Journalist at Academy Awards: Reporters ‘groaned’ at Michelle Obama stunt

Loading

Twitchy:

Hope and change?

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
99 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Since I don’t watch most of today’s movies, I haven’t watched the Academy Awards for years.

One way to protest the garbage being put out is to not watch them, whether it be in the theaters or on TV. Cable and satellite TV can track the stuff you watch. The more garbage you watch, the more they send.

We watched some of it to see how self-congratulatory humans can be.
Amazing!
And how PC is that crowd that a joke about an actor (Boothe) getting inside a president’s head (Lincoln) makes them ”boo?”
The brave and un-PC host then made light of PC by saying they were probably not going to like all his Napoleon jokes either.
How far back does a comic have to go to be allowed to make light of history?
Osama bin Ladin wrote that 9-11-01 was about getting back at the West for them taking back Spain, for goodness sake!
PC is turning people into little “t” talibaners.

Glad I missed Michelle.
Happy for every Life of Pi win.

Smorg You’re the guy that propounds there is “no difference between Repubs and Dems.” Right?
You then proceed to blast theater ,T.V. newspapers etc. etc.
Then you promote Fox News. C’mon

Nan G, Agree on Pi—Biggest winner with 4. Thought Michelle gave a great talk.

@Richard Wheeler:

Thought Michelle gave a great talk.

Of course you did, dearie. No objection to you from one of the 1 percenters being highlighted by other 1 percenters. Or, as most think, a phony playing to a huge group of fellow phonies. Nevermind the First Lady chose members of our U.S. military as props.

Or was Moochelle just paying back for all the money donated to her husband’s campaign from left wing Hollywood?

Why do you even bother watching over inflated egos patting each other on the back? Hollywood turns out crap, depends on taxpayer dollars (tax breaks which was reported on Forbes) while it sticks you with a hefty increase in ticket prices over the last 10 years. Oh, that’s right, you’re a Twofer One kind of guy, aren’t you?

Retire05 I love the movies,whether it was Humphrey Bogart in 50’s,Burt Lancaster in the 60’s— or Pacino,De Niro,Denzel or Scarlett more recently.Great entertainment.
I buy entertainment and restaurant books and am often a two-fer be it movies or dinner out ,though I’d imagine that removes me from the one per centers.
Music and The Arts bring myself and family great joy.

BTW I’m enjoying your back and forth with Aye—Dearie you’re getting destroyed.
Semper Fi

@Richard Wheeler:

I love the movies,whether it was Humphrey Bogart in 50′s,Burt Lancaster in the 60′s

Bogart – U.S. Navy
Lancaster – U.S. Army

Pacino was a good actor, but he should just shut up and act. The crap that Hollywood churns out now are just anti-Amerian socialists who hire high dollar tax lawyers to off shore their money to avoid paying taxes.

BTW I’m enjoying your back and forth with Aye—Dearie you’re getting destroyed.

No surprise there. I am sure you subscribe to the tactic of name calling (stooooopid) and other vitriol. Saul Alinsky all the way, right, Richard?

Retire05 You’re the specialist in name calling.Word and Aye have discredited you point by point.I remember when you left in a huff back in late 2011.Any chance of you skulking away again?

@Richard Wheeler:

.I remember when you left in a huff back in late 2011.

No, but I do hope you will slither away.

Seems I remember you making the claim that you had contacted, by phone, your representative who is a Republican, within just minutes of one of my posts. Like I believe that you have access to any federal Congressman’s personal cell phone. When cornered on that claim, seems you sulked away.

But hey, what can we expect from someone who leeches off other taxpayers like you do to pay for your tony $600K+ mini-mansion in California? Guess you can pay for that by your “twofer” deals on meals and movies. Yeah, right!

But hey, news flash!!! You lefties are not the only ones who have read Rules for Radicals. Get ready, Richard. Conservatives are fixin’ to turn the table on you statists.

