I was wrong.
And no, not just about being able to play just one... more... game of Tower Defense. No, I've been wrong a lot recently, and I feel that I need to confess. So here it is, a List of Those to Whom I Owe an Apology (and why):
1). Joe Lieberman, for not being a Republican after all.
Well, maybe he is, but it turns out that campaigning for the other party makes you dead useful to the Democrats' coalition when it comes time to negotiate with said other party:
Lieberman initially stayed at the edge of negotiations, but as they dragged on, he inserted himself more forcefully, leveraging the close relationships he has with Republicans - after all, they asked him to join them - to peel away a few crucial votes.
Joe Klein mentions that there's probably a good lesson for Dems, here, about punishing those who oppose us. (I'm not ready to make nice with House or Senate Republicans yet, but maybe that's an apology yet to come).
But I do apologize, Joe Lieberman, for considering naming my dead plant after you, because I believed the two of you to be of equal use to me. You deserve some water and sunlight after all.
2). Arlen Specter: Also not the jerk I took him for.
Specter made me a little angry back in January when he seemed to be taking a particularly party-motivated stand against Eric Holder's nomination to be Attorney General. Then, after his potential big primary challenger dropped out, Specter changed his mind (but not his position on the Jerk Scale).
The loss of the Toomey challenge, though, has apparently freed Specter to not just vote his conscience (or something close to it), but to speak his mind. I feel as though I could dine out for weeks on the bet money I could collect after Specter's recent comments about his Republican colleagues' real opinions of the stimulus bill:
"When I came back to the cloak room after coming to the agreement a week ago today," said Specter, "one of my colleagues said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' My Republican colleague said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' I said, 'Are you going to vote with me?' And he said, 'No, I might have a primary.' And I said, 'Well, you know very well I'm going to have a primary.'"
[...]
"I think there are a lot of people in the Republican caucus who are glad to see this action taken without their fingerprints, without their participation," he said.
Specter was asked, How many of your colleagues?
"I think a sizable number," he said. "I think a good part of the caucus agrees with the person I quoted, but I wouldn't want to begin to speculate on numbers."
Again, so many bets to collect on -- if only everyone I know wasn't broke.
But I do apologize, Arlen Specter, for thinking you're a partisan robot.
3). Republicans in general -- for sometimes being right about some things.
OK. I can think of one thing. Here it is: the Obama promise of transparency. I admit it, I have been wrong to defend the administration over their apparent flouting of their own "no decisions on bills that haven't had 5 days of public scrutiny and comment" provision. There is a reason for this: I don't really care about this particular campaign promise. I think it's practically difficult, can cause unnecessary delay, and is most likely just grandstanding. Can anyone think of a public comment that could have been put up on the stimulus bill that would have convinced Obama not to sign it? I'm not sure even his daughters could have made a convincing enough case.
Here is what I don't apologize for: the fight I keep getting into with my father about whether Congress had enough time to review the stimulus bill after it came out of conference. It doesn't help that he doesn't know what conference is, first, but second: while I have seen convincing cases made that no one currently serving in Congress could have individually read the whole thing within the allotted time, I've also not seen any convincing case made that they usually read every bill, end-to-end, by themselves. And I'm sick of hearing that there was no way to know what was in it before they voted: most of that information was available for weeks, and most of the people complaining so loudly have great reserves of trusted aides who could be employed to read, say, 100 pages each in 12 hours. I come from a long background of last-minute reading and writing called "college," a background that I imagine many of these aides also come from, and I would be SHOCKED to find out that they were unable to synthesize the report for their boss in that time. I would also be SHOCKED to find out that they don't do that kind of thing every week. But outrage is so much more fun, right?
Also, can I bill John Boehner for the cell phone bill I'm racking up trying to make these points to my non-voting dad?
Anyway, I apologize for not being outraged about Obama's apparent lie. I'm sure if it was President Bush doing this, I'd be up in arms and screaming hypocrisy and other mean things, so, Republicans, have at it. Not that you need my permission.
4). Everyone Who Isn't Timothy Geithner or Larry Summers, for the unfair advantage I'm giving those two other guys.
