Susan was the driver of the van that we took back from the airport last night and the chatter quickly turned to the economy. Susan, a mom in her 30s with 3 kids, had no reservations about getting personal. She and her husband, who is in the building trades, ran up credit card debt and 3 years ago, refinanced their modest house in a modest town to pay it off. Now their mortgage has reset twice with monthly payments of $5,000. Making those payments is taking over their lives.
Susan puts her 8-year old on the school bus at 7:30 each morning, then takes her 4-year old with her driving airport runs. She also drives several nights each week. Her 16-year old daughter meets the school bus in the afternoon. Susan also sells scented candles. Her husband is looking for weekend jobs. They’ve talked with the bank, but because their mortgage is up to date the bank isn’t interest in dealing.
Susan and her husband made a mistake-maybe several. They swapped usurious credit card interest for usurious mortgage interest. They are workers and fighters and believe in the American system, but it’s taking a huge toll on them and their family. They are the ones who need help to untangle this mess, but they can’t swoop down to Washington in a private jet to plead for it.
… article
They all made mistakes and suffered huge losses. Should we give them their money back too? I bet on the Pats winning the Superbowl last year but they lost. Can I get my money back?
<
p>I’m not trying to sound “uncaring” but society as a whole should be learning that you don’t take risks or you could get hurt. We learn this emotionally, socially, professionally… Usually the higher the risk, the more we get hurt.
<
p>We can’t fix everything nor should we. This is what separates the smart from the dumb, the strong from the weak, the successful from the failures… I give lot and I help people whenever I can but at some point people have to pay for their mistakes AND people should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor when they are successful.
<
p>There are many sob stories out their and many are tragic. I’ve noticed as a society we make rules and warn of the consequences, but when the rules get broken nobody wants to pay for their wrongs. Drink at the Senior Prom and you will not graduate with your class but when they caught drinking both the students and their parents protest and threaten lawsuits till the school finally gives in and let’s them graduate. Don’t come into this country illegally or else (or else what, we’ll make you a citizen anyway). Examples go on and on and I’m sick of it. I’ve made my share of mistakes and I have paid for them, sometimes dearly, but they have also taught me a lesson. Hopefully many of these irresponsible borrowers are all learning a lesson too.
<
p>PS The automakers should be handed their hats and told to go home! If they want to be successful, make cars cheaper (like Toyota does in the US) and make them better (fuel economy, maintenance…). People in the US will kep you in business as long as you provide an affordable, economical and easy to maintain automobile, truck or van.
We have no idea what their circumstances were when they made these decisions. They had no way of knowing that an adjustible rate was going to go through the roof. Not all things are within the control of the consumer. Ideally, one should “paygo” and not allow themselves into debt, though few people can afford such things as homes, cars, or college out of pocket. However, rates can change sending the best plans to manage one’s debt into chaos.
… that there is no ‘after-the-fact’ refinance option after the purchase of stock. There is for after the acquiring a mortgage.
<
p>Are you serious? Have you ever applied for a mortgage? When you go for a mortgage you must decide on fixed rate, adjustable, length of term, interest rate… and if you decide on an adjustable (ARM) then the 3 biggest terms are interest rate, yearly rate increase max and total rate increase cap. You always look at the “worst case” scenario. Would you have work done on your house if the contractor gave you a price, asked you to sign a binding contract but said the price could go substantially higher? They rolled the dice and lost. I am sure they knew the risk but they took a chance. Good for them if it worked but bad for them if it didn’t… well it didn’t.
<
p>Paygo is impractical for large purchases like a house but clearly many millions of Americans have shown that guying the right sized house, waiting for mortgage rates to be lower and living within your means can make a great American story. And many more million American will continue this tradition.
Sure there might be a worst case scenario, but their broker might have made the chances of that sound very small. This may be either bad faith or sincere belief on the part of the broker; we’ll never know. I just don’t think we should be so quick to judge. There may have been other unforseen changes in their lives (loss of job, divorce, etc.) that affects ability to pay even the presumed worst case. I don’t know what prisons have to do with this; I’m pretty sure imprisonment for debt was eliminated a long time ago.
that when/if I ever buy a house, I am as knowledgeable as you.
