Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 19 to 27 of 31

Thread: Sec. of Treasury says aggressive action needed re: housing

  1. #19

    Default Re: Sec. of Treasury says aggressive action needed re: housing

    "Is it fair to bail out the people who have been enjoying a super low mortgage for the past few years while I paid more for security?"


    Perhaps the question of "fairness" is now beside the point. What are the consequences of no government intervention*? As Matclone alludes to, it will be more than a some families losing their homes.

    * Intervention may consist of government pressure to avoid forclosures. Granted anything the government does is at taxpayer expense, but would you object to the government acting as a "mediator" of sorts?

  2. #20

    Default Re: Sec. of Treasury says aggressive action needed re: housing

    My problem with any proposed bailout is that it perpetuates the problem, which is bad financial decisions. If the government bails out the borrowers, thsoe borrowers will not learn how to make good financial decisions. Part of the education process about money that clone and others talk about is learning from mistakes. If the borrowers who made bad decisions are bailed out, we have failed them by not educating them about what happens when bad decisions are made. They will keep making those bad decisions in the future and teaching their children the same habits. They will not learn how to manage their finances bceause they will always rely on the government to bail them out.

    The lenders will laos not learn. Lenders lose money on foreclosures. When a home is foreclosed, the previous debt is almost always written off as a bad debt -- the lender never sees that money. They try to cut their losses by selling the home, but they get a lower price for it. This is the incentive for them not to make risky loans -- if risky loans go bad, they lose money. If the government bails out the borrowers, the borrowers then pay those risky loans, which means that the lenders make more risky loans in the future.

    Some call the market heartless because some people may not have homes. But, the market is not at fault -- the fault lies with those who made the decisions. The market can nto make decisions -- it is not a person.

    People learn from mistakes and people are attracted to incentive. Mistakes and incentive are two excellent and efficient ways to learn. If we bail out those who have gotten themselves in trouble, we are just setting them up for more bad decisions down the road -- both the borrowers and the lenders.

    If we are compassionate and care about people, we will allow them to learn, instead of setting them up for future failure.

  3. #21
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Parker, Az
    Posts
    3,388

    Default Re: Sec. of Treasury says aggressive action needed re: housing

    If we are compassionate and care about people, we will allow them to learn, instead of setting them up for future failure.

    Yeah, especially those unwanted kids born in abyssmal, abusive situations, who by some sort of miracle are supposed to learn how to become upstanding perfect little citizens.

    I have learned alright..... it is everybody for themselves and if you get in my way I'm going to run right over your back, and maybe kid you in the head just as a subtle reminder that I will get what I want, because I can. I could get rich and powerful in such a system, I really could. I don't really have to worry laws or morality either.... other than getting caught. And if I am smart I won't.... or will be wealthy enough to get away with it. I mean who is anybody else to tell me what to do.
    I am 49, bald, ugly, and don't own a single cool thing. Kids like me though.

  4. #22

    Default Re: Sec. of Treasury says aggressive action needed re: housing

    Quote Originally Posted by sgallan View Post
    I am advocating being compassonate to all.

    We obviously define compassion differently. Your idea of compassion is sort of a darwinian thing...... if somebody can't get it right, and suffers and dies, then too bad for them. But at least they had the freedom to try. Or if they are abused kids.... the freedom to be born and be abused with a chance. And if they couldn't do it with the odds against them, and no role models, or die because they weren't diagnosed early enough, it is just bad luck or they couldn't suck it up.

    In a way your society would be less complicated. If I want something I could just take it. Sure there are consequences, but otherwise why not.... I am fitter and stronger and smarter than most. And if I want it, who are you to say I shouldn't have it. Even if it is yours. You may have a gun that suggests I won't take it.... but that means I just have to be quick on the draw, or more clever. And if you turn out to be to tough of opposition.... I surely could find somebody weaker to prey on. I could live all of my life in this way. I think I would do quite well actually. It is similar to the approach that was taken around the turn of the 20th century.

    You've sure put an awful lot of words in my mouth, none of which I've ever said.

