another meaningful win for Dems last night

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The tea party literally began, when frustrated citizens who didn't make any dumb decisions, and who were struggling through a brutal recession, were told they had to give money to people who freely chose to buy more house than they could afford. They didn't feel obligated to do that. There is some logic to that position.

As usual, you portray your side in an oversimplified way, and demonize everyone on the other side, refuse to concede they may have a point.

Jim, as usual, you portray your side in an oversimplified way, and demonize everyone on the other side, refuse to concede they may have a point.

The HARP program wasn't simply giving money to people who freely chose to buy more house than they could afford, it allowed homeowners underwater because of the housing bubble bursting to refi.

The wasn't the necessarily the homeowner's fault, it was primarily a result of deregulation, predatory lending and corrupt banking practices.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

The wasn't the necessarily the homeowner's fault, it was primarily a result of deregulation, predatory lending and corrupt banking practices.

You forgot getting people to buy a home that probably were not ready to buy a home and requiring people to make unsafe loans.

I really hope we are not approaching phase two of this...

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

You forgot getting people to buy a home that probably were not ready to buy a home and requiring people to make unsafe loans.

That was covered under "predatory lending."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

That was covered under "predatory lending."

There was some of that, sure. There was also some reckless risk-taking. I knew people who bought houses that cost 7X their annual income. Stupid.

Spence, I got sucked into a business deal with a good friend 7 years ago (former good fiend). Turned out it was basically a Ponzi scheme, lost about a year's gross pay. What government program can I go to, to get bailed out for my stupidity? Because what my family did, was spend a lot less and I took a job (which I don't especially like) which pays more. Will take 10 years to re-coup. Where's my HARP program that I get to withdraw money from?

Liberals aren't especially keen on the idea of responsibility. Everything is someone else's fault.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

There was some of that, sure. There was also some reckless risk-taking. I knew people who bought houses that cost 7X their annual income. Stupid.

Spence, I got sucked into a business deal with a good friend 7 years ago (former good fiend). Turned out it was basically a Ponzi scheme, lost about a year's gross pay. What government program can I go to, to get bailed out for my stupidity? Because what my family did, was spend a lot less and I took a job (which I don't especially like) which pays more. Will take 10 years to re-coup. Where's my HARP program that I get to withdraw money from?

Liberals aren't especially keen on the idea of responsibility. Everything is someone else's fault.

You were ok with Bush bailing out the banks, I take it. Also, if your stupidity (your word) was going to take down the entire economy of the US with it, there would likely be a program. If it were only those people who took those loans affected by it, there would not have been a program. When it causes the entire housing market to collapse and greatly impacts the ability of ALL businesses to borrow money, then it is within the function of the government to step in. At least in the opinion of most economists, the Bush administration, and the Obama administration.

[spence]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You were ok with Bush bailing out the banks, I take it. Also, if your stupidity (your word) was going to take down the entire economy of the US with it, there would likely be a program. If it were only those people who took those loans affected by it, there would not have been a program. When it causes the entire housing market to collapse and greatly impacts the ability of ALL businesses to borrow money, then it is within the function of the government to step in. At least in the opinion of most economists, the Bush administration, and the Obama administration.

Zim, to help you understand Jim's thought process here's a brief tutorial.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Zim, to help you understand Jim's thought process here's a brief tutorial.

I'm not a sheep like you Spence, I actually think things through, which is why I agree with both sides on different, major issues. I'd like to know a major component of the liberal platform that you disagree with. All ears.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You were ok with Bush bailing out the banks, I take it. Also, if your stupidity (your word) was going to take down the entire economy of the US with it, there would likely be a program. If it were only those people who took those loans affected by it, there would not have been a program. When it causes the entire housing market to collapse and greatly impacts the ability of ALL businesses to borrow money, then it is within the function of the government to step in. At least in the opinion of most economists, the Bush administration, and the Obama administration.

"You were ok with Bush bailing out the banks, I take it." No, I was not.

"if your stupidity (your word) was going to take down the entire economy of the US with it, there would likely be a program"

That's a good argument for it. My rebuttal would be, if you don't let crooks/idiots fail, they never learn their lesson, so they have no incentive not to do it again. We cannot know what would have happened had they been allowed to fail.

So because I was individually stupid, instead of collectively stupid, I have to pay for my own mistake, as well as pay for the mistakes that others made that I did not make. Does that sound fair to you?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That's a good argument for it. My rebuttal would be, if you don't let crooks/idiots fail, they never learn their lesson, so they have no incentive not to do it again. We cannot know what would have happened had they been allowed to fail.

What if the crooks are the ones writing the policy the idiots have to follow?