from the WSJ NEWS ALERT from The Wall Street Journal President Bush has dropped his veto threat on legislation that aims to calm the chaotic housing market, the White House said Wednesday. Under the bill, the government would help struggling homeowners get new, cheaper loans and would be allowed to ...
07-23-2008, 10:21 AM
| #1 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal  Democrat South Jersey 
| The housing bill is going through from the WSJ
I am also looking forward to further devaluation of our currency and 6% inflation.  | ||||
     |
|
07-23-2008, 10:35 AM
| #2 | ||||
| Perpetual Noob Independent
| This irritates me so much that I'm unable to put together the string of expletives that accurately describes my feelings. | ||||
| |
|
07-23-2008, 10:43 AM
| #3 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster  Realist
| Originally Posted by WickedLou9 it's interesting to me how you're for socialist programs in some instances but against them in others. you want socialized health care but it appears you're against this.....what's the difference? 
| ||||
| |
|
07-23-2008, 11:00 AM
| #4 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by 7960 I don't want socialized health care. But lets assume for a second that I did and I will explain the major differences that should be obvious to any centient human being. I'm sorry for the obvious barb but if you had thought for even a moment about the question I don't think you would have asked it.
Housing - We are bailing out people who have taken fincial risks. They borrowed more than they could afford in the hopes that they would be able to either flip the house for a profit or re-finance at a lower rate when the value of the house went up. We are encouraging risk taking behavior above and beyond what the natural free market would support by limiting only the downside. Take a huge risk, you can't lose. The government will put a floor under you. This is bad because we have essentially printed money here and handed it out to people. This makes things worse for most people and helps the few. It will have the effect of preventing over inflated prices from coming down, it will encourage banks to make more risky loans, it will require more foreign investment into fannie and freddie, it will force these two semi-private institutions to make cheap loans to people who don't deserve them. Shit I pay 6.25%, I bet these people will pay less. People with bad credit. It hurts people who have made good decisions and helps those who have made bad ones. With socialized care, everyone benefits. We aren't talking about risky financial moves here, we are talking about peoples lives. Thier very health and well being. We are talking about giving everyone access to health care which pools the risk, and by all accounts results in cheaper care. Countries with socialized health care systems pay less for thier care then we do. Both in total and per capita. These countries have better infant mortality rates, they have longer life expectancies, they don't have the bankrputcies we have. There is almost no down side. We all pay less and care is available to all. The only difference is that you pay the government instead of having insurance fees deducted from your check. With socialized systems, businesses don't have the burdeon of paying for much of the health care costs making them more profitable and more competitive on the global market. Imagine if GM could suddenly shed all of thier health care obligations for the UAW. They would return to profitability almost instantly. Yes there are other problems with these systems, no they are not perfect and I think there may be better solutions..but they are not similar in any way to the housing bailout. I'm not even sure where you came up with that. Last edited by WickedLou9; 07-23-2008 at 11:06 AM.. | ||||
| |
|
07-23-2008, 11:21 AM
| #5 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by WickedLou9 this thread isn't peppered with comments from you about taking taxes from everyone to pay for healthcare for people who can't afford it?
New Law in Massacusetts oh, wait, that's not technically "socialized health care" even though you want society to cover the poor's health care 
 I thought about it plenty. that's how I came up with your conflicting answers.
Record home losses in California - Los Angeles Times
| ||||
| |
|
07-23-2008, 11:56 AM
| #6 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by 7960 Of course it's not OK that there are record forclosures. It's a horrible situation.
