20% Unemployment in CA counties

[CA renter]

Very true, desmond.

[cabal]

CAR – I don’t know why you continue to spin govt bailout as a reward for reckless and fraudulent behavior. The main purpose of the bailouts were to defend this country against a threat large enough to be classified as a national security event. I don’t like it either but I agree with the experts that this was a necessary evil to prevent the country from an economic collapse of proportions large enough to seize fortune 500 companies, induce 30% unemployment, crash the stock market, in addition to all the other collateral effects. The tent enclave downtown would morph into whole shantytowns occupying every neighborhood park and crime would certainly skyrocket. The fact that some reckless banks benefitted from loans/bailouts and a few naïve homeowners received mods is incidental, a side show at best.

As for the rest of your post, I don’t disagree. With regards to your rhetorical questions, my answers are obviously no, no and no. Greedy lenders and speculators are not entitled to bailouts and deserve their chosen fate. Sellers are legally entitled to reap the bubble profit. The moral obligation of the seller, of knowing the buyer will lose their life savings is entirely subjective as I previously indicated, based somewhat on your personal values. If someone offers me 4M for my 2M house, I ALWAYS have a choice. I could say yes, where do I sign meaning I want the money and your well being is no concern of mine. I could also say no, you are overpaying and I have some compassion for you even though I don’t know you.

Losses from your personal investments do not warrant bailout because it does not threaten the security of this country. You do not need to hang your head in shame or remain quiet in some dark corner. And finally no, I’m not upset I didn’t sell my house at the peak. Like some here, I don’t view my primary residence as an investment, just an expense that needs to be paid off, a place of sanctuary for the family, an asset where return on investment has no meaning. None of this however has any bearing on my original and only point. The fact remains it comes off as hypocritical when you criticize the govt for trying to do its job by replenishing the missing money that ultimately ended up in your bank account. Nothing you’ve written has address this point.

[cabal]

CAR – I don’t know why you continue to spin govt bailout as a reward for reckless and fraudulent behavior. The main purpose of the bailouts were to defend this country against a threat large enough to be classified as a national security event. I don’t like it either but I agree with the experts that this was a necessary evil to prevent the country from an economic collapse of proportions large enough to seize fortune 500 companies, induce 30% unemployment, crash the stock market, in addition to all the other collateral effects. The tent enclave downtown would morph into whole shantytowns occupying every neighborhood park and crime would certainly skyrocket. The fact that some reckless banks benefitted from loans/bailouts and a few naïve homeowners received mods is incidental, a side show at best.

As for the rest of your post, I don’t disagree. With regards to your rhetorical questions, my answers are obviously no, no and no. Greedy lenders and speculators are not entitled to bailouts and deserve their chosen fate. Sellers are legally entitled to reap the bubble profit. The moral obligation of the seller, of knowing the buyer will lose their life savings is entirely subjective as I previously indicated, based somewhat on your personal values. If someone offers me 4M for my 2M house, I ALWAYS have a choice. I could say yes, where do I sign meaning I want the money and your well being is no concern of mine. I could also say no, you are overpaying and I have some compassion for you even though I don’t know you.

Losses from your personal investments do not warrant bailout because it does not threaten the security of this country. You do not need to hang your head in shame or remain quiet in some dark corner. And finally no, I’m not upset I didn’t sell my house at the peak. Like some here, I don’t view my primary residence as an investment, just an expense that needs to be paid off, a place of sanctuary for the family, an asset where return on investment has no meaning. None of this however has any bearing on my original and only point. The fact remains it comes off as hypocritical when you criticize the govt for trying to do its job by replenishing the missing money that ultimately ended up in your bank account. Nothing you’ve written has address this point.

[cabal]

CAR – I don’t know why you continue to spin govt bailout as a reward for reckless and fraudulent behavior. The main purpose of the bailouts were to defend this country against a threat large enough to be classified as a national security event. I don’t like it either but I agree with the experts that this was a necessary evil to prevent the country from an economic collapse of proportions large enough to seize fortune 500 companies, induce 30% unemployment, crash the stock market, in addition to all the other collateral effects. The tent enclave downtown would morph into whole shantytowns occupying every neighborhood park and crime would certainly skyrocket. The fact that some reckless banks benefitted from loans/bailouts and a few naïve homeowners received mods is incidental, a side show at best.

As for the rest of your post, I don’t disagree. With regards to your rhetorical questions, my answers are obviously no, no and no. Greedy lenders and speculators are not entitled to bailouts and deserve their chosen fate. Sellers are legally entitled to reap the bubble profit. The moral obligation of the seller, of knowing the buyer will lose their life savings is entirely subjective as I previously indicated, based somewhat on your personal values. If someone offers me 4M for my 2M house, I ALWAYS have a choice. I could say yes, where do I sign meaning I want the money and your well being is no concern of mine. I could also say no, you are overpaying and I have some compassion for you even though I don’t know you.

Losses from your personal investments do not warrant bailout because it does not threaten the security of this country. You do not need to hang your head in shame or remain quiet in some dark corner. And finally no, I’m not upset I didn’t sell my house at the peak. Like some here, I don’t view my primary residence as an investment, just an expense that needs to be paid off, a place of sanctuary for the family, an asset where return on investment has no meaning. None of this however has any bearing on my original and only point. The fact remains it comes off as hypocritical when you criticize the govt for trying to do its job by replenishing the missing money that ultimately ended up in your bank account. Nothing you’ve written has address this point.

