system". Oh, I haven't forgotten, especially when you keep reminding me. <_<

I am curious which ones provide proof of the failure, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read through this entire thread, hoping that I would find a little intelligent debate. Other than sevfiv, who posted a link to the actuall bill, and crunchtastic, who actually read the link....nothing. zip. nada.

Sure would be nice to see those throwing buzzwords around, and claiming failures all around by various institutions would show that they knew what the words they use actually mean, but that would probably be a bit much to ask.

Yeah, and personal attacks on posters is so "intelligent" -- isn't it? ::rolls eyes::

Typical liberal/progressive/socialist response to things the don't like to hear. Same old tactic, different day.

Edited by Disastro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, and personal attacks on posters is so "intelligent" -- isn't it? ::rolls eyes::

Typical liberal/progressive/socialist response to things the don't like to hear. Same old tactic, different day.

I might point out that calling you an "idiot", or some other descriptive and diasparaging term would be a personal attack. Pointing out that your posts used single words or phrases as arguments or conclusions, and further, that the words and phrases are used incorrectly, is not.

Should I take your use of the term "personal attack" as an indication that you do not wish to define your usage of the terms?

Edited by RedScare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a little Qand A on the housing program.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25932640/

Based on that, I am not sure this will help that much, but it sure will cost a whole lot. I think people should have to deal with the problems they made. Since when is ignorance, or even stupidity, an excuse to have someone else fix your problems?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to Crunch for providing the link.

I wish I had just read the link and skipped the usual Chronicle forum responses in this thread!

You'll have to excuse me, I slipped into a Socialist State today and bumped my head.

Oh, and props to Sarahiki for seeing past the talk radio buzz calling this a handout to irresponsible individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Based on that, I am not sure this will help that much, but it sure will cost a whole lot. I think people should have to deal with the problems they made. Since when is ignorance, or even stupidity, an excuse to have someone else fix your problems?

I'm not sure that it will cost that much. Given that it is voluntary, and it requires that banks take a loss to participate, I doubt there will be very many takers at all. And, the threshold for homeowners is a very fine line between unable to afford the current mortgage, but able to afford the new one. Most people that attempt to save an unaffordable home tend to wreck their entire financial health in the process. It is nearly impossible to make every attempt at paying your bad mortgage while remaining a good risk for a slightly smaller one. So, if you combine a reluctant banker with a small group of qualified homeowners, you end up with few takers. Nice attempt, I suppose, and most all of us would have demanded all of the restrictions imposed, but the net result is very little help.

Besides, even if all 400,000 got new loans, that is only 10% of the 4 million foreclosures for 2007 and 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You'll have to excuse me, I slipped into a Socialist State today and bumped my head.

Oh, and props to Sarahiki for seeing past the talk radio buzz calling this a handout to irresponsible individuals.

Facetiousness, right? You really can't be serious when you take the stance that socialism is an innoucuous bit of political difference.

You know (on some level don't you) how very lucky you are to be living in a democracy and not living in a socialist state? You haven't lost your understanding that socialism deprives people of freedom and that loss of freedom is a bad thing?

It's one thing to bash Bush or conservative ideaology in general but don't be too glib as to dismis socialism as just another acceptable political position. Socialism cannot ever be ethically presented as acceptable; it's on the list of political idealogies containing marxism, nazism, and totalitarianism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Facetiousness, right? You really can't be serious when you take the stance that socialism is an innoucuous bit of political difference.

You know (on some level don't you) how very lucky you are to be living in a democracy and not living in a socialist state? You haven't lost your understanding that socialism deprives people of freedom and that loss of freedom is a bad thing?

It's one thing to bash Bush or conservative ideaology in general but don't be too glib as to dismis socialism as just another acceptable political position. Socialism cannot ever be ethically presented as acceptable; it's on the list of political idealogies containing marxism, nazism, and totalitarianism.

You know (on some level don't you) that we do not live in a democracy?

Just thought I'd point that out, since it seems to be central to your argument.

kthxbye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...