So people are indeed “paying for their mistakes”. Granted, they probably don’t “want to”.
Ever disputed a ticket?
And a better cheaper way to hold these creeps.
… sentencing guidelines and more Judicial discretion.
And that somehow if we go over that level we need better sentencing guidelines. If rape and murder rates went way up does that mean we should release domestic violence criminals early to make room?
<
p>I’m willing to pay more for more prisons to keep me safe from the fate of Anne Pressly and others.
… either Americans deserve to be incarcerated more than any demographic on earth, or we’re doing something wrong.
incredibly complicated issue with a significant amount of interrelated factors. If you charted the incarceration rates of every country and tried to correlate anything I would challenge you. Does the country with a low incarceration rate have less criminals, lenient laws or poor enforcement of strict law… Does the high incarceration rate equate to a crime infested society, zealous law enforcement or laws which make crossing the street a “incarceratable” offense?
<
p>I am a strong advocate of law and order. I believe people will basically do anything they want which benefits them, unless it is against the law. I also think any weakening of the laws will propel the animals in our society to take full advantage of this “weakness”. You might say our system has a high recidivism rate due to sentencing problems and lack or rehabilitation while I think these criminals are bad apples and will never rehabilitate. Please don’t sight examples of scum who do better themselves since they are in the very small minority.
<
p>The pendulum swings from decade to decade where we “knuckle-down” on crime with strict sentencing and then we take a more humanitarian approach and rapes, murders and other serious crimes get committed by early-release animals so it swings back again…
<
p>The rate is immaterial in my mind and the amount of inmates is too. WHat matters is we have laws and if people disobey them then they should go to jail. Stricter enforcement of the laws and strict adherence to the prison terms might have the desired effect on animals/inmates.
I believe people will basically do anything they want which benefits them, unless it is against the law.
<
p>You know, this says an awful lot about you.
As well as the tacit admission that you would do anything you wanted to, and only the law holds you back. It’s really quite sad to go through life with such an outlook.
We may have differing opinions of the people who live outside and if you are more of an optimist and I am pessimist than so be it. I prefer to believe that I am a realist and if we want to start looking at crime statistics then let’s begin.
<
p>Do you disagree that the vast majority of students, we’ll say high school live within 1 cm. of the rule of law. Do people drive the speed limit or would you agree that people would drive absurdly fast except for the threat of a ticket/arrest? Do you have kids? Have you ever lived in Dorchester or other urban environments?
<
p>Obviously my remark did not include “every single” person in the country but certainly the majority of them. Am I guilty, for sure. Maybe not for every single “want” I have in the world but I do admit that if I could go into a bank and take a million or two without worrying about being arrested, sure I would. But maybe I would take that million to feed hungry people so now what’s my problem Doc?
<
p>But if you are the infamous “he is without sin…” then ouch from your first stone.
At a cost of $48k a year each, too. I disagree, John. I would rather pay for education then incarceration.
<
p>See http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/… One in 142 residents of the United States is now incarcerated – pays no taxes, paid for by taxes. Ouch!
…Do we incarcerate for crimes for which other countries would not incarcerate or do other countries do a better job of preventing crime in the first place? My gut tells me it is largely the latter in the form of stricter gun laws and greater commitment to taking care of citizens, although others may not be as quick to incarcerate non-violent drug offenders? Does anyone here know what the answer really is?
… for things like drug crimes.
question #2 passed. people think that way too. Now if only we could pass something like that on a federal level. If only.
I wonder.
Sounds like they are either in a house which is way over their heads so they should sell it, or they could refinance down to a lower rate. Maybe they can’t afford a house period which is this notion we hear lately like home ownership is a Constitutional right. More details need to be known before a true suggestion should be made.
You’re correct that it’s not a constitutional right and I’m just as happy to rent. However, it seems to be your side that puts the notion in people’s heads that everyone should own a home. I believe President Bush called it the ownership society. So please be careful about preaching the gospel of property and then complaining when people try to pursue it.
