The original E-mail:
Why would anyone in their right mind take issue with helping people out that are about to lose their family home?
My simple response was: "That is not the business of government." This launched repeated e-mails throughout the day and it became apparent that this person was not a dumbass, they have just been mislead by the left. (College professors mainly.) This situation has the possibility of being eye-opening for this person, so I will dispatch with my normally smart-ass comments and deliver a fine piece of knowledge.
Let's set up a hypothetical based on things that I know to be true.
Suppose two men take the same job making the same wage. Jim and Joe both work as lineworkers at a plant making fifty thousand dollars a year. (Yes, I realize if they are union employees they make three times that for half the work.)
Jim and Joe both head to the bank to apply for financing for a home. The bank approves both of them for 250k for a home loan. Jim quickly signs for the 250k, but Joe heads out to find a cheaper house and finally buys one for 100k.
Jim's payments are 1800 a month for 30 years, but Joe's are 1000 for 15. Jim falls behind in his payments because he simply could not afford that much house on his salary. Joe is making his notes, building equity and sailing through life.
The federal government steps in to bail Jim out. That money must come from somewhere, and since Jim is now a subsidy recipient, he is not taxed more, but Joe, since he is paying his bills, is actually taxed more because of his ethical VIRTUE of taking care of his own business.
When Joe gets increased taxes, he finds that the chunk removed keeps him from being able to pay what was previously easily done on his salary and he falls behind now. NOT FROM ANYTHING THAT HE HAS DONE, BUT BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT ADDED TO HIS LOAD.
And soon, he loses his house because of Jim's irresponsibility and the government's need to increase their dependents.
The only people that are PUNISHED are those that have been surviving on their own, but government stepped in to help stupid people at the expense of the smart ones.
You may try to counter this scenario with, "But, the bank should know that they can't afford that much!" This is yet another fault of the government, the fed FORCES banks to give out money to people that cannot afford the loans.
Back in 2000, my wife and I went to our local bank to check on a construction loan. They approved us for over THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. At the time, I was in college, my wife and I were maintaining two households, and my salary was diminished. There was no way in mortal Hell that we could have afforded that amount, but the bank knew that if we took out the money, we would somehow make the notes. Because we always had.
We were good customers.
Barry's homeowner bailout plan was announced as this, "To help out nine million homeowners to keep their houses." At a cost of 75 BILLION dollars. That works out to less than nine thousand dollars per family of government cheese, but that also amounts to about 1000 dollars per working family per year to produce that money. I am unaware of any working family that could come up with ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS of unplanned expenditures for something that is unnecessary, has no benefit to the family, and will continue to be promoted FOREVER.
You know FOR A FACT that no government entitlement has ever been abolished. This whole concept is an attempt to raise taxes on responsible people and redistribute that money to IRRESPONSIBLE people. Can you come up with one way in Hell that will help the economy?
Or worse still, how does that help anyone that is taking care of their own family?
ANGRY RENTERS UNITE!
Please take the time to comment.
3 comments:
very well put, and easy to understand.
even for morons.
although they will argue anyway, 'cause they think they are supposed to.
You make a great point about taxes never being repealed. In the great state of Warshington, especially in the Seattle area, there have been numerous "emergency" tax measures, gas taxes, etc, which have been levied to address some "crisis" issue. Ten years later the "emergency" taxes are still in force, despite the fact that the so-called crisis was long ago passed...if it ever really existed.
But just try and get that 12 cents a gallon repealed, and they will wail that the gubmint "can't afford the loss of income." Which means they've adjusted their budgetary spening upward to absorb the influx of cash, and it's now become the baseline against which future spending is measured.
Politicians never met a tax they didn't like.
You make a great point about taxes never being repealed. In the great state of Warshington, especially in the Seattle area, there have been numerous "emergency" tax measures, gas taxes, etc, which have been levied to address some "crisis" issue. Ten years later the "emergency" taxes are still in force, despite the fact that the so-called crisis was long ago passed...if it ever really existed.
But just try and get that 12 cents a gallon repealed, and they will wail that the gubmint "can't afford the loss of income." Which means they've adjusted their budgetary spening upward to absorb the influx of cash, and it's now become the baseline against which future spending is measured.
Politicians never met a tax they didn't like.
Post a Comment