However, while housing is important, it's not a matter of life and death. No one is entitled to a 4 bedroom house in the suburbs. Health care is different. These people who have lost thier houses took a gamble. Perhaps they decided to get an ARM in the hopes that the value of thier home would go up and they would be able to refinance into a 30 year fixed later on. Thats a gamble. They made a choice and they took a chance. This drove up housing prices, so instead of renting these people decided to jump into the market even though it was stretching thier budgets. I'm not placing all the blame on them, the banks are 50/50 partners in this, but they got bailed out too and it sucks. The banks made risky loans to risky borrowers and they lost. So we bailed them out. So rather than starting over and finding an apartment and learning from the mistake, we bail them out. With health care there is no starting over. If someone dies, they are dead and gone. No lesson learned. With medicine there is routine care and preventative care that costs less and helps to avert emergencies. There is no comparison in this regard to housing. I don't want to take money from everyone to pay for the poor. We already do that now and it's a shitty system because it doesn't work right and it doesn't properly spread the cost, it concentrates the cost. We would be giving money back to people if we socialized the system. People who previously paid for thier own health insurance would pay less. Were not talking about bailing out people who made bad choices here. We already do that and it doesn't work. We already allow people without health insurance to get emergency care if they need it. Those costs are concentrated onto the people who have health insurance and the businesses that provide it. With a socialized system we spread the costs out and force everyone to chip in. overall cost goes down. Socialized care doesn't create inflation. It doesn't hurt the economy. It does the opposite. | ||||
| |
|
07-23-2008, 12:07 PM
| #7 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by WickedLou9 tell that to families living on the street
hey, if making up these false situations is ok for you then it's ok for me. | ||||
| |
|
07-23-2008, 12:14 PM
| #8 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by 7960 It's not false at all. The problem is that there is a fundamental moral difference between denying someone health care and denying them a sweet mortgage with a low rate. There is no substituting a cheaper house or renting a house equivalent for health care. If you need a heart transplant, you need one to live, and there is no "rent a heart" option. If you don't have health insurance you die in that instance. If you can't get the right rate on your mortgage, you buy a cheaper house or you rent. House got foreclosed on? Find an apartment, or in the worst case, go to a shelter. You can get back on your feet and there are groups that will help you. It's not the same. The consequences and costs are not the same. this is a night and day difference.
| ||||
| |
|
07-23-2008, 12:39 PM
| #9 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by WickedLou9 but nobody is denying them health care.
| ||||
| |
|
07-23-2008, 12:56 PM
| #10 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by 7960 Of course we are. Sure if they get hit by a car and they end up in the ER we still treat them.
I'll give you a good example of how the system is broken. I know someone who got colon cancer. They were self employed and could never afford thier own health insurance. So this individual had to wait untill it was so bad that they were bleeding out of thier backside. They went to the ER and they were admitted and treated at that point. You know who pays for that? Everyone who has insurance. That is like what the government is doing with the bailout. This is how we operate now. What if they had care available to them all along? What if we had a socialized or nationalize or whatever system where everyone shared the cost? This person would have had care. They would have been going for routine exams. The emergency could have been prevented. Maybe this person could have a chance to live a normal healthy life and be productive. But for those people who don't have insurance.. we deny them routine care because the cost for routine care without insurance is prohibitive. | ||||
| |
|
07-23-2008, 01:00 PM
| #11 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by WickedLou9 Wait....you mean he made "a gamble. (He) made a choice and (he took a chance."
He chose his path and his choice was to not afford health care. Why should we help him?
| ||||
| |
|
07-23-2008, 01:12 PM
| #12 | ||||
| predatory lender  Conservative New Hampshire
| i'm not thrilled about a bail-out, but what would the consequences look like if it didn't happen? i think we'd be in a lot more trouble if fannie/freddie went under? or what if thousands more homes get foreclosed (which are VERY difficult to buy out of foreclosure), what is that going to do to not only the housing market, but the people it puts out on the street? And how would that help with fannie/freddie cash-flow to have mortgage payments STOP altogether? i think the banks would rather receive some kind of payment than own more property that they have to try and sell. Again, i hate the idea of "bailing out" those involved in this, but i don't know what else we should do. if we don't do it, it will get worse this winter, too, with families already stretched thin facing heating bills that are double last year. sometimes you just have to swallow your pride and do what you know isn't the "right" thing because if you don't, the consequences could hurt more. | ||||
| |
|
07-23-2008, 04:00 PM
| #13 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by 7960 NO... he couldn't afford it. There is a difference in choosing to gamble and being unable to make the choice due to prohibitive cost.
| ||||
| |
| vBulletin 3.7.4 -- Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. | Custom Artwork and Theme (TM) 2006, Liberty Lounge |