Retire05 You really aren’t too smart. The value of my home went down, I did a short refi based on the appraised value of the home I qualified because I had no lates, excellent credit and verifiable income that put me at a 38% debt ratio on my new loan.I helped those I could do many hundreds of re-fi’s since 1998. Get a license to originate mortgages and get back to me.
I’ve talked with Ken Calvert many times on a variety of subjects.No big deal..
“Conservatives are fixing to turn the tables” If clowns like you are doing the turning Dems. got no worries.

As Word and Aye have shown over and over,you’re nothing but a sad,frustrated, bad joke that only hurts the Conservative cause..
As mentioned, you’re the one who cried and cried like a baby before slithering off in 2011.

@Richard Wheeler:

It should not be the problem of the taxpayer that you choose to live in an area that was so hard hit by home values. Perhaps if you had a state government that had an ounce of common sense, that would not have happened.

I did a short refi based on the appraised value of the home I qualified because I had no lates, excellent credit and verifiable income that put me at a 38% debt ratio on my new loan.

And who covered the losses sustained by Wells Fargo (you did say that your original loan was with Wells Fargo, did you not?) when the government bailed out the mortgage industry?

I helped those I could do many hundreds of re-fi’s since 1998.

You bragging, or complaining?

Get a license to originate mortgages and get back to me.

Are you claiming to be a licensed mortgage broker?

I’ve talked with Ken Calvert many times on a variety of subjects.No big deal..

You claimed to have spoken with Calvert in less than 30 minutes after my post. Are you now claiming you had his cell phone number in order to be able to reach him that quickly?

If clowns like you are doing the turning Dems. got no worries.

As I said, you subscribe to the Alinsky tactic of name calling. Thanks for proving that.

As Word and Aye have shown over and over,you’re nothing but a sad,’frustrated, bad joke that only hurts the Conservative cause..

When Word, and Aye, who are professed conservatives, have you for a cheering section, they better reevaluate their positions.

As mentioned you’re the only one who cried and cried like a baby before slitthering off in 2011.

Got the post? Perhaps Aye can find it for you since you are his biggest fan. A real Walter Duranty, you are Richard.

Retireo5 I’ve been licensed by the Cal Dept of Real Estate for the better part of 30 years #00518860.
I’ve worked in residential and commercial R.E— I’ve worked as a mortgage broker and as a mortgage banker.
No one can predict with certainty the future value of purchased R.E. or stocks (learned that with Merrill in the 70’s) If people can refi when R.E goes up isn’t it fair they can do so when it goes down? Should people with good credit,no mortgage lates and VERIFIABLE income not be allowed to take advantage of lower interest rates as they would if their property had gone up in value?

Word and Aye “professed Conservatives” Right

Retire,

You seem to have a problem with Rich taking advantage of a refi thru his bank wherein the principle was reduced.

You keep claiming that the US taxpayers were on the hook for those dollars yet you’ve offered not one iota of proof to support that position. Imagine that.

But hey, what can we expect from someone who leeches off other taxpayers

Careful now. What’s that old saying? Something about not throwing stones… Remember retire, things on the Interwebz live forever.

@Aye:

You seem to have a problem with Rich taking advantage of a refi thru his bank wherein the principle was reduced.

You keep claiming that the US taxpayers were on the hook for those dollars yet you’ve offered not one iota of proof to support that position. Imagine that

And all those banks, and the GSEs, that took a hicky because they were required to lower the principal owed to depreciated appraised values, which is the collateral held by them, were bailed out by who? Do you really think those lending agencies just accepted the loss of billions of $$ in principal owed to them without being paid back by some other entity?

Do you really think those lending agencies just accepted the loss of billions of $$ in principal owed to them without being paid back by some other entity?

What I think is that you’re poking your beak into Rich’s mortgage refi when it is, quite frankly, none of your damned business.

Furthermore you haven’t, as of now, shown one source which supports your idea that the taxpayer absorbed the principle write down.

You’re throwing stones at Rich for supposedly benefiting from taxpayer largesse. Is that a good idea for someone with unclean hands?