Home ownership is a great thing and I would hope for everyone to go for it. But there are risks involved when you go for something. You could decide that you want to be a professional athlete and get rich. You could dedicate the next 4 years of your life to training and then not make the team. But you also may have wasted 4 years of your life, spent tens of thousands of dollars, lost opportunity of advancement in your job, missed personal relationships… but that is the risk you took and don’t come to me complaining about all these losses if you fail.
<
p>It would be wonderful if people could own a home but the single biggest tragedy in this financial mess we are in and IMO the ultimate cause of it was the excessive lending of money to people who had no right in borrowing it.
<
p>We have already debated the angle of fault… was it the companies who gave money to people who were not qualified or the people who borrowed the money who should not have borrowed it. Either way, now it is time to pay the fiddler and many people are going to hurt badly. For every person who is being foreclosed on there is an investor who’s money is disappearing (stock holders, 401K funds…). I feel for both but will side on the person who lost their investment due to a borrower’s irresponsibility.
Are you just as sympathetic to people who have just lost a ton of pension and 401K money in the stock market? Don’t compare this to not making a team – that doesn’t make you homeless.
who were recently bailed out by taxpayers.
There’s a start.
and then not pay it back. I’ll ask for the “expunge” offer. Just remember that for every dollar we “expunge” that will become a dollar for our kids to pay back.
You don’t seem to get that mistakes get made that could not be seen as mistakes at the time. If banks want their money paid back they should manage themselves better in the first place. People will have to cut back and make sacrafices, but we should do everything within reason to keep something as basic as a roof over people’s heads.
Don’t forget your Citibank Visa!
It will be beautiful.
and if she got it, then she’s doing a damn good job at it.
At least pretend to have a heart, will you!?
NM I do have a heart but don’t you think we have limits on our money. Sure it would be great to say… “All mortgage foreclosures are on hold… all outstanding mortgage balances which are now higher than the house’s value shall be reduced to 90% of the house value… all credit card debt is forgiven…” but that’s not the world we live in. At a simplistic level… It’s like the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” where the Bailey Building and Loan takes depositor’s money, pays interest and lends it to home buyers at a higher interest rate. If you reduce the mortgage amount you have given away a depositor’s money and their interest. Susan borrowed somebody’s money (maybe yours or mine) and paid off her credit cards. Should we forgive her debt and tell me or you that we just lost all our money?
The financial people lending the money out certainly didn’t think so. They thought they could zero out risk by magically repackaging loans and taking out hedges. The insurers who took on these hedges successfully lobbied to make sure they were not regulated like insurance. Then, predictably, they over-leveraged themselves on these hedges (with outrageous pay out liabilities) on the assumption that these repacked loans successfully zeroed out the risk. But of course, nobody knew that, so as far as they could tell the rational thing to do was to make loans out to people… as many as possible with almost no regard to risk. Most of the people who drew up the loans didn’t end up owning them anyway… so as long as demand was high enough that there were banks willing to buy stupid stupid stupid loans, they helplessly succumbed to the will of that market.
<
p>The lesson here is that financial institutions will take whatever you give them, even if what is available to them is complete idiocy from a self interest perspective. They simply have no willpower when it comes to short term money. This is ironic when you consider that the mortgage debts they were buying are long term.
Population: 300,000,000
I suppose macro-economically, it’s true: Susan is small enough to fail. On a human level, no, it’s not true. Susan is too important to fail. One unexamined side of this discussion is how Susan ran up so much credit card debt. We imagine it was to pay for luxuries beyond her means, but a lot of people fall deeply into debt because health insurance is so crumby. I’d guess the Hard-hearted Faction might be persuaded to be more gentle to families that have had to deal with catastrophic illness. Possibly not, though.
<
p>But for the sake of argument, let’s imagine these were computers, play stations, cars, vacations, and clothing like they wear in Wasilla. Then, when one tries to think about rescuing Susan, one runs into all sorts of ethical conundrums.
Moral hazard problemRescuing Susan encourages her and others to take bad risks knowing that they’ll be rescued. InequityThose who did not get to enjoy such luxuries get no bonus — and are paying for Susan family profligacy indirectly.
