Print Story Notes on the Failout
Money
By riceowlguy (Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 05:59:27 AM EST) (all tags)
and pre-election crap.


From NYTimes.com: Mortgage Plan May Irk Those It Doesn't Help

What do you mean "may"?

Although the article focuses entirely on people who had bought houses they could afford and now find themselves underwater, as opposed to people who avoided the housing market entirely, I was glad to see several comments from people who feel they way I do.  I've been patiently saving for a down payment, continuing to rent my crappy apartment, waiting for this bubble to burst.  Housing prices have got to come down to a more reasonable level.  If the mortgage payment for a place is more than you'd be willing to pay to just rent it, that is a bad sign.

The reality for the people who are upside down is that by the time they finish paying off their 30-year mortgages, the dollar value of their property will probably have crept back up to where it was when they bought it (after all, the Fed is doing all they can to help debtors and punish savers by lowering the funds rate to almost nothing, causing massive inflation).  Just what is so wrong with that?  What other physical thing in this world do you buy, get thirty years of good use out of, and expect to even be worth as much as you paid for it in the first place, let alone double or triple in value?  This whole real estate as a short-term investment attitude is one of the things that got us here in the first place.

Where's my bailout?

On the election...this is my last day to vote early and I doubt I'll get to it, so it looks like I'll be queuing up with everybody else on Tuesday.  Not that it matters in this politically backwards state, at least for the presidential race.  No liberal (which by Texas standards is defined as anyone who doesn't think that extramarital sex is more immoral than bombing brown people in the desert) can win anything on a statewide level here.  One of the reasons I want to get out...

This close to the election you're hearing a lot of things about undecided voters.  At this point I don't understand how anybody could be undecided, unless you're been living in a cave.  As far as I'm concerned you're either one of the 40% of people who wouldn't vote for a Democrat even if the Republicans had nominated Hitler, or you should be voting for Obama.  I'm willing to listen to rational arguments one way or another, but that's how I see it at this point.

< If you can't say anything nice, at least be wickedly funny | I'm tired of interdimensional wormholes clogging our toilets! >
Notes on the Failout | 17 comments (17 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Underwater by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #1 Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 06:11:24 AM EST
The problem with being underwater only comes if you are forced to move.  My in-laws got royally screwed by the Hawaiian housing crash in the '90s and ended up losing a bit of their retirement.  It's also dangerous in a high unemployment economy as it makes it much harder to move for a job.

But yeah, if you don't have to move, it's not real money.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

This isn't a rational argument. by nightflameblue (4.00 / 1) #2 Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 06:15:18 AM EST
But there are people still saying that since Hillary didn't get the nomination, they feel the only choice for them is McCain. I don't think that's a huge number at this point, but it's surprising that there are still people saying it at this point.

Nominating Hitler by buttercup (2.00 / 0) #3 Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 08:37:29 AM EST
I was undecided up until I was standing in front of the voting machine. Add in the veeps and my preference was, in order: McCain, Obama, Biden, Palin. I wouldn't say that I'm indifferent to the outcome, but I can live with either. (As long as the winner stays very much alive for his term.) My mantra is: "Anyone but Hillary."


"Too slow, Chicken Merengo!" — Cat
your close-mindedness is part of our politicial pr by StackyMcRacky (4.00 / 1) #4 Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 09:17:23 AM EST
oblem.

I am not one of the 40%, and I did not vote for Obama.

I voted Libertarian.

Don't give me crap about "a 3rd party can never win."  That's just a defeatest attitude spouted off by people who obiviously couldn't handle actual change if it bit them on the ass.  If you don't try to make changes they will never happen.

Thus concludes another overly PMS-y comment.

wow...um... by clock (2.00 / 0) #5 Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 10:18:34 AM EST
...i think i need to...uh...run an errand or something on the way home?  um...

...yeah...


I agree with clock entirely --Kellnerin

[ Parent ]
don't forget chocolate by georgeha (2.00 / 0) #6 Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 10:21:06 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Careful. by Driusan (4.00 / 1) #7 Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 06:46:16 PM EST
If too many people start voting for their conscience instead of "the lesser evil", then you're in danger of ending up with a democracy.

--
Vive le Montréal libre.
[ Parent ]
Your system does not allow for >2 parties by ShadowNode (2.00 / 0) #8 Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 07:17:02 PM EST
Parliamentary systems can accommodate them to some degree, and allow for minor parties to at least have a say, but even then it comes down to two leadership calibre parties everywhere in the anglosphere. If you want anything other than a binary choice, you'll need proportional representation. It's that simple.

It is possible to replace one of the two, but it pretty much guarantees that your views will fall below the radar for 10-20 years while that happens, and your opponents will have virtually unchecked power for that period. Look into the fall of the Progressive Conservatives and the rise of the Reform Party in Canada for an example.

Further, unless there's a shift in the opposition, you'll pretty much have to build the new party from the same coalition of voters the old one had. Which means pretty much the same policies. Again, see the history of the PCs and Reform in Canada.