@Richard Wheeler: #3
I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.

NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REPUBS AND DEMS
There isn’t much difference between the two parties. Did either one put Social Security back in its own interest-drawing account when they were in power? Has either one REDUCED the amount of money spent? Has either one reduced the size of government?

BLAST THEATER, TV, NEWSPAPERS, ETC., ETC.
I don’t watch too many of today’s movies, so I don’t know if things have changed. When was the last time you watched a TV show or movie where moral values were taught? Some of them even make you root for the bad guys. When daddy is still married to mommy, he either mistreats her, or is a dunce. Daddy usually isn’t married to mommy any more. There is a conscious effort to take daddy out of the picture. Name one show or movie where, when someone goes out on a date THE FIRST TIME with someone, sex ISN’T expected.

If you haven’t admitted that the news media isn’t a propaganda machine, you are a part of the machine. Even some reporters are admitting that the media has been liberal all the time.

I have asked different times for people to write to any media that calls the USA a democracy and ask them why they do. I emailed many newspapers and asked them why they called the USA a democracy. Not one has replied back. Have you asked any of them? I’ve never heard anyone else mention that the news media keep calling the USA a democracy when it isn’t. Fox News doesn’t.

THEN YOU PROMOTE FOX NEWS
They are not 100% neutral when reporting news, but they do report things that the propaganda media doesn’t. For example, Fox News has mentioned how the comedians always tore up George Bush when he was in office, but clammed up when obama got elected. Fox News reported that every day the MSM reported how many soldiers died in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that ended when obama took office. Fox News has reported that more soldiers were killed in Afghanistan under obama than Bush. Why aren’t the MSM reporting this? Fox News reported how the MSM condemned Bush for golfing during a war. The MSM got mad because obama wouldn’t let them go along with him golfing with Tiger, but they aren’t mad about all of the golfing and vacations obama is taking during two wars like they were Bush. Why?

@Aye:

What I think is that you’re poking your beak into Rich’s mortgage refi when it is, quite frankly, none of your damned business.

And your questions about my ancestry was your business? No, it was none of your damned business.

And I wasn’t the one who initially ran his mouth about his re-fi; Richard was.

Furthermore you haven’t, as of now, shown one source which supports your idea that the taxpayer absorbed the principle write down.

Who do you think bailed all those banks out and what money did they use if not taxpayer funds?

You’re throwing stones at Rich for supposedly benefiting from taxpayer largesse

So you have no problem with those who benefit from taxpayer largess when that largess does not benefit all Americans equally?

Is that a good idea for someone with unclean hands?

Oh, that’s rich coming from someone who seems to think his debate abilities depend on how many insults and perjorative he can lob at his target of hate.

And your questions about my ancestry was your business?

You tossed out a claim regarding 200+ years of your family history which struck me as stretching credulity.

I won’t come right out and call you a liar regarding that because, of course, I would be unable to prove my claim. I can, and will, however cast a wary and skeptical eye on everything that you say because the pages here at FA are peppered with your dishonesty.

In short, you’ve lost your right to a willing suspension of disbelief.

Furthermore you haven’t, as of now, shown one source which supports your idea that the taxpayer absorbed the principle write down.

Who do you think bailed all those banks out and what money did they use if not taxpayer funds?

What I know is that TARP funds were force fed to the banks by a Republican president, his Treasury Secretary, and the Fed Chairman.

Not all of the banks, including Wells Fargo, wanted or needed to take those funds:

Kovacevich said some might ask, “Why didn’t I just say no and not accept the TARP money?”

“As my comments were heading in that direction in the meeting, Hank Paulson turned to Fed Chairman Ben Benanke sitting next to him and said, ‘Your primary regulator is sitting right here. If you refuse to accept these funds, he will declare you ‘capital deficient’ Monday morning,'” Kovacevich recalled. “‘Is this America?’ I asked myself.”

“This was truly a ‘godfather moment.’ They made us an offer we couldn’t refuse,” Kovacevich said, adding that he might have put up more of a fight if the San Francisco bank (NYSE: WFC) had not been trying to acquire troubled Wachovia at the time.

