yet again the flakes, bumms, looser and lazy ones are beeing rewarded !

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
F

flmgrip_IHB

New member
what messages does this send... first, best off to not pay your mortage, the US will support you... now, don't pay your taxes (or don't make enough to pay taxes) and you will be rewarded, lazy, work half time... where is this going? i think i'll quit my job, sounds like i might be better off...



"everyone with earned income would get the full rebate, even if they didn't make enough money to owe income tax"



"Those who earn up to $75,000 individually or up to $150,000 as a couple will be eligible for the payments"



and cranking out babies you can't afford you get award yet again too...:



"there will be an additional amount per child, which could be in the neighborhood of $300."
 
The idea is to give it to people who would blow that money immediately. There is no point in giving you this rebate if you are going to save that money.
 
So how long does it take for people to blow through this cash and we are back to square one? Here is the trojan horse



"Specifically, Frank said Fannie and Freddie would be able to buy mortgages worth up to 125 pct of the median value of a home in any given region, up to a new limit of 730,000 usd. The current limit on so-called conforming loans is 417,000 usd."



I hate Barney Frank and the rest of these jack-asses! What is so difficult to understand that no matter what they raise it to, if the people in that area can't afford it, then they can't afford it. I think this just allows enough slack in the system to create fraud.



Does anyone think that this will tighten lending criteria and have a positive impact in getting a real idea if what a house is worth and if a person can afford it? In theory it may but the "give"rnment will screw it up somehow IMHO.
 
First of all this will help nothing. The housing market is still going down.

My favorite part is I am not eligible and yet people who make $3000 get a check. They don't even pay taxes?? The govt should spend the money on how to save money and spend in your means.
 
I dont mind the less fortunate being helped out (i know some are less fortunate due to be lazy), but id at least like to get a piece back of the sh!it load of taxes that i pay. To not get squat sucks.
 
Here is what Herb Greenberg has to say





http://blogs.marketwatch.com/greenberg/2008/01/reality-check-on-raising-mortgage-caps/


<p>Nobody in a high-housing-price state will scoff at raising the cap on government-sponsored loans to $700,000 from $417,000, as is proposed in the economic-stimulus package. If nothing else, that should give psychological relief.</p>

<p>However, checking in with our old friend Mark Hanson, a mortgage banker and the author of the very well read <a href="http://blogs.marketwatch.com/greenberg/2007/12/straight-talk-on-the-mortgage-mess-from-an-insider/">“Straight talk on the mortgage mess from an insider”</a> post here, the reality is:</p>

<p>–New borrowers still have to qualify. Fannie/Freddie is full doc only primarily. </p>

<p>–Without stated income for wage earners, it’s tough to qualify for a $700,000 loan.</p>

<p>–In 2005 to 2007, 70% of all jumbos were stated income for a reason: Ninety percent of all stated income borrowers lied about their income to qualify.</p>

<p>–Refi’s will still have trouble due to values dropping in jumbo areas by such a large amount. These are the ones that really need the help. </p>

<p>And the good news, says Mark: “This will be a positive for those purchase money loans for people that actually make the money and have the down payment.” </p>

<p>To put this in perspective, Mark adds:</p>



<p> For the past several years, a husband and wife working at McDonald’s for two years could borrower $650,000, STATED income no problem. They just put enough money as income listed on the application to qualify. Wall Street banks that ultimately bought the loans did not care. Lenders also qualified at interest-only payment rate with zero to 5% down. Credit scores at 600 were okay. </p>

<p>NOW, you must have earned $135,000 to $150,000 FULLY DOCUMENTED for the past two years and have a current pay stub and average ‘other’ debt to borrow $650,000. You must have at least 10% equity or down payment. You must have a credit score of 700 or above. This is not a large number of the population. </p>

<p>Without stated income for wage earners, how much will this raise really matter? From 2005-2007 70% of all jumbo loans were stated income…and for a reason: Ninety percent of all stated income borrowers lied about their income to qualify. Fifty percent by more than 5% and 50% by more than 50%. </p>

<p>This loan limit raise definitely will not help all the lenders with all the old vintage trash loans on their books. </p>

<p>This should help some people with large incomes buy homes. That is about it. </p>
 
Wouldn't it make more sense to use the money to create jobs instead of sending out rebate checks? Build up our infrastructure (and thus also creating jobs)? Improve our education system? This is such a short sighted solution to a much larger problem - and will probably kick in just in time for November.
 
Americans don't need more infrastructure to provide electricity, highways, and universities, we need more cheap disposable Chinese particle board furniture and iPhones!
 
no... the ones that make less than the minium to pay income tax but still get a tax rebate...



but why does it cap out at $75k/$150k ???? because some work harder and longer hours... they don't deserve a tax break ???
 
Does anyone know if they use 2006 tax return to determine the refund or 2007 which we are getting to file?



Flmgrip...OC cost of living is very high...there are many hard working employees that earn less than $ 15 a hour. They are not lazy or loser. I would rather they work than go on welfare.
 
Thank you for starting this thread flmgrip, otherwise I would have. This plan is wrong on so many levels:








1. Another huge waste of tax payer's money. If this actually affected the outcome of the recession, I would gladly eat my words, but isn't it obvious it won't?





2. As with most government programs, it's totally unfair. Remember, not only are some tax payer's not getting a rebate, but it is the taxes they will pay that fund the rebate mailed to someone else.





3. Supposes people do not have the means to buy right now, rather than supposing prices are above fair market value.





4. Reminds us our "leaders" are owned by big business:


<p>"The proposal would lower home-buyers' down-payment requirements when getting FHA loans, increase the cap on loans eligible to be FHA-insured and lower origination fees It is believed those changes could help lenders make loans to risky borrowers who have found it difficult to arrange for home financing since the collapse in the market for subprime mortgages last summer."</p>

<p>That's so sweet... I wonder who is working so hard to get financing for those without good credit?


</p>

<p>"The National Association of Realtors and the National Association of Home Builders both argued Thursday that the change in rules for Fannie and Freddie were crucial."


</p>

5. Shows the true colors of our politicians. As green_cactus points out, the goal is to give the money to those who will spend it. But who are those people? Clearly our politicians know. So rather than truly helping the poor by educating, enlightening, or otherwise encouraging them to start on a path toward fiscal responsibility, these Capitol Hill hypocrites are depending upon those folks to go blow the free money on something.





"Some have argued that wealthier taxpayers are more likely to put a $300 check into savings or pay down debt, and that directing more of the stimulus to lower-income households that spend the money is likely to have a greater positive impact on the slowing economy."





"She [Pelosi] said the relief was targeted to "those who need the money and will spend the money."





You'd think this was an election year or something -- hey, wait just a minute...





"'For any given pot of money, the more you target the lower-income, credit-constrained households, the bigger the bang for your buck,' said Congressional Budget Office Director Peter Orszag in Senate testimony Tuesday."





6. Unintentionally reveals the truth of the matter:


<p>"President Bush, saying the deal would give the economy a shot in the arm, urged quick passage."</p>

<p>"Our economy is structurally sound, but it is dealing with short-term disruptions in the housing market and the impact of higher energy prices," Bush said. "These challenges are slowing growth."</p>

Since this is obviously a complete and utter spin on the truth, we can analyze the picture we are meant to believe and imagine the other case is really the truth: We are in deep doo doo!











All quotes from: <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/24/news/economy/stimulus_package/index.htm?postversion=2008012417">money.cnn.com/2008/01/24/news/economy/stimulus_package/index.htm</a>











I was hoping to finish this post without a personal anecdote, but I can't help it, so feel free to just stop reading:





Back in the days of the Cold War, I woke up early one morning to what felt like an earthquake. Not a very a big earthquake mind you if it was one at all. I'm a native Californian so I know what a real earthquake feels like. Anyway, I looked out my bedroom window to see what was going on. The sun had just risen and the sky had that kind of momentary pink-purple-red surreal look to it and far off on the horizon I could see assorted blue flashes in completely different parts of Anaheim at random intervals. My mind quickly raced. Is this some kind of pre-emptive missle strike? Is that wat an EMP looks like? The ground shook again. The blue flashes didn't make any sense to me. Was this some kind of new weapon? By this time my fiancee had awakened and looked at me apprehensively. I hugged her and whispered into her ear that I loved her. And we stood there in an embrace for about 2 minutes. I expected to be vaporized at any moment. Then, the rest of the household came around to see if we had felt the minor earthquake. Apparently those flashes in the distance were transformers "arc-ing". I don't know why they were doing that, all I know is that in a perceived moment of crisis -- what I truly thought was the end of the world -- I expressed my true feelings.





As our country faces a real crisis, our leadership reveals its true motives: Avoid letting the Great Depression II land on this administration's watch, even if it takes giving away 150 Billion dollars, saddling the GSEs with bad loans, bailing out the big boys, or risking serious inflation or other long-term side effects.
 
<p>My wife and I plan on giving our "stimulus" to a local homeless shelter. They always need money and I can't think of a better way to make sure it gets spent doing something better than proping up Wall Street. </p>
 
<p>That is it. I am done being reasonable. I am going to go buy 5 LCD TVs to replace my 32 inch tube. I am going to get a 7 series . . no not just a 7 series, a 750Li.</p>

<p>I cannot stand how the MSM and all of the politicans are so "excited" about these proposals. I guess it only justifies Washington's constant spending and lack of restraint. </p>
 
The folks who flip your burger at McDonalds and bag your groceries at Ralphs are not flakes, bums, losers, or lazy. They work harder for less money, because our high-tech economy doesn't reward blue-collar workers. Wait, since when has any economic system, communism included, really rewarded the blue collar peasants? Who am I kidding?





Have pity on those that we're throwing a few hundred bucks to. If you're making so much $ that makes you ineligible for the rebate, that's a "problem" many people would love to have, including the folks who washed your car and did your laundry.





We also need to educate our kids better, so they don't end up blowing through their earnings and tax rebates and go right back on the hamster wheel / rat race. When I was in HS, we didn't have any financial or money management class. I basically blew all my earnings & chased skirt until age 28. It's been difficult trying to catch up to my buddies who got it together earlier than me.

 
i do my own laundry and wash my car... and you have no idea how hard i work for my money. and yes i can compare it to McDonalds, because i have worked there too.



but again, why does this cap out at $75k/$150k ??? what has any person done - making above this limit - to not deserve the same credit than anyone else ??



but i guess like some others said before... i'd save it and wash my own car and not blow it (which is what the gov want you to do...)
 
"and you have no idea how hard i work for my money. and yes i can compare it to McDonalds, because i have worked there too"



And you have no idea how hard some people work for their 75K. Intelligence and work ethic are often not correlated to income. There are plenty of people working for non-profits, start up companies, and in public service posistions that don't yield plus 75K incomes.



"but i guess like some others said before... i'd save it and wash my own car and not blow it (which is what the gov want you to do...) "



That's great, but why do you care what the people who get the checks spend it on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top