Posts Tagged ‘home’

Are You Paying Your Bills Like A Sucker In A World Of Obamanomics?

October 21, 2010

Are you a sucker?

If you’ve actually been working hard to pay your own bills, you sure are.

Imagine two houses, the same square footage, built by the same developer, right next door to one another.   You bought your house two years ago the same month as your neighbor, with both homes closing at about the same price.

You’re working two jobs to pay your bills, and you literally envy the rats in the rat maze, who not only eventually get to the end of the maze, but actually get a tasty treat, too.  When all you do is work.  And then work some more.

You wonder how your neighbor – who doesn’t seem to be working anywhere near as hard as you – manages to make ends meet.

And then you find out that you’re paying nearly three times more for your mortgage at nearly three times the interest rate.  Why?  Because you work hard, pay your debts and play by the rules – like a sucker.

“People are able to come here, and in the same day, restructure their mortgages saving $500, sometimes over $1,000 a month,” says NACA’s charismatic leader, Bruce Marks.

We saw another homeowner, Althena Peet, actually embrace her lending counselor, tears streaming down her face. “My monthly payments were $1,888 per month, and its down now to $687.64. That’s with 2 percent interest. I just can’t believe it,” Peet exclaimed.

While Althena gets a great deal, another homeowner with the exact same mortgage who paid his bills would be shelling out that $1,888 a month, leaving some to question whether such foreclosure rescues are fair, or wise.

Among those with concerns is professor Paul Habibi with UCLA’s Anderson School of Management. “It’s not fair,” he says. “It penalizes those who play by the rules, and those who are in dire need and may have not played by the rules and got into mortgages they can’t afford, are now able to get some help. It’s kind of the old adage of taxing success and subsidizing losses. We are seeing that prevail in the housing market.”

Habibi argues that, while well-intentioned, such foreclosure rescue programs could have unintended consequences. “It creates a moral hazard, and that is basically the premise that people would behave differently if they knew that they had a parachute saving them than if they didn’t.

“And in this case, those who do play by the rules, and are paying their mortgages continuously are suffering in a sense, relative to those of their peers that are being helped out.”

You’re working two jobs to make ends meet and pay your bills.  That used to be the right thing to do.

But not in Obamanomics.  Now, working hard and paying your contracted debts is the stupidest thing you can possibly do.

The moral of the story in Obama’s America is DON’T PAY YOUR BILLS.  Because only suckers pay their bills these days.

The right thing to do under Obamanomics is to quit one of those two jobs, and then qualify for a sweetheart deal; one in which you don’t have to pay what you promised on a contract you would pay.  Just don’t watch Fox News while you’re sitting on your ass in front of the boob tube, is all Democrats ask.

It’s a great way to go, until America collapses under socialism.

But then again, only suckers care about stuff like that.

Democrat Position: We Have To Spend To Keep From Going Bankrupt

July 21, 2009

There’s stupid, really stupid, truly stupid, and Democrat stupid.

Try to follow Joe Biden’s argument (if you dare!):

( – Vice President Joe Biden told people attending an AARP town hall meeting that unless the Democrat-supported health care plan becomes law the nation will go bankrupt and that the only way to avoid that fate is for the government to spend more money.

“And folks look, AARP knows and the people with me here today know, the president knows, and I know, that the status quo is simply not acceptable,” Biden said at the event on Thursday in Alexandria, Va. “It’s totally unacceptable. And it’s completely unsustainable. Even if we wanted to keep it the way we have it now. It can’t do it financially.”

“We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said.

“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that’s what I’m telling you.”

Spend your way out of bankruptcy.  There you go.

It sounds really good.  But I’ve got a couple neighbors on my street who tried it – and it turns out that it doesn’t work out all that good.

You see things walking your dog every evening.  Like what kind of cars people own, and what kind of expensive “toys” they have in their garage, and whether or not they’ve had pools installed or not.

There are two homes that are now standing vacant on my street.  And both of them had two expensive luxury cars in the driveway, and a number of toys such as jet skis (in one) and quads (in the other) in the garage.  And one had put in a below-ground swimming pool.  Both couples were young enough that I wondered, “Where did they get the money to buy all this stuff?” up until the very day I saw the moving trucks and then the foreclosure signs.

Nope.  You don’t spend to keep from going bankrupt.  You spend to go bankrupt even FASTER.  And, for the record, it is invariably excessive spending that puts people on the racetrack to bankruptcy in the first place.

Now, in business, or even in homes, one might make a relatively expensive purchase that will so reduce costs during the lifetime of the “gadget” that it justifies the initial outlay.  A new computer system that will streamline and optimize the accounting system; a new refrigerator that replaces a worn-out, energy-wasting unit.

Now, no rational business owner or homeowner would make such major purchases if they are already deeply in debt: the best move for either would be to pay down their highest-interest debts, which would save FAR more money in the long run.  Buying more stuff would just add to your already-too-high payments.  Even a sound purchase is unsound if you don’t have the cash on hand to pay for it.  I think budget experts such as Suze Orman (who offers such rare pearls of wisdom as “Saving is good; going into massive debt is bad”) would agree with me on this one.