Furthermore, after being forced to take money they didn’t want or need, Wells Fargo fully repaid the $25 billion with dividends to the US Treasury as soon as was legally allowed.

So, once again, where is the proof that Rich took advantage of taxpayer dollars? Where is your proof that Wells Fargo did anything at all with those dollars other than letting them sit in an account until the time of repayment?

You’re making a lot of broad, baseless assumptions about things that you have minimal knowledge of. Of course, that’s standard operating procedure for you isn’t it?

You’re throwing stones at Rich for supposedly benefiting from taxpayer largesse

So you have no problem with those who benefit from taxpayer largess when that largess does not benefit all Americans equally?

What I have a problem with is that you like to make accusations sans proof whether it be against Greg, or me, or Rich, or whoever. You simply like to flap your gums about things.

When Rich did his FHA refi, the loan was rolled out of Wells Fargo and into FHA. Wells took the loss for the difference (minimum 10% of the loan) as was required under the plainly stated terms of the program:

The mortgagee must ensure that the existing first lien holder writes off at least 10 percent of the unpaid principal balance on the first lien. The short payoff serves as payment in full for any debt extinguished.

Rich took advantage of the only loan program around that benefits the responsible, and tries to lessen the load of possible future toxic assets addressing loans that have gone underwater, due to no fault of the responsible buyer.

Is that a good idea for someone with unclean hands?

Oh, that’s rich coming from someone who seems to think his debate abilities depend on how many insults and perjorative he can lob at his target of hate.

Obviously, you missed my point: We both know that you’re actually guilty of benefiting from Texas taxpayer largesse, yet you wish to falsely cast stones at Rich?

Tsk…tsk. Not smart behavior from our resident paragon of virtue.

@Aye:

We both know that you’re actually guilty of benefiting from Texas taxpayer largesse,

How so? Because of the local police department? Or the unpaid volunteer fire department that I help cooridinate benefits for and donate direct to without having to be taxed to subsidize it? Or perhaps the thousands I pay in school taxes for a school system neither my children, or I, ever accessed? Just what Texas taxpayer largess do you suggest I benefit from that is not covered by my taxes? Roads and bridges? I pay taxes for those on an annual basis. Sales taxes that I pay on not only a state level, but on a county and municipal level.

I have never collected so much as one unemployment check, or any other type of social welfare that you be placed on the burden of the Texas taxpayers. So you are talking out your ass for no other reason that to be contrary.

Again, your purpose seems to not be one of honor, but to simply run me off. As I said before, if that is your goal, simply have Curt send me an email to that effect.

@Aye:

You tossed out a claim regarding 200+ years of your family history which struck me as stretching credulity.

And so you feel that gives you priviledge to question me about it. But, using different standards for me, I am not allowed to comment on Richard’s use of taxpayer largess even though he was the one who brought it up, otherwise, I would not have known about it.

What I know is that TARP funds were force fed to the banks by a Republican president, his Treasury Secretary, and the Fed Chairman.

And you assume that I agreed with it at the time simply because it was done by the players you mentioned? You would be wrong.

I won’t come right out and call you a liar regarding that because, of course, I would be unable to prove my claim

But with that very sentence, you infer that you think I am lying. Why would I? What would it gain me? Nothing. And while I am proud of my heritage, it differs little from millions of other Americans who can trace their families back 200 years and are full of Americans, not immigrants.

You are a hateful, little man, Aye, and I think it is time we end this relationship. I am tired of you getting your jollies off by beating up on me. Obviously, you have some personal issues that need to be addressed as no one is as hateful as you to some anonymous person on a blog.

Oh for heavens sake… I can’t take it. The stupidity – not to mention the personal vitriol – runs amok here by the undereducated and overly crotchety.

