(10-27-2008, 11:28 AM)CaffeinePowered link Wrote: If you are going to use the Main Street/Wall Street reference stop right there and get rid of it. I hate that reference, almost as much as I hate 'joe the plumber'.

And to be honest, I'm not in favor of any kind of bailout, for either the ordinary citizen or the banks. Or anything further, the consumer needs to be punished, severely, for living outside their means, our economy should be based off of actually producing shit instead of consumer spending. And banks that practiced dicey lending need to be punished as well.

Any manager that allowed that shit to happen should be fired. The banks that are doing just fine are the ones that didn't engage in this shit. The government is also to blame partially for all this shit for encouraging consumers to spend too much and for forcing/encouraging banks to lend out to unqualified buyers, because ZOMG even teh poorz should have homes its the American dream.

Bullshit, the American dream is freedom, the freedom to either move up the social ladder through hardwork and sweat, or to be content with the life you live and the freedoms you enjoy.

(10-27-2008, 11:47 AM)Surf314 link Wrote: Yes it's cliche and a bit annoying but it serves a purpose.

(10-27-2008, 11:58 AM)Arnies Right Bicep link Wrote: [quote author=Surf314 link=topic=1654.msg46072#msg46072 date=1225126044]
Yes it's cliche and a bit annoying but it serves a purpose.

(10-27-2008, 11:59 AM)Surf314 link Wrote: [quote author=Arnie's Right Bicep link=topic=1654.msg46078#msg46078 date=1225126724]
[quote author=Surf314 link=topic=1654.msg46072#msg46072 date=1225126044]
Yes it's cliche and a bit annoying but it serves a purpose.

(10-27-2008, 11:47 AM)Surf314 link Wrote: Did you read my letter?  Because my ideas are all based around plans that benefit both sides and give nothing away.  The only thing is that the government needs to exert the pressure it has to make lenders do this because truth is I don't think they've learned their lesson.  These are things they would want other lenders to do but wouldn't want to do themselves.

Also I used Main Street because it evokes a complex idea with only 2 words.  Yes it's cliche and a bit annoying but it serves a purpose.

Quote:Fault on both sides, the banks for doing it, and consumers for being stupid enough to continue perpetuating the 'gotta have a bigger dick and outdo the johnsons next door by buying more shit' culture of American spending.

(10-27-2008, 12:12 PM)peaches link Wrote:

CaffeinePowered Wrote:Fault on both sides, the banks for doing it, and consumers for being stupid enough to continue perpetuating the 'gotta have a bigger dick and outdo the johnsons next door by buying more shit' culture of American spending.

Ruining your Average Joe by punishing him for shaky borrowing isn't going to help the economy; yes, they're going to learn their lesson, but they're going to learn it at great cost to themselves, their families, and the nation as a whole. Punishment is the simple way out. Positive reinforcement takes substantially more effort to do, but the reward is much greater. We can save punishment or reinforcement for later, even: we need a fix, and we need it immediately. The whip-and-no-carrot logic doesn't serve to improve our position in the short term whatsoever.

I support this plan, Surf, but it does need some tweaking. Mostly in the way it's pitched, because it just sounds slapdash at the moment and I think with some careful, psychological wording it would sound just like you want it to. I will gladly send this in to my district's congressman, though.

(10-27-2008, 12:12 PM)peaches link Wrote: Ruining your Average Joe by punishing him for shaky borrowing isn't going to help the economy; yes, they're going to learn their lesson, but they're going to learn it at great cost to themselves, their families, and the nation as a whole. Punishment is the simple way out. Positive reinforcement takes substantially more effort to do, but the reward is much greater. We can save punishment or reinforcement for later, even: we need a fix, and we need it immediately. The whip-and-no-carrot logic doesn't serve to improve our position in the short term whatsoever.

I support this plan, Surf, but it does need some tweaking. Mostly in the way it's pitched, because it just sounds slapdash at the moment and I think with some careful, psychological wording it would sound just like you want it to. I will gladly send this in to my district's congressman, though.

(10-27-2008, 01:19 PM)CaffeinePowered link Wrote: I replaced your comments with my rebuttals.