I apologize, not-Geithners and not-Summers of the world, for not giving you an unfair benefit of the doubt. It's true. Right now, I'm giving them what is probably going to be an undeserved pass on this whole economic mess. I'm letting them get away with vague briefings and, in the case of Mr. Summers, very rumpled suits, in a way that I certainly would not have allowed for, say, Henry Paulsen. I'm allowing this for a few reasons. First,the vagueness of last Tuesday seems to be more a function of a change in course and a lack of staff than a desire to calculatedly obfuscate what the plan is (emphasis mine):
The Obama administration, they said, failed to rein in the grand expectations built for the plan on Wall Street and in Washington, concluding that they would rather disappoint the markets with vagueness than lay out a lot of details they might have to change later -- a failing they saw in the Bush administration's handling of the crisis.
Meanwhile, the sources said, Obama's senior economic advisers were hobbled in crafting the plan by a shortage of personnel. To date, the president has not nominated any assistant secretaries or undersecretaries at the Treasury, and the handful of mid-level staffers who have started work were still finding their offices and getting their building passes and BlackBerrys.
Second, I understand only every fifth word that these guys say in public, which leads me to believe they are either frighteningly smart, or frighteningly evil. I respect both of these qualities in different ways and could see how either would be helpful in the situation currently before us. OK, mostly I'm kidding about that. But I find myself recently allowing for a "government could possibly know best" option that I didn't even know still existed. It's frightening. I'm keeping a check on it, as I say, by apologizing to everyone in the world for whom being in the Obama cabinet is not a way to gain a tiny boost in my esteem.
So, I apologize, non-Geithners and non-Summers of the world.
Can you ever forgive me?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Catherine Forsythe
Writer to the Stars
Emily Holleman
Iron Skillet
Leslie Harpole
old new lefty
Salon.com
Comments
And I think that because of the size of the current Federal outlays (as compared to previous ones), we’ll be seeing more bailouts in print than bail outs, no? (Besides, MS Word now prompts you, when using the plural, to change bail outs to bailouts. And I hate those squiggly green lines).
Never vote. You may encourage creeps.
from Hafiz. apologies?
The madman inside of you is always
running for office - Why vote him in?
She never keeps the accounts straight.
S/he gets those kinds of crooked deal.
Happening all over town. O Headache.
They will just give you a big headaches.
And glue to your kisser
The gigantic confused
Creepy Clown Frowns.
(Crooked Deals.Hafiz)
Specter. Dammit. I've still not forgiven him for Anita Hill! Fine. I'll work on it. Gimme ten years.
Republicans? What???? Geez, Saturn, you're really pushing me here. The conference bill was basically agreed to before the conference members were even named. Members who WANTED to know, knew what was in the bill.
OK, but here's why I cannot forgive the Rs. Have you seen how they are distorting this bill in the media? Saying that doctors will now have to be on the phone with 'the government' when they're at a patient's bedside because 'the government' gets to tell the doc what treatment to do? Big fat lie. And yesterday I was in a committee meeting during which our new DHS Director was testifying about abuse and neglect of kids. Sorta important. And what do the Rs ask him? "Isn't it true the stimulus bill undoes welfare reform and your department will now be giving out large welfare checks to people who don't have to look for work?" NO!!!! Big stinking lie, but that's what "they heard" and that's now what 50 people in that committee meeting heard. So I spent yesterday afternoon fighting back that stupid lie.
OK, what was the last one... the not Geithners and not Summers of the world... well, sure. Ok. I'll apologize to them. That's easy enough. I don't even know who they are. Me? You? Sorry to us.
As usual a great post, and I apologize that my comments are almost as long as your post sans the pics.
Lieberman has an ego larger than the size of Connecticut. If you look at him politically he is a snake. If you look at him psychologically he is a self-centered narcissist (oops, a little redundant here). Haven’t you noticed him crowding into all the photo-ops? Apologize? You’ve got to be kidding. If he was in the CIA (hmmm…maybe he is) he would be missing now if you know what I mean.
Specter – yeah, go ahead and apologize to a political animal if it makes you feel better. Trust me he would not apologize to you.
Republicans? Saturn, this is called pandering, not apologizing. Ever since RR they have been taking us down a yellow brick road. Look at Caleeeforneeaa. They elect a steroid abusing, pot smoking bodybuilder who promises to cut taxes. He does. The state cuts services forever and then goes bankrupt. He blames the state legislature now for not passing his tax increase plans. Alaska gives us SP. McCain has one agenda now – prove he was “right” at any cost, and wrest control from Obama (who just kicked his sorry ass). These guys are all about power and control, and not about reasoned planning for the welfare of this country.
And Geithner and Summers? Hooboy. There’s a pair. If you can’t understand them (you are bright) it’s because they are not making sense, not because they are so bright.