The FHA Short Refinance (aka the FHASR) is the only one of the three housing programs that was designed to benefit the responsible buyer who found themselves unable to refinance into current low rates, despite having good credit, good income to debt ratios, payment history and verifiable income. Why? Because the housing market tanked their LTV on their home, and they no longer had equity to refinance into the lower rate with tighter underwriting guidelines. Equity disappeared for everyone, and without equity, refinances via traditional lenders, became virtually impossible.

Talk about punishing the responsible types… Simple fact is, the deadbeats were getting the loan mods and low rates while the good guys were stuck without a foreseeable refinance option. Thus why only one of the three HAMP programs that requires *the banks* to reduce the over leveraged principle – the FHASR – is available *only* to those who had a traditional conventional loan, and can still meet today’s FHA underwriting guidelines. The program removes the over leveraged asset from the GSEs, requires the bank to absorb the loss, then moves the more realistic LTV mortgage into FHA, *with* a mortgage insurance fee attached.

Let me repeat that…. the loan requires was the conventional (not subprime, or held by FHA, VA, or USDA) loan had to be refinanced into an FHA package with specific underwriting guidelines, and that the bank… NOT the taxpayers… had to absorb at least 10% write down on the loan.

The only government financial incentives were offered to any 2nd lien holder… maxed at $500 for their cooperation in the program.

Needless to say, most banks were resisting since there were no incentives. So the program… which has been available since Sept 2010… had languished, only getting around five major lenders to participate even after a couple of years. Why, because unlike what the uninformed here believe, they aren’t being compensated with TARP or taxpayer funds. In fact, as of last Sept, only 1,774 of these loans were made.

But time as moved on, and since most banks generally sell the notes, but retain the more lucrative loan servicing agreements, they were still living with a risk…. servicing over leveraged assets that are tomorrow’s toxic mortgages waiting to explode. Combine that with the pressure from the feds post Dodd-Frank and the CFPB (not to mention a few lawsuits…), and a precious few have been cooperating with the FHASR. Since they would still retain the servicing rights, and that new loan (which they can charge origination fees) had less chance at a default in the future, it’s a good hedged bet against a future loss… even made more desirable since it’s only offered to proven responsible buyers.

INRE all the HAMP programs, they haven’t spent but a drop in the bucket that was allocated. Fact is, per the GAO’s accounting figures as of Sept 2012, only $5.5 billion of TARP funds has been spent out of the originally allocated $45.6 billion for those three housing programs…. not exactly a rousing success. Most funds that are depleted are for government administration for programs not being utilized. And that’s going down the drain whether anyone uses the program or not.

But back to the FHASR and the claim that it’s a drain on the taxpayer. Some more GOA figures for you. Of that $5.5 billion spent:

* $4 billion was on the MHA program (Making Home Affordable)
* $1.5 billion on the HHF (Hardest-Hit areas Fund), and
* $0….let me repeat that… ZERO TARP funds spent on the FHASR that responsible borrowers, like Rich, qualified for.

Ergo those using the FHASR program are not sucking off the taxpayers, as erroneously implied by the tiresome one. An apology for slamming his personal credibility, due to the delivering party’s vindictive and unmitigated ignorance, is owed. I’m equally sure it will never be freely given.

However there are two repercussions for Rich’s refinance – one good, one not so good.

1: His credit rating in the future from one, or all of the three reporting bureaus, is likely to take a hit because of his participation. However with other ample good credit, that may not make much of a difference. Also, if he didn’t have mortgage insurance and a PITI payment before, he’s got all that now. Albeit the mandated MI is a lower rate than for new purchase loans.

But that won’t matter much since:

2: He’ll have more money in his pocket to consume goods, and benefit the national economy. Not to mention he’s got a better chance to ride out the roller coaster economy without defaulting on a future toxic asset due to a more manageable payment and rate that even deadbeats are getting via the programs.

Now pardon me for interrupting this little cliche hate fest, because I assure you… I have little interest in digesting this much BS daily. But I’m hoping perhaps not only can I reverse some damage here, but maybe one of you (or someone you know) might be in a position where they feel stuck in a high rate mortgage, and an over valued home, despite being the good guy. Take a lesson from Rich and check out your options. And no… don’t let the ignorant guilt you into falsely believing you’re a drain on the taxpayer by doing so.