    Of course, I don't advocate "preying" on anyone at all, weaker or stronger. What I am saying is that I can not condone the taking of one's resources and giving them to another without the first party's consent. That is stealing, but by the government.

    If the governmetn is left unchecked like that, nothing may be safe. You may not be safe in your person and effects. Worse yet, our children may not be safe in their persons and effects.

    What if the government said they were raising your taxes so they could give a house to someone who spent all his money on drugs, or just didn't have any money at all? You have told us that money is tight for you, as it is for me, but here is always someone with less.

    Because the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution states that everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law, the precedent is set such that whatever the government does to someone else, it can do to anyone. Currently, you fell removed from the situation, because you are thinking that only the wealthy will be paying for the "compassion" that we give poorer people.

    But, what if the decide to increase your taxes, too? How will you feed and clothe yourself and your child? Do you have enough money? Will you still be able to afford your dwelling? No doubt, this will increase your financial strain. Do you find that compassionate? Is it compassionate for them to make you adjust your life and the things that you worked so hard for? Is it compassionate for the government to decide what your values should be and not let you decide for yourself? If you couldn't afford your home and had to live on the street som someone else could use your tax money to live in a home, would you still call that compassion?

    The issue here is not what is compassion, but who should pay for it. You are in favor of forcing people to pay for your definition of compassion. Maybe that doesn't work. What if our governmetn required us to pay for the 9/11 terrorist's version of compassion?

    I would rather let people decide for themselves what they think compassion is, then let them freely act upon it as they see fit. I think it is heartless, inconsiderate, and pompous to demand that other people pay for my version of compassion, which is why I can not justify forcing people to believe my way. That is most definitely un-compassionate.

  5. #23

    Default Re: Sec. of Treasury says aggressive action needed re: housing

    Quote Originally Posted by sgallan View Post
    If we are compassionate and care about people, we will allow them to learn, instead of setting them up for future failure.

    Yeah, especially those unwanted kids born in abyssmal, abusive situations, who by some sort of miracle are supposed to learn how to become upstanding perfect little citizens.

    I have learned alright..... it is everybody for themselves and if you get in my way I'm going to run right over your back, and maybe kid you in the head just as a subtle reminder that I will get what I want, because I can. I could get rich and powerful in such a system, I really could. I don't really have to worryt about laws for morality either.... other than getting caught..... and if I am smart I won't.... or will be wealthy enough to get away with it. I mean who is anybody else to tell me what to do.
    SO you would rather create a bunch of people who rely on the government instead of themselves. In your system, more people would be sitting around waiting for government assistance than would be working. Without people working jobs, your socialist programs can not exist. WHere is the compassion in creating people that must depend on the government??

    You are setting these people up to fail.

  6. #24
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Parker, Az
    Posts
    3,388

    Default Re: Sec. of Treasury says aggressive action needed re: housing

    Of course, I don't advocate "preying" on anyone at all, weaker or stronger. What I am saying is that I can not condone the taking of one's resources and giving them to another without the first party's consent. That is stealing, but by the government.

    I am just playing your dog eat dog game the way I see it. If somebody finds themselves out on hard times.... to bad for them.... don't you dare touch my stuff. Well guess what? In a harsh society, where I am down and out, I might just go ahead and take your stuff anyhow. And I bet I can make a perfectly reasonable argument for doing it as well. I'll just call myself Robin Hood. Who are you - with your subjective version of compassion - to tell me what compassion or marality is. As far as I am concerned in my new version of morality, if you have it, and I need it, I will take it, and knowing me, I'll probably share it as well. And if I am smart enough, and vicious enough, and have enough cajones and guile..... I will get away with it to.
    I am 49, bald, ugly, and don't own a single cool thing. Kids like me though.

  7. #25
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Parker, Az
    Posts
    3,388

    Default Re: Sec. of Treasury says aggressive action needed re: housing

    SO you would rather create a bunch of people who rely on the government instead of themselves. In your system, more people would be sitting around waiting for government assistance than would be working. Without people working jobs, your socialist programs can not exist. WHere is the compassion in creating people that must depend on the government??

