Conspiracy or State's preparing for the worst?

[Medios]

http://www.treas.gov/initiatives/eesa/h ... tSheet.pdf

The new "reward" ignorant consumer bill.

Here is a snippet.

"Who the Program Reaches:

Focusing on Homeowners At Risk: Anyone with high combined mortgage debt compared to income or who is “underwater” (with a combined mortgage balance higher than the current market value of his house) may be eligible for a loan modification. This initiative will also include borrowers who show other indications of being at risk of default. Eligibility for the program will sunset at the end of three years.

Reaching Homeowners Who Have Not Missed Payments: Delinquency will not be a requirement for eligibility. Rather, because loan modifications are more likely to succeed if they are made before a borrower misses a payment, the plan will include households at risk of imminent default despite being current on their mortgage payments.

Common Sense Restrictions: Only owner-occupied homes qualify; no home mortgages larger than the Freddie/Fannie conforming limits will be eligible. This initiative will go solely to supporting responsible homeowners willing to make payments to stay in their home – it will not aid speculators or house flippers.

Special Provisions for Families with High Total Debt Levels: Borrowers with high total debt qualify, but only if they agree to enter HUD-certified consumer debt counseling. Specifically, homeowners with total “back end” debt (which includes not only housing debt, but other debt including car loans and credit card debt) equal to 55% or more of their income will be required to agree to enter a counseling program as a condition for a modification..."

Here is the part I really like

How the Program Works

The Homeowner Stability Initiative has a simple goal: reduce the amount homeowners owe per month to sustainable levels.[b:2fohm3t9] This program will bring together lenders, servicers, borrowers, and the government, so that all stakeholders share in the cost of ensuring that responsible homeowners can afford their monthly mortgage payments [/b:2fohm3t9]– helping to reach up to 3 to 4 million at-risk borrowers in all segments of the mortgage market, reducing foreclosures, and helping to avoid further downward pressures on overall home prices. The program has several key components:


Explain to me how "responsible" homeowners got in this problem? Why should lenders, servicers, borrowers, and the government all be responsible? It sounds to me like the borrowers are the ones responsible for upholding their contractual agreement under the rule of law. I noticed that you can get $1000 credit to your principal just for paying on time. What about my principal payments? I bought a home that I knew I could pay for even after losing my job. So why should "greedy" people who bought more than they can afford be bailed out by the rest of us. How come I cannot get a $1000 credit on my loan, I have been paying on time since the start of the loan. Not only that I made over $12,000 in extra principal payments. As Rick Santelli put it, Why are the losers being bailed out, while the responsible people get it shoved in their face. This is a moral hazard and we don't need to be reinforcing bad behavior.

[Mosaix]

You have it all figured out.

Please then run for political office and fix it.

Complaining to 50-100 people on a text-mud game website isnt going to get you real far in life Mike.

You should trying visiting this game to relax sometime. Its a great game.

[Medios]

I do come here to relax and I don't spend much time here on the board compared to in game. You should try it. If your letting this discussion get you worked up then maybe your Dr. can prescribe some Zanax or Valium. I wouldn't want you to stroke out over my discussions of politics on a text based game with 50-100 people.

Love you, bye now.

[Tap]

A New Way to Backdoor a Gun Ban: Onerous Insurance

Posted by Warner Todd Huston (Profile)

Thursday, February 19th at 6:40AM EST

Want a gun in Illinois? Fine. Then you’ll be forced to carry an expensive, million dollar insurance policy to be “allowed” to observe your Second Amendment right. At least, that will be the law if lefty gun-banner Kenneth Dunkin has any say in the matter.

Dunkin (D, Chicago) has made this attempt to undermine the Second Amendment even worse than a mere “insurance” policy. He has also slipped into this unConstitutional morass a provision that says gun owners will be liable if their gun is used in a crime after it has been stolen from them. The bill also authorizes the State Police to confiscate the firearm owner’s ID (FOID) from any citizen that doesn’t comply with purchasing the hefty insurance policy.

Rep. Kenneth Dunkin’s bill seeks to amend the state’s Firearm Owners Identification Card Act to provides that any person who owns a firearm in the state maintain a $1 million or higher policy of liability insurance “specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person.”

A gun owner would be responsible after a firearm is lost or stolen until the loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides.

Police would be empowered to pull the gun license of anyone who does not submit evidence of having the required insurance.

Now this stolen-yet-liable idea is one that the city of Philadelphia dealt with not long ago. It passed there so apparently it has given other cities the idea to pursue this back door demonization of gun owners.

Dunkin has introduced HB 687 in the State House in Springfield supposedly to assure that firearm owners are “legal” in the Land of Lincoln but as gun owners continue to point out legally owned guns are rarely connected to crimes of any kind.

[color=yellow:1le4otmf]Obviously, though, this has nothing at all to do with public safety, legality, or the Second Amendment. This is but one more backdoor attempt to make owning a gun so expensive, fraught with regulation and difficult that more and more people will simply give up their rights. It is a backdoor banning plain and simple.[/color:1le4otmf]

I heard this mentioned on Glenn Beck, a national talk-radio program that Osama wants snuffed out. This is perfect example of information that otherwise I would not have found out until it would have been too late. Now I am doing my part to research and confirm and spread the word to any who will listen.

[Medios]

When water is illegal, only criminals will drink.

[Yasik2]

This thread need more tits.

[reboog]

This housing bill is garbage, will keep housing prices artificially high, and will have no positive effect.

A poll showed that public opinion is against the bailouts and against the housing bill.

[reboog]

Prepare for another Citigroup and AIG bailout.

[Weasel]

nods.. can't believe how much AIG has sunk in the last couple of weeks..

[Medios]

Obama is going to have to buy AIG with all the talk of insuring. I bet he said he was going to insure us about 20 times tonight in that speech. I thought insurance was when you paid someone to prevent future losses. Is that why we elected Obama? So he can take the money now and the we'll have to fight and claw our way into a claim?

[reboog]

[quote:62gcunn5]“The outcome of the stress test is not going to be fail or pass [for banks],” Benrnake told legislators, but to “get a clear estimate of their capital needs.”

Thus far, the Treasury has only said that: a) the tests would be applied to banks with assets over a $100 billion, which is essentially the top 20; b) banks found lacking would be told they needed to raise private capital; c) if they were unable to do so, they could apply for government funds under the newly created Capital Access Program, CAP, ... d) funding would come from the second tranche of TARP.[/quote:62gcunn5]

This explains why they sent only 100 regulators to Citigroup to perform a "stress test." 100 is a joke number, this is purely theater. In 2004, it took 161 regulators to stress test Citigroup's mortgage securities ALONE.

[Mosaix]

[img:112hiu1z]http://www.thesunblog.com/sports/super_high_me.jpg[/img:112hiu1z]



I think if you didnt pay any attention to the last 8 years, really you have no grounds to start paying any attention now. Dont bother to start now just because a Democrat is in office.

Make sure you mail back Bush's stimulus check from a few years back while you are at it. $600 per individual, $1200 per couple. Im sure you Republican die hards had no problem cashing that check on the american taxpayer. That was several hundred million taxpayer dollars down the tubes.

Roll another doobie and relax already. Enjoy sloth and play the game.

[Medios]

[quote="Mosaix":1g5snd14]

I think if you didnt pay any attention to the last 8 years, really you have no grounds to start paying any attention now. Dont bother to start now just because a Democrat is in office.

Make sure you mail back Bush's stimulus check from a few years back while you are at it. $600 per individual, $1200 per couple. Im sure you Republican die hards had no problem cashing that check on the american taxpayer. That was several hundred million taxpayer dollars down the tubes.

Roll another doobie and relax already. Enjoy sloth and play the game.[/quote:1g5snd14]

Stimulus check my ass, I consider that a tax cut for myself. The people that should send it back are the ones with zero federal tax liability.
Tax cuts are always one thing I agree with... Why would I mail money back to the Federal Govt when I actually have to pay taxes, unlike many Americans who get money when they didn't even pay? I wasn't nearly as happy with Bush as you say. If it wasn't for the war Democrats would be slobbin his knob for all that entitlement spending.

[Yasik2]

[img:3elhezpg]http://yasik.kiev.ua/Obama.jpg[/img:3elhezpg]

[jezer]

[img:3qandbxs]http://www.apcmag.com/images/apc/news/xpdeadend.jpg[/img:3qandbxs]