If you don’t understand it fully, what you should do is stop listening to the psycho babble of an uninformed novice, and call your local HUD Counselor to see if you qualify for the FHA Short Refinance. These HUD counselors are a free consultation service available to all, and they will still be on the government payroll … whether you improve your own mortgage situation or not.

So if you, or someone you know, has the chance to take advantage of these low rates and principle forgiveness by the bank, you should do it. It’s your reward for being a responsible borrower, and hanging in there while the irresponsible have been able to get those rates via a loan mod.

As for the rest of you? Please… feel free to resume your Infowars/Alex Jones pursuit of “news” sans me. Exit stage right…..

* $4 billion was on the MHA program (Making Home Affordable)
* $1.5 billion on the HHF (Hardest-Hit areas Fund),

And exactly how were those programs funded?

@retire05:

* $4 billion was on the MHA program (Making Home Affordable)
* $1.5 billion on the HHF (Hardest-Hit areas Fund),

And exactly how were those programs funded?

Read this s-l-o-w-l-y so you’re not confused. This point is important:

It doesn’t matter how those programs were funded. Rich didn’t benefit from them.

He benefited from the FHASR which, as Mata has shown, cost the taxpayer ZERO dollars.

You’ve been smearing and sliming and flinging poo at Rich over the course of multiple threads for allegedly taking advantage of taxpayer largesse. Now, it has been proven that you were incorrect at best on that point.

On this topic, we’ve seen you filleted and dissembled at the joints. Your dry brittle bones have been stacked neatly in the corner.

Will you be forthcoming with the long overdue apology? Or will you continue to slither ’round, desperately changing the subject, in a transparently miserable attempt at avoiding your mendaciousness?

Exit Question: When a person receives tens of thousands in taxpayer dollars for their business, is that person benefiting from “taxpayer largesse”?

@Aye:

He benefited from the FHASR which, as Mata has shown, cost the taxpayer ZERO dollars.

No, that is NOT what Mata said:

* $0….let me repeat that… ZERO TARP funds spent on the FHASR that responsible borrowers, like Rich, qualified for.

Reads quite differently when you add the words Mata actually used, doesn’t it?

“FHA ANNOUNCES PRINCIPAL REDUCTION REFINANCING PROGRAM FOR UNDERWATER BORROWERS

On September 7, 2010, non-FHA borrowers who are current on their mortgages and currently in a negative equity position (underwater) will be eligible for an FHA refinance loan, provided that their lenders agree to write off at least 10 percent of the unpaid principal balance on the first lein, according to a HUD mortgagee letter released last week.

As part of the Making Home Affordable program, the Treasury will provide incentives to existing second lien holders who agree to full or partial extinguishment of the leins.”

Who funds the Treasury?

“Making Home Affordable

A program under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act

The administration’s plan to stem foreclosures provides incentive payments to mortgage services, investors and home owners to promote mortgage loan modifications and other foreclosure alternatives (like short salse. The Treasury has set aside a total of $29.9 billion.”

http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/programs/6-making-home-affordable

Again, who funds the U.S. Treasury?

“FINALLY: Principal Reduction Program For Struggling Home Owners To Be Anounced Today

For taxpayers, the government’s plan carries some risk. Lenders will probably sell their most troubkled loans to the FHA so they insured against defaut, said Mayer of Columbia Business School. Exerpts have warned that the FHA faces rising losses on foreclosures and might need a bailout.

“There’s more risk to taxpayers,” Mayber said. “There’s a big incentive for lenders to give the government the worst of their lons, ones they fear won’t get paid back on.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com on 03/26/2010

And from the U.S. Treasury website:

2. A $75 Billion Homeowner Stability Initiative to Prevent Foreclosures and Help Respoonsible Families Stay In Their Homes: The Treasury Department, working with the GSEs, FHA, the FDIC and other federal ageincies, will undertake a comprehensive multi-part strategy to prevent millions of foreclosures and help families state in their homes.”

