So Should Obama Veto the Stimulus?
Going by his own words in a recent address at GMU earlier this month, it would seem he has his veto pen ready first its first run...
"We have to make tough choices and smart investments today so that as the economy recovers, the deficit starts to come down. We cannot have a solid recovery if our people and our businesses don't have confidence that we're getting our fiscal house in order. That's why our goal is not to create a slew of new government programs, but a foundation for long-term economic growth.
"That also means an economic recovery plan that is free from earmarks and pet projects. I understand that every member of Congress has ideas on how to spend money. Many of these projects are worthy, and benefit local communities. But this emergency legislation must not be the vehicle for those aspirations. This must be a time when leaders in both parties put the urgent needs of our nation above our own narrow interests."
Well said, President Obama.
I assume that this means he'll throwing vetoes at the stimulus bill until it actually turns into something that can even pretend to do what its biggest proponents boast that it can do.
Well, I'm not holding my breath. I have the utmost respect for Obama's rhetorical skills here. He can easily say how the stimulus package that he signs does not go against that quote above. And the beauty is that he'll do it without even doing it if you listen closely enough.
Don't get me wrong. I think Obama's heart is the right place but the economic thinking that has his ear on this matter is very flawed and incredibly clumsy.
- John's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Out of curiosity
What are the specific aspects of the plan that you would consider earmarks or pet projects that don't set a foundation for economic growth? I'm not saying there aren't any, just trying to learn what exactly your objections might be. Or are you of the opinion that government spending is never going to result in economic growth? (In which case, there is obviously no point in delving into specifics.)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Let's give the Senate a shot at it's stimulus bill
After a brief perusal, I will admit that I'm underwhelmed by the bill the House passed (not enough stimulus, too much plain old run of the mill spending), but maybe the Senate can do better.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Stimulus comes in many forms
For instance, the bill includes billions more for Medicaid.
Without that money Medicaid funding will be drastically cut in many states (Medicaid requires a state match). In a less wealthy place like Alabama that will mean numerous hospitals will be closing, throwing thousands more out of work. Many hospitals in rural areas depend on medicaid reimbursements to keep going.
qui tacet consentire
Oh Come On..It's More Like Whats"Not" In There...
Oh dear me... :-(
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Geeze.
Nancy's ready for her next facelift already? The camera certainly isn't her friend.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4lol... ...which is worse, that, or...
...90B out of 825B is legitamate stimulus spending!
Maybe she should just through that one in there too, facelifts for congress. I'll let SL, quaqor, Miss L or PM tell us how that one would save us money too!
LOL!
Crazy!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Agreed, pretty much
There's more in it that's stimulus than the WSJ lists, but House Democrats have indulged in a spending orgy on pet projects here, rather than focusing on spending that would have the most immediate stimulative impact.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I gusess this little...
...crisis isn't such a big deal after all?
I was under the immpression we were in survival mode?
Sure am glad Republicans are washing there hands of this, so when the counry's economy really tanks, and people are really in bread lines...we will all know who did this.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Meh
The economy has already tanked, the country is already in disrepair, and the Federal balance sheet is already a mess. Both parties are to blame, and there will be no "washing of hands" of that for anybody who has been in Congress over the past sessions as far as I'm concerned.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
...lol...you just wait...if you think this is so awful...
...the fat lady has not even taken the stage yet, and considering this "stimulus" is a one party proposition...you bet we'll remember this.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
You really are tone-deaf when it comes to the American people
Latest Fox News opinion poll http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/012909releaseweb.pdf
:
Summary:
Congress:
Jan 27-28: Approve, 40%........... Disapprove, 46%
Jan 13-14: Approve, 23%........... Disapprove, 68%
Obama (Jan 27-28):
Overall: Approve, 65%...... Disapprove 16%
Among Democrats: 85% to 2%
Among Republicans: 37% to 36%
Among Independents: 64% to 16%
So..... approval of congress went from -45 to -6 in two weeks. The only thing they've been discussing is the Stimulus bill during that time.
As for Obama... you're in the minority in your own party, Red_Wing.
See... while you, like Limbaugh, are actively rooting for Obama to fail and looking for every real or imagined mis-step.... the American people - even a plurality of Republicans - are rooting for him to succeed and looking for a reason to like what he's doing.
Your party, instead of getting the message from the last election, is exacerbating their own damaged image.
One more cartoon to drive home the point:
I survived the Bush Administration
My thoughts are the same as that old Republican John Wayne
I didn't vote for the man, but I hope he does a good job.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
There ya go...I like that.
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
You are over simplifying it to the point of absudity...
The Republicans standing firm on Pork and spending is part of that rating dear friend. We want stimulus, but it doesn't have to be at the expense of sound fiscal policy.
You, and your overly zealous ilk, believe whatever BO does is golden. Shhh...no dissension...Same as in the primaries...Ask a legitimate Q...RACIST! Now Ask about the stimulus....you want the economy to fail!!! LOL!
It's a joke, right?
We want the economy to succeed dip sh!t, and it seems like you listen to Rush way more than I ever have! lol...!
I am in the percentage who would say yes congress is doing something, Yeah, category. So, like most things, those numbers are all in the eye of the beholder.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Actually no....
Actually not true.
Congressional Democrats are rated 20 points higher than Congressional Republicans in that poll.
If anything, the GOP is bringing the rating down, dear friend.
I never called you a racist, or even hinted at it. You can set up your straw men all you want, and play the victim all you want, but it simply didn't happen to you.
Not by me, not by ML, not by Quaoar, not by anybody on this site. Quit making shit up.
And I only parroted back to you what Rush Limbaugh said..... in response to you saying "no Republicans are wanting the economy to fail".
I didn't say anything about YOU.
Again... you need to learn how to read polls. Congressional Republicans are being rated MUCH LOWER than Congressional Democrats in the polls. The rating for congress overall is being dragged down by the Republicans. You, personally, are an outlier.
Like I said... you - like the GOP members of congress - are tone-deaf when it comes to reading the mood of the American people.
Yes... I'm sure you have a handle on reading the mood of the far right (an ever decreasing group).
You're on the fringe. You don't realize it yet. But you're there.
I survived the Bush Administration
Um, actually, yes...
Poll shmoll, if you are unable to see the volume and intensity of concern over the garbage in democrats stimulus, well actually that would not surprise me?
I never said you called me a F'ing thing. (Are you sure your not in a federally funded daycare for adults instead of some nuclear facility...were you a SEAL...is PM your cover...do you have a license to kill?) I said, which you evidently ignored too, that during the primaries it was the tactic to label dissenter's as racist just for asking pointed Q's.
You bring up Rush in every post PM, just come out of the closet already. LOL.
And here is classic PM, after telling me I am deaf, you...
LOL! Do you do this in the bathroom so you sound better when you're sounding this sh!t out...LOL!!! Hey, just ask the nurse if she'll do a little proof reading for you. ;-)
You're a clown, you don't realize it yet, but your complimentary DNC juggling pins and red nose are in the mail...just sit tight in your chair there at the nursing home, take your meds, and listen to Rush.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Imagine that
The Democrats are politicians too!
Spare my sensibilites, skymutt! I thought the Democrats were pure good and the Republicans pure evil! Say it isn't so!
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
ha.
...
Disaster corporatism
Disaster Corporatism... | Freedom Democrats
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Ooh Adam...Pat on the back ole boy...
+5!
Though I am not convinced of;
I suspect government health care, and federal control of other sectors have a certain allure for PK.
And;
Counldn't be more spot on!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Another interpretation
is that the very existence of these crises is proof that the current system needs fixing (and said fixes are what you call statism, because let's face it, the solution isn't going to come from anywhere else).
In other words if the market did a decent job there would be no crisis to bolster the argument of those who wish to regulate. The market is its own worst enemy because its very action gives lie to the idea that it works.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Confusion about what "free markets" are
There was a post that John made awhile back about a very good article at Cato Unbound
regarding the common parlance with respect to what a "free market" is.
There are essentially 3 different ways to approach the economy:
Quoting Mr. Roderick Long:
I'll concede that defense of "free markets" in the libertarian laissez faire sense fall victim to the no true scotsman fallacy
(that is, no matter how free a market is, when it fails proponents will say it wasn't a true free market). However, you can't charge that free markets are the cause when we don't even really have them. What you can do is charge corporatism for the failures.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
This is the part that makes
This is the part that makes me so angry when talking to the left. They constantly misuse the term "free market" as a way to denigrate any attempt at disagreeing with them. I appreciate the content of your post because it makes the point clear. As a libertarian I am not pro corporate lobbyist, I am not pro "corporate fat-cats". Those things are products of a market that is constantly tampered with. Politicians (see: employees of the state) are the ones that allow this kind of favoritism that allows these perversions of the market. Not the market itself.
Term limits would have a favorable effect on this...
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
No. They don't.
I am all but convinced that only the most useless among us seek office. The rest are too busy leeding productive lives.
Any person eagerly willing to manipulate the lives of their neighbors is unfit to do so.
LOL! You're on a roll this evening ...Yee Haw!
In any event, if terms were restrained in length, as they were intended, it may attract more run of the mill americans to get involved, it would discourage politicians to sell their soul to the lobbist, devil or anything else, as they are on a plane in X amount of time and counting down anyway.
I am for them.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
That's too cynical even for me
I work in an industry, let's call it widget-making. I can personally see how my whole industry couldmake widgets that better serve society if certain changes were made to legislation. But, seeing as I work in the private sector, I can't make those changes. If I was in government, maybe I could get such changes made.
I think if I could somehow make those changes, just by doing that I'd be way more productive than I am doing what I'm doing now.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I work in industry as well.
I work in industry as well. And I have no interest in creating laws so that our product is "better" used. If I know how to make a product that would benefit more people (i.e. increase the customer base) then I would not hesistate to do it. I've never felt the need to manipulate people to this end. I am more productive doing what I'm doing now or I wouldn't have chosen to do it. Everything else would be a waste of my time.
Yes but...
....if nothing else but that of keeping the government more honest, smaller, more efficient, as that was the framers biggest fear-unconstrained federal government, and they did put in place what mechanisms they could to check that, so now that we see lobbying, and professional politicians are a problem, (and I do appreciate your point by expanding government reach by creating law-even in an effort to restrain it is hard to swallow, but it seems the best answer.) and considering the offset of this law that we probably need and its potential power of change government, I am in favor of term limits.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
And now I'm useless! ;-)
Since you're new and you don't know, I am considering running for Congress in 2010.
It will come down to three things really:
1) If the Libertarians or Greens have ballot access in Ohio
2) If they'll have me in
3) If I can get over being extremely introverted
And before you get upset, I'll be running on two issues and two issues alone:
"Intellectual property" policy and ballot access for minor parties.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Yikes...thats a lot of if's in Feb 09?
...Have you ever run a campaign, or managed an aspect of one before?
Are you...well lets leave it at that for now.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I toyed with the idea of running for state rep in '02
Or was that '04?
Decided against it.
Really I'd be running to bring an issue to the table, not because I thought I'd win.
Closest thing to a campaign I've run is being a recount observer in 2004 for the Kerry, Badnarik, and Cobb campaigns.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Better start making contacts and putting together that...
...team, no matter how small. You'd be surprised how things can start to click once you start communicating your plans to others and get them onboard.
Good luck.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Then you'd better start an
Then you'd better start an IP diary so we can hash out your platform.
All in due time
:-)
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
That's just sad...
beyond belief.
I suppose you think business leaders and bankers never try to manipulate their 'neighbors' lives.
I'm only half stupid
I'm nearly convinced you'll
I'm nearly convinced you'll never get it.
ditto
What's to get?
Your cynical resentment of being forced by do-gooders to stop at that tax payer funded traffic light in your neighborhood? The audacity of those legislators trying to manipulate your liberty against your will! Shameless.
Good look with that hostile takeover!
I'm only half stupid
You do realize when you continually...
...point out legitamate, lawful, and constitutional use of tax dollars, such as (your favorite) traffic lights, it just totally screws up the rest of your argument?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Without those "perversions"
the market implodes. Instantly. You can't have a free market for more than a nanosecond because that's how long it'll take your unregulated capitalists to figure out how to break it. You will, overnight, see it become a monopoly. That's how relaly free markets work- they DON'T.
Why? Same reason communism doens'r work, because it relies on people choosing not to break the system when they have every reason to do so. It runs entirely contrary to human nature. You can't tell people "your only goal is to make as much money as possible, and by the way there's nobody to stop you doing anything you want, but we'd really appreciate it if you didn't do anything to interfere with the free action of the market."
It's retarded. The very first thing any serious capitalist will do is to screw his rivals and grab a monopolistic vantage from hich to extend their power.
The only thing stopping that is regulation. So your choice is either to have a fleeting instant of free market capitalism followed by a solidified and unbreakable collection of monopolies, or to allow regulation to keep the bumbling machine of capitalism spinning along.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
What you say in posts like this is so far off the charts
that I have to wonder if we're all really discussing the same thing.
Oh well.
I find that odd, John
Previously you've agreed that really free markets were impossible, you've instead argued for "freer markets", which at least is logically tenable (if, I think, a mistake).
Are you saying now that you think a free market is possible or are you just disagreeing with the manner of a free market's demise?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
This is partly what I mean
You load far too much onto what I don't say and then find that overly loaded pretension "odd".
What is off the charts is virtually the entire manner in which conceptualize what is happening in front of you in terms of economic activity, markets, market failure, monopoly and so on and so forth. It's shocking. So shocking that, like I said, I seriously have to wonder if we're discussing the same thing.
Yes, 100% pure free markets do not exist. But that is not the issue. It never really is.
I have to disagree
with your last point. Magilson for instance is direct vidence that there are people whom believe in 100% free markets. Indeed that sort of belief seems a hell of a lot more common than your more nuanced view.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I do?
Hmm.
It is possible that the points you've brought up (very few) are situations where I do not agree that regulation with make things "better". But I can understand your confusion. Let me assure you that I am not law-phobic.
You've explicitlly said so
here for example:
http://www.swordscrossed.org/story/20090128/wednesday-open-thread#commen...
How can you really want to give free markets a try if you understand there's no such thing as a free market?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
We're not talking about the same thing.
don't worry about it.
Seriously, we're not.
Agreed
n/t
Free markets are
apparently so beautiful and pure, that you can't touch them, nor explain them, nor pin them down with any concrete answer.
We can just know that things would be so full of liberty if we were operating in a free market system, whatever it is, it's indescribable and unaccounted for.
I am still looking for one. Apparently it's all about conceptualization.
I'm only half stupid
Read a F'ing book woman!
There are an abundance of answers to your Q's, but, to try to give one an education on the economics of the Fm or free enterprise as a whole, especially when they are a esentially a socialist, is virtually impossible in this format.
Better yet, spend 10% of your conspiracy theory seach time and go to CATO, AEI, Mises Institute, or any number of sources and you figure it out for yourself...but don't slither around here asking to be educated...educate yourself and bring something to the table.
So when you understand the free market, and still disagree with it, (Which few who do would, but you probably will) let us know why.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Not helpful
//
Certainly I have the liberty to disagree with you?
It is layering this separatist free market ideology on our already existing system that has grown the the wealth disparity in our country.
Under the guise of keep more of your own money, you actually now have less.
I'm only half stupid
OMG...what country are you in...
You went to public schools...Your naivity is evidence the DOE is failing!
The free market is our system ding bat! It is your interference with it that has turned this nation into something else all together!
And then this collosal example of ignorance!
I won't point out the obvious.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Incoherent statement
If the free market is 'our' system, then what do you call social security, and the obviously evil public schools, that taught me to become the devils spawn, according to you.
Exactly how much more money have you given to drive your car and pay for your health coverage, in say the last eight year time span? Those tax subsidies to the oil companies certainly didn't turn into a cost savings benefit for you now did they.
I'm only half stupid
LOL! I call it...
..slow invasive tyranny.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Thanks Stiney (and good article, Adam)
Ya know, after all the mountains of writing I've done on the general matter, (not to mention other work from the likes of Adam, Ka1igu1a, ATQB and LZ) I would like to think that...at least in this little enclave of the world wide web...we posters here at SC would, as a group, more be clear and have a very clear understanding of free market ideas and a more accurate interpretation of libertarianism, classical liberalism and real market-based economics ideas...not carticatures and strawmen or sloppy definitions.
No. I'm not patting myself on the back and I'm no authority or irreproachable source of knowledge on these matters...BUT, one doesn't need to agree with me or share my ideals to correctly think about these matters. While people of my feather may disagree on many subtle things, the general premise that I and the others aforementioned have put forth in our time here is pretty basic stuff and is accurate and correct as far as establishing a basic framework for libertarian-type thinking.
What does this second paragraph really mean?
Well, it means that agreeing with free market thinking, libertarianism and classical liberalism is not expected or demanded of anyone. However, misstating or deliberately misrepresenting what these terms mean on a basic level...when those here should know better...is somewhat deplorable (as far as these go in terms of importance) and quite frankly: a waste of time. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and POV but not their own facts...as the saying goes.
IOW, thinking clearly about a topic doesn't require that one agree with it.
But what I often see is that not agreeing with a topic becomes an excuse to muddle it up and misrepresent it...as A WAY OF DISAGREEING WITH IT. Not cool.
Fortunately, MOST people here who are left of center do the art of good discussion credit by speaking fairly, clearly and honestly about these topics even when they disagree.
I can say that, for my part, I do my best to not misrepresent or misunderstand what our social democrats here MEAN or THINK regardless of whether I agree. Of course, having been more liberal (modern) in the past, I would quite frankly find it inexcusable of myself to not be able to accurately empathize.
'Tis an old battle
There seems to be a common and deplorable assumption that if one thinks fairly about something, then one must be in support of it. Instead of trying to understand something that they may disagree with, some people dismiss it as invalid or wrong, as if they fear contamination by such impure ideas.
Applies to people, too. I like Lincoln's approach: "I don't like that man. I must get to know him better."
+5. Excellent points, PF
and an excellent quote.
Debate and the exchange of ideas is elevated to a wonderful and fruitful level when people discuss matters accurately and fairly and in their strongest form...IOW, as those who espouse those ideas present them.
Now, if someone doesn't agree with that idea...and that can be so for many reasons...there's plenty of honest diuscussion to be had on the source of the disagreement. But that is altogether different than misstating what actually "is" or what others believe for the sake of ideological expediency.
Great point, and one we all could keep in mind here...
....I know I sure can...
...but try that with say, a Miss L sometime... ;-)
I guess what doesn't kill you makes you stronger... LOL!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
That's nice, but...
...I didn't use the term "free market." That was deliberate. Free markets don't and can't exist so discussing them outside of a fantasy setting is pretty pointless.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Ya Thats why you always hear those ubiquitous comparisons...
...between Milton Friedman and A.A. Milne.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
"Oh, bother," said Pooh.
"There's no such thing as free honey."
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Exactly....You have no idea how true that is...
..or how that relates to the current stimulus... HaHa!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
not a simple dichotomy
Plenty of planned economies have imploded. Plenty of regulations have been found to strangle the economy.
There can be well-managed markets (or well-managed market institutions) and there can bee poorly managed markets.
There are a varierty of property regimes (which are typically state-enforced, BTW) around which markets can emerge. Presumably, markets would behave differently depending on the underlying property system.
The fact that one of these paradigms had a problem does not damn all implementations of that paradigm.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Absolutely.
It isn't "free market bad, planned economy good." It's "free market impossible, planned economy possible." It is very possible to do regulation badly.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
our financial system is fundamentally statist
Sure, the system does need fixing. In this crisis (and many preceeding crises) the core of the crisis is our financial system, and banks in particular. Why do banks continue with their current business model if it generates crises on a regular basis? Why have these banked survived for 100 years, and why can they pretend to offer "stability" as a service to customers?
Because the government props them up. The government is preventing the system from being fixed.
This crisis-prone business model (over-leveraging) should have died 100 years ago, but the government does everything in its power to maintain and expand the banking system, with all of it's crisis-inducing policies.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
What's the motivation
What is the motivation for the government to prop up a bad banking model?
I'm only half stupid
Two reasons, MissL
One reason is that we are always in the present and so much is always at stake politically in the present. Just like now and at any time in the past, there's always something that needs short term fixing or stabilizing so natural corrections are always stalled upon and avoided to make things tolerable or better RIGHT NOW. Tomorrow is always irrelevant. \
The other reason is that banks have a lot of clout and people who depend on banks working smoothly (read: the way they want it to) have a lot of clout. They always want to push off as much risk as possible and protect gains.
Man will always want the most with the least pain. That is a simple microecon incentive.
So, in short, the reason is that today always outrules tomorrow and people are always pushing for action that makes today better as soon as possible.
Actually I was asking
Adam. I am curious about his opinion.
I have trouble understanding your answers.
I'm only half stupid
Now that makes sense...
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
A few thoughts from people smarter than me on the stimulus...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Here is a great place to keep an eye on the stimulus...
Stimulus Watch
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Veto it...Looks like to me he is going the other way...
...all together.
And now for something really disturbing.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
In for a penny, in for a pound
This was one thing I was slightly worried about. Looks like I should have been more worried.
Now the Fed et al. is going to have to throw bad money after good(?) to keep these guys afloat. Methinks its time to nationalize the entire banking system. I'm betting that'll end up saving money in the long run.
The other way to go is to simply pay off enough of the "underperforming" mortgages that people can refinance the principle at a lower, fixed rate.
And then, of course, the default option. (pun definitely intended)
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
And why not let them default, and bite the bullet?
Let's just learn a lesson and move on...
And what about all the mortgages that have already defaulted, so they're just screwed?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Here's a suggestion, President Obama:
Let's get the hell out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan before going any furthur. We need that money and man/womanpower HERE...at home.
I'd say even that is stopping too short.
n/t