Punishing the frugal
timeOday
What, you were prudish enough to buy a home you could afford when poorer
people were buying nicer houses they couldn't? No bailout for you! Now
you get to pay your own mortgage *and* help out the more "ambitious
consumers" amongst us sustain their lifestyle.
<http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/26/news/economy/bailout/index.htm?postversion=2008032614>
George Grapman
Not too mention bailing out the companies that made those bad loans.
Rod Speed
> What, you were prudish enough to buy a home you could afford
> when poorer people were buying nicer houses they couldn't?
Thats not what prudish means.
http://onelook.com/?w=prudish
> No bailout for you!
You dont need a bailout if you buy what you can afford.
> Now you get to pay your own mortgage *and* help out the
> more "ambitious consumers" amongst us sustain their lifestyle.
Thats always been what happens with the dregs.
> <http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/26/news/economy/bailout/index.htm?postversion=2008032614>
PaPaPeng
Reminds me of a Dear Abby letter from the 70s. This guy did all the
right things like doing without so that he could put aside enough
money for his two daughters' education fund. When time came for
college he found the daughter couldn't qualify for a student loan
because she had money in the fund. Meanwhile the neighbor who had a
very similar income level as our guy lived it up with annual holidays
to exotic places , etc. When college came of course they had no
savings and their daughter did get a student loan.;
h
"PaPaPeng" <PaPa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5gtlu3pbdpth6qjdm...@4ax.com...
Same thing with the 911 fund. The survivors received a government payout
minus whatever insurance death benefits they got. So...the families of
sensible people who planned ahead and funded everything on their own dime
received little or nothing, in some cases, while spendthrifts got bailed
out. There were even a few widows of executives who were crying that they
had no insurance at all and might have to get jobs (oh, the horror!) unless
the government coughed up millions. Disgusting.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
at least it was a loan and not a grant. the prudent father allowed his
daughter
to graduate college with less student loans to pay back.
>
Seerialmom
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:17:20 -0600, timeOday
>
>
> >What, you were prudish enough to buy a home you could afford when poorer
> >people were buying nicer houses they couldn't? No bailout for you! Now
> >you get to pay your own mortgage *and* help out the more "ambitious
> >consumers" amongst us sustain their lifestyle.
>
>
> Reminds me of a Dear Abby letter from the 70s. This guy did all the
> right things like doing without so that he could put aside enough
> money for his two daughters' education fund. When time came for
> college he found the daughter couldn't qualify for a student loan
> because she had money in the fund. Meanwhile the neighbor who had a
> very similar income level as our guy lived it up with annual holidays
> to exotic places , etc. When college came of course they had no
> savings and their daughter did get a student loan.;
Couldn't agree more! Same with taxes (same income but lower mortage
debt equals less write offs).
Rod Speed
Its inevitable with any form of welfare thats means tested in any way.
That will always penalise those who make their own provisions instead of spending it.
Dennis
Personally, I'd rather have the money on hand to buy something (like
an education or a home) than to have the government provide a partial
subsidy of interest payments so I could take out a loan for it. I
know that some can use the latter to advantage, but I still prefer the
former.
But that's just me.
Dennis (evil)
--
My output is down, my income is up, I take a short position on the long bond and
my revenue stream has its own cash flow. -George Carlin
William Souden
tmc...@searchmachine.com
> <h> wrote:
> >Same thing with the 911 fund. The survivors received a government payout
> >minus whatever insurance death benefits they got.
>
Umm, EVERYONE knows that. It's called the Federal Victim Compensation
Fund. Google is your friend. Here's some info:
"Here's the rub: Although the Department of Justice has touted the
$1.85 million figure, the actual money received by a family will be
dramatically less in most cases. According to the congressional
legislation, the payout takes into account the victim's earning
potential, age and number of family members, among other statistics.
Payouts from life insurance benefits are then deducted. For families
of some of the wealthiest victims, there will be no payout whatsoever
from the federal fund. And for Lopez, her award would be minus the
$560,000 she received from her husband's life insurance payout and the
$800 in worker's compensation she receives every two weeks from Marsh
& McLennan.
"It's not fair," she said. "Because you got the insurance, you don't
get the same thing as everybody."
Charles Miller, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice, which is
handling the fund's distribution, says there is no panacea for the
problems of divvying up the compensation fund. "This is a very tough
situation. It's not easy to deal with something like this," said
Miller. "
cat
>And for Lopez, her award would be minus the
>$560,000 she received from her husband's life insurance payout and the
>$800 in worker's compensation she receives every two weeks from Marsh
>& McLennan.
>"It's not fair," she said. "Because you got the insurance, you don't
>get the same thing as everybody."