Again, who funds the U.S. Treasury? Where did that $75 Billion come from?

How the Programs Works

The Homeowner Stability Initiative has a simple goal: reduce the amount homeowners owe per month to sustainable levels. This program will bring together lenders, services, borrowers and the goverment, so that all stakeholders share in the cost of ensuring that responsible homeowners can afford their monthly payments”

The U.S. government is a “stateholder” in this initiative. Who is expected to cover the cost of the U.S. Treasury involvement, if not the taxpayer?

“i. Shared Effort To Reduce Monthly Payments: Treasury will partner with financial institutions to reduce homeowner’s monthly mortgage payments.

The lender will have to first reduce interest rates on mortgages to a specified affordability level (specifically, bring down rates so that the borrower’s monthly mortgage payment is no greater than 38% of his or her income.)”

A partnership means that all entities have skin in the game, including the U.S. Treasury department.

Again, what are the means of funding for the U.S. Treasury?

“iii. Responsible Modification Incentives: Because loan modifications are more likely to succeed if they are made before a borrower misses a payment, the plan will include an incentive payment of $11,500 to mortgage bankers and $500 to services for modification made while a borrower at risk of imminent default is still current.

How It Will Be Effective:

Protecting Taxpayers: to protect taxpyaers, the Homeowner Stability Initiative will focus on sound modification. If the total expected cost of a modification for a lender taking into account the goverment payments is expected to be higher than the direct costs of putting the homeowner through foreclosure, that borrower will not be eligible.

Moreover, Treasury will not provide subsidies to reduce intereest rates on modified loans to levels below 2%.”

If there is no cost to the taxpayer, why is the U.S. Treasury worried about “protecting taxpayers?” Subsidities? Where are those subsidities coming from? Oh, yes, the U.S. Treasury who gets its funded from whom?

We can argue all day about this, but the bottom line is that due to the involvement of the U.S. Treasury, and “subsidities” paid by the U.S. Treasury to lenders, that money has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is the U.S. taxpayer.

Richard, and others like him, purchased a home where they agreed to the seller’s price and the seller agreed to sell it to them. He, and others like him, then found a mortgage broker who was willing to lend him the money he needed to cover the price of the home that was left after his downpayment. He agreed to the price. But when the market in California tanked (due to many of California own laws), he didn’t think he should be required to pay back what he asked for in the first place. And neither did the Obama administration.

A home is considered an investment, but like all investments, subject to changing market values. So what happens when the market rebounds, as Richard says is it currently doing? His home value will increase. Will he then be required to repay the money that was removed from his principal or will the federal government have just handed him a paycheck in the form of increased equity?

And what about the mid-aged couple, with kids who still lived at home ,who purchased a home for an agreed upon price, wanting to downsize a couple of years later because their kids are all grown and gone, learning that they can’t get what they paid for the home. If that home was paid for, they just got screwed. Too bad, too sad. Suck it up. You paid for your home and since you owned nothing on it, you just have to absorb the loss.

This is a case of the federal government picking winners and losers, and I don’t support that be it for businesses (like green energy projects that have failed) or for individual homeowners. In the end, the taxpayer, who never utilized any kind of government largess in the housing market, gets the shaft.

@retire05:

I see that your state of perpetual confusion continues to stagger along.

You continue to mix apples, oranges, and tomatoes in your effort to make an unsuccessful sow’s ear argument. FHASR is not the same as MHA or HAMP or HAFA or any of the other varied and sundry programs out there. You’re all jumbled up in your skull and it’s translating thru your keyboard.

The plan that we are discussing is the FHA Short Refinance (FHASR) which has NO cost to taxpayers unless there is a second lien holder, in which case the cost is capped at a one time max of $500.

From your own quoted source materials above:

“FHA ANNOUNCES PRINCIPAL REDUCTION REFINANCING PROGRAM FOR UNDERWATER BