# New Tea Party!



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

This guy gets it... To Arms! To Arms!

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853

Here's the reality... *rant on...

The first "Stimulus" package from Bush did not work.... let me repeat... DID NOT WORK!!! Now the idiot in the white house along with his Democrat sh*tbags think that the 2nd one will, even though only about 10% of the "Stimulus" is actually going towards the economy, the rest is pure pork... Now! the messiah wants to take our hard earned taxes, to the tune of 72 billion dollars!, and give handouts to idiots who bought houses they can not afford. :smt076


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

I thought I was doing the right thing by buying a house I could afford and paying the mortgage on time.

Damn!:smt076


----------



## JeffWard (Aug 24, 2007)

If *MY *tax dollars are going to pay-down someone *elses *mortgage, then am I legally entitled to a small portion of their future equity, or access to their/*my *house. They get to keep the house, and the equity, and MY money.

I think there should be a legal requirement that every American *TAKING *money to bail out their own stupidity in buying a house they COULD NOT AFFORD, should have to have a crimson L tattooed on their *$%*&^#(%* forehead.

Accept your *OWN *responsibility, people.
PAY your *OWN *bills, people.
If you lose YOUR house due to YOUR signature, on a note YOU can't pay, don't ask ME for help.

If you accept a government handout to pay YOUR bills, you should thank every tax payer you pass on the street for being more of a man/woman than you are. And then wish those people's children luck, in paying off YOUR interest.

I don't own a home. I *rent*. I have not bought a home in the past 5 years, because I *knew *that I could not afford to own the nice house I could rent for less. I couldn't GET a fixed rate mortgage, so I did not buy. Now... thanks to our generous new federal government, I get to pay on MILLIONS of mortgages for houses I will never enjoy, and it will be LONGER before I can buy one of my own.

THANKS...

Flame away.

JeffWard


----------



## rockon (Jan 7, 2009)

Here is a good one I heard on the radio today...."The mortage bailout is a good thing because it will make all homeowners house values go back up". 

So not only do some people get major brakes, but now their home values go back up and guess what they get to take a equity line on that money.

When does it end. 

I like what ward said

Accept your OWN responsibility, people.
PAY your OWN bills, people.
If you lose YOUR house due to YOUR signature, on a note YOU can't pay, don't ask ME for help.

if its too good to be true you should question it. When I signed the documents for my house there was a lawyer there telling me what each one said. I remember her saying "this one states if you fail to pay your mortage the bank will take your home." 

she did not say dont worry the government will bail you out. Or dont worry you can move back in with mom and dad. I am not sorry for saying this. People today expect to blame other people and then that makes it ok. No one says SHIT I messed up it is my fault I am to blame I will do my best to regroup. No they say well its his fault or they made me sign. F that

I work hard and it should go to support my family....not some lady that gives birth to 8 children and had 6 others and is on welfare.

Sorry

ROCK ON


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

Insanity= doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.


----------



## dovehunter (Dec 18, 2007)

That's why the bill was called *STEALFROMUS*:buttkick:


----------



## SuckLead (Jul 4, 2006)

kev74 said:


> I thought I was doing the right thing by buying a house I could afford and paying the mortgage on time.
> 
> Damn!:smt076


That learned you good, didn't it?


----------



## Shelby (Nov 13, 2008)

Gee Guys, if only it were that simple.....

Here's one you may not have seen yet, but it may be coming to you very soon. Let's say its time to renew your mortgage, and you paid $300,000 4 years ago with 75,000 down - conventional financing on a 5 year term / 30 year amortization. Now you owe somewhere around $210,000.

Due to the downward spiral of home prices in some areas (in this case I'm talking about Florida), your home is now valued at $145,000. You now simply don't qualify for financing. Does that mean you are irresponsible? I don't think so - but now you're a statistic anyway. 

Part of this bill is designed to stop the downward spiral in home prices, as people are forced to walk away - even though they don't want to (see above). The more vacant foreclosures on my street, the lower my property value, and the greater the odds are that I may find myself in the same position.

Okay.....I'm not an Obama lover, but I do see where he is trying to help, as I would hope any President would.......flame away.


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

I can see what you're saying Shelby, but where do handouts end and personal responsibility begin? If I go out and buy a new car today, once I drive it off the lot I'll owe more than its worth. Does this mean the government should bail me out because I can't flip the car quickly for a profit?