And Boehner never met a mirror that didn’t detain him for five minutes.
Phew, I feel better. Thanks.
And get a nationwide cell phone plan and then you can argue with Dad all you want.
Politicians are a rare animal that survives on money and votes - a tough job, so remember we all make mistakes even on our taxes.
Republicans are on message something about Reagan was a saint and Democrats blaming Hoover no Bush for all of our woes and trying to follow FDR approach.
Putting a bandage on a wound is helpful but not when the patient is dead - bailout - will take a lot of effort and a lot of confidence - when greed replaces integrity it never ends pretty.
Thanks for the great read.
(rated)
We'll all be Republicans by 2010. Just you watch.
Saturn, this is good commentary, but lets be clear ... Repukes are fiddling while Rome burns- again.
Lets be more clear: they do not care about anyone, they've got theirs and if you don't- well tough, that's just providence.
Spector is a classic example of someone who, given a new lease on life THANKS TO MEDICAL ADVANCES NEARLY 100% developed, and FUNDED by "liberals", now has actually grown a human bone or two.
Screw forgiveness, he would still be the same prick who skewered Anita Hill and gave us a Supreme Court justice with all the qualifications of a chipmunk if he hadn't gotten cancer and seen the light.
If you look closely at the most enduring and successful political and economic dynasties (think Camelot) you will see instruction from the leaders to learn how the average citizen's life unfolds. This breeds compassion and understanding, two things completely foreign to the current crop of scum heading the Repukes.
This is it, the end of selfishness and Roman-style elitism. Good F##king riddance to BAD RUBBISH
Auwe!
Ha. funny and correct.
I think the fact that you have made these mea culpas puts you ahead of just about every politician who ever lived. (Bush ain't the only one who can't say he's wrong.) That's why I found Obama's "I screwed up" refreshing, even though he got flak for it.
The Republicans are taking what I dub the Rush Limbaugh strategy. They are hoping like hell that the Obama plan fails - i.e., the economy fails before it gets better - so they can pick up seats in 2010.
and, oh by the way, even though I am glad Specter defected for the vote, I still have not forgiven him for the Anita Hill hearings and for giving us Clarence Thomas.
As far as the rest of those guys, I don't think they need an apology from anyone.
I do think the Democrats should bend over backwards to act bi-partisan. It just makes the Republicans look so shallow and narrow-minded when they try to block everything. People will notice, especially when the economy comes around.
Thanks for your lively post!
many thanks
-rated
I'm reminded of the parable about the farmer who goes through a sequence of interconnected events that alternate between seeming fortunate and seeming misfortunate. Each time his neighbors congratulate him on his good luck or sympathize with his bad luck -- but each time the farmer just says, "we'll see."
Only time will tell if the compromises the Democratic leadership have made with the center-right are worth it in the long run. Just as it was a mistake to condemn Obama's "Lieberman gesture" at the time, it's a mistake to say now that Lieberman has clearly shown his worth.
We'll see.
And Geithner and Summers are smart. I have to give Summers credit for not doing what he usually does -- say exactly what he thinks regardless of whether or not it's the right thing to say.
For example, if he thinks that Citi's going to go poof, if he says that, you can count on people saying, oh, B of A is next, and then it will be Wells Fargo, and then JPMorgan Chase. So that would kill those banks. So he's got to be careful.
Personally, I think that Summers and Geithner will eventually come to the conclusion that they're going to have to go into the banks, audit their holdings, assign a price to the assets they have, and say, that's it. That's what you can value them for.
When they do that, some banks will go poof. But it needs to be done so that those banks can either be nationalized or allowed to disappear.
As for the republicans? Screw them. Not one dime of stimulus money should go to any congressional rep who voted against the stimulus bill, and calls should be made to the local officials who are in their districts to explain why that happened.
It's Skinner at his finest. Reward them when they do what you want, punish them when they don't.
Brian, I find Summers's history complicated, but not so troubling as it's often made out to be. But that's a separate post from a while back.
Arthur, I'm wildly excited just to have poetry in my comments! "O Headache" may be my favorite line, even if I disagree overall that it's not worth it to engage in politics.
Don't worry, WakingUp, and grif82600, and OahuSurfer, and, really, everyone -- I promise this isn't a grant or even and urging for blanket immunity or forgiveness of all Republicans or even of Lieberman and Specter for all deeds. Just these specific instances. Don't worry, I haven't gone crazy (crazier?). And I'd never try and force forgiveness on anyone, OE, I promise -- what would be the point?
