CARS HOMES JOBS

Gazette polls



What do you think of the Obama administration's plan to help some struggling homeowners by reducing the interest rate and, in some cases, the principal on their mortgage?

Support the plan 23% 246 votes
Lukewarm about it 7% 73 votes
It's not fair to those who pay their existing mortgage 68% 710 votes
No opinion 1% 11 votes
Total Votes: 1040

Note: This is not a scientific poll.

comments


February 23, 2009
2:12 p.m.

[ Suggest removal ]
Rick ( Rick ) says...

Our system is based upon following rules. If the government can ignore the Constitution and change the rules of the game, how can it be trusted with anything?

February 23, 2009
4:08 p.m.

[ Suggest removal ]
ViewFromTheRight ( ViewFromTheRight ) says...

If the government continues to subsidize the irresponsible behaviors of society, such behavior will become the norm. Those who pay their bills will cease doing so.

This is a dangerous precedent and amounts to redistribution of wealth from the "haves" to the "have nots".

February 23, 2009
4:45 p.m.

[ Suggest removal ]
bobbrindel ( bobbrindel ) says...

The federal government pays out lots of money to people and organizations that don’t' play by the rules. Just look at the bailout of the financial institutions earlier this year. You can even point to the money given to the 911 families as a payoff for not filing suits against the airlines. Remember it was the airlines that resisted increased security at airports. The majority of the money will go to people who need it, will a few benefit who probably shouldn't, yes but no plan is foolproof. After 8 years of corruption and incompetence I would rather see individuals be able to get a few bucks from the government rather then big corporations like Raytheon and Halliburton ripping us off for millions.

February 24, 2009
12:07 p.m.

[ Suggest removal ]
ski2moro ( ski2moro ) says...

Before we turn this into a political debate, I have some questions.

Who exactly is getting these government handouts?

What qualifies them for this assistance?

Why did the bank loan them money in the first place if they were a bad credit risk, short time on the job, or high debt to income ratio?

Didn’t these people realize that they were signing a legal contract that committed them to pay a certain amount for a certain time? Did they think that they could live there rent-free? Did they just stop paying and think there are no consequences?

What are they spending their money for, if not for food and shelter?

If these folks feel entitled to their cable TV, cell phones, high-speed Internet access, expensive new cars, HDTVs and designer label clothing that they charged on their maxed-out credit cards, I don’t want to subsidize their bad behavior. They need to learn to live within their means, and that means saving for a rainy day before spending on non-essentials.

If it means postponing having kids, not getting braces for the children’s teeth, packing peanut butter sandwiches for lunch and eating Ramen noodles for dinner, wouldn’t it be better than not paying for something you promised to pay for?

I understand that extraordinary circumstances arise. Catastrophic medical bills are one thing, but the cost of ordinary medical care should be factored into one’s budget. Losing a job? It’s happening all the time, but what was your backup plan?

It’s time for a reality check.

If you think you qualify for me to pay for your mortgage with my tax dollars, I would like to hear from you. Tell me why you qualify for subsidy. Tell me what you are doing proactively to keep your house. Tell me what you have done to trim your budget. Tell me your income and expenses. Let me help you learn to manage your money before you lose it all.

February 24, 2009
2:20 p.m.

[ Suggest removal ]
roccodart440 ( roccodart440 ) says...

Reducing interest rates is one thing. Reducing principals is a whole other ball of wax

February 24, 2009
3:06 p.m.

[ Suggest removal ]
silbernagel ( silbernagel ) says...

There is a word for those of us who live within our means and pay our bills - SUCKERS. Welcome to the new America.

February 24, 2009
4:55 p.m.

[ Suggest removal ]
guya ( guya ) says...

Stop talking about the constitution. This is not gun control of the second amendment. Your neighbor’s house is going down. He was right or wrong. He is going to pull your house down together. If you support this program you will save your house. If not you will go down together with him. Right or wrong, you can’t top it.

February 25, 2009
8:21 a.m.

[ Suggest removal ]
nm ( nm ) says...

We've been down one income for over a year now, but we scrape and sacrifice every month to get the mortgage paid. If my neighbor refuses to do the same, his house isn't "going down," he is because he gambled on an investment he couldn't afford.

Someone who can afford the house will buy it at a really good price, maintain it nicely, and weather this recession alongside me until the market stabilizes. Those of us who invest responsibly will be OK when this is over. I don't want to subsidize those who were irresponsible along he way.

February 25, 2009
9:23 p.m.

[ Suggest removal ]
Rick ( Rick ) says...

ski2 asked -

Who exactly is getting these government handouts?