Buying a house should be similar to buying a car. Not an opportunity to make a quick profit, but rather a (relatively) long term investment. With very few exceptions, people shouldn't buy and sell their homes every 2 or three years with the expectation of turning a profit. That's what the people in trouble now did. And now we get to pay for their greed and poor choices. 

We've spent the last 10 years benefiting from an economy that turned out to be a giant ponze scheme. Now instead of fixing the problem and dealing with the consequences, we're just going to prop up the house of cards and keep living in a fantasy world while China gobbles us up.


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2009)

Besides the housing market, the other industry that doesn't seem to get it is the automotive industry, specifically GM. There is a news report out that says GM will sell the Saab division. OK, I get that. These are relatively expensive vehicles and people just aren't spending that kind of money on cars these days. So what if the Swedish economy tanks? At least they still have Volvo to fall back on, right? The Hummer division has been for sale since this summer, but there are no takers so far. They are also going to shrink the Pontiac line and make it a "specialty niche" brand (whatever that means).

There are three things I do not understand and no one had been able to explain to me.

1) Why is GM considering dumping the Saturn line of fairly cost-effective and fuel-efficient (for the most part) cars?

2) Why is GM *KEEPING* the entire Cadillac line? They are the most expensive and least fuel-efficient models of GM's domestic brands (except for Hummer which is already for sale), but yet someone rocket scientist in Detroit thinks its a good idea to keep this division running.

3) The other thing I don't understand is why they are keeping the GMC line? As far as I know, there are no unique GMC vehicles. Every GMC vehicle has a duplicate Chevrolet model so why keep that division running?

Chrysler is, well, Chrysler. Someone has to be #3 and they are firmly entrenched in that position. At least someone at Ford seems to have their head screwed on straight!

My wife and I were in Europe this summer and saw evidence that at least one high-end manufacturer "gets it" in terms of what it takes to keep their books in the black. These cars are all over Europe and Mercedes Benz can't make them fast enough:










Even the Liechtenstein postal authority uses them to deliver the mail! The next time the USPS wants to raise rates, show them this picture:










And don't get me started on the banking industry! On February 11 2009, several bank CEO's testified before Congress. Among them was CitiGroup CEO Vikram Pandit. As part of his testimony, he struck an apologetic tone for letting the bank consider buying a private jet plane _*after*_ receiving some $45 billion in bailout money by saying, "I get the new reality." Here is a guy who is the head of a company with more money than some 3rd world countries and not until he gets is pee pee whacked by Congress does he "get it". As soon as the paperwork comes in, we will be moving our mortgage from CitiBank to a locally owned credit union.

[/rant] OFF

Scott


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

Shelby said:


> Gee Guys, if only it were that simple.....
> 
> Here's one you may not have seen yet, but it may be coming to you very soon. Let's say its time to renew your mortgage, and you paid $300,000 4 years ago with 75,000 down - conventional financing on a 5 year term / 30 year amortization. Now you owe somewhere around $210,000.


I am an old guy and may be losing it but "Mortgage Renewal" is something I have never heard of that I can recall. Do some States issue Mortgages that require renewal every 4 years?

My understanding is that Mortgages were just supposed to be paid off.

Was I stupid to have done so?

Please explain for an old man's sake. :watching:


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

TOF said:


> My understanding is that Mortgages were just supposed to be paid off.
> 
> Was I stupid to have done so?
> 
> Please explain for an old man's sake. :watching:


It sounds like you goofed up.

I feel your pain though. My wife and I bought a small house we could afford, we each drive cars that we bought used that each have over 100,000 miles on them now and we passed up a lot of opportunities to go on vacations and out with friends so we could live within our means. And now we get to help pay for the neighbor's McMansion. :smt022


----------



## Shelby (Nov 13, 2008)

Couple of quick things:

Kev - I understand what your saying, but again we're talking about people who want to continue making their payments ant stay in their homes. Those are the ones who deserve to have help.

Many people got involved with ARMs. Terrible idea for all involved, but the biggest problem is the fact that the new property value will not allow a refinance to happen.

