Let us **** over Imran and Apocalypse in the housing market thread number two

[MRT144]

oerdin, patroklos, take your lovers' quarrell elswhere.

anyway i'm mad about the plan not only because it benefits people who should be foreclosed upon because they broke their contract, but also because it is being touted as something that will help and is so limited in scope. im hardly a rightwing loon to boot.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin


They're welcome to vote on it next election. I imagine the people will not entertain the money men's whines much though.

I can only imagine the wave of support Dem proposals to tell people that its OK to live in a house that strains thier finances because the poor babies got caught before they could refinance. I'd still like to understand why we should reward people even in your situation who chose to live in a place too expensive for them and take crap loans to live there?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Why are they having to make that choice? Because they hade a debilitating stroke or because they blew their life savings at the blackjack table? I think the distiction matters.

As I already said, there are people who have to make that genuine choice, but not enough to float a universal government program covering 300 million people.

I think there are more than enough to deal with problems involving very pricey medical procedures to float a universal basic coverage program.

Oerdin is not talking about subsidizing at all, and definetly not subsiding only specific groups (abject poor, disabled, whatever), he is talking about a French style universal full coverage system.

Which is nice. If you hadn't noticed, I'm not Oerdin.

No, but I sure as hell think there should be a sit down and wtih objective look at their finances before pushing the teet of the taxpayers into their mouth. And in adequatly run welfare programs that is exactly what happens, so why should we give a blacket bail out for healthcare?

You were complaining about cost and now want to create governmental tracking of everyone who may fall under the program to see if they are spending their money properly so they can get a base level of health care? Huh?

Frankly, I think its a moral issue. We should have the government pay for a base level of health insurance, so that everyone has a base level of coverage, so they can get preventative care and catastrophic care without worrying. Private insurance can cover anything over that.

[Patroklos]

I think there are more than enough to deal with problems involving very pricey medical procedures to float a universal basic coverage program.

2/3s have health insurance at the level of "basic" you are talking about. Most of the other 1/3 either don't have that out of choice or don't need it (the 20 somethings) for th most part.

Which is nice. If you hadn't noticed, I'm not Oerdin.

The comments of mine you took issue with were directed at Oerdin, so don't pretend I was talking about basic subsidies.

You were complaining about cost and now want to create governmental tracking of everyone who may fall under the program to see if they are spending their money properly so they can get a base level of health care? Huh?

When you apply for welfare Imran, they don't just say "Oh sure, you are probably telling the truth, here you go!"

And yes, to stay on welfare, you do have to meet certain requirements that are tracked.

So how is that me creating anything different than now?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by DanS
A WaPo article about backlash against this and other similar plans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

Word.

But I've been reading (not just here) that this "bailout" is just a drop in the bucket anyway.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Patroklos
2/3s have health insurance at the level of "basic" you are talking about. Most of the other 1/3 either don't have that out of choice or don't need it (the 20 somethings) for th most part.

And plenty of those 1/3rd don't have it due to not being able to afford it and McD's (or whereever) won't pay for health insurance for them.

This is also not counting catastrophic care as well. A stroke or something similar could wipe out a middle class family, easily.

And, who knows, a lot of those 2/3rds may see a savings with a base level of government health care and decide to not add private on top of that. For instance, I can see myself doing so... and it'd probably end up cheaper for me.

The comments of mine you took issue with were directed at Oerdin, so don't pretend I was talking about basic subsidies.

While they were directed at Oerdin, they apply generally as well.

So are you saying you wouldn't mind government sponsored basic coverage?

When you apply for welfare Imran, they don't just say "Oh sure, you are probably telling the truth, here you go!"

And yes, to stay on welfare, you do have to meet certain requirements that are tracked.

So how is that me creating anything different than now?

Because you would have to institute a similar system to track people for health purposes? Welfare is, of course, a state system. Health care would be federal. So, you'd have to create something new and different, which would cost money... see?

[Patroklos]

So are you saying you wouldn't mind government sponsored basic coverage?

We already have it to the level I think it should be at.

So, you'd have to create something new and different, which would cost money... see?

Except I don't want to start a program, period. See? Thats just what I would require if we did have one.

[MRT144]

holiday gifts that cater to the real estate crowd

http://www.stockmania.com/index.php?showimage=108

[Patroklos]

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Patroklos
We already have it to the level I think it should be at.

And most Americans want more .

It is highly doubtful it'll stay at this pitiful level for long . Even Republicans are asking for more (albeit in a different way).

[PLATO]

Here is the latest out from the American securitization forum.

More on this later.

[DanS]

Thanks for that, Plato. My objection stands.

If the Segment 2 folks (those who are expected to be able to pay under a loan modification and whose loan-to-value exceeds 97%) get a rate freeze, it should be at the rate that might be expected for a 30-year fixed loan rather than the ARM teaser rate. It's only fair.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by DanS
Thanks for that, Plato. My objection stands.

If the Segment 2 folks (those who are expected to be able to pay under a loan modification and whose loan-to-value exceeds 97%) get a rate freeze, it should be at the rate that might be expected for a 30-year fixed loan rather than the ARM teaser rate. It's only fair.

QFT.

[YYYH]

Originally posted by Apocalypse

Actually with a down payment, rent is higher than mortgage payments, at least in many places in Texas.

Speaking of kids that are just !Surprise!...isn't YYYH's kid like 8 now?

Holy ****, I'm a legend.

Free Stewart Spink!

[DanS]

I'm afraid the cause has been won for years now.