[cabal]

CAR – I don’t know why you continue to spin govt bailout as a reward for reckless and fraudulent behavior. The main purpose of the bailouts were to defend this country against a threat large enough to be classified as a national security event. I don’t like it either but I agree with the experts that this was a necessary evil to prevent the country from an economic collapse of proportions large enough to seize fortune 500 companies, induce 30% unemployment, crash the stock market, in addition to all the other collateral effects. The tent enclave downtown would morph into whole shantytowns occupying every neighborhood park and crime would certainly skyrocket. The fact that some reckless banks benefitted from loans/bailouts and a few naïve homeowners received mods is incidental, a side show at best.

As for the rest of your post, I don’t disagree. With regards to your rhetorical questions, my answers are obviously no, no and no. Greedy lenders and speculators are not entitled to bailouts and deserve their chosen fate. Sellers are legally entitled to reap the bubble profit. The moral obligation of the seller, of knowing the buyer will lose their life savings is entirely subjective as I previously indicated, based somewhat on your personal values. If someone offers me 4M for my 2M house, I ALWAYS have a choice. I could say yes, where do I sign meaning I want the money and your well being is no concern of mine. I could also say no, you are overpaying and I have some compassion for you even though I don’t know you.

Losses from your personal investments do not warrant bailout because it does not threaten the security of this country. You do not need to hang your head in shame or remain quiet in some dark corner. And finally no, I’m not upset I didn’t sell my house at the peak. Like some here, I don’t view my primary residence as an investment, just an expense that needs to be paid off, a place of sanctuary for the family, an asset where return on investment has no meaning. None of this however has any bearing on my original and only point. The fact remains it comes off as hypocritical when you criticize the govt for trying to do its job by replenishing the missing money that ultimately ended up in your bank account. Nothing you’ve written has address this point.

[cabal]

CAR – I don’t know why you continue to spin govt bailout as a reward for reckless and fraudulent behavior. The main purpose of the bailouts were to defend this country against a threat large enough to be classified as a national security event. I don’t like it either but I agree with the experts that this was a necessary evil to prevent the country from an economic collapse of proportions large enough to seize fortune 500 companies, induce 30% unemployment, crash the stock market, in addition to all the other collateral effects. The tent enclave downtown would morph into whole shantytowns occupying every neighborhood park and crime would certainly skyrocket. The fact that some reckless banks benefitted from loans/bailouts and a few naïve homeowners received mods is incidental, a side show at best.

As for the rest of your post, I don’t disagree. With regards to your rhetorical questions, my answers are obviously no, no and no. Greedy lenders and speculators are not entitled to bailouts and deserve their chosen fate. Sellers are legally entitled to reap the bubble profit. The moral obligation of the seller, of knowing the buyer will lose their life savings is entirely subjective as I previously indicated, based somewhat on your personal values. If someone offers me 4M for my 2M house, I ALWAYS have a choice. I could say yes, where do I sign meaning I want the money and your well being is no concern of mine. I could also say no, you are overpaying and I have some compassion for you even though I don’t know you.

Losses from your personal investments do not warrant bailout because it does not threaten the security of this country. You do not need to hang your head in shame or remain quiet in some dark corner. And finally no, I’m not upset I didn’t sell my house at the peak. Like some here, I don’t view my primary residence as an investment, just an expense that needs to be paid off, a place of sanctuary for the family, an asset where return on investment has no meaning. None of this however has any bearing on my original and only point. The fact remains it comes off as hypocritical when you criticize the govt for trying to do its job by replenishing the missing money that ultimately ended up in your bank account. Nothing you’ve written has address this point.

[desmond]

Cabal,
According to your logic, gains from personal investments do not threaten the security of the country.

btw,
“bailouts were to defend this country against a threat large enough to be classified as a national security event” that is a good one. I bet some WMD’s are hidden in foreclosed homes.

[desmond]

Cabal,
According to your logic, gains from personal investments do not threaten the security of the country.

btw,
“bailouts were to defend this country against a threat large enough to be classified as a national security event” that is a good one. I bet some WMD’s are hidden in foreclosed homes.

[desmond]

Cabal,
According to your logic, gains from personal investments do not threaten the security of the country.

btw,
“bailouts were to defend this country against a threat large enough to be classified as a national security event” that is a good one. I bet some WMD’s are hidden in foreclosed homes.

[desmond]

Cabal,
According to your logic, gains from personal investments do not threaten the security of the country.

btw,
“bailouts were to defend this country against a threat large enough to be classified as a national security event” that is a good one. I bet some WMD’s are hidden in foreclosed homes.

[desmond]

Cabal,
According to your logic, gains from personal investments do not threaten the security of the country.

btw,
“bailouts were to defend this country against a threat large enough to be classified as a national security event” that is a good one. I bet some WMD’s are hidden in foreclosed homes.

[4plexowner]

“bailouts were to defend this country against a threat large enough to be classified as a national security event”

wow! talk about drinking the koolaid!

I thought the bubble koolaid was bad – I wonder how many years of bailout koolaid we will have to put up with

[4plexowner]

“bailouts were to defend this country against a threat large enough to be classified as a national security event”

wow! talk about drinking the koolaid!

I thought the bubble koolaid was bad – I wonder how many years of bailout koolaid we will have to put up with

[4plexowner]

“bailouts were to defend this country against a threat large enough to be classified as a national security event”

wow! talk about drinking the koolaid!

I thought the bubble koolaid was bad – I wonder how many years of bailout koolaid we will have to put up with

[4plexowner]

“bailouts were to defend this country against a threat large enough to be classified as a national security event”

wow! talk about drinking the koolaid!

I thought the bubble koolaid was bad – I wonder how many years of bailout koolaid we will have to put up with

[Author]

Posts