<
p>So is there some way Susan can repay the frugal folks for bailing her out to avoid the inequity problem? How the heck do we mitigate the moral hazard question? Susan may have ended up in trouble through innocent imprudence; less innocent borrowers may choose recklessness intentionally.
<
p>The other side to this is prevention. Banks that are too big to fail should be regulated. Should Susan be “regulated”? (“No, Susan, you may not buy that boat.”)
<
p>Or is this a problem with how people understand money and their needs? For example, lots of people who claimed to know everything about the housing market refused to acknowledge the bubble. If you had listened to those authorities, you would have thought that the Susan family finances were prudently managed. How do we protect people from bad advice — particularly when lots of other people are following bad advice?
<
p>Or materialism? Our economy suffers now from a fall in demand. Materialism helps keep the wheels turning. How do we keep it from getting out of hand?
but one is surely a necessity in this economy- no? Are most of us blogging from the public library?
I think if money’s that tight than a public library is just fine.
… at the macro level is that institutions often do not understand their needs. If companies were not allowed to over-leverage their credit default swap products, our current mess would be nearly as bad. Problem is, they understood them as a hedge, but functionally they were insurance and should have been subject to the leverage limiting regulations of insurance. The average private financial institution will attempt to get away with whatever you’ll let them, even if it isn’t smart.
<
p>This can play out in the way that institutions interact with individuals. The irrational desires of institutions to buy mortgages no matter how risky, encouraged sale people to push them. The individuals don’t see the bad risk at the higher levels of the chain, they only see the market at their level as presented by people pushing this stuff. It would be irrational to think that the mortgage company selling you your loan was selling a product that they expected you to default on. The default set of reasoning is that they want to get paid, so if they think you can afford it you probably can. Of course, the market was artificially biased.
<
p>I guess its ‘shame on Susan’ for not seeing that the sellers’ secondary market (with which she has zero interaction) was distorting the her market risk profile. Or in other words shame on her for not having the macro economic background to detect what most people were ignoring, even economists.
plainly spoken –thanks you
Yet another quandary which may show the differences in our ideologies. Being one of the “Hard-hearted Faction” who generally believe some people should like animals eat their young, I truly believe that even the hardest of my faction are compassionate. Our problems is separating the wheat from the chaff when it comes to helping people who deserve help. While known mostly as a racist homophobic heartless bastard, the truth is I am involved in many things which are 100% for helping people. These are serious drains on my time but I think they are worth it. However, I have immense hatred for those who abuse the hand society puts out to help people as well as my own efforts.
<
p>The problem is how do you separate the Susan’s of the world who are in their situation due to a medical emergency vs. a long string of Gucci bags, imported Italian shoes, fake boobs and an addiction to food from fine establishments. My choice is to err on the side of protecting my money and the money of other tax payers who follow the rules and pay their bills, buy within their means and save money for a rainy day. Susan’s’ story sounds way to ripe to be an example of “Susan gone wild” and I think she should fail… right on her face. I would love to see a fair plan to help the Susan’s of the world who are victims. (remortgage to 40 year mortgages… but forgive NO debts).
What is it with you and the Gucci bags?
What a deranged sentiment.
that many conservatives seem to refuse to acknowledge is that it is unreasonable to refuse to accept that a certain segment of home consumers are not that financially savvy. Statistically it seems that this must be so. It should also be noted that these people will probably come from that segment of the population for which a large amount of financial acumen isn’t that necessary for their daily lives. As such, one needs to ask how these people arrive at an answer to the question ‘how much can I afford’?
<
p>For many people in this situation, the single most helpful piece of information about whether they could afford a proposed house loan payment was the qualification itself for the loan in the first place. Remember that the affordability determination of the lender, embodied in the loan qualification, presumably is derived from people with financial acumen and an interest in making sure one actually can afford the loan in question and taking on any corresponding risk for non-payment. As such, historically, I think it was probably a reasonable assumption that if the people putting up the money (and taking on risk for your default) said in the qualification that they thought you could afford the payment, that you probably could actually afford the payment. The problem is that, unknown to any customers that were not extremely financially savvy (again… this can’t be everyone), the irrational behavior of the secondary market distorted the lender’s perception of risk toward you the borrower. So this assumption about how much a loan qualification represents the reality of affordability, which had been true probably since WWII, suddenly wasn’t a good assumption,… and you’d have to be an economist to see it (and even many of them didn’t).