Lisa, nice work! I love thank you letters -- what a diminishing art.
Ah, thanks, voicegal -- I do love a song.
And thanks for the comment, ghost writer. Don't worry, Specter gets no immunity on Anita Hill (at least from me).
Gramps, we agree at least on greed replacing integrity being a terrible outcome. Thanks for the comment.
And thank you, Greg. I try, and don't always succeed at either!
JohnWSmart, I don't think I have the standing to apologize for Obama. Plus... I'm not convinced he's sorry. But I am convinced he's not Bush 3, unless by that you mean "as different from Bush 2 as he was from Bush 1," in which case... maybe there's an argument to be made.
Deborah, I admit I'm not (yet) outraged about the build-up in Afghanistan because that's been coming for a while. I am concerned, though, about the lack of detail on a plan yet, but it's supposed to be laid out in early April, before the new troops are on the ground. So I'll wait to draw conclusions (mostly) until then.
Idahospud -- uh. which part? Or do you mean commenting? Am I the priest, here, because -- that seems harsh. But if you're thinking of Lieberman, again, I note i'm not trying to excuse past action, just saying that he's been helpful now. Doesn't mean I don't wish he hadn't moved to the other side in the first place, of course.
But then again, GordonO, I don't believe I'll need to apologize for the effects, because (as we've established), we disagree about whether they will be "deleterious" or not.
Exactly, Odette! Tomorrow's a new day.
Jimmy, exactly. I doubt it's his usual practice.
Thank you, Silkstone; I feel better.
Wow, bbd. I really appreciate the kind words, and particularly coming from someone whose work *I* so admire. Really. I'm humbled. Thank you.
Don't worry, LPS, in the main I'm with you on Specter. And I love your tool upgrade. I may have snorted a little in laughter. I'm not admitting to it, but... it's possible.
Joan, you're right -- the long view certainly seems to be paying off, even in the short term! I should learn to doubt less, perhaps.
Aw, wow, thanks, GM. I try, and I'm always glad to see your comments.
I'm still skeptical of him, Amity, I promise. You're very wise to stick to the middle ground. Thanks.
If not, then good for us, because you have the talent it takes to sway people to your line of thinking, and that is valuable. Very valuable.
Dont be surprised if, while strolling along the street one day, you are grabbed by some guy in a trench coat, stuffed into the back of a black limo, and hauled away to write speeches for the rest of your life. I don't think there are any blogs or newspapers left that can afford to pay you what your writing is worth to a campaign or an administration.
Keep up the good work, and keep an eye out for that limo.....
And you have no idea how much better I feel when I read that you ----*you* (of the brilliant political mind) ---" understand only every fifth word that these guys say in public..." Makes me feel less terminally stupid at my average 3 word grasp.
E Mac, you're totally right -- it looked funny to me last night as I wrote but I didn't get it fixed. Now it will be. This is why I need eagle-eyed readers like you! Thank you.
M.a.h., hurrah, good company! It's the acronyms that trip me up. And the math, heh heh.
Act when parts weren't even printed, holding hearings in secret and running around hiding from the Dems who were trying to figure out which room they were in, and essentially running things from their own caucus. With a short guaranteed period, at least Congressional staff have half a chance to raise a hue and cry and leverage more time for changes to happen.
Sandra, you're not alone -- there's a nice post up, hm, now I've lost the link but I think at ThinkProgress about the difference between the 3-page initial TARP proposal that Hank Paulsen brought in and the enormous stimulus package. Which is better, more detail or none at all?
... and now I've found the link, because it's a better (or additional) reply, Totzaon, to your point: Matt Yglesias on the page count paradox.
More Republicans would have voted for this if they weren't worried about primary challenges?
Has it ever occurred to you that Republicans voted overwhelmingly against the Big Pig because it represents a repudiation of basic principles upon which this country was founded? Namely, individual responsibility, fiscal accountability, and a reluctance to turn the United States into a socialist nation where need trumps productivity.
I believe that liberals have become so divorced from principle in their headlong effort to spread the wealth and curry favor with elements of the population that have only votes to offer that they can't conceive that there are other citizens who still embrace conservative principles and will express them with their votes.
Rated for aweseome.
Lainey, thank you!
Cap'n, I'm only extending a small one. Like an olive twig.
Joseph, the frisbee golf lie has been shot down. Both the House and Senate bills had provisions against any money going to any type of golf course. And the frisbee suggestion was never, it seems, a particularly serious suggestion. But I am curious -- did you contact your congressperson about this issue, as you seem to feel so strongly that the rest of us should have? What was his/her response? Did they tell you there was going to be a Frisbee gold course? Or did you choose to spend the time calling folks who are in support of the package names?
I'm not sure I think it's at all feasible to just hand out money, as you seem to suggest, to those who need it, and to expect that to solve any long-term problems. But this bill does allow for increases in many types of currently available government aid, including unemployment and aid to needy families, and I'm absolutely happy about that and about the fact that it passed. Do I wish there was more of that assistance included? Sure. Yes. Absolutely. But this is a start. And I don't think it's at all comparable to bankers going to spas on company and tax-payer money: I don't see within this bill the same self-profiting impulse at all.
stated my position of the technicality of what is called an earmark.
Any allocation of large chunks of money under a vague description that will be misused is just as bad a specific misuse. Why couldn't the bill contain only specific good use of money.
Just who do you think is going to decide on how these general things are spent. Can't you just admit it was rushed through because all the liberal congresspeople know the way it is written that they will all get to piss away some money on some pet project for their district that is not really useful to the people or economy. More like useful for them to get their friend and family in on the deal.
And this housing think. Only going to those that followed the rules. They didn't follow my rules of responsibility. I earn 120K a year and have earned the adjusted equivalent of that for 25 years now.
Three years ago I could have qualified for wasily 500 - 600k of home in the Austin area. That would have been a pretty luxury home. And it would not have put me in a 31% of income bailout category. Instead I bought a 185K home with 20% down and I drive a 1990 car I bought used in 1998. I have no expensive furniture, or new SUV and all my cell phones are the free ones that
are they previous year's giveaways dor renewing a plan. And I have
near a million in cash and retirement because I chose not to buy every damn gadget and Starbucks coffee and whole foods prices.
Will I get a break on my mortgage? No. Because I didn't take a mortgage I could not afford. Should we just adjust someones mortgage because 31% of income means the payment is unfordable? There was a time that I did have a mortgage that was near 50% of my take home. But I was not at risk because I bought nothing else that was not a necessity so I could pay that bill. No new car. Nothing else but food and basic utilities until my income
grew. Why should anyone get a bailout on mortgage when they still
have 70% of income to spend on junk. Why should I save their house if they have expensive car payment, maybe two. Let them drop nice car and the iPhone contract and the $150 cable service with all the bell and whistles. And the eating out. These people need a mortgage reduced by say $400 - $600 a month to make it work. I bet I can help them save that much with out a bailout. But no, we need to lower the mortgage so they can keep the nicer house and nicer lifestyle than I give myself. And instead of me spending my money on myself or at least spending ot on some really needy,
I get to bailout someone else's situation that is a less responsible spender then myself. That makes good sense does it?
The means test fot a house bailout should be, prove you have cut back yourself to the minimum necessities then you can have your mortgage redone. Not before.
This seems like a bigger issue for you than just what I can comfortably cover just in comments on a post that's only tangentially related to what you want to discuss -- maybe a blog post is in your future to outline better what specific examples of waste and irresponsibility you're talking about?
Yes, a Frisbee golf course is something that needs to go on the bottom of the wish list. But even if money was spent on that, guess what would happen?
People would need to be hired to build the golf course. Someone would have to provide them with the sod and the fertilizer. Someone would have to truck those things in. Someone would have to get paid to landscape the place. Someone would need to be paid to maintain the course after it was built. People would need to be hired to staff the concession stands.
So even something as frivolous as a Frisbee golf course CREATES JOBS. And Austin's residents have a park to go to, which increases their quality of life.
Are there things that should be higher priorities? Of course there are. But even something like that CREATES JOBS.
What part of that is too difficult to understand?
Come on -- this is the MOST important bill of tour/their lifetimes -- isn't it? Well, at least it is for the American people who elect them and pay their salaries. I am fine if a staffer give them a good Reader's Digest condensed version of any bill, but no excuse not to devour this one.
In the meantime, I hole that no apologies EVER be issued for them not knowing for what they are voting, or being so lame as to vote on party lines out of spite or to "play it safe". Neither is appealing, and both for me are appalling. Accountability is what I desire!
Love the article, but you don't have to feel any onus to apologize to any of them, most notably, Lieberman. He put his own considerable gonads in the ringer all by himself-- I don't mind him doing a little painful wiggling to extract himself...;)
One say they applaud my savings. Well most people don't or they would have my savings too. Maybe not as much but maybe the same ethic. This is how I see it. There in not ONE person on the face of this earth that needs an iPhone, Starbucks coffee, a 60K vehicle, a state of the art LCD tv or any other crap like that.
And I listen to a lot of news sources. From Bill and Hanity to Keith Oberman and Rachel Maddow. And I listen to regular daily news
a LOT to CNBC to get real info in the economy and markets. And I am smart enough to filter out the spin on both sides. But my rewal info comes from people. I play cards two nights a week with a total of about 50 people from various walks of life. For the most part I have probably highest income. Many have incomes in 40- 50 K range and have family. I am single with no kids. And guess what. I have the lowest lifestyle of them all. Now how is this.
I hear you saying people are sacrificing to stay in their homes. Problem is they didn't sacrifice all along. the problem is that Obamas plan does not test for previous financial behavior. Only
the current state. Well to me it maters I don;t want to save a house
that is full of granite countertops, LCD tv, expensive furniture, cable services, cell phone services, etc. People like Suzie Orman say you need a year of living costs in savings. I think you need more than that and until you are there you have no business buying any damn thing other than necessities. Get a 25K car. A free cell phone. BTW, is this mortgage plan going to check if people actually have money in the bank?
And what was wrong with 4% mortgage for everyone. For be it for me being the single guy with a good income to ever get a damn think from the gov. $600 rebate. Hell no. 20,000K in income tax plus FICA and I can't get $600 bucks. Screw me for working 60 hour weeks my whole career. Its of matter of spending ethics. Too many people have way over spent on everything. And I say if you are going to lose your house because you spent on necessary crap,
then too damn bad.
You also attract an entertaining and enlightening spectrum of opinions which, in their presentation may annoy the shit out of you, but you are always the picture of grace and decorum and permit real discourse here, which should be a lesson to those who argue against you, but in many cases, is not.
I wish that Joseph, for one, would realize how much most reasonable people, certainly on this site, despise this American culture of consumerism, and hate the idea of people who bought houses they clearly couldn't afford just to "keep up with the Joneses" getting bailed out on our dime. It's disgusting for sure.
But these are not the majority of the people who are underwater with their mortgages. Regular hard-working, tax-paying, non-frivolous middle class people are losing their homes because they've lost their jobs and can't pay the mortgage. Good people who were talked by "experts" into getting mortgages they couldn't afford, after having been assured they could, are losing their homes too.
(sorry to hijack your post Saturn - I think I'm getting off topic here!)
At any rate, 1) I wouldn't trust Lieberman as far as I could throw him, and 2) only the very smartest and most confident are able to apologize (like you, and like Obama).
Thanks for your post as always.
MODERATE Republicans. Too bad there aren't more. And please
please please keep a check on any "Government knows best"
feelings. Your observations are helpful in understanding things.
max out what I could have bought. If I did I would be in trouble. In 86 I bought my first house and the payment was $1000 equalling 50% of my take home. I knew in that moment that there would be no new car for a long time. Noe fancy furniture for the house. Just the house, and pay utilities and a little left until I earned more money. Of the people you know that lost a job, how did they spend after buying the house. Did they immediately cut back on eating out. Did they get a car or two also.? did they give up everything at least until they saved 1 year of mortgage payments.? Most did not.
As for me. I never have gotten that new car 28 years later. And never got an nice furniture either.
Basically i have severe doubts about he overly simplistic test of 31% of income. I want to know where the other 70% is going before I am willing to help them out. I want proof that they cant find the $500 needed to make the mortgage by dropping eating out.
reducing communications plans. Skip the movies with the 2 kids with hot dogs, popcorn and drinks that will run $50 a pop.
There should be a little more proof of the struggle other than 31% of income. I want to see details before approving a bailout.
When I had 2K take home and 1100 went to mortgage and I had 900 to live, I did. I didnt have much left after utilities. AND 6 mo after the purchase the house (1987) was 20% underwater. I got no help because I never made it to the edge because I didn't spend.
This new plan will find people exactly like I was. But they still have a job like I did, and it will define them as needing help when in fact they do not. As long as they have the job and have the house, modest transportation, food and clothes, they are set. If and when there is a job loss that cannot be replaced fairly quickly, then it is tome to consider help. But not before.