Clinton and Bush in Joint Mortgage Plan
Dec 6, 2007 Political
There are about 1.8 million people who received foreclosure notices this year on homes they had no business buying. The people were attracted to buy homes that were too much for their budgets by lenders who offered no down payment loans and adjustable rate mortgages. The promise of future wealth from escalating home values was too much for some who bought into the lower rates never taking the time to consider what would happen if the market went south. The sub prime market is now rearing its ugly head as many more Americans will face foreclosure in the coming years.
But wait, George Bush and Hillary Clinton are riding to the rescue. The President put forth a plan today which was in the works when Clinton touted the very same ideas. Despite her claim that her plan is better and helps people in ways that the Bush plan does not, the fact is they are nearly identical and they are potential disasters for the economy. The government has no business getting involved in the affairs of private companies and the people with whom they have entered contracts. This is a matter that can and should be worked out between the parties in the contracts.
Bush and Clinton claim that no taxpayer money is involved but the plan offers financial counseling to people so the money to pay for that has to come from somewhere. Also, some people will be able to move into loans secured by the FHA which means that if they default, the taxpayer will get socked. This is an ill advised plan that is designed to help people who made poor decisions and there are no guarantees that this will not hurt the taxpayer. For instance, once the loan rates are frozen, one option under the plan, what procedures are in place to ensure that homeowners do not borrow against the equity in the house? People with financial problems (and anyone who opts into this has financial problems) are easily influenced to take out home equity loans to pay the bills. Those loans are secured with the home which, in some cases, will be secured with taxpayer money.
Sometimes people make bad choices and the unfortunate fact of life is that they must suffer the consequences of those choices. When people spend more than they can afford buying a car or racking up credit card debt there is no expectation that the federal government will swoop in to bail them out. Why then, do people expect the federal government to bail out those who got in over their heads when they purchased a house? There are solutions that can involve the government.
First, they can make some kind of uniform rules governing the sale of homes. I have bought two homes in my lifetime and the amount of paper and the number of times that one has to sign is staggering. I have read every item that I was signing and asked for clarification for anything I did not understand. I also understand that, as the song says, what goes up must come down. People should have some understanding that the cost of homes go up and down and that great markets do not last forever. They should also understand that an adjustable rate can adjust in both directions. The government can help by forcing mortgage companies to make the language on forms clearer and easier to understand.
Additionally, there should be some disclosure about how adjustable rates work and how increases can affect payments. Since home sales that require no down payment cause havoc and gain little equity, people should not be allowed to purchase homes under these terms unless credit history and financial statements show that the purchaser is able to absorb increases in interest rates.
These items will help people with future home purchases but what about those who are already in trouble? Mortgage companies should work this out without government intervention. The most reasonable thing would be for the companies to offer a fixed rate refinance at a reasonable cost. The cost could be included in the new loan so those with little cash on hand could refinance and have a fixed monthly rate upon which to plan.
In some cases, people are going to have to shop around and try to get a fixed rate mortgage and it might cost them money. This is the cost of making a bad business deal. If all else fails they could negotiate with the mortgage company for relief until they can sell the home and get something that they can afford.
Regardless of which path people take it should not be one lined with assistance from the government. There are too many problems associated with government intervention and the unintended consequences could be worse for the economy, the homeowners, and the mortgage companies.
If all else fails and people lose their homes, I understand the government has a bunch of trailers in New Orleans that are not being used. Also, Hillary’s involvement gives her opponents more proof that she is not very different from George Bush after all.
Source:
WBAL
Tags: george bush, Hillary Clinton, mortgage, poor choices, sub prime
Democrats Cannot Embrace Victory
Nov 25, 2007 Military, Political
The problem with the Democrats, besides their weakness on national security, is that they want to win so badly they will say of do anything to get elected. This includes slandering our troops and changing their points of view in order to refocus the attention of the electorate. For the longest time the Democrats claimed that George Bush was not listening to his commanders on the ground (though commanders say he was) but when commanders asked for more troops and Bush listened (the surge) the Democrats criticized the President for actually listening to his commanders. They said the surge would not work and that we are in the middle of a civil war.
The surge is giving us great results so the Democrats have to change tactics. The first one was to slander an American hero named General Petraeus. MoveOn.org and other leftist groups like Code Pinko slandered the man and his message because his assessment did not say what they wanted, as if they understand the military or its tactics. This did not pan out well so they changed gears and started telling everyone that these indications of success were not really success because there are still Americans dying. Now that the success of the surge is undeniable the Democrats have taken a new course and that is to say that the military has made progress on the ground but the Iraqis have not done anything to sure up their political situation so the effort is really a failure. Hillary Clinton, who opposed the surge, is saying that since there are still troops dying and since the Iraqis have not done what they need to then we need to leave because we are being a referee in a civil war.
It is important to note that Hillary has no military experience and her only contact with military subjects is when she defended her husband for dodging the draft and sitting on the Senate Armed Services Committee, a post she asked for to give the impression she cares for the military. We veterans know she does not support the troops and that she will get very little of the military vote. She is the one who basically called General Petraeus a liar. We are expected to believe that Hillary, who sits on her ample derrière in DC knows more than the guy leading troops in Iraq. The guy getting shot at is the liar while the question planting, flip-flopping, triangulating, poll watcher is telling us the truth. Right… Likewise, Obama and Edwards have no military experience.
It is obvious that the Democrats cannot embrace victory and they take every chance to slander our troops. Jack Murtha convicted a bunch of Marines before they were ever charged and thus applied undue influence on the case. Harry Reid has stated that we have lost the war, Clinton, Obama and Edwards all have differing plans that involve pulling our troops out of Iraq, and the other members of the Democratic Party keep telling us how either we are losing or the surge is not working. When even the New York Times (the mouthpiece for the left in America) reports that our troops are doing well then something must be going on.
These Democrats, especially the ones running for president, want to lead this country and want to be the leader of our military. How can they possibly lead the military when they do not support the military. They continually fail to provide money for the troops and they insist on pulling our troops out in defeat and disgrace. They cannot grasp the idea of victory and they do not understand the consequences of their actions. They change the rules, or move the goal posts back, in order to keep pressure on their plan for defeat. They cannot allow us to win and they cannot allow our troops to be successful or it will be bad for their ambitions.
We need a president who will lead us to victory and we need a majority in Congress who defines success as winning more than just the next election (say no to incumbents).
Source:
New York Times
Others with similar items:
Perri Nelson’s Website, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Faultline USA, 123beta, Stix Blog, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, Stuck On Stupid, The Pink Flamingo, Phastidio.net, Chuck Adkins, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Conservative Cat, Stageleft, Right Voices, and Adeline and Hazel, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: american hero, civil war, Democrats, dodging the draft, general petraeus, george bush, Hillary Clinton, leftist groups, military experience, military subjects, moveon org, pinko, senate armed services committee, support the troops