But is Joe Biden talking about a big purchase that will save money down the road?


Congressional Budget Office chief Douglas Elmendorf just got through telling Congress that the health care legislation at issue does not achieve “the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.”  And then he went on to say that, “And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.”

ABC News’ Z. Byron Wolf reports:

Answering questions from Democrat Kent Conrad of North Dakota at a hearing of the Senate Budget Committee today, Elmendorf said CBO does not see health care cost savings in either of the partisan Democratic bills currently in Congress.

Conrad:  Dr. Elmendorf, I am going to really put you on the spot because we are in the middle of this health care debate, but it is critically important that we get this right.  Everyone has said, virtually everyone, that bending the cost curve over time is critically important and one of the key goals of this entire effort.  From what you have seen from the products of the committees that have reported, do you see a successful effort being mounted to bend the long-term cost curve?

Elmendorf:  No, Mr. Chairman.  In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.  And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.

Conrad:  So the cost curve in your judgment is being bent, but it is being bent the wrong way.  Is that correct?

Elmendorf:  The way I would put it is that the curve is being raised, so there is a justifiable focus on growth rates because of course it is the compounding of growth rates faster than the economy that leads to these unsustainable paths.  But it is very hard to look out over a very long term and say very accurate things about growth rates.  So most health experts that we talk with focus particularly on what is happening over the next 10 or 20 years, still a pretty long time period for projections, but focus on the next 10 or 20 years and look at whether efforts are being made that are bringing costs down or pushing costs up over that period.

As we wrote in our letter to you and Senator Gregg, the creation of a new subsidy for health insurance, which is a critical part of expanding health insurance coverage in our judgement, would by itself increase the federal responsibility for health care that raises federal spending on health care.  It raises the amount of activity that is growing at this unsustainable rate and to offset that there has to be very substantial reductions in other parts of the federal commitment to health care, either on the tax revenue side through changes in the tax exclusion or on the spending side through reforms in Medicare and Medicaid.  Certainly reforms of that sort are included in some of the packages, and we are still analyzing the reforms in the House package.  Legislation was only released as you know two days ago.  But changes we have looked at so far do not represent the fundamental change on the order of magnitude that would be necessary to offset the direct increase in federal health costs from the insurance coverage proposals.

In other words, the Obama administration is going to spend a ton of money in order to buy something that will cost even more money than the thing it replaces.

Not exactly a Consumer Reports “Best Buy” recommendation.

So we’re back to the young homeowners on my block who splurged and splurged and splurged on toys and luxery items and fancy cars until long after they were already broke.  And then they went “bye-bye.”

Don’t listen to Barack Obama and Joe Biden.  They are genuinely clueless idiots who will quickly spend this country into bankruptcy all the while assuring us that they are somehow spending us out of bankruptcy.  It doesn’t make any sense in your small business, it doesn’t make any sense in your home, and even though the federal government has a giant printing press to “make money,” it doesn’t make any sense in the White House.

Newflash: Liberals Oppose Working Mothers

September 2, 2008

When I was a kid growing up in Southern California, I used to see a lot of commercials from a car dealer named Cal Worthington.  He’d get upside down and proclaim, “I’ll stand on my head to beat anyone’s deal.”  Well, Cal Worthington was willing to stand upside down to win a deal; liberals are demonstrating that they are willing to stand their core principals on their heads to win an election.

The New York Times suddenly discovered it’s concern for children when mothers went off to work.  They’ve got something like 4 articles out today, and all of them pound on this theme that Sarah is essentially abandoning her children in running for Vice President.

So there you have it.  Them damn woman-hating liberals, trying to keep women barefoot and pregnant.

Meanwhile, John McCain is really doing something for women in the workplace:

Barack Obama has campaigned on the issue of “equal pay”, casting John McCain as a villain for not supporting federal legislation widening grounds and timing for pay-discrimination lawsuits.  Yet Obama may have a fair-pay issue of his own.  According to Fred Lucas at Cybercast News Service, women on his staff made $6,000 less than men on average.  McCain, on the other hand, has more women in key positions — and the women on his staff average slightly higher salaries than the men

And, just to make it official, the Report of the Secretary of the Senate backs that up.  Obama’s supporters are talking smack about standing up for women even as they trash a woman in the most fundamental and personal way imaginable; John McCain is paying women better than men and naming a woman as his running mate.  Obama, meanwhile, should have named a woman as his VP pick, and panned on it.

Obama can talk about working women all he wants; John McCain has done something about it.  Obama hasn’t.

The hypocrisy on the left is frankly beyond stunning.  When liberals attack Sarah Palin as being a bad mother for running for Vice President when they have for years claimed to have championed women in the workplace, it is analogous to Republicans tearing up a Democrat for being pro-life as a cheap political tactic to undermine her pull with a certain voting block.  Can you imagine a Republican claiming that his opponent is pro-life in order to win liberal voters?  That’s exactly what these Democrats are doing now.

It literally proves how cynical, how manipulative, how disingenuous, how conniving, and how amoral the Democrats and liberals engaging in this tactic are.