Home › T19 Categories › * Economics, Politics › Full text of President Obama's speech on the home mortgage crisis
Full text of President Obama's speech on the home mortgage crisis
12 comments on “Full text of President Obama's speech on the home mortgage crisis”
T19 Access
Search
Categories Main
Categories Exhaustive
T19 Resources
T19 Access
Search
Categories Main
Categories Exhaustive
T19 Resources
What in the world… They just passed an 800Billion stimulus package and… what… they FORGOT to put the housing portion in?
Isn’t housing what started all this?? $800,000,000,000-just think of it as $0.8 T-lots easier to read and much less scary.
Elections do have consequences. 52% of us voted for ‘hope’ and ‘change’. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama was never successfully pressed to define ‘hope’ and ‘change’ beyond the shallow, gossamer campaign platitudes that seemed to suffice in the moment. One wonders just how reality will square with pre-election perceptions, if questions over pre and post election understandings of ‘hope’ and ‘change’ might arise at some point and whether the true meaning of ‘hope’ and ‘change’ will significantly alter the future course of our seeming headlong run toward becoming a true socialist workers paradise.
Dilbert, I’m not sure what you are talking about, but if Obama is correct, nine million people won’t have to go through the hardship of losing their homes.
And that’s probably good for a lot of children, families, neighborhoods and communities. But perhaps being pro-community is like being pro-communist.
I’m reminded of the story of the mom who told her son not to share because it was socialism.
JW, you’ve stated the big IF — “if Obama is correct” — which many serious economists, including Nobel laureates, doubt. What his and the Democrats plan will clearly do is initiate a major change in the shape and structure of our country. My point is that the election was permitted to revolve around a cotton candy concept of ‘hope’ and ‘change’ that was never defined in terms of what America would look like after ‘hope’ and ‘change’ happened. Mr. Obama was very good at keeping the discussion at the 100,000 ft level so as not to be troubled with having to sell his clearly socialist agenda.
Let try your and Mr. Obama’s numbers. The $75 billion cost of the program spread over the 9 million you say will be helped yields a gross of just over $8K per person/family helped. That doesn’t take into account the governments skim for its overhead which is likely half, but I’ll settle for 25% since Mr. Obama is just sooooo good. I think it really, really unlikely many people will lose their home over a $6K dispute with the evil bankers. So, really, just how many is this dubious program capable of helping? We’re back to the gossamer ‘hope’ and ‘change’ here. Sounds nice, but there is no there, there, is there?
To your silly strawman, “I’m reminded of the story of the mom who told her son not to share because it was socialism.” That chestnut is not worthy of even my flippant reply because it is ridiculous on its face.
It would be interesting to see the result of an election in which one candidate honestly stated he was socialist and the other honestly stated he was capitalist and see what decision the American people rendered given an honest choice.
The only thing really wrong with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money and then socialism loses its ability to deliver its sick approximation of heaven on Earth.
Dilbert, as far as government “skimming” I doubt they would do much worse than the current mercenaries benefiting from a privatized war. It seems that medicare has a much lower overhead than, for example, insurance companies who spend a lot of money rejecting claims. Furthermore, the government isn’t doing much in the way of management: it’s changing the incentive structure. The management will be done mainly by the banks themselves.
Dilbert I don’t know what you’re talking about when you say the word “socialism.” The test seems to be the number of people emigrating from socialist countries. What is the percentage of people coming here from Sweden or Denmark? Or even England? Or France? Your definition of “socialism” is tired and mythical. I’ll tell you what: get rid of libraries, public schools, public roads, public parks, public beaches, prisons and the police and we’ll see how long a “capitalist” country lasts.
the better definition is the difference between a commercial society and a planned economy. for most services and goods, a commercial society is better at distributing what people want. But for some things, it is remarkably short-sighted and clumsy. It was that same short-sightedness that got us into this current situation.
The market isn’t magic. It’s run by sinful people. It works most of the time. But when it doesn’t, its up to us to remember that the market is made for human beings. We were not made for the market.
[blockquote]Dilbert, I’m not sure what you are talking about, but if Obama is correct, nine million people won’t have to go through the hardship of losing their homes.
And that’s probably good for a lot of children, families, neighborhoods and communities. But perhaps being pro-community is like being pro-communist. [/blockquote]
Well, John, it would seem that anyone able to pay for this bailout is going to be required to do so, and almost anyone in trouble will get the fruits of the labor of others, transferred by force.
If that’s not “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” I’m not sure what is. If the shoe fits, comrade.
The stimulus package signed yesterday has been judged ineffective by the Congressional budget Office, which can hardly be seen as a partisan opponent of the President, and a priori criticized by Obama’a own chief. economic advisor, Larry Summers.
In contrast, the housing initiative announced today is much more targeted, lower cost, and results-oriented. So while I have grave doubts about the efficacy of the stimulus, I am much more optimistic aboput today’s program, provided the details conform to the President’s outline.
The devil is in the details as always. Will borrowers that lied be held accountable under President Obama’s plan? Will leanders who cooked the books to qualify inappropriate candidates get a pass? Will people who bought over inflated homes get the value readjusted? Well we be able to borrow money any more if the terms of loans are continually readjusted to the consummers benefit?
I am very skeptical after the “stimulus package”. One the American peole were lied to. Congress must appropriate the money and dispite what President Obama wants Reid and Pelosi will have there say and there may be more lard than Obama can handle in the bill and he has lost all control of the legislative process (if Obama ever had any). A hugh amount of money is going to Fannie and Fredie those gaints of responsiblility! This is just another debacle at the responsible Americans expense!
OK, JW, I’ll play.
Your first para re ‘skimming’ also called regulation or overhead. It’s what bureaucracies do. Government will have to set up an aparatus to to receive applications, pass judgment, issue checks, follow-up, provide assistance in 34 languages, write rules, audit itself but mostly a host of others and so forth. So there will be an entirely new herd of government employees hired who will need buildings, desks, chairs, computers, ecco-friendly cars and trucks and lots and lots of paper. They also will use water, sewage, trash pick-up and electricity (but only the green kind). The bill for all this is going to come out of the $75 billion and it will be a substantial percentage if past is prologue.
Para 2 and you’re back to the strawman thing. In effect, you say capitalism wants to get rid of all government. Of course, the answer is not really. The capitalist answer is to get rid of those monstrosities of government the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not allow government to be involved in. It really isn’t too very long a thing to read. I encourage you to take a whack at it sometime. The fascinating thing about it is its principal focus is to constrain government. The principal focus of socialism is to constrain the people. As to how long a capitalist country could last, America was actually doing pretty well for nearly 200 years, but with the picking away done since the 1930’s its hard to tell how much longer. One thing is certain, though. If and when America falls, it won’t be because it became too capitalist.
Para 3 talks about short sightedness. I presume you are referring to the short sightedness driven by the two year cycle election cycle Washington operates on in which no sane policy can be expected in even numbered years. As to short sightedness in business, look again to Washington for the root cause. Publicly traded companies have to be looking at the near term because regulations established by agencies directed by laws Congress wrote makes them report in great detail how they are doing every 90 days. Good news is lots of sunshine and fresh air. Bad news is it makes companies manage to make the numbers work every three months. But good or bad, Congress is the chef of the stew.
Finally, para 4. Here it is as you wrote it:
“The market isn’t magic. It’s run by sinful people. It works most of the time. But when it doesn’t, its up to us to remember that the market is made for human beings. We were not made for the market. ”
Here it is as I rewrote it:
The government isn’t magic. It’s run by sinful people. It works most of the time. But when it doesn’t, its up to us to remember that the government is made up of (sinful) human beings. We were not made for the government.
And that’s why if the answer is government, it must have been a pretty stupid question.
Thanks for playing.
Will homeowners who played and paid by the rules get relief as well? Why can’t they also have their mortgages and payments re-fi’d downwards?
And why do we who have been responsible all these years have to pay for the bill of those who knowingly went in over their heads in taking out loans they knew couldn’t be paid back, and the lenders who knew they were issuing loans that could never be paid?
Jim Elliott
Florida
We got into this mess in great part through government incentives, well-intentioned, to get people into mortgages they couldn’t afford for houses they could never pay off. Now, with good intentions again, we’re going to provide a way out of those contracts for people who can’t pay their mortgages. Meanwhile the government is going deeply into debt to pay for all the good intentions. Sounds like more of the same. Did we really help people when, with good intentions, we put them in financial situations they couldn’t handle? Are we helping ourselves when we do the same for the nation?