Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
He's not wrong.
Both Bush 41 and Bush 43 signed laws giving tax credits to promote the purchase of electric vehicles.
Bush 43 did indeed sign the 7,500 tax credit into law as part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.
Full Text of H.R. 1424 (110th): Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 - GovTrack.us
See Title II section 205.
Then in the spirit of a more constructive forum debate I think you really do owe Paul an apology.
A few data points are missing from the debate over mortgage reductions.
The reason it's a hot topic is that the 5 largest PRIVATE lenders just settled for 26 billion over accusations of improper lending and foreclosure behavior. A good chuck of this money is going to select underwater mortgage holders as compensation for unfair banking practices.
To date Fannie and Freddie have avoided mortgage reductions given the implications of taxpayer money and obviously the potential for abuse.
There certainly is an economic argument that mortgage reductions can be effective to stabilize the market. Some also argue that payment reductions can achieve the same effect.
While I'd agree that what might effectively be a taxpayer subsidy is a slippery slope, given the large number of mortgages held by Fannie and Freddie the taxpayer will end up taking a hit regardless if the situation doesn't improve.
-spence |
"in the spirit of a more constructive forum debate I think you really do owe Paul an apology."
We were talking baout the Volt, which did not exist before Obama was President. The reason why I specified the Volt credit is that it's dishonest for Obama to say that Republicans only care about the rich, when his policies (Obama's credit for the Volt) is in effect giving cash back to folks whose average incomes are around $170,000. The fact that Bush had a similar program is irrelevent, because Bush wasn't saying that his political opponents only care about rich people. If my point was that only liberals offer green credits, I would be wrong. Since my point was that Obama has enacted policies that give tax credits to wealthy people, I am not incorrect. But Paul indeed has a point. Obama did
not invent the concept of green credits. However, his point was moot, because it was not refuting what I had actually said.
"A good chuck of this money is going to select underwater mortgage holders as compensation for unfair banking practices."
Fine. And after those lenders fork over that money to the feds, they jack up their prices to pay for that. That hurts all of us. It hurts those of us who did nothing wrong.
"There certainly is an economic argument that mortgage reductions can be effective to stabilize the market"
I don't doubt that. However, that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. If my neighbor did something stupid, why does he get financial help and I don't? Why does he deserve that money more than me?
Spence, there is also a common-sense argument that you take responsibility for your actions.
"the taxpayer will end up taking a hit regardless if the situation doesn't improve."
I may or may not take a hit if foreclosures hit the market. I will definitely take a hit if my money is taken from me and given to someone who was reckless and irresponsible.
If the value of all the homes are artificially inflated, all that does is postpone the inevitable correction that needs to take place.