Short Term:

- Interest Only On Loans

This would only be for people that have current mortgages and live in them, I definitely do not recommend this for new mortgages.  These people are already in trouble and if they foreclose now it hurts home prices overall even for people that were smart and can afford their house.  This way they have three years to get their affairs in order and they are doing it with their own money that they'd be putting into their equity and the banks are not losing anything.  It is also important that if a sale must occur it not be all at once as it is now but spread out to keep from flooding the market, so this will also create a three year window were people who absolutely cannot afford their home even after paying off their high interest debt can sell at the best time in this window.  Also foreclosures are always quick sales, and trust me I know from my job the prices are always lower than market in foreclosures (usually 10-20%).  A foreclosure sale is the absolute worse for all parties except the buyer.  And even then there is a lot of people that trash the house before leaving.  You need some time on the market, in this market you could need 6-8 months to properly market a property and banks try to sell in 1-2 to whoever will buy.

- Gov't Insurance on Mortgage Losses

This already happens.  Government insures a lot of low income mortgages and other types of mortgages like FHA and VA.  It would just expand the program to banks willing to use foreclosure only as a last resort and ideally they should pay some for this insurance.  Going interest-only short term is just one way of trying to work out a fair solution to keep from foreclosing but as long as they go through these steps first I see no problem in insuring them.  Stopping foreclosures will help ease the oversupply and allow the inventory to be absorbed to normal levels.  Stabalizing the housing market in ways like this will benefit everyone and lower the risk from the insurance.  So in short if the banks are willing to foreclose as a last resort then they can get some protection at that step.  This is not so far out and risks will be minimized.

- Credit Ceiling

But there is no absolute ceiling that applies to every card company.  A person should have an absolute total limit among all credit card companies.  As of now people are just applying for more cards and swapping the balance around.  The total limit for some people is astronomical because they never cancel cards and the temptation to use that limit is great.  Also there is a reward for this because part of your credit score is your available to used ratio.  So canceling cards will hurt your score.  So lets say someone has a $5,000 absolute limit because thats what they can afford to pay off in a year.  They can have one card with a $5,000 limit or two with a $2,500 limit each.  But they cannot have a card with a $4,000 limit and get another with a $2,000 limit.  Let the companies compete for that persons $5,000 allowed limit.

Long Term:
- Finance Education

I think that there should be a counselor available to all people, even the drop outs.  And in some cases it should be mandatory as part of arbitration to help a person work out a mortgage instead of foreclosure.

- College Loans

I think college students are a valuable resource that can be tapped in exchange for scholarships and extremely advantageous loans.  The best part about it is that as these kids are working as financial counselors they will learn so much about what not to do that they will be scared into making the right decisions when it is their turn.

(10-27-2008, 01:47 PM)Ianki link Wrote: New Deal II

(10-27-2008, 02:47 PM)Surf314 link Wrote: As far as the global limit I was thinking of having an opt in system where you can be flagged for a global limit in exchange for getting better rates and so on.  I think overall most people will opt in to it.  And those who think its an intrusion into the rights wont and just pay higher rates.  I may edit that section to include that.

As far as environmental I think there is a real need for the government to create research programs for their own needs and then they can partner with the private sector to share or sell the technologies.  Big areas that need this are military and school.  Many local districts went way overbudget because of gas prices and the cost of bussing kids.  A simple solution would be to research a cheaper alternative that will have a more stable supply - like biodiesel or some sort of electric.  Then for military it is a huge issue that almost all of our military superiority relies on oil just to run it and we don't have control of the supply of oil necessary to do that if the worst happens and we have to rely on ourselves.  So there would be a good opportunity for researching methods of having completely energy independant military bases.  That tech could then be used to help towns and cities become energy independant.

(10-27-2008, 10:52 AM)Surf314 link Wrote: Personal finance is something that everyone should know and many don’t.  More importantly the lack of these skills by a majority of Americans (even by those that would call themselves financially savvy) is a major drag on the US economy.  A basic financial advisement program teaching the skills of making a budget and how to manage and pay off your debt, as well as the dangers and costs of carrying that debt should be set up immediately.