And RWers wonder why we think they’re all clueless, self-centered assholes.  jeeze….

“And RWers wonder why we think they’re all clueless, self-centered assholes.  jeeze….”

...no, no, no!  It’s just an image problem that can be solved by better marketing to get their message out…and it’s the fault of the Librul Media…

Well, being a well-bought up union man, I most certainly won’t cross their protest lines, and I will refuse to buy -

Wait a minute, what the fuck is it these people do again?

I believe Santelli’s orginal idea was for a bunch of traders to go out and drop a bunch of mortgage-backed securities in Lake Michigan to make their point.  I hope this actually happens in such a way that people understand what’s going on, because I imagine it will shortly be followed by the citizenry of Chicago going out and dropping a bunch of traders in Lake Michigan to make a somewhat more emphatic point.

I have to say as someone who grew up in and has spent his entire life in Massachusetts, home of the original Minutemen and the Boston Tea Party, I take personal offense when wingnuts like these use the symbols of the Revolutionary War to defend their bullying and idiocy.

Renters of the World Unite?

Oh, come on.

These are the same people who, 30 seconds ago, held it as axiomatic that anyone who wasn’t buying as much house as the bank told them they could afford was an idiot, and (this is a direct quote from actual Republicans I know) “Renting Is Just Throwing Money Away”.  [unless you black or mexican, duh.]

Seriously, I was still hearing this last time I was down south in December.  When did the message officially change?  Last Tuesday?  Ten minutes ago?

<strike>It’s best to spend money you don’t have on things you can’t use and don’t really want!</strike> It’s best to be financially conservative, never accrue any debt, and wait to spend money until you are absolutely sure you’re making the most sensible choice! 

Rightwing Fucktards: totally right about everything since <strike>1977</strike> <strike>1980</strike> <strike>1993</strike> <strike>1998</strike> <strike>2000</strike> <strike>2001</strike> <strike> 2003</strike> <strike>2006</strike> <strike>2008</strike> FOREVER!!!!!!!!!

Also, I dig the little kid in the photo with the “FREE HARVARD EDUCATION, TOO!” sign.

Isn’t Harvard one of the few schools in the country which, due to huge alumni endowments, is able to be truly need-blind?

I just don’t get why it’s hard to understand that the mortgage crisis is hurting everyone. I have a mortgage I can afford that’s in no trouble at all. But you know what? There’s a year’s worth of housing inventory in my area, and I’d like to buy a bigger house and have another baby. Only, I can’t buy a bigger house because I can’t sell my current house, because who would choose to buy my house when the foreclosure down the street is still in good condition and being sold for $50,000 under current market value?

Even self-righteous republicans must find themselves in my situation. Seriously, the guy down the street’s house has been on the market for 9 months now, and he had McCain Palin signs up during election season. Surely he realizes that fixing the mortgage crisis will help him sell his house, right?

Please tell me these people aren’t so busy being self-righteous they can’t even see when helping less fortunate people will be of direct help to themselves.

Eeek. I really hate to play the troll.

But I actually think there really is something there. Now, Malkin is an idiot, and is a Johnny-come-lately on the issue. But I think that more financially conservative folks do have a legitimate beef. And you’ll see that more from the left and the right. Those of us that are just out of the middle class, who can’t afford homes because of inflated prices, who will never have retirement funds to protect…we see policy designed to take money and security out of our pockets and given to people who are better off than we are.

Now, where I think the conservatives are wrong wrong wrong on this, is that the answer isn’t to push people down…the answer is to pull people up. But in terms of the general optics, there really is something real there and it shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.

This is what happens when people take the notion of “creating our own reality” as a fundamental part of their belief system. (And, as Avogadro points out, you don’t have to know and sympathize with somebody who bought too much house; all you have to know are people who bought the right amount of house in a neighborhood/town/state/region where other people bought too much.)

I’m still wondering about this idea of throwing mortgage-backed securities in the lake. First off, Obama’s anti-foreclosure plan will increase the value of virtually every mortgage-backed security out there. Second, the paper copies aren’t generally dispositive, so throwing the paper in the lake doesn’t make any real difference. Third, if the paper copies were dispositive, that would mean that the ownership of a bunch of mortgage-backed securities would be up in the air, and that the repayments of principal and interest would escheat to the states where the securities were registered. So this loony ex-trader is pretty much saying that he and his pals should take a bunch of their own and their employers’ property and throw it away to protest the fact that they will bear some of the tax burden involved in increasing its value.

This might eclipse the hostage scene from Blazing Saddles for straight-out crazy.

But I think that more financially conservative folks do have a legitimate beef.

Sure.  Except that the people doing the bleating don’t necessarily correspond in any way to “the more financially conservative folks”.  The right is trying to dominate the discourse on this by taking this faux-populist stance, when seriously a couple months ago they were saying the exact opposite. 

As someone who doesn’t own a home and has tried to be pretty conservative about debt in my own life, yeah, there’s something that rankles a little bit about the idea that people who made bad financial decisions are going to get bailed out, while continuing to over-value properties is going to keep people like me from ever getting to buy in the first place.

But you know what?  I’d kind of rather keep renting in a functional society than watch all the people who made bad real estate decisions get theirs, causing our entire economy to go up in flames.  Not even getting into the question of watching people I know suffer.

Kamarkin-

I’m not sure I fully see your point, but if it’s that low-rent renters can be waged into war against the middle class to continue the middle-class/lower-class brawl that keeps the wealthy happy, I just don’t see it. Mid-to-high-low-range renters usually either know people who escaped into homes now collapsing or friends who are in middle class or otherwise have to commute past the foreclosure signs. Low-rent sees the collapse even more harshly and unfairly as they’re landlords run off and let the property foreclose with absolutely no warning until the bank comes to evict them.

Both groups see the businesses they used to rely on, the remaining small businesses, the occassional chain branch, and most critically charity groups and other aid organizations, dry up and collapse under the struggle to maintain their businesses and no new businesses springing up to replace them.

I think everyone except the truly out-of-touch has direct personal proof that the situation is bad and especially the housing situation.

A better case could be made against the banks though. I think that’s a bit more of a convoluted trail to direct effect and hard to sympathize with when you’re struggling to balance the various credit cards to survive the wage stagnation of the last 20+ years combined with the predatory credit processes of at least the last 8. I think there is sympathy for a Fight Club, let it burn, start over approach, even though that’s very much the wrong strategy.

I think this is a case as always of war between America and the Beltway. With the stable, job-protected Beltway media picking fights based around their own horse-races unaware that everyone else is just seeing growing poverty and not liking it.

On that note, I really worry about Obama. A number of *cough*racist*cough* low-middle class or former middle class suburbanites and rural people will also be seeing the growing poverty and thanks to messaging that poverty equals urban and black, will be angry that its the blackness or brownness itself that is the problem and that normalcy will be just a few examples away.

So this loony ex-trader is pretty much saying that he and his pals should take a bunch of their own and their employers’ property and throw it away to protest the fact that they will bear some of the tax burden involved in increasing its value.

This might eclipse the hostage scene from Blazing Saddles for straight-out crazy.

——-

But you have to admit ... it sounds just like them.

The Internet Says It
I Believe It
And
—That Settles It

Koolaid Commenter at the Tea Party site:

“This is such a lovely and energetic thing, and it’s great to turn the left’s tactics to conservatives’ purposes.

That being said, isn’t it possible that we’re playing into their hands? Picture angry protests all over the country, and a media only too ready to spin it as dangerous levels of civil unrest.

The Socialists down in DC now, from the occupant of the White House, through all of his minions like Holder, are just itching for an excuse to declare marshall law, so that the African-Indonesian usurper can be dictator in fact.

Has anyone paid attention to the lessons of Napoleon and Hitler, and how they got where they were? And neither of them were citizens of the countries they destroyed, either.

I fear that no matter what we do, the election of 2008 was the last national one this country will ever have, and our way of life and Constitution are gone forever.”

That’s some paranoia going there, isn’t it?

Those of us that are just out of the middle class, who can’t afford homes because of inflated prices, who will never have retirement funds to protect…we see policy designed to take money and security out of our pockets and given to people who are better off than we are.

As a non-homeowner because I live in one of the biggest bubble areas, believe me, I feel your pain.

Here’s the thing, though.  We’re not giving people this money because we feel sorry for them.  We’re giving them the money because they’re a drag on the economy and if they don’t get some kind of bailout, they’re going to drag ALL of us down with them.

Right now, this record-breaking foreclosure rate that’s causing a global economic crisis is 2.75% of all mortgages.

Two. And. Three. Quarters. Percent.  And these are the results. 

Imagine if that number goes up to 5%.  Or 10%.  Especially since home prices will continue to drop while foreclosures go up, which means more and more people who did do the right thing will find themselves owing more than their house is worth.  Even as a renter, it’s going to hurt you, because fewer homeowners means less revenue coming in to pay for the things you do use, like police and fire departments.  If half the houses on a street aren’t paying property tax because they’re vacant and in foreclosure, that’s going to blow a huge hole in your city’s budget.

Does it suck that it came to this point?  Of course.  But I don’t think the majority of the blame lies with the homeowners.  I have a lot more qualms about bailing out the banks who originated and perpetuated these financial shenanigans than I do about bailing out the foolish people who fell for the scam and really thought they could use their home as an ATM forever because home prices would never stop going up.

Renters also benefit from a more stable rental market. Or does everyone think all those people who got foreclosed just magically vanished from the face of the earth?

Even as a renter, it’s going to hurt you, because fewer homeowners means less revenue coming in to pay for the things you do use, like police and fire departments.

Hell, as a renter it’s going to hurt you because where do you think people who lose their home in a foreclosure go?  They go to the rental market.  Which means less availability, and thus higher rents. 

I noticed a few weeks ago that the going rate for a 2 bedroom apartment in my neighborhood is now almost double the rent that my roommate and I pay.  And not through normal market increases - a year ago I felt like we were paying around the going rate.

Or what Paul said.

“Renters also benefit from a more stable rental market. Or does everyone think all those people who got foreclosed just magically vanished from the face of the earth?”

Exactly. I just never see how people don’t see these connections. They’re all over.

I have been to a few small cities in Florida that are full of people with bad mortgages that they are barely keeping on top of, and foreclosures because they are full of former renters in NYC who got pushed out because of unstable renters market in “up and coming” neighborhoods. The homes were cheaper on paper than the rent n these areas and there were more purchase than rent properties. The problems don’t disappear, they spread.

Mnemosyne:Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a head-in-the-sander. I can see loud and clear the effects that the credit freeze are having on the economy at large. (I’m boggled on how things got that way in the first place, but that’s neither here nor there).

I have a very..limited understanding of this whole mess. But from what I can tell, your mortgage being more expensive than the value of your property triggers various financial mechanisms that drastically increase costs to the consumer, which causes foreclosures, which drops local property value, dropping other houses into this underwater danger area and so on.

This whole thing was very difficult to wrap my head around myself. The entire system needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. Now may not be the best time to do it, but it has to be done eventually.

But all I’m saying is that this isn’t always your run of the mill conservative tantrum, that’s all.

The majority of the blame does lie on the financial sector ‘tho. That’s nothing but the truth.

Where were the Tea Parties when the direct beneficiaries of the bailout were wealthy banks or automobile companies making clunkers for decades?

Karmarkin, have you had a chance to listen to “The Giant Pool of Money” on NPR?  It’s a really good overview of how we got to the point that mortgages are bringing down the entire financial system.  You can stream it for free or download it for 95 cents.  Well worth it.

Hell, as a renter it’s going to hurt you because where do you think people who lose their home in a foreclosure go?  They go to the rental market.  Which means less availability, and thus higher rents.

What’s really odd to me is that I’m seeing a LOT of rental openings in my neighborhood at the same time as a lot of home sales and foreclosures.  The apartment next door to us has been empty for at least three or four months.  And I’m in Los Angeles, so it’s not like there’s no one looking for housing.

Our lease is up in April and we’re curious to see if they’re going to jack up our rent or not.  It would seem to be a pretty foolish thing to do if they’ve already had a vacancy for so long in such a small building (we only have 12 units), but people get desperate when the economy is bad and they might not think it through.  If they do raise it, well, it looks like we have a lot of places we can move to just on our same block judging by the “For Rent” signs out.

A side note about Malkin—

I was a little surprised when posted about how she herself is a renter.  Obviously the Wingnut Welfare Gravy Train wasn’t enough to secure her ass a McMansion in the ‘burbs.  No wonder she’s so apoplectic over the housing thing.

Here’s the thing, though.  We’re not giving people this money because we feel sorry for them.  We’re giving them the money because they’re a drag on the economy and if they don’t get some kind of bailout, they’re going to drag ALL of us down with them.

Or, to be more succinct - would you rather be vindicated or employed?

While taking the cross-town bus back and forth through the DC metro ara suburbs (which awaiteth the Purple Line), I heard three different guys deliver similar rants to the bus drivers* on the unfairness of bailouts to homeowners. They weren’t street people, but they were not wearing $800 suits.

The sample may have been abnormal because the metro area suburbs are defintely a car culture. If you are taking the bus, you might feel bitter. In car-culture areas, a man’s car is his phallus.

*Bus drivers hear a lot. There is almost always a rider who feels compelled to treat the bus driver as his or her personal psychotherapist.

The Socialists down in DC now, from the occupant of the White House, through all of his minions like Holder, are just itching for an excuse to declare marshall law…

Thurgood or Penny?

Mnemosyne:

During the last depression the okies all moved to california, maybe now they’re moving back? I don’t know how things are distributed, but in the past year the number of people losing their jobs nationwide (and not finding new ones) is roughly equivalent to the working-age population of L.A.
So if your neighborhood is one where working people live and people without a job can’t afford apartments…

You can already get a free Harvard education!  You just (*gasp*) HAVE TO GET IN!

Seriously, there is absolute free ride if your parents make below a certain threshhold level, with a phase in to full tuition somewhere around 200K a year income.

Of course, that’s an EVILE meritocracy!  Can’t have that!

This is why I think those “Free Harvard Education” signs are either a seriously undermining joke or reflect immense heights of Teh Stoupeed

Now they’re worried about renters?
Weren’t a bunch of these twits ranting awhile back about how only property owners should have the vote?

My head, it hurts.

Thurgood or Penny?

There’s No Crying In Baseball!

I’ll be at the protest in Portland - Pioneer Square at 9 am Friday - and I’m taking off work/driving an hour to get there - it is ABSURD that the largest spending bill in US history is signed into law without our illustrious Congress taking time to read it . . . oh yeah, what was the party line vote on that again . . . I seem to forget . . . no doubt I’ll remember in 2010 when I’m at the polls