Comments on: The Jon Stewart solution

By: silentSCREAM

silentSCREAM — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Viability debate aside, Mr Stewart’s solution could NEVER, repeat NEVER, be entertained as an option by the powers that be. Why. Simple. It’s inconsistent with rule #1 in the plutocrat’s guide to good governance — keep the rich rich and the poor poor.

By: Baal

Baal — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

HEAR!!!! HEAR!!!!!!

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Uhmm, well, I have been financially responsible, paying off my mortgage ahead of schedule based on my financial resources and ability to pay, for the past 12 years on the current house. I didn’t buy too much house and I knew that there would be ups and downs.

No way in hell am I taking over the mortgages of irresponsible idiots, especially by way of government fiat.

I like Jon’s show and I watch it regularly and usually I get a good laugh or two. On this occasion I am totally disgusted.

By: DJM

DJM — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Obviously the idea is meant to get people thinking about ways to help the economy besides giving more money(and thus more power over all of us) to the financial “wizards” who made the mess in the first place …. especially with no over sight or strings attached! As it is they are just giving money away to banks without taking any control at all. (I think not nationalizing the banks at least for the short term is a big mistake.)
But if the firestorm of foreclosures (and job losses) isn’t stopped soon the whole neighborhood will burn to the ground, including yours.
Perhaps a compromise is in order… What if the government bail-out money was used somehow to replace some of the high interest loans with low interest or even no interest limited time loans (say five or ten years), with the property as collateral? (Of course taking anything away from the banks won’t be as easy as giving them free money to redecorate with I suppose) That might give the country the breathing space it needs “if” the other things that need to be done such as bringing jobs back or creating new ones, reducing dependence on oil (not just foreign oil, all oil)…many things need to change that can’t be postponed any longer.

By: texasmike

texasmike — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Well, Warren…I know a couple who are in the process of shortselling their home because the gentleman got laid off…as in some creep in upper safe management decided to make himself look good and fired half of what makes the product. Nevermind that orders still have to be processed. Beancounters never worry about actually delivering a product only delivering numbers.
In any case, I think it’s irresponsible to accuse this gentleman of being an idiot who got in over his head. I’d say more than a healthy proportion of short sells and foreclosures are due to job losses. The days of the twenty year job has long gone. I always get a chuckle from those who assume someone is a bum for foreclosing on a home loan. Maybe they are but maybe they aren’t. There is something basically wrong in this country with society. They treat laid off people like they have some sort of leprosy. If 75,000 people get laid off tomorrow, do you think they just disappear in a whiff of smoke? Why pretend they don’t exist anymore?

By: Jim Shelton

Jim Shelton — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

…doesn’t the viability depend on the kind of debt? That is, the unfortunate loss of income or irresponsibility?

By: DJM

DJM — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I think the main difference with the way people think about “rewarding bad behavior” is that old personality trait of authoritarianism. Those people who are authoritarian followers are inclined to believe all people in positions of power are innocent until proven guilty (and often not even then) and that all poor people (and in fact every person who doesn’t share their culture and beliefs totally) are guilty until proven innocent (and often not even then). In my opinion as long as otherwise good people ALWAYS believe that ordinary people in need of help, got into that situation by their own poor judgement and that, that means they and their families should be thrown to the wolves(punished for mistakes and/or illness or some other form of bad luck?!?!) Then I know our country has lost it’s moral compass completely ….and that Gandhi was right when he said; “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” and again when he was asked : What do you think of Western civilisation? he replied ; ” I think it would be a very good idea.”

By: Elmo

Elmo — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

If your money goes to the banks to buy the worthless assets then you’re taking over the mortgage. If the Stewart plan goes into effect, you’re taking over the mortgage. You’re taking it over one way or the other. The only question is, which plan will get the credit market unfrozen quicker?

By: jgw

jgw — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I too think its a pretty good idea except for one little problem. It will not solve unemployment or spending in that folks will remain unemployed and will continue to borrow simply to live – even after all their current debt is paid off. Even if the banks were not holding bad debt its also unlikely, now, that they are going to be willing to loan money to the unemployed or bankrupt. This, of course also means that the problems will continue. Frankly, bailing out the banks seems an exercise in futility in that it actually fixes nothing.

From what I hear, and read, Bush basically threw about 200 billion on the street with absolutely no oversight. Now, Obama, is going to do it with a LOT of oversight. I suspect the results may end up being approximately equal except that we will now be able to see what happens to it.

The general consensus of economists is that this thing cannot be stopped. This seems to be a historical fact. Most economists say that what must be done is that gov must throw a LOT of money at it, WHEN IT HITS BOTTOM. This will act as a self multiplying stimulus so that recovery is much faster. Anything, before hitting bottom, will only serve to probably extend the misery (there is some evidence of this when one considers the results of Roosevelt’s economic intercessions).

This is, however, an absolutely great opportunity to fix some of our rotting infrastructure. I, personally, don’t think they are spending even half of what is needed on infrastructure and question some of the feelgood projects in the proposed legislation. People are driving over bridges that should be condemned and living below dams likely to burst. Water supply infrastructure, nationwide is in jeopardy, air traffic control is in serious trouble, etc. (the list is endless). Given the state of our regulatory bodies (the FDA, for instance) there needs to be a serious will to put boots on the ground in these areas before we all die! Even our food supply is at risk!

We should also not forget that we have, obviously, a seriously rotten and inept financial infrastructure. Perhaps, given that they are not loaning out money, even when its given to them, for free to do that with. Perhaps they should be allowed to fail, right now, when they are worthless, so that we can actually rebuild that infrastructure too. From everything we are told they currently serve no real function anyway (due to their refusal to do what they are supposed to).

I also suspect that the current situation is seriously mitigated by Social Security, savings insurance, etc. None of this existed in 1929 and, I think, will tend to lessen our problems, at least somewhat. Please also remember, even if we get to 10% unemployment, or even 15%, that would mean that 90%, or 85%, are still working!

I would also remind folks that we have elected a president who seems to have an infallible sense of timing. Hopefully that will continue.

jgw
Port Angeles, WA

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Which assumes that the credit market is ‘frozen’. It’s not. Lenders are now demanding ability to pay that they had not before, but should have. It’s actually quite robust for reasonably qualified applicants.