Since Reagan, the Republicans have run on a coalition of fiscal conservatives and religious moonbats. That coalition is fracturing now, and it's entirely possible for the Republican party to collapse in on itself if they're defeated thoroughly enough on Tuesday. It happened to the Progressive Conservatives in 1993 when they were reduced to 2 seats.

If they do implode, the religious moonbat and fiscal conservative bases would be available to a third party to court. The Libertarians could build a larger base by bring more moderate fiscal conservatives on board (and changing their policies to suit them, of course). They could run a candidate and get, oh, about 30-35% of the popular vote in 2012. Maybe a little more if they appeal to the religious moonbats, but that's a poison pill; it'd bring them right back where the Republican are now.

Give a Libertarian/moderate conservative coalition a decade or two to sell Americans on their ideas, and they could have a viable chance of the Presidency. But this can only happen if the Republicans are so thoroughly beaten that most of their core supporters abandon them. Otherwise, things stay the same.

If you want a third party, you should vote for Obama.


[ Parent ]
blah blah blah by StackyMcRacky (4.00 / 1) #9 Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 03:36:04 AM EST


[ Parent ]
Yeah, I know by ShadowNode (2.00 / 0) #10 Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 02:04:09 PM EST
Strategic voting isn't really a part of the American mindset because you're much more tied to the all or nothing race. As a Canadian it's much more familiar. A Liberal voter in a riding that splits between the NDP and Conservatives will be better represented by voting NDP than Liberal.

I'm not saying you should never vote for a third party. I'm not saying you're "throwing away" your vote. I'm saying that if the Republican Party is crushed, you destroy that argument along with them.


[ Parent ]
You also have to factor in by StackyMcRacky (2.00 / 0) #12 Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 05:43:02 PM EST
my vote for president doesn't entirely count.  The Texas electors are not legally bound to vote for who wins the popular vote in the state.  Sure, they're selected based on who wins the pop vote (i.e. if the R candidate wins the popular vote, then the electors come from the R party)., but they can vote however they want.

Plus, Texas is an all-or-nothing state:  all 34 of our votes go to the same candidate.

so if the numbers play out:  34% R, 33% D, 33% Lib; then 100% of Tx votes go to R....unless those electors decide to revolt and go D or L (hasn't ever happened).

[ Parent ]
Oh it matters by ShadowNode (2.00 / 0) #13 Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 09:02:57 PM EST
Everyone knows where Texas' electoral votes will go, what matters there will be the margin.

If anything, votes for Obama in Texas are more powerful than votes for Obama elsewhere. Not in electing him, but in disheartening Republicans to the point that enough decide that the party is dead to make it the case.


[ Parent ]
Most Libertarians I know by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #11 Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 02:05:07 PM EST
are "religious moonbats".
Repubs are too willing to infringe on their religious practices, so they won't join up.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
There's always overlap... by ShadowNode (2.00 / 0) #14 Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 09:40:53 PM EST
But that's not what I see. Most Libertarians that I've encountered have been either atheist or what I'd call the reasonably religious; people with deeply held religious convictions, but that would never force them on others.

By "religious moonbats" I meant the anti-choice, god-hates-fags types, who are by definition not libertarian (though Ron Paul could arguably qualify as one).


[ Parent ]
Underwater by duxup (2.00 / 0) #15 Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 01:36:53 PM EST
I'm not sure how I feel about the people who can pay but are so far below the mark on their mortgage that it might be easier to just walk away.  That option is there and .... well it's an option.  I suppose they should pay but the whole system is so corrupted and irresponsible (banks, mortgage brokers, Realtors, dudes who price properties) I'm not sure I would knock the dude on the lowest end of the food chain from avoiding his end of it.

____
Oh, I wasn't arguing that it's not the best choice by riceowlguy (2.00 / 0) #16 Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 05:09:59 AM EST
I'm sure if I was in that situation I'd do whatever was in my financial best interests.  It's the same as many other things in life, such as a family that pisses away all their earnings on toys and vacations and then gets tons of financial aid when their kids enter college, but the families that were responsible and saved their money don't get squat.  A friend once argued that having a well-educated populace was more important than being fair to people, so he didn't have any problem with that.  And maybe having a stable housing market and fewer people displaced from their homes is more important than being fair to me or punishing stupidmore optimistic people than myself.  It just makes me mad, but then not much doesn't these days.

[ Parent ]
In the long run by duxup (2.00 / 0) #17 Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 05:55:16 AM EST
I think if you look over the long run those folks who make the bad choices with money pay.  When I went to work during the .com days EVERYONE at my workplace was building a new house, had new cars, didn't think twice at spending spending spending.   I saved my pennies, still drive my 13 year old Honda, and actually have money saved for retirement and I'm not pulling my hair out of my head each paycheck like they all eventually did.

____
[ Parent ]
Notes on the Failout | 17 comments (17 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback