Santelli is right, No bail out for bad behavior!

This past Thursday, on CNBC, Rick Santelli accused the Obama administration of "promoting bad behavior" with its $75 billion lifeline to millions of Americans who are on the brink of foreclosure.  And, White House Robert Gibb's comeback was that he'd buy Santelli a cup of coffee if he goes to the White House to read the details of the Obama plan.  Indeed, this is the same White House that quickly pushed through the stimulus 1000+ page stimulus package that no Congressman, Senator read!  (Anybody taking bets as to whether Obama read it ).

The white house claims that the goal of Obama's plan is to help millions of homeowners from being evicted and stabilize the flailing housing market.  Santelli says responsible homeowners will end up subsidizing other people's bad behavior.  He made his point on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade, when he turned to traders and said: "How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?" The traders booed that notion, as would any logical person.

I'm with Santelli (is that a surprise?).  You want to help those people that are in danger of foreclosure?  Don't subsidize their mortgage, create jobs and put them to work (may be even 50, or 60 hrs a week at the beginning) so they can pay for that mortgage.  How am I going to teach my kid responsibility?  How am I going to teach him that when he grows up he should ONLY buy what he can afford?  He'll just turn around and tell me... "Don't worry dad, if I can't afford it, the government will pay for it..."

This bailout is just another form of entitlement, and a slap to those of us who have worked hard to meet our obligations.  Santelli is right!

Stimulus and Mortgage Help

Stimulus package?  Sure, it sounds good.  Mortgage help to millions of homeowners defaulting on their loan?  And that somehow is going to help ease the real estate crisis? Who are we kidding?

So, the government will subsidize people's mortgages.  They want homeowners in distress to renegotiate a lower payment and the government will make up the difference to the bank.  Lots of things wrong with this idea.

First, let me say that there may be *some* homeowners that are in distress through no fault of their own.  But, let's look at the most likely scenario of how most of them got in trouble.

I make $35K year, and after many years, I save $20K as a down payment, and go to the bank to get a loan for a $200K home, which is about the most I can afford.   The slimy loan officer tells me, "...you know what, I can set up the papers so that I can show you can afford that new $450K house they just built, up on the hill".  My heart is pounding,...  "what that beautiful 3-car garage home, are you serious?"  "Yes, don't worry, we'll set it up so you only pay the interest for a the first two years, and then we'll re-negotiate a term at that time, it'll be O.K."   I'm so excited, of course, "go ahead, draw up the papers,...."  that beautiful house on the hill...  it will be mine, oh my God.  Of course, it doesn't cross my mind that I am only making $35K a year, that I can't even afford to keep-up the house, never mind pay the real mortgage.   So, here we are a few years later, and I want the government to help me, I am screaming bloody murder, I was misled by the loan officers, the government has to do something about it.  Give me a break!  What, I didn't know that I was only making $35K a year?  I didn't know that all I could afford was a $200K home?  Who are we kidding here.  And, even if we assume for a second that I didn't know, is that an excuse?  Shouldn't I know?  Can you imagine going to court for having bought a stolen car, and trying to use the excuse... "Your honor, it's not my fault, I didn't know that when I was paying $5K for that brand sparkling new $80K Mercedes, there was something wrong".  And what, do you expect the judge to say, "...Oh, don't worry... it's not your fault, we'll just help you pay for the difference so you can keep it".

Doesn't that sound like what's going on here?

And then, there is another issue.  The government is going to supplement these mortgages, and the want people to keep making payments on a property that keeps losing value?  Now, how much of a business sense does that make?

Oh, I forgot, the government will only help those families in distress.  So, let's see.  Finally, three years ago, after working long hours for many years, my wife and I were able to save enough money to put as a down payment to build a home the way we wanted it.  Last year, my wife lost her job, and is now working part time, that's the only thing she could find.  To make enough to carry our new home mortgage, I am working an average of 65 hours a week in a descent paying job (thank God I have this job).  We are just able to stay above water.  But guess what, we do not qualify as a "family in economic distress".  If I go back to working just 40 hours a week, we would.  Talk about an incentive to become state-dependent.

Britons prisoned in Dubai

I just read "Britons get jail sentence for having sex on a public beach."  It sounds like too harsh a punishment, on the face of it.  But is it, really?  Let's briefly look at the details that have been published about the story in the past few months.  They got drunk, started making out on the beach, were warned to stop that behavior by a police officer twice, and then proceeded to have sex on the beach, anyway.  

There are laws against that behavior in that country.  These Britons don't have to agree with those laws, but they were "guests" in that country and "had" to play by their rules.

Oh, I know, I know.  "Individual freedom, freedom of expression, how can they dictate behavior, why can't they bring themselves to the 21st century, what's wrong with two consenting adults having sex,..."  and more such thinking...  We've all heard it all before.

I may not agree with all the laws of Dubai (well, the ones I've heard and read about, anyway), they are *their* laws, and as such every visitor has to obey them.  Furthermore, putting Dubai laws aside for a moment, why do these Britons think that a public beach is O.K. to have sex on?  Why would that be O.K., even in a place different than Dubai, let's say in the U.K.?  It shouldn't be!  And, being drunk is NOT an excuse.  If anything, it should increase the sentence they got as one more violation of their laws.  

Now look, I may sound harsh and inflexible, but I am getting tired of always making excuses for people's bad behavior, not allowing them (or forcing them) to take responsibility for their action, and always having to be "understanding".  Understanding, yes, how does all that babying and understanding help people realize when they have made a mistake and make them want not to make the same mistake again?  It doesn't.   If anything, it makes them feel that whatever bad behavior we are condoning, is O.K., which simply propagates the problem.

Let's tale a step back, lets make some simple rules, or better yet, let's just use common sense and apply rules and laws we already have. Let's respect other people's laws and generally accepted rules of behavior, when we are in their home/country.  And above all, Let's respect ourselves, because if we don't, nobody will respect us.  

No Bail-out for Wall street

Eventually, as we all know, the s*it hits the fan.  And it did!  Wall street came to a screeching halt, that totally messed up the UK and other European markets, banks stared to fold right and left, and just like a few weeks ago (which I think it might have been testing the waters), the government proposed to step in and save the day using someone else's money - yours and mine.  

So, you figure, well, sometimes governments need to do that, for the common good.  They step in, infuse all sorts of (*our*) capital, end up with all sorts of equity (on *our* behalf) and then, if things work out, they (and *we*) get something in return.  But no, the original version of this ingenious plan didn't call for any equity or any other ownership.  It would simply buy the *bad debt* from those failing institutions... and the what?  Oh, I forgot, in 5 years the government would re-evaluate the situation and see if there was any windfall to collect, and *at that time* come up with a plan for repayment.  Are you kidding me?

I think the American people are waking up to what is going on, which transcends political party affiliations...  They (politicians and big wigs on Wall street) are all interested in a free ride.  All willing to take the credit for something going well, and nobody willing to accept responsibility. Sounds all too familiar?  Well, it is.  It's happening every day.

I don;t want to bail out the investment banks.  I don't want to bail out a million people that got mortgages way higher than they could afford and are now having their homes foreclosed. Most of them knew they were getting into something they could afford.  And, if they didn't they should have.   Why is it that "ignorance of the law" is no excuse in any legal setting, but in this instance "claimed" ignorance needs to be excused?   Why should I and the next persion have to work harder to now bail them out.  

Here is the Oxymoron...  A bail-out plan is proposed by Bush and his administration, Democrats are all for it and are pushing for its passage and republicans vote it down.  Is this ironic, or what...

And, the day after that, the dollar goes up against the euro by the highest percentage since its inception.

This is a weird world we live in.

Pamela Anderson doesn't like Palin

So, Pamela Anderson was asked about Palin and she said she can't stand Palin and "she can suck it".  And, Matt Damon thinks that Palin becoming president, in case something happens to McCain, is "scary".  Oh, man, where do these people come off acting as if their notoriety makes qualified to comment on thiese issues?  Why were they even asked by the press in the first place?  I mean, give me a break, why would anyone care what Pamela Anderson thinks about anything, especially about politics or who should run this country?  

You've got to hand it to the Hollywood types (I don't think some of them should be called actors, since they can't really even act), who have such high opinions of themselves that believe we should value their take on serious issues.

The Entitlement Generation

No, that's not a term that I made up, it's been used lately to describe today's 20's generation.  Other descriptions have been arrogant, lazy, ego-centric, etc.  

One has to wonder why all this name-calling, and how true it is.  Well, name-calling is not good and doesn't help, but sometimes you have to call things the way you see them, however painful that may be.

What brought the subject to mind was a report that there are 25% less jobs available than college graduates looking for jobs.  And, how college graduates are disappointed, some of them have to still live at home with their parents, etc.

This is the generation that has grown up being congratulated and given accolades for things like learning how to read, or passing a class in college.  Mind you, we are not talking about excelling in a class, just passing it.  Something that they are *expected* to do, if they are in college.  That's like congratulating someone for telling the truth!  *You are supposed to tell the truth!*, why do you need to be congratulated for doing what you are supposed to do?  I don't get it.

This is the same generation that grew up playing youth baseball and youth soccer in games where they didn't keep track of the score, so us not to upset the losing team.  Come on, if there are no winners and losers, what is the reason for a kid to try to excel?  And how does that prepare them for life, later on?  So, an employer should give everyone the same raises, so as no to upset those who don't pull their eight?  Isn't that punishing those who really work hard?  And how does all this pampering and cajoling help kids prepare for what to expect, and what they are expected to do, in real life?

We can't, however, put all the blame on the young generation.  Parents are also to blame for bringing up their kids teaching them that they are indeed *entitled* to things.  No, I don't know why, I don't know how it started, but I know it's happening.  I see it every day.  In addition to that, you have parents that has spent $100,000+ (sometimes closer to $200,000) for their kid's education, and they expect them to have a job, a good paying one at that, with a degree from such a high cost institution.  There goes the entitlement, again... "expect them to have...".  This rubs off on the kid who now goes to the interview with the attitude... "I spent 4 years and $150,000 to get a degree from Harvard, what can you do for me?"

People, you got it all wrong.  The prospective employers do not have to do anything for you.  They don't owe you anything. Snap out of it!  If they think you are good and you can help their company and *their* goals, they may offer you a job.  And then, you have to show that you are worth that job to keep it.  They shouldn't hire you *simply* to help someone out of school.  Nine times out of them, if that's the reason they hired someone, they will sorely regret it. You should be hired on merit, attitude and future promise.

I think that major mistake most youngsters make is they set a college degree as their final goal.  Wrong, the college degree should not be a final goal, it should be the starting point of one's career, which one has to work at hard, in order to realize it.

Give failing students an "F", tell the losing team of youngsters the score they lost by, don't give everyone a part in he Christmas school play - use the kids that have some talent and more important, show an interest to work on producing a good play, don't reward youngsters for things "they are supposed" to do - no "atta boys" for barely passing a college class.  May be this way the next generation will not feel as entitled. 

Elections - Personal Wars?

It's so confusing... Everyone thinks they have the right answer and they want you to believe them, not the other side, the ignorant liers. Yes, I am talking about the elections. Obama picks Biden to make up for the shortcoming that even Dems agreed he had, experience, and the Democratic party get a new wind in its sails.   McCain picks Palin and the Conservative republicans are elated, because of her stance in abortion, family values, etc. And then, all of a suddent the mud-slinging starts. No, I don't care who started it, or who escalated it. It's here and it bugs me.

What's really interesting, however, is how each party is spinning each event differently, and how some, nominees and pundits alike, are making fools of themselves. Isn't anyone advising them?

In particular, in this case, I am amazed at the democrats. How dense can they be?

- Dems (indirectly) leak information that Palin's last child is not really hers, but her teenager daughters. They back it up with all sorts of information, primarily with a family picture, claiming the daughter is pregnant in the picture. Well, it turns out the picture is taken in 2006, and the child is born in 2008. That is a very *long* pregnancy. Give me a break.

- Palis goes public with the info that her 17 year old is 5 months pregnant and will have the child and marry the father, and Dems don't like that either. What else is she hiding, they are wondering. They don't stop to think that Obama's mother got pregnant at 17, unwed, and had him when she was only 18. And, look at how bad *he* turned out ;-)

- The Dems (indirectly again, through their sanctioned bloggers) release nude pictures of Palin, allegedly taken a few years back. It turns out that those are fake and they are pictures of Julia Louis Dreyfus.

- Omaba declares he has more experience than Palin. Duh, so he is comparing himself to the VP candidate (nor the presidential candidate) of the other party. Is he telling us that he would make a good VP, but is not necessarily experienced enough to be the President?

- Thompson is getting ready to speak and declare that the Dems are panicking, that's why the personal attacks. I think he is reaching, but it'll be interesting to see the Dems reaction.

- Baltimore columnist Susan Reimer is upset because she thinks McCain is using Palin as a substitute for Hillary, to attract the disenchanted women democrats to the other side in Movember. Come on, it was Obama and his choices that disenchanted her, not McCain. May be Thompson is right.

It will be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out in the next week or so. I am sure that the level of attacks on Palin will increase. I also think you'll start seeing personal attacks from the Republican side as well. I predict, however, that after one or two weeks, when some of the smoke settles, McCain will be ahead of Obama by 6-8 points and the Dems will be backpedalling trying to save face and put a "good" spin on the way *they* have personalized this war.

That doesn't mean they are going to win the elections in November, but in a couple of weeks, *they will* appear to be the losers.