What's not fair is that millions of families of people who have died
tragically, but not on 9/11, don't get seven-figure bonanzas on the
taxpayer's dime.
Lou
> right things like doing without so that he could put aside enough
> money for his two daughters' education fund. When time came for
> college he found the daughter couldn't qualify for a student loan
> because she had money in the fund. Meanwhile the neighbor who had a
> very similar income level as our guy lived it up with annual holidays
> to exotic places , etc. When college came of course they had no
> savings and their daughter did get a student loan.;
I half-remember that (or a similar) story. It's maybe not quite as ironic
as it sounds - a loan, after all, is not free money. After all, people here
for years have been advising paying cash for a car instead of being so
foolish as to take out a loan. Assuming the parents paid for the loan, then
one family paid up front and one family paid after the fact. If the student
paid for the loan, then one family shifted the cost of college from the
parents to the child.
Lou
"Dennis" <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:q5vnu3p3fk2g6jnmq...@4ax.com...
wanted/needed without having to worry where the money was coming from. Most
people don't make enough to simultaneously pay rent and save enough to buy a
big ticket item like a house - to essentially double their shelter expenses
for however many years it takes to accumulate those savings. Especially not
early on, when income tends to be low.
h
"cat" <catsand...@nospammeowmeow.com> wrote in message
news:KGaHj.12470$6J3....@newsfe13.phx...
I completely agree, but it's interesting that the federal payouts were
reduced by any death benefits, so the frugal came out the same, and the
spendthrifts received a windfall, as usual.
Dennis
Sure, but I still see no reason to envy those who do have to take out
loans just because of the piddling subsidy they might get.
Nove...@aol.com
position to affect this bailout. And congress does pay attention to
the phone calls and emails they get.
Also, one wonders about the future penalty for having a lot of 401k
and IRA money. No Social Security dollars for you greedy,
materialistic, conniving folks.... !! : (
Rod Speed
> Contact your congressperson and state your views.
And they will file them in the round filing cabinet under their desk.
> He or she is in a position to affect this bailout.
And have enough of a clue to realise the downside of a full great depression too.
> And congress does pay attention to the phone calls and emails they get.
Pigs arse they do. They know there are plenty of fools like you calling.
h
<Nove...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e6005a63-7ad2-46cd...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I've been waiting for that myself. However, since they take so much out in
taxes (self-employed), I have a very hard time making even a $1,000/year
contribution to my Roth, so I guess it's unlikely that I'll fall into the
"rich" group. Then again, they keep upping the age for SS, so maybe I'll
never have to retire if I work myself to death first.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"Lou" <lpogoda...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2YidnRXL9fqfEHDa...@comcast.com...
>
> I half-remember that (or a similar) story. It's maybe not quite as ironic
> as it sounds - a loan, after all, is not free money. After all, people
> here
> for years have been advising paying cash for a car instead of being so
> foolish as to take out a loan. Assuming the parents paid for the loan,
> then
> one family paid up front and one family paid after the fact. If the
> student
> paid for the loan, then one family shifted the cost of college from the
> parents to the child.
but parents don't OWE their kids a college education. in fact, it may just
be in the
child's benefit to pretty much pay for their own college. makes them
appreciate it
more and working keeps them too busy to party and get into trouble.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
yeah, i've wondered about that, too. and u.s. supreme court has already
upheld that you aren't entitled to your ss. that money you pay every
payday is merely an income tax with another name.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
<h> wrote in message news:47f054d4$0$24082$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
"rich" is getting lower and lower. just look at how many will be caught
by the amt (the rich man's tax) when the stop patching it. coming soon.
Dennis
<der...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>but parents don't OWE their kids a college education. in fact, it may just
>be in the
>child's benefit to pretty much pay for their own college. makes them
>appreciate it
>more and working keeps them too busy to party and get into trouble.
>
Hmm, maybe I was an over-acheiver -- I managed to work my way through
college AND party and get into trouble! ;-)
Dennis (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 03:09:10 GMT, "AllEmailDeletedImmediately"
> <der...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>but parents don't OWE their kids a college education. in fact, it may
>>just
>>be in the
>>child's benefit to pretty much pay for their own college. makes them
>>appreciate it
>>more and working keeps them too busy to party and get into trouble.
>>
>
> Hmm, maybe I was an over-acheiver -- I managed to work my way through
> college AND party and get into trouble! ;-)
>
> Dennis (evil)
not everyone is as evil as you, dennis. :)
Marsha
> Hmm, maybe I was an over-acheiver -- I managed to work my way through
> college AND party and get into trouble! ;-)
>
> Dennis (evil)
What a surprise :-)
Marsha/Ohio