The stupidity of politicians continues...

Fascinating. Just skimming this thread, I admit, yet I don't seem to see anyone concerned about the people who are in danger of foreclosure.

The purpose of any such bailout, rightly or wrongly, would be to lessen the suffering of people who would otherwise lose their homes. You can say "Oh, but they deserve it 'cause they're stupid" all you want but that doesn't lessen the effect itself. Rather callous, if you ask me. Not that anyone did, you understand. ;)

I don't give a rusty fuck in a flying donut about the financial institutions -- let 'em go bellyup and sink for all I care. Fact is, though, that they actively encouraged people to overextend through predatory, deceptive advertising and lending practices.
 
Superfreak said:
you can beg all you like... it won't change reality. They should not be re-building areas that are under sea-level. The stupidity of that is just begging mother nature to bitch slap you again.

I have no problem helping people re-locate... but to rebuild the low lying areas is ridiculous. Side note... aren't the weather people already telling us about all the nasty hurricanes that will hit us this year?
Click to expand...

They should not be re-building areas that are under sea-level. The stupidity of that is just begging mother nature to bitch slap you again.

Then to be consistent and fair, you'd have to apply that same standard for millions of people living below the base-level of rivers in flood plains. They are in constant danger of being flooded over the levees, because they built below the base level of rivers.


Good luck explaining your logic to millions of people in the Mississippi river valley, and the sacramento river valley! ;)
 
Cypress said:
They should not be re-building areas that are under sea-level. The stupidity of that is just begging mother nature to bitch slap you again.

Then to be consistent and fair, you'd have to apply that same standard for millions of people living below the base-level of rivers in flood plains. They are in constant danger of being flooded over the levees, because they built below the base level of rivers.


Good luck explaining your logic to millions of people in the Mississippi river valley, and the sacramento river valley! ;)
Click to expand...
Do you suppose we can simply relocate Holland to someplace in Africa? Maybe there's an unused country lying around there somewhere. ;)

Actually, I do support relocating people away from the Mississippi. That river was "designed" (sic) by nature to move: we should never have built cities anywhere near it. No one knew that until about 50 years ago though. I don't think it's reasonable to expect the homeowners and businesses located there to bear the costs.

I regard this as a collective responsibility.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
and we should help whom due to what?
Click to expand...
A reasonable question.

Personally, I'd support a national program to identify regions of the Mississippi flood plain that are in danger -- such regions include areas of many major cities, not just New Orleans -- and provide both financial assistance and incentives for people to move the hell away from there.

If it were my call, I'd provide cash and/or tax breaks to people who lost their homes in Katrina if those homes were below sea level and in regions that will almost certainly be flooded again. Give them a chance to relocate with some dignity. Finance the whole thing by scrapping a couple of new bombers and maybe 10 fighter aircraft: that would do it.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Not if we re-zone the regions for other purposes, like protected wetlands.
Click to expand...

It would not last. The wetlands in FL and other places are dissapearing fast. Wanna but some FL swampland used to be a joke. How it is high priced stuff.

Heck people live on old landfills and such.

someone would just cry we are standing in the way of progress or the right to make profit and the restrictions would be de-regulated. Happens time and again. Nice idea, but wont work.
 
uscitizen said:
It would not last. The wetlands in FL and other places are dissapearing fast. Wanna but some FL swampland used to be a joke. How it is high priced stuff.

Heck people live on old landfills and such.

someone would just cry we are standing in the way of progress or the right to make profit and the restrictions would be de-regulated. Happens time and again. Nice idea, but wont work.
Click to expand...
This is true, but it will happen a lot faster if we just quit fighting. There are places, especially in the West, where we've actually managed to hold back the developers for a fair number of generations. They never give up but, then, neither do the rest of us.

It's a process, not a solution. Nothing is ever stable for long in politics because nothing is ever stable for long in society. It's frustrating as hell but what else can you do?
 
Put everyone who builds in those zones on notice that their homes and property will not be replaced at the expense of others in the event of hurricane or flood....Tough, but life is tough, and stupid actions can cause hard lessons. True personal responsibility.
 
uscitizen said:
How about the industries that benefit from those people living in those zones pay for the reconstruction ?
Click to expand...
That depends, in my view. It's one of those things I hate so much: it's dependent on the motives and intentions of the people involved. Messy and subjective, but there we are.

Here's what I believe about this sort of thing, in the broadest sense.

People, in general, don't take seriously any warnings about events of any frequency longer than a human lifetime or two. That is, if the levees haven't broken since my granddaddy's day then, well, shucks, I guess they ain't about to break today. If the fault hasn't produced an 8.0 earthquake since the days of tintype photography, well, I'm not going to worry much about it happening tomorrow.

Maybe we shouldn't think like this. Certainly, not everyone does: there are plenty of people who do heed long-term warnings. Still and all, the overwhelming majority of people just don't feel any urgency when exposed to statistical reality. And if 90% or so of people react this way then is it reasonable to say they "shouldn't" in any practical sense?

I pulled that 90% out of my ass, so to speak, but I'll bet it's not too far off in the case of places like New Orleans or San Francisco. Or anywhere else for that matter.

Now, if it were just a matter of people's inability to understand statistics then I might sign on for making them eat it. Probably not but I might -- at least on a bad day. But it's not that simple.

What complicates things is that there are almost always people out there trying to profit from lulling the gullible into a false sense of (greater) security. As you yourself suggested, developers who will find ways around zoning restrictions and building codes to make a . . . well, a lot of money.

I'm willing to bail out -- at least in principle -- anyone who made the all too human mistake of thinking that it won't happen in his or her lifetime. I'm absolutely NOT willing to bail out anyone who lures more people into making that all too human mistake in order to make a profit.
 
I don't think federal money should be used to subsidize people living in flood zones and hurricane zones. If there was an anomoly (sp?) at one point a hundred years ago, that's one thing, but if you live on the beach at the panhandle I don't think federal money should be used to bail you out every freaking two years. That's ridiculous. There is a certain amount of reasonability that needs to go into helping people in certain regions. Having learned our lesson from Katrina and now knowing what happens when you have a city built below sea level, we should be helping people to rebuild away from danger zones. Maybe there should be some sort of catastropic formula used to determine what the feds will bail out?

As for the people who fell victim to "predatory lending", if they can prove that they were lied to or were victims of fraud, then they should take the brokers or the lenders to court and be appropiately compensated or relieved of debts. However, if some god damn idiots thought that they could really afford a $800K home on $60K a year they deserve to go belly up. Every time I spoke with a loan officer about ARMs it was pretty fucking clear that in 3 or 4 years a big payment would be around the corner.

Sorry, but my bleeding liberal heart stops at stupid.

As a side note: I personally know some of these idiots. I've told this story before about my boyfriend's ex-land lord. He had a condo in Altantic City where his wife lived in 2005, he had a nice condo in a beautiful town in South Jersey that he rented out to people (3BR,2.5Bath, 1 Garage) and a nice job at a defense contractor making decent money. He wasn't independently wealthy but he had made nice for him and his family and a couple of revenue streams. Anyway against everyone's advice, his wife's, friends, family, mine, my boyfriend, even his real estate agent he bought literally a shell of a house in South Jersey for $500K. When I tell you a shell, I mean, no roof in certain parts, missing walls, a dug out moat of some kind around the house, no electricity, missing plumbing, an unfinished addition that the woman before him was making and a host of other issues I can't even remember to name. LOL, he even had the audacity to say, "man, she didn't winterize the house"......the house was missing walls.....Of course teh only way he could afford this (because taxes in this lovely town are over $10K a year) was to do an ARM, sell the Atlantic City condo (~$200) and pour money into it. Keep in mind brand new homes in the area were going for $800K. Long story short, the house is still on the market, his family lives with his parents, he had to sell the rental property and last I heard he was trying to do a corporate sale, where the company he works for would try buy it so that he could move - not a bad bailout in my opinion. Oh, and did i mention his orginal plans didn't even include a garage? Not many people I know spend that kind of money on a house and don't want a garage.

After watching him get a loan for that amount for that piece of $hit, I kept telling everyone this was going to happen. The banks deserve to crumble in my opinion. They were giving out money like it was nothing and a day of reckoning was inevitable. The people that took out $ for huge loans that they had no way of paying back are to blame too.

I'm not financing people who have painfully obvious delusions of grandeur about what they can afford. If that's the case, I'll take out a loan for $2M live in my dreamhouse and then go crying on the news about how shocked I am the rates went up ---- despite the fact they were at historic lows. Cry me a fckin' river. We all want to live above our means (except for IH8 - he's too good for that ;)), but we don't. And why? Because we can't afford it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top