Comments on: Obama puts you on alert: Big changes in store

By: SJ

SJ — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:57:22 +0000

I agree with peter in that the government is not helping any one. There is just too much spending happening. The loss of tax revenues is disproportionate to the gov’t spending. I feel the new administration has not taken that reality into account how much loss of income through retail business, loss of corporate taxes from non-existent companies just in the financial world. Soon Obma and the treasurey will be printing money and we know where that leads…

By: Merrill McCracken

Merrill McCracken — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:35:13 +0000

Hello Strapper,

Under a program such as this, the government would buy your home at the then market price which in your case unfoirtunately would be below what you paid for it. However, your home would be sold and you would then be able to keep your credit and buy another home in your new work location. Hopefully the new home would be cheaper for you to buy as well. If so, you would be better off because although still indebeted, you would have to pay for just one home, plus the loss which you have already absorbed on your last home. I know its not great but I think its better than the alternative of bankruptcy. Eventually, as the market becomes more liquid, your equity will increase again.

By: Nancy J Knobloch

Nancy J Knobloch — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:05:09 +0000

McCracken, my hat is off to you! How simple it could be if the powers that be listen to your suggestions. I am so upset that there is even a possibly that these people who got in over there heads would get bailed out. They all should of learned a tough lesson, “you can not get something for nothing”. I have always saved and sacrificed to own my home and on many occasions have gone without to pay my mortgage. People are just too ignorant, they made bad decisions and now they need to pay for it. If they get bailed out, what incentive is there for people to have made the sacrifice and have saved

By: Frank Greene

Frank Greene — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:54:07 +0000

I almost hate to see the ‘Government’ get involved in anything anymore. I agree with Lisa Rayl and also agree with term limits. This line says it perfectly – “The government cannot give to anyone anything that it does not first take from someone else.”

By: » Obama puts you on alert: Big changes in store | FinanceRegs.com … » Second Mortgage Calculator

Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:08:06 +0000

[...] news by unknown « Home equity line for real estate investing? | 103 Loans Posts about Mortgage Market [...]

By: Karlee

Karlee — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 20:27:22 +0000

Not going to be nearly enough and not going to have an immediate effect. As a small business accountant, money has virtually dried up in the market over the last couple of months. I talk to dozens of people everyday in a variety of industries. Everyone has the same refrain, “if our customers would pay us, we would pay you.” Money is just not moving and a thought of future tax cuts over the next year, is not going to be of much help today. Might help a major corporation if they have spare cash.

By: Fred

Fred — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 20:16:55 +0000

A number of the posts on this thread seem to bemoan the role of government in the situations we find ourselves in so I’ll just add my 2 cents to the mix. Government seems to thrive on complexity in solutions because it tries to accommodate too much at once. This is the feeling I get from what I’ve seen so far in the new administration’s offerings on curing the economy. We have been and are now being told that we have to act NOW! and we have to do it “government’s way” or “hellfire and brimstone will rain down on us…” basically… it already has.

Mr. McCracken’s plan is probably the most simple and workable solution to the housing mess that I’ve seen thus far yet the “great minds” in our government couldn’t figure this out. Then again … “simple and workable” are not terms familiar to the government. True, at first glance, Mr. McCracken’s solution appears to only address the housing situation, however, the housing crisis is basically what triggered this whole mess so I truly feel his approach is a good one… attack the root cause, solidify the working class/home owner situation and work from there. It is truly better than any “entitlement to fix everything at once, and worry about paying for it later” program the government seems to throwing at us now. Whatever the case, rebuilding on a solid foundation is usually more effective than trying to fix everything at once, especially when you don’t have a solid plan to pay for it. Oh “deficit spending” is necessary right now? Remember “hellfire and brimstone…?” Sorry, I forgot.

On the surface, it appears that the government has made a positive move by “pledging” $100B of the remaining TARP money toward assisting in the homeowner crisis… but can government be trusted to properly administer this “aid”? Look what happened to the first $350B… better yet, look before this mess started and see what government did (or didn’t do) to make it happen.

By: Strapper

Strapper — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:17:56 +0000

Hey McCracken
What about the people who had to move with excellant credit rating but the economy has turned their former residence into a virtual ghost town. I am one of those and still make faithfull mortgage
payments and pay rent at my new location. It is not my fault I had to reduce my asking price by 100K on a brand new home which is not at all overpriced to begin with but the governments blind eye to assisting companies ensure they can make it so not to displace hundreds of people. I can’t afford to keep paying for both places and I refuse to allow my credit rating to be wiped out due to greed and ignorance of others. The whole situation sickens me.

By: Lisa Rayl

Lisa Rayl — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:02:59 +0000

Langmuir, Am I understanding what you are saying?? Anyone receiving money from the government ie: welfare, food stamps, medicare, medi-cal, etc….all those who suck off the government (so to speak) should not be able to vote??? I kind of like that idea. That would not include those who have paid into the system and are now collecting what they deserve in the way of social security and the elderly with their small help from medicare right??

By: Langmuir

Langmuir — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:47:33 +0000

Every dollar that the government spends represents a loss of liberty for the population. Every crisis, even the govenment caused ones like the sub-prime, gives government permission to grow larger, more powerful, and less responsive.

The only way to solve this problem is to succeed from the union and start over with liberty.

Put in the constitution that no-one who recieves money from the government can vote. This will
eliminate the government incentive to create a dependent class that arch-villan FDR is responsible
for. And make the goodies-to-the-bureacracy policy beholden to the taxpayers.