Scott - you should spend a little time investigating what Mr Pandit is trying to do with Citi before you publicly hang him. He has only been there a year, and the purchase of that airliner was made back in 2007. There is a significant cost to walking away from that type of deal, and even though the optics were bad, it would have been a better deal in the end to follow through with the purchase and finance this jet through the sale of two others in the fleet. It was part of a bigger cost cutting plan - but looked terrible to the public. 
Do you know what Vikram is worth?? Do you think he's there for the money? He is leading Citi in a new direction while streamlining one of the largest (once THE largest) financial organizations in the world - in order to remain strong in the global market. Citi should be prized for their ability to bring America to the rest of the planet. Being a global commercial bank with the ability to help small business in America succeed around the world is their strength. Vikram went before Congress to accept some verbal abuse that was coming toward the banking industry. He accepted, told Congress 'he gets it' and that the rest of Citi will 'get it'. If I were him, I may have long since retired....

Here are a few links you may find interesting. The facts are not what you're hearing in the media hype:

http://www.citigroup.com/citi/press/2009/090203a1.htm

http://www.citigroup.com/citi/press/2009/090203a.htm

http://www.citigroup.com/citi/press/2009/090213a.htm

That's what is really going on. You may want to reconsider bailing from Citi, while they are working hard to keep people in their homes. Yes, I'm connected - and incidentally Mr. Pandit takes an annual salary of 1 dollar.

Cheers,


----------



## Tuefelhunden (Nov 20, 2006)

Ya there are some creative mortgage plans that came out during the housing boom years. Conventional 30 year with 20% down is just one of dozens of options. I was one of those who took advantage of a unconventrional loan and I'd be upside down in my current home if I was to sell or refinance now. 3 years ago I made a handsome profit turning my previous home in just 2 years time and now if I was to do the same I would lose. So what. I don't like it but that's the game and it's my responsibility not my title holders. They were good enough to extend me the credit based on my down and good credit history so why should I try and shaft them now? Not logical.

To throw up ones hands in surrender and say well this isn't what I signed up for you can have my house back because I refuse to pay any more is criminal. Can't pull that in the stock market or with a new car why should mortgages be any different. Besides even if I had to pony up additional $ to offset the difference in order to refinance I am still well ahead compared to wrecking my credit and/or starting over with a brand new house and mortgage. Like a 401k one has to take a long term perspective and take the ups and downs in stride. Those that thought the crazy up housing market was going to last forever were dilusional at best. Reminds me of the Noah's Ark story. It won't rain dude. Get real! LOL

I do feel very sorry for those who lost their jobs and are stuck in a real spot. I really do and that is the pits. Might be me some day who knows. Nothing weighs on a responsible man more than not being able to protect or provide for his family. But it isn't your and my responsibility to bail them out via government. We have our own water to carry. Life is full of hard knocks and everyone has some coming. Guess some people think they are special and exempt. Reality smacks some harder than others I guess. Great post as always JS and good comments by all too. Very educational.


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2009)

Shelby said:


> ...the purchase of that airliner was made back in 2007. There is a significant cost to walking away from that type of deal, and even though the optics were bad, it would have been a better deal in the end to follow through with the purchase and finance this jet through the sale of two others in the fleet.


All I know is that the CEO of the credit union down the street does not travel in a corporate jet! Why should I, by virtue of having a mortgage with CitiGroup, finance this airplane? What is in it for me?



Shelby said:


> Do you know what Vikram is worth??


Apparently the folks at Reuters do --
"Just six weeks after he took the helm of the biggest U.S. bank - and only one week after Citigroup Inc. (C) reported a $9.83 billion quarterly loss - the embattled lender granted newly minted Citi Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit nearly $27 million worth of stock and 3 million stock options, according to regulatory filings and media reports.

According to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Citi awarded Pandit 1.095 million shares of stock as part of his executive-compensation plan. It was part of an executive-officer incentive plan that Citi adopted in 1999, according to the Reuters news service.

Citigroup said Pandit, 50, also received options to buy 1 million shares at $24.40 each, 1 million shares at $30.50 each, and 1 million shares at $36.60 each. Each of these awards vests in four equal-sized annual installments. The higher exercise prices carry respective 25% and 50% premiums over Citigroup's closing share price on Jan. 22, the day the options were granted."

So don't give me this crap about him only taking home $1 a year in salary when he has nearly $30 million in stock! He also happens to live in an $18,000,000 co-op apartment on the Upper West Side of New York.

I don't begrudge him making that much money, but don't tell me he is doing this out of the kindness in his heart! Of course he is doing it for the money! As Judge Judy once said, _"Don't pee on my shoes and tell me its raining!"_

Scott


----------



## Brevard (Jan 24, 2009)

Just to play devil's advocate. What if a man and woman had good paying jobs and paid their bills on time. Both were laid off. The woman is still searching and the man is making less than half what he was and is still trying to support his family (1 kid). 

Now because he is making less than half of his income, and his wife is unable to find anyone work do to businesses being slow and not hiring. We should just throw him, his wife, and their kid for them not being able to pay what they were paying before.

I pay my taxes. I dont own my house I rent. Just because it is $500 a month cheaper than paying a mortage. I dont mind helping people that seriously need it. Like buying a house 10 years ago and making their payments on time until recently when the economy went into a crap hole.

My buddy had a job making $22 an hour, and his wife was making $16 at their job. The rented for a couple of years when they got married got new cars and paid them off early. They had a kid and shortly moved into their own place. They made all of their payments on time and a couple early. Now he is working at a Wal-Mart making $9 an hour and she cant even find a job at a gas station. That is why I brought this up.

I can see where you are coming from if someone was making $12 an hour by themselves and buys a $300,000 house. But I dont mind helping people that really had no control over what happened to them. They still have their house (luckily they had some money put back) but I have a feeling it wont be long till it really hits and they wont be able to make their payments on time. 

Funny thing is he is too proud to ask for help. It is a nice house with a furnished basement that they dont use. My wife and I offered to move in and help with the bills for awhile, but they feel bad because they cant make it on their own anymore. And I can understand. I just hate how selfish some people have become and try to blame them for their mis-fortune. You can blame Obama till you are blue in the face. But I hope to hell you are thanking Bush for doing the wonderful job he did his 8 years in :smt076.

Sorry I just find it pretty shitty how some people can help but wont.


----------



## Shelby (Nov 13, 2008)

scottaschultz said:


> All I know is that the CEO of the credit union down the street does not travel in a corporate jet! Why should I, by virtue of having a mortgage with CitiGroup, finance this airplane? What is in it for me?
> 
> Apparently the folks at Reuters do --
> "Just six weeks after he took the helm of the biggest U.S. bank - and only one week after Citigroup Inc. (C) reported a $9.83 billion quarterly loss - the embattled lender granted newly minted Citi Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit nearly $27 million worth of stock and 3 million stock options, according to regulatory filings and media reports.
> ...


He's worth a hell of a lot more than that. The point being, they had to offer him something at the time just to get him to take on the position. Now, he's not taking a salary, and willing to put up with a heck of a lot of shit to try and make a real difference. The media just won't talk about it.
By the way, your local credit union simply isn't in the same business as the larger global commercial banks. Incidentally, if it wasn't for "mark to market" rules, the mortgage securities would still be well capitalized. The entire system has been feeding on itself. That's why I say it's not as simple as it seems.

The righteous may have paid their homes off and think they're not culpable, but if we let this go and enter a depression, they stand to lose more than most.


----------



## MLB (Oct 4, 2006)

It's tempting to vilify those who "bought" more house than they could afford, but I put a larger share of the blame on the banks who offered those too-good-to-be-true loans.

You can't expect the average American to accept a $100k house that they can afford if you offer them a $400k house for the same money (and a lot of risk). No one would expect to get a refund for their losing Lotto ticket, but that's what's happening. Just on a much larger scale.


----------



## tekhead1219 (May 16, 2008)

MLB said:


> It's tempting to vilify those who "bought" more house than they could afford, but I put a larger share of the blame on the banks who offered those too-good-to-be-true loans.
> 
> You can't expect the average American to accept a $100k house that they can afford if you offer them a $400k house for the same money (and a lot of risk). No one would expect to get a refund for their losing Lotto ticket, but that's what's happening. Just on a much larger scale.


Yep, we just started a "New American Way". If it's too good to be true, just do it and there won't be any responsibilities that you need to accept. The government will bail you out, courtesy of me and all other homeowners/tax payers that waited to do it right.:smt076


----------

