>
>
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:19:14 -0400, shag <shag at cleandraws.com> wrote:
>
>>>>This whole discussions is of course moot, because in reality neither
>>>> you
>>>>step-grandfather nor sustainable housing projects will get the cash,
>> <...>
>
>> I also forgot to point out that my step-grandfather *did* get the cash.
>
>>From the "bail out?"
>
> No.
this is dishonest. I didn't say he got cash from the bail out. I said that he paid off his house after 25 years and spent the rest of his life living mortgage free.
my grandmother and his three children got cash when he died. they didn't buy a house in order for that to be the outcome. they bought a house because it made more sense -- it was cheaper -- than renting.
from your other post you write:
dmytri wrote
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:00:52 -0400, shag <shag at cleandraws.com> wrote:
>
>>>And this is a good thing you support?
>>
>> i'm objecting to your rhetoric. you type as if there are home buyer in
>> debt peonage for the rest of your life vs. everyone else who aren't.
>
> I made my point clearly, the "home owners" have been subsidized enough,
> subsdizing them more is neither realistic, sustainable, nor beneficial,
> for the reasons I gave.
>> what planet do you live on. even if we were socialized, we'd still work
>> all our lives to support ourselves and our communities.
>
> Paying your mortgage is "supporing you community?"
you have a penchant for mischaracterizing. i'm not disagreeing with your general point, first of all.
i'm disagreeing with a specific point: that most people buying homes were doing so in order to make a quick buck.
second, my contention that we will work to support our communities under socialism is simply the ordinary point that, how else to say it, we work to provide things for other people under a complex division of labor.
why insist on twisting what i said?
your rhetoric poses it as if, somehow, under a different system, we won't have to work all our lives.
again: what planet do you live on?
> Clearly, we do live on different planets.
maybe the cold weather on your planet, so far from the light of the sun, is what's ailing you?
>> i'm a person who's never bought a house in my life. i will probably
>> never
>> buy one because the prices are inflated, and the bailout will keep them
>> inflated.
>
> Exactly.
my point was that i'm not making a self-serving argument.
>> my step grandfather does not have a sob story. he purchased a home with
>> a
>> debt-income ratio that was reasonable. he did so with a government
>> backed
>> mortgage while taking advantage of the GI bill. Same thing with my
> father.
>> all when housing was reasonably affordable -- a contrast to today. So
>> no,
>> I obviously don't think this is OK, you jackass. I'm just pointing out
> that
>> your characterization of greed is wrong.
>
> You have only pointed out that you are more interested in calling me names
> and making fallacious arguments then discussion the point that further
> subsidizing home owners is not a good idea.
*rolls eyes* yeah. okay. here's a blanket to keep warm.
> There is a lot of profit-motive speculation in the housing market among
> "home owners," regardless of your step-grandfathers moral standing, this
> is
> just as much money-for-nothing greed that that wich drives the money
> lenders.
where's your evidence for this? I'm not denying that there isn't any, I'm
just wondering what the actual numbers are.
>
> Just like the way that the farm subsidy lobby uses the myth of the
> independent rustic farmer to justify subsidies of massive corporate
> conglomerates, no doubt the hard working single family will be used as the
> poster child for "bail out" lobby.
>>>This whole discussions is of course moot, because in reality neither you
>>>step-grandfather nor sustainable housing projects will get the cash,
>>> this
>>>crisis, like all economic crisis, will simply lead to a greater
>>>concentration of wealth. You can take that to the bank.
>>
>> it is interesting that you failed to include yourself among the
>> impotent.
>
> What is "interesting" is that there is no list of "the impotent" in the
> message you are responding to.
>
> Get over yourself
??
and pay attention to what it is you are allegedly
> responding too. Neither I, nor I suspect anybody else, is in the slightest
> bit interested in whether you think a person who you have never met is a
> jackass or not.
>
now you're making me laff.
>>>btw, speaking of sustainable housing, i was talking about housing within
>>> a 1 mile radius of my workplace, where it's mostly tightly built
>>> condos,
>>>high rises, housing in downtown above business storefront, or single
>>>families which are as densely built as allowed by law.
>
> Yet this is not the entire housing market. How selective do you imagine a
> "bailout" of "home owners" would be?
i was describing for you one datapoint: that housing you'd describe as sustainable, is *more* expensive than housing that isn't. I didn't make it this way. I don't like it that it is this way.
But one thing I'm certain of: a leftist rhetoric that is hellbent on punishing everyone indiscriminately, moralizing about their greed, is going to continue on its crash and burn path.