    Not at all, if you want to take the most possible strident view of it, where nobody gets help ever, because you consider it immoral, then I am just playing it out a little further. If our society really were as you want it, I really would do as I am saying. Who are you to tell me I can't. What do you base this on. As far as I am concerned I need something, to eat, or live, or have a roof over my head. If you have it, and I can get it, I might as well take it. It is dog eat and if that is the nature of society, even more than it is now, I would be one f'ing mean dog. Why shouldn't I? Seriously, give me a reason.
    I am 49, bald, ugly, and don't own a single cool thing. Kids like me though.

  8. #26

    Default Re: Sec. of Treasury says aggressive action needed re: housing

    Quote Originally Posted by sgallan View Post
    Of course, I don't advocate "preying" on anyone at all, weaker or stronger. What I am saying is that I can not condone the taking of one's resources and giving them to another without the first party's consent. That is stealing, but by the government.

    I am just playing your dog eat dog game the way I see it. If somebody finds themselves out on hard times.... to bad for them.... don't you dare touch my stuff. Well guess what? In a harsh society, where I am down and out, I might just go ahead and take your stuff anyhow. And I bet I can make a perfectly reasonable argument for doing it as well. I'll just call myself Robin Hood. Who are you - with your subjective version of compassion - to tell me what compassion or marality is. As far as I am concerned in my new version of morality, if you have it, and I need it, I will take it, and knowing me, I'll probably share it as well. And if I am smart enough, and vicious enough, and have enough cajones and guile..... I will get away with it to.
    Morality and need are subjective. You don't really need anything. None of do. We don't need air, food, water, shelter -- nothing. THe outcome is death, but that is just one of two outcomes (life or death). Once you understand the basics of the argument, you can delve into its content.

    You are right that you can take stuff, but you can not make an argument under our law and the Constitution that its seizure was reasonable. The preamble to the Constitution (used as legal precedent by the Supreme Court) states that persons are to be safe in their life, liberty, and property. Also, laws of possession are quite clear and your stealing can not be justified.

    I am not saying "don't touch my stuff." I am saying that no one's stuff (money, food, shelter, etc) should be taken against their will. I am protecting your rights as well as mine.

    OUR nation and its laws hold private property near and dear -- it is the key to freedom. Without the sanctity of private property, compassion can not exist -- you will not have the freedom to seek or give compasison.

  9. #27

    Default Re: Sec. of Treasury says aggressive action needed re: housing

    Quote Originally Posted by sgallan View Post
    SO you would rather create a bunch of people who rely on the government instead of themselves. In your system, more people would be sitting around waiting for government assistance than would be working. Without people working jobs, your socialist programs can not exist. WHere is the compassion in creating people that must depend on the government??

    Not at all, if you want to take the most possible strident view of it, where nobody gets help ever, because you consider it immoral, then I am just playing it out a little further. If our society really were as you want it, I really would do as I am saying. Who are you to tell me I can't. What do you base this on. As far as I am concerned I need something, to eat, or live, or have a roof over my head. If you have it, and I can get it, I might as well take it. It is dog eat and if that is the nature of society, even more than it is now, I would be one f'ing mean dog. Why shouldn't I? Seriously, give me a reason.
    The reason, as I have stated, is the protection of EVERYONE's property, not just mine. I do not consider help immoral. If you actually read my post, you would haveseen that I CONDONE helping people, I just don't think that the government should mandate that personal resources be taken to do so. I have led many church groups, mission trips, and food/clothing drives to help people. We do not htink that the govenrment should take things from people to give them to other peole -- we think that if people are to give, it should be of their own free will.

    Still, you have not told me how you think its OK to take htings from their owners and redistribute it. You still have not told me how you would feel if the governmetn took your house or money to give it to someone else.

    If you can't answer that, you are telling me that you think its OK to redistribute wealth, as long as its not your wealth.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •