Whining About The Mortgage Crisis

I’ve been listening to a lot of progressive radio recently. I have been an on and off listener of progressive talk since its local inception, but I have never heard the number of right wingers calling the progressive shows in the numbers they have been calling in recent months.

I don’t have a problem with them calling, in fact it can be pretty entertaining, especially on The Stephanie Miller Show, but some of the things they are calling about are so dumb. Helicopters, socialism, homosexual influence, and some even still talk of Obama’s birth place.

But what I am most sick of, are whiney ditto heads calling up and complaining about somebody who signed a bad mortgage getting some kind of help from the government, while those who were “responsible” don’t get anything. I just had that conversation with my 11 year-old over piano lessons. Arguments like that are at an 11 year-old mentality level, not for common-sense grown adults. And if you are reading this and you really don’t know why a program like what Obama is proposing will help you, let me tell you a true story.

I applied for a loan yesterday. We were looking at moving a few years ago, and it was thought then that our little house would sell for $239,000. I know the value of my house has dropped. My guess was that it was worth around $200,000, that is what the banker thought too, and our tax statement lists it in that range, but I was shocked when the credit union pulled the value at $178,000. There are several houses in my neighborhood that have been foreclosed on. There are several that have sold very low preventing foreclosure or even after foreclosure. Maintaining the value of your house is what you get out of Obama’s plan you whiney lemmings.

Now one other thing in defense of those that signed bad mortgages. When my wife and I bought our house in 1996, we were completely dependent on the advice of the agent and lender. We were 25, and had never done anything like it before. We barely bought our house for $99,000, that amount stretched our approval limit into a variable rate, and our salaries were about half of what the house was purchased at, that is a pretty decent ratio today.

Now fast forward 10 years. Our salaries have not increased very much because my wife stays home with children. We basically have one income, barely more than it was in 1996, and when we went through the process to get pre-approved for a home loan, we somehow qualify for a $289,000 loan. How is that possible? If you take into account inflation, we are probably making less than when we bought our house in 1996.  How do we qualify for nearly triple the home cost?

If we were 25 again, in that same situation, I’m thinking we would probably trust our agent and our lender. We weren’t 25, so we didn’t, but my assumption is that many did.

Whose fault is it? Is it the buyer? I think lenders looking for quick money through mortgages that could be dumped into securities with no loss are the people responsible. They are responsible for the downturn in the economy, they are accomplices in the Bush recession, they are the reason for the banking collapse, and everything they have done in a greedy manor stinks, just like the people trying to blame the innocent.

Pay Cuts

I have an idea, one that would endear Governor Pawlenty to the people of Minnesota. And he has to do it, it wouldn’t be the legislature that does it. With the state in such a financial crisis, he should take the lead, mandate a statewide 5% salary cut in the legislature for a two-year periodNot only cut salaries, but cut per diems in half for the legislature and himself. It would make him look really good, and he could really stick it to the opponents in the next election.

Now, I don’t want him to look good, it is my opinion that the current and the last governors have done nothing but allow for the rapid decline of Minnesota’s previously superior education system. I don’t want to live in the Arkansas of the north just because he doesn’t like government, but everything about that proposal seems like something he should support.

Penguins in the Rye

There is a controversy brewing in Farmington.

Nothing has blown up yet, but in a heavily right leaning district, an issue over homosexuality will likely cause a blow up. There has been a complaint about a children’s book. Some self appointed guardian of morality has decided that a book needs to be removed from the elementary school libraries.

I first heard about the book about a year ago, from a little blurb on Focus on the Family – Yes, I do occasionally listen to Focus on Family, I don’t like the political bent of the show or it’s leader, but I like some of the subjects they discuss. Anyway, the book And Tango Makes Three has become a subject of controversy in our fair city.

Everything is still under the radar, no big deal has been made, it isn’t in the news yet, but the first volley has been launched. A couple of notes on the book. It is a true story, it shows kids that there are families that are different and it is a book about penguins confined in a zoo, which I consider unnatural. More to come I am sure…

Obama Considers Tax on Cabinet

I am glad Tom Daschle withdrew. Not that I don’t think he would be great, in fact I really like Tom Daschle, but because I am sick of Democrats defending him. I am pretty forgiving when it comes to tax issues. Taxes are confusing, even for people who do them on a regular basis, but it is not an excuse. If Daschle were a republican, callers to AM 950, Air America and bloggers would be all over him. He should have withdrawn right away instead of causing President Obama the embarrassment of having to support his friend anyway.

This is a funny posting by Andy Borowitz:

Obama Considers Tax on Cabinet
Would Create Budget Surplus, Experts Believe

President Barack Obama is mulling a controversial new tax program that would require members of his Cabinet to pay taxes owed under the Federal tax code, the White House confirmed today.

While the unorthodox tax proposal is reportedly “only in the planning stages,” it is being eyed as a possible way to balance the Federal budget.

“According to projections, if members of the Cabinet actually paid their taxes, we could wind up with a budget surplus in excess of $18.2 billion,” said Obama economic adviser Paul Volcker.

Mr. Volcker said he strongly favored the plan, but added, “Fortunately for me, I’m not officially in the Cabinet.”

But imposing taxes on Cabinet members may be easier said than done, critics of the plan warn.

“Remember, these people are not used to paying taxes,” said one White House source. “They are going to be hopping mad about this.”

Another wrinkle in the plan is how the taxes would actually be collected, with President Obama reportedly favoring a cash-at-the-door entry fee for every Cabinet meeting.

“If they don’t have the money, they don’t get in,” said the source. “They’re not going to be able to just sail into the White House for free like the Jonas Brothers.”

When told of Mr. Obama’s plan to make his Cabinet members pay taxes, Fmr. Sen. Tom Daschle responded, “Whew! Sounds like I dodged a bullet.”

minnesota dfl democrats