<
p>That’s the way home loans were done for a long time. That’s the way for decades that many many people learned weather they could afford a hypothetical mortgage payment. The particulars about why it wasn’t a good measure any more would be lost on any average borrower.
<
p>Because of the reasons outlined above, I submit that there are culpability issues here that go way beyond the moral hazard of borrower behavior. And this is before you get into all of the ‘qualifying’ fraud that was done by sales people unknown the the applicants.
<
p>Now don’t get me wrong,… I don’t doubt that there were bad acts on the part of borrowers. But I also think that the problem I outlined above may represent a significant portion of the problem as well… especially for first time home buyers. I also think that any relief effort should, as you say, separate the wheat from the chaff. I certainly don’t want to reward bad behavior (although I admit that some of this might have to happen for pragmatic reasons in the end, however regrettable that is). I’m not so pessimistic, however, to think that this can’t be done, since getting into the details of borrowers is (or should be more so) standard operating procedure for loan applications in the first place.
<
p>If you haven’t, yet heard this, I think you will find it enlightening.
It seems we are constantly trying to get “things” for people who in many cases never had those “things” and then complain that they don’t know what to do with them when they get them. Sort of like telling people they can drink when they turn 21 and then arresting them when they get drunk. But I think it’s hard to have the excuse of “I’m sort of new at this drinking thing” since it may be a sign you shouldn’t be drinking… I’ve heard similar stories of people with credit cards who never had them before (nor did anyone in their family) and then they run up a huge balance and try to get off paying it since they “didn’t know” the balance would add up so quickly…
<
p>Someone else told me recently that they work for the City of Boston Housing Dept. and they have moved people from the “projects” to affordable housing. A problem they have is the people suddenly have utility payments (Electricity, heat…) and this is new to them. They are taking older adults and telling them they have to learn how to read an electric bill for the first time and that they have to start “conserving” electricity since they now have to pay for it (vs. the projects where regulating the heat meant opening a few windows in January to cool off the apartment – called the double-hung thermostat). So the deal with these people may be the same for the moral hazard of borrower behavior you refer to … if you want these freedoms then you get some responsibilities and YOU are responsible. Otherwise, should we not give these people the freedom????
… that you describe as ‘new’, you’d think would be taken into account in an underwriter’s analysis of the ration of your income vs. your loan payment. At least you’d think that would be true if the underwriter’s chief concern was your ability to repay the debt. Indeed, in the past when lenders were worried about affordability that was true.
<
p>With regard to ‘being new’ to buying a house… it’s unreasonable to expect them to be experts at secondary mortgage markets in order to buy a house. Hell, it’s unreasonable to think everyone should become a housing expert when they buy a house. This is why you get the opinions of underwriters. Hell that’s why the act of buying a house in this country usually isn’t even possible without hiring a lawyer.
<
p>Now a certain percentage of bad actor borrowers probably have always constituted some percentage of people that have gotten caught up into a mortgage problem. But if you take the current lot of people in trouble and apply even twice that percentage, you’d still be talking about an increased default rate for everyone else. So what happened? Did borrowers all of a sudden become stupider than they used to be? Or did the market of sellers change their tactics and behavior in order to sell more product. I think I know which was more likely.
– So how much may I charge on this card, Mr Banks?
<
p>– One million dollars.
<
p>– One million dollars! Wow! That’s a lot of money.
<
p>– Son, that’s how much we always allow first time owners of credit cards.
<
p>– Well, I guess I won’t be embarrassed at the store if my credit is refused.
<
p>– No, you won’t. No, you won’t. With our card, you can charge as much as you want. Our policy is this: Never say no. That’s why we call it the Yes Card.
<
p>– Wait til my girl friend hears about this!
… else I forgot to bring up. Credit card companies are a bad example to bring up because getting you into trouble with your card is their business plan. Very different than a mortgage, where their business plan depends on your ability to pay. I actually wondered for a long time if they shouldn’t be using different credit score measures since what they want out of their customers are very different.
<
p>Also, credit card companies get to change the terms of your contract after the fact and on whatever whim they want. In an era when the fed is keeping overall interest rates at an all time low, it seems criminal to me the interest rates that credit card companies get away with charging. Of course they don’t charge you that when they sell to you… they just change it after the fact.
Was Mr Banks really PT Barnum?
<
p>So how do we control people so they can’t make these mistakes? Should we close Foxwoods and Las Vegas since surely most bets out there are “sucker’s bets” and real people will lose their shirts? How about the lottery… millions will be spent to get back a pittance with the State being the only true winner (and one lucky person)? Stock market investments by common folk, should we cover all loses since clearly they are being led to slaughter b the draw of “making millions”? The list goes on “penis enlargement”, “wrinkle cream”… of so many things where people are stupid. Want to buy a house, then get a lawyer and have them check your contract. Don’t want to pay for a lawyer then go jump without a parachute.
<
p>My Lynne there are many areas where people go and take risks and quite frankly I’m sick and tired of “coming to the rescue”. Nothing pisses me off more than these a-holes who go climb Mt. “fill-in-the-blank” and then need to be rescued by helicopters, the Army… and jeopardize the lives of many rescue workers just because they felt like taking some chances and living a risky life. The rule should be if you engage in a RISK you may get burned and that is why it is called a RISK.
I hadn’t thought of that angle, Mr. Lynne. As we saw during the Reagan Administration, people are inclined to believe what suits them particularly if it comes from an expert.
<
p>A counter-argument here is that not all people are taken in.
<
p>Dour and skeptical folks will resist being taken in by the rosy blandishments of deceptive lenders. As a reward for their dourness and skepticism — qualities that do not make for a happy day-to-day existence — they might reasonably hope for some reward. That reward might be an absence of penalty.
<
p>Further, the deceived and the self-deceived did get to live a temporarily more luxurious life-style than the dour and skeptical.
<
p>
<
p>I wonder whether a case could be made for bailing out the Hypothetically Profligate Susans of the world because it would be good for the economy, not because it is ethical and not even because it is needed by Susan’s children.
One.
What did the family purchase which led to a credit card debt so large that a home refinance was necessary? Was it food to feed the family or perhaps a wide screen HDTV. Smart choices or not? It matters.
<
p>Two.
Send her a check. Those of you who feel the family should be helped can help. No government program required.
<
p>I continue to live within my means and it is not always easy. When I borrow money I READ the documents which explain my exposure and plan accordingly. All around me I see a creeping tendency to reward failure, which I think comes from a hesitance to ascribe accountability. It’s never anyone’s fault anymore, it’s the system that made them do it.
<
p>Years ago when my father approached bankruptcy because of poorly-timed real estate investments, one of his friends told him it wasn’t his fault; “the economy had tanked.” He responded that he wouldn’t have given credit to anyone else had he made the money he’d planned to make, nor would he place blame elsewhere for the decision to build when he chose to. He lost his shirt (and two family homes) but never blamed anyone else. He was respected by those who knew him.
<
p>That’s my “raj” story of the day.
more evident than among the extremely wealthy (the financial industry bailout, the Big three’s upper management, etc.), as well as among the highest office-holders in our country.
Not so sure this much-maligned phenomenon has really trickled down to the lower classes. But it’s fun (for some) to pretend it has.
We do reward failure at all levels including upper management. But 2 wrongs don’t make a right. I have bitched about this practice for a long time. Why do professional athletes get paid millions regardless of their performance. Sure they put special terms in contracts if a guy wins the Cy Young or the Batting title but the worst team in any sport is loaded with millionaires with multi-year contracts. My kids play all sorts of sports and “everyone” who plays gets a trophy. You would think my kids are youth phenoms if you saw their rooms littered with trophies from multiple sports but the fact is not a one fo them is more than average at any sport.
<
p>BTW… How much does the best worker get paid vs. the worst worker in a union shop???
<
p>Reward the good and only the good.
Let me clarify. The wealthy should not be rewarded for failure. End-run compensation schemes for executives who have ruined good companies are obscene. Bailing out homeowners who bought homes they could not afford is also obscene. Passing students who aren’t qualified for advancement is obscene. Rewarding failure anywhere is obscene.
I didn’t have sufficient justification for the snark level at the end there. I apologize, and I didn’t really mean you specifically.
It is easy enough, with hindsight, to blame the problem on the failure of one’s preferred bad guy to forsee the bursting of the real estate and credit bubbles.
<
p>I do think that this is fallacy, however.
<
p>Who, last summer, could have forseen oil at $39/barrell and gasoline at $1.75 by Christmas? All the posts herein seemed to assume that high oil prices are with us forevermore.
That’s a hell of a lot.
<
p>At 5.5% interest (which is reasonable over the last few years), that means the mortgage is roughly $900,000. Frankly, that doesn’t sound like a “modest house in a modest town”. Even if their mortgage dates from 2000, when interest rates peaked at roughly 8%, the mortgage would still be $680,000. (Calculations assume 30 year mortgages, natch.)
<
p>That’s a lot. A lot a lot.
… about an ARM or a Balloon.
But surely we spend more tax money supporting “welfare queens”? Of course the major problem with our country is still “those people” living on the dole?
Certainly we lose more money on scholarships and handouts for illegal immigrants?
Sat it ain’t so, Bob.
Just curious.
It’s not about you at all. It was meant to be a satiric statement on the staggering numbers involved relative to the types of social programs that certain people on the right tend to scapegoat whenever the issue of government spending arises.
Why, if we had elected McCain and gotten rid of those earmarks why, our problems would be over. Champagne and caviar all around!
Each of us who are behind in our mortgages would do a presentation on why we are behind. Mine would include medical expenses and credit card debt used to pay additional medical bills. Then all of you who don’t appear to have an problems or unexpected bills can vote.
<
p>You decide if those of us who are in danger of loosing our homes, or going to court over unpaid bills are justified in looking for assistance. Or if you think we are the architect of our own disaster. A and we get to save our homes, refinance, get the unpaid balance moved to the end of the mortgage. Maybe get a better insurance plan than one that only covers 40% of our medical expenses.
<
p>
It could be even more fun weighing the stories of ordinary people with problems against the pleas of Lehman Brothers or AIG executives to salvage their generous compensation packages. The “people’s court” could perhaps be granted discretion to move some of these bailout funds around as we see fit. The whole process could make for some interesting “Reality TV”.
While the rulers enslave our children, most of the writers here whine. If the citizens really want to change things, start by nationalizing the auto, finance and banking industry. If the rulers are sincere in their pronouncements to make things better, let them devise laws to nationalize the offending industries rather than tax the grandchildren of today’s citizens. Demand this from your congresspeople and senators.
<
p>We should be ashamed of the way we have let the worst of scoundrels manage our country. We should be ashamed that we re-elect people that bear no good will to the American people. We should be ashamed of what has happened to good citizens throughout the country.
<
p>Have we no pride?
<
p>Get along. Don’t cause waves. Die penniless.
Actually, I wonder about that. One aspect of the moral hazard problem is that setting up a rule that is applied consistently opens the government up to being exploited by those who purposely make reckless decisions. Deciding everything on a completely case-by-case basis, carefully and judiciously, might avoid that problem. (It could open others.)
<
p>Sometimes I wonder whether more primitive approaches to justice (i.e., without trying to turn everything into a categorical imperative) wouldn’t be better in some context.
<
p>Don’t know and don’t know where this has been explored.
to be able to vet people “case-by-case basis, carefully and judiciously” to decide which ones are truly in need vs. being reckless. Let’s end that project before it starts as “everyone” will be found in need with very few reckless decisions.
<
p>I like the idea of what you are saying but I just can’t imagine the implementation ever happening productively and/or efficiently.
No, I don’t want that.
How much is the entire bailout going to cost??? Who knows since we haven’t hit bottom yet. But if you take a swipe at the bailout and the huge stimulus package coming let’s guess $1.5 trillion. When you consider that there are about 100,000,000 of us paying taxes that equates to $15,000 per person. Knowing very well that many of those 100 million people make very little money exactly where is this new addition to the national debt going to come from?
<
p>THoughts anyone??????