>> Banks, financial orgs, insurance companies and other industries. Governmental agencies and Non-Governmental Organizations that will spend it or distribute it to the projects and individuals in need.

What qualifies them for this assistance?

>> They impressed Congress and the Executive of their need.

Why did the bank loan them money in the first place if they were a bad credit risk, short time on the job, or high debt to income ratio?

>> The Carter administration wanted to make it ‘fair’ for the poor and a law was passed to pressure the banks to stop discriminating against minorities.
The Clinton administration deemed it necessary to increase the opportunities for poor people to own homes. Using HUD (Andrew Cuomo) and the DOJ (AG Reno) to force banks to reduce the requirements to qualify. Dodd and Frank brought Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the game, to insure the mortgages with government money.

Didn’t these people realize that they were signing a legal contract that committed them to pay a certain amount for a certain time?

>> No! The salesmen lead them to believe that they could re-fi when the mortgage came due.

Did they think that they could live there rent-free?

>> It wasn’t rent free. They had to pay part of the principal and interest. ($500/mo paid, $2000/mo owed) The idea was that the property would continue to appreciate at a rate faster than what they didn’t pay, so they would be able to get a new mortgage as necessary. (Value up $25,000/yr) The bubble burst, the value of the property dropped and wasn’t enough to cover a new mortgage. Then they wound up in default.

Did they just stop paying and think there are no consequences?

>> There was no choice once they were in that far. All they could do was cry and whine to anyone who would listen.

What are they spending their money for, if not for food and shelter?

>> Our family would have $2000/mo for food and expenses. $500 of that was for the mortgage, but that jumped to $2500/mo when they could not renew the sub-prime rate.

February 25, 2009
9:24 p.m.

[ Suggest removal ]
Rick ( Rick ) says...

Ski2 pt 2

If these folks feel entitled to their cable TV, cell phones, high-speed Internet access, expensive new cars, HDTVs and designer label clothing that they charged on their maxed-out credit cards, I don’t want to subsidize their bad behavior.

>>If you pay taxes, you have no choice.

They need to learn to live within their means, and that means saving for a rainy day before spending on non-essentials.

>> Who’s gonna teach them? The politicians who want people to be stupid? The schools who find their social agenda more important than having a capable and productive citizens.

If it means postponing having kids, not getting braces for the children’s teeth, packing peanut butter sandwiches for lunch and eating Ramen noodles for dinner, wouldn’t it be better than not paying for something you promised to pay for?

>> Not if they can get a pack of jerks to pay for it.

I understand that extraordinary circumstances arise. Catastrophic medical bills are one thing, but the cost of ordinary medical care should be factored into one’s budget. Losing a job? It’s happening all the time, but what was your backup plan?

>> To go on Oprah and whine.

It’s time for a reality check.

>> And it’s the taxpayers who are getting it.

If you think you qualify for me to pay for your mortgage with my tax dollars, I would like to hear from you. Tell me why you qualify for subsidy. Tell me what you are doing proactively to keep your house. Tell me what you have done to trim your budget. Tell me your income and expenses. Let me help you learn to manage your money before you lose it all.

>> They qualify because the banks are at fault (even though they were blackmailed into those mortgages) and because the President said he’d see that they didn’t lose ‘their’ house. You pay because the government will take your house away if you don’t. They have done nothing to keep their house and have no need to trim their budget. If they lose their money, they can get more from the government.

From each according to their means; to each according to their needs.

THAT’s the NEW reality!

February 26, 2009
2:31 p.m.

[ Suggest removal ]
acostanzo ( acostanzo ) says...

Of course it's not fair, put just pull up your big boy/big girl pants and deal with it. The quicker we stop worrying about who's fault it is and start dealing with the problem the better.

February 26, 2009
9:07 p.m.

[ Suggest removal ]
annarondac ( annarondac ) says...

I miss dranon's caustic comments. Always a challenge to oppose.

February 27, 2009
10:06 a.m.

[ Suggest removal ]
GVilleResident ( GVilleResident ) says...

These proposed subsidies remind me of my kids who spend all of their allowance on junk, and then come to me asking for more. No bail out for them, and no bail out for people who got in over their mortgaged heads. It is not fair to the people who do pay their bills on time.

February 27, 2009
4:13 p.m.

[ Suggest removal ]
annarondac ( annarondac ) says...

The LA Times is about as far left as you can get without dropping off into the Pacific Ocean.

Nice to see you back, dranon. :)

 

columnists & blogs


Log into Dailygazette.com

Forgot Password?

Subscribe

Username:
Password: