Biggest lies of the decade!

apple0154 said:
Why shouldn't governments help? The problem is the safety net comes along too late, after the people have lost everything.

It's not a matter of just giving to people. There can even be some sort of restitution later on. Many people live paycheck to paycheck and losing a job for a few months can mean losing everything they've worked for.

An example is unemployment benefits. There is usually a waiting period. That waiting period results in the person starting off behind in their financial responsibilities and they have to deal with creditors hounding them.

Start benefits from day one and keep the same qualifying period. At least the person can adjust.

The problem with waiting too long is the person loses initiative. They suffer such a great loss before the assistance kicks in. Is it any wonder they are not motivated? Is it any wonder why they try to cheat the system? Their government sat by and watched them lose everything before offering help.

Contrary to what we're frequently told people will strive to get ahead and better themselves. A healthy person is not going to choose a life on welfare but one who has lost everything has lost their drive. That is the "crime".
Click to expand...

I lost my job this year. They laid off 10 of the 12 people in my group, including myself, on 'Black Monday'. Should the company have notified the government before I was let go so I could start receiving benefits the minute I was let go? Should HR at my company have come up to me a few weeks before I got let go and told me 'hey, we are going to let you go in a couple of weeks, start filling out this government unemployment stuff now?'

And while getting laid off f'ing sucks I haven't sat around and blamed the government. If I lose my drive to find a new job that is not the government's fault that is on me.

I don't really see anyone arguing here there should be no government or no benefits for people. But it's like you want people to be beyond coddled.
 
apple0154 said:
Some people have seen their rate go from 4% to 8% even though interest rates have remained low. If one has not missed a mortgage payment and rates stay low there is no reason to increase their rate. It's a scam.
Click to expand...

As a point of reference you do understand what an ARM is and how they work right?
 
apple0154 said:
Why shouldn't governments help? The problem is the safety net comes along too late, after the people have lost everything.

It's not a matter of just giving to people. There can even be some sort of restitution later on. Many people live paycheck to paycheck and losing a job for a few months can mean losing everything they've worked for.

An example is unemployment benefits. There is usually a waiting period. That waiting period results in the person starting off behind in their financial responsibilities and they have to deal with creditors hounding them.

Start benefits from day one and keep the same qualifying period. At least the person can adjust.

The problem with waiting too long is the person loses initiative. They suffer such a great loss before the assistance kicks in. Is it any wonder they are not motivated? Is it any wonder why they try to cheat the system? Their government sat by and watched them lose everything before offering help.

Contrary to what we're frequently told people will strive to get ahead and better themselves. A healthy person is not going to choose a life on welfare but one who has lost everything has lost their drive. That is the "crime".
Click to expand...
You again stoop to the straw man, you have shown an incapacity for intellectually honest debate.

Nobody here said we shouldn't help except for your own imagination. The disagreement we have is the extent of what comprises "help" and where true compassion leads. The extent of compassion of a society is not measured by how many people are on the government dole and how quickly people can get on that same dole.

Now let's try this again. Go back and read my post, tell me whether I said that the government has no place in this or if I said that there should be a safety net... If you are honest you will stop with this worthless straw man, once we get there we might be able to hold an adult conversation that isn't based on your imaginary republican enemy who hates poor people and wants grandma to eat dog food.
 
Superfreak said:
The ONLY way their rates could have gone up is if they have an ARM or interest only loan.

Not missing a payment is not sufficient to not get a raise.

While you are correct that rates on new loans are low now, that does not reflect the circumstances of those with existing loans. At least not to the extent that you seem to believe. The new rates are based on loan to value of the homes, the borrowers ability to repay it, as well as the current interest rate environment.

An example. A person bought a home for $350,000 with an ARM (or I-only) 3-5 years ago at 4% with 20% down. Then due to the fall in home values they saw the home drop 20% in value. Now all of the sudden upon rate reset the person who HAD 20% equity in the home now has ZERO equity.

That person's loan to value went from 80% to 100%. If they do not have the ability to add 20% equity, then that becomes a riskier loan. So while the person made payments on time and did not have income change, due to market conditions his situation just got a lot riskier. That alone will cause an interest rate increase.
Click to expand...

I understand that. My point is if the person has been meeting their obligation for the last five years it's not right to raise their interest rate. When the loan comes up for renewal why doesn't the government have a program to insure the lost equity? Give the bank a guarantee that if the person abandons the home the government will reimburse the bank the equivalent of the equity they formerly held should the house not sell for the mortgage owed.

No money has to change hands at this time. It is a guarantee only. Plus, if the person has been paying on time for the last five years the chances are they will keep paying.

Everyone would benefit.
 
cawacko said:
I lost my job this year. They laid off 10 of the 12 people in my group, including myself, on 'Black Monday'. Should the company have notified the government before I was let go so I could start receiving benefits the minute I was let go? Should HR at my company have come up to me a few weeks before I got let go and told me 'hey, we are going to let you go in a couple of weeks, start filling out this government unemployment stuff now?'

And while getting laid off f'ing sucks I haven't sat around and blamed the government. If I lose my drive to find a new job that is not the government's fault that is on me.

I don't really see anyone arguing here there should be no government or no benefits for people. But it's like you want people to be beyond coddled.
Click to expand...

The company doesn't have to let you know before hand but when you file for unemployment benefits they should start immediately rather than have a waiting period. If the waiting period is two weeks and the payments run for 6 or 8 months start the payments right away and run for the same 6 or 8 month period.

It may take two or three weeks to receive the first check but at least there will be money to cover the basics. It softens the blow and if you're unemployed for longer than 6 or 8 months it doesn't cost the unemployment plan any more because you would have used up the money/time anyway.

Why make it more difficult than it has to be? The two week pay at the beginning is more necessary than at the end. The adjustment from having a paycheck to having no money at all for a two week period is greater than going from unemployment to welfare. Why make the adjustment worse than it has to be?
 
apple0154 said:
I understand that. My point is if the person has been meeting their obligation for the last five years it's not right to raise their interest rate. When the loan comes up for renewal why doesn't the government have a program to insure the lost equity? Give the bank a guarantee that if the person abandons the home the government will reimburse the bank the equivalent of the equity they formerly held should the house not sell for the mortgage owed.

No money has to change hands at this time. It is a guarantee only. Plus, if the person has been paying on time for the last five years the chances are they will keep paying.

Everyone would benefit.
Click to expand...

why doesn't the government have a program to insure the lost equity? ???

That logic is almost too stupid to deserve a response...
Maybe you want the government to give gamblers insurance just in case they lose at the casino....
Why would anyone think that taxpayers money should fund the government becoming an insurance company...
 
Getting an ARM for a short-term investment is OK most of the time, but for a long-term investment, it is very, very risky. Personally, I would never get one, unless it was for a short-term, the shorter the better.

Superfreak said:
The ONLY way their rates could have gone up is if they have an ARM or interest only loan.

Not missing a payment is not sufficient to not get a raise.

While you are correct that rates on new loans are low now, that does not reflect the circumstances of those with existing loans. At least not to the extent that you seem to believe. The new rates are based on loan to value of the homes, the borrowers ability to repay it, as well as the current interest rate environment.

An example. A person bought a home for $350,000 with an ARM (or I-only) 3-5 years ago at 4% with 20% down. Then due to the fall in home values they saw the home drop 20% in value. Now all of the sudden upon rate reset the person who HAD 20% equity in the home now has ZERO equity.

That person's loan to value went from 80% to 100%. If they do not have the ability to add 20% equity, then that becomes a riskier loan. So while the person made payments on time and did not have income change, due to market conditions his situation just got a lot riskier. That alone will cause an interest rate increase.
Click to expand...
 
Damocles said:
You again stoop to the straw man, you have shown an incapacity for intellectually honest debate.

Nobody here said we shouldn't help except for your own imagination. The disagreement we have is the extent of what comprises "help" and where true compassion leads. The extent of compassion of a society is not measured by how many people are on the government dole and how quickly people can get on that same dole.

Now let's try this again. Go back and read my post, tell me whether I said that the government has no place in this or if I said that there should be a safety net... If you are honest you will stop with this worthless straw man, once we get there we might be able to hold an adult conversation that isn't based on your imaginary republican enemy who hates poor people and wants grandma to eat dog food.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your problem is.

We are discussing helping and I'm saying the help comes too late.

As for "The extent of compassion of a society is not measured by how many people are on the government dole and how quickly people can get on that same dole." yes, it is measured by how quickly one can get on the dole if "dole" means help.

If a person is ill one does not wait until they have to be admitted to hospital before helping. If a person loses their job or is facing financial difficulties one does not wait until that person loses everything before helping.

It's wrong. As you frequently say, "We can do better. Much better."

As the black guy on SNL says, "Just do it!"

I like that guy. :)
 
bravo said:
why doesn't the government have a program to insure the lost equity? ???

That logic is almost too stupid to deserve a response...
Maybe you want the government to give gamblers insurance just in case they lose at the casino....
Why would anyone think that taxpayers money should fund the government becoming an insurance company...
Click to expand...

You would have to bring up casino loses. :cry:

Anyway, a government program can be targeted towards first time home buyers. Wasn't that the purpose of the whole community loans idea? Maybe if the banks kept the loans strictly for first time buyers and not people interested in buying 3 or 4 homes for investment things might have been different.

In the example SuperFreak gave the equity has disappeared and the loan equals the full value of the home meaning the collateral is still there. The risk is not that great even though it is higher.

By the way, some governments already do something along that line. In Canada, if a person has less than 25% down payment the government insures the difference.

Let's say a home is $100,000 (We'll use easy figures.) The buyer puts down $10,000. The government insures the remaining $15,000 which would total the usual amount a bank would demand, $25,000. So, the buyer gets a $90,000 mortgage of which $15,000 is insured by a government agency. (CMHC) The cost for the insurance is a percentage of the loan, however, it is considerably less than if the person applied for a 90% bank loan. The buyer will get a preferred rate because they are only borrowing 75% of the value as the remaining 15% is a risk-free government loan.

As you probably guessed that scheme is for first-time home buyers only. The person buying their first home is going to do everything possible to retain it. It is not a business venture. It is not a situation where a numbered company simply declares bankruptcy and moves on.

That's one example how governments can help.
 
apple0154 said:
No, the government could do something similar to what I noted in msg 75.
Click to expand...

That's first time home buyers. Not all buyers are first time home buyers so you're example has nothing to do with ARM's. The whole housing bubble was bolstered by the government getting involved trying to make it as easy as possible for people to buy homes. Once again the government is a major cause of the problem.
 
apple0154 said:
I'm not sure what your problem is.

We are discussing helping and I'm saying the help comes too late.

As for "The extent of compassion of a society is not measured by how many people are on the government dole and how quickly people can get on that same dole." yes, it is measured by how quickly one can get on the dole if "dole" means help.

If a person is ill one does not wait until they have to be admitted to hospital before helping. If a person loses their job or is facing financial difficulties one does not wait until that person loses everything before helping.

It's wrong. As you frequently say, "We can do better. Much better."

As the black guy on SNL says, "Just do it!"

I like that guy. :)
Click to expand...
Firstly, if you don't want people to assume you are saying we shouldn't help then don't ask, "Why shouldn't the government help?" I answered your question directly and without rancor. You were intellectually dishonest and I called you on it. Nobody here has suggested that there be no help, that is the imaginary monster you have created that you imagine whenever you are speaking to a republican so you can dehumanize them.

Secondly, then we have a fundamental disconnect. The measure of compassion of a society is not how quickly we force them into welfare.

Some things we have agreed on:
1. There should be a safety net. <- This one here is the part you ignored when you started asking "Why shouldn't the government help?"
2. They should be given help if they ask for it and can show need.

Where we have disagreed:
1. You believe that they should be helped before they can show need.
2. Apparently you don't always believe that it is necessary that they actually would want the help first.

Lastly, you have also failed to show how any of your suggestions would improve anything. In places where they were implemented the unemployment rate hits at or near double digits where it remains in perpetuity. That sucks, and it should never be our goal to accept such poor return.

I don't want that, even if Europeans are "content" with that serious problem. Shoot if we get close to 7% we are in a recession, if we get close to double digits people start talking depression. Our system appears to do exactly what it needs to do, it takes the people who need help the most and gives them that hand up and moves them into employment. This is a good thing. Is it perfect? No. But should it be changed to emulate other nations who have had worse results? Not just no, Hail no!
 
TuTu Monroe said:
Getting an ARM for a short-term investment is OK most of the time, but for a long-term investment, it is very, very risky. Personally, I would never get one, unless it was for a short-term, the shorter the better.
Click to expand...
I got one for a mortgage back in the post-Carter high interest rate days. I saved a lot because it gave me the lowest interest rate available back then, which was just under 11%. I kept a careful eye on it for three of four years and watched the rate rise as the 30 year fixed fell. When the ARM was about to jump again I refinanced. I lost a bit during its last year but overall I saved a bundle, and I could not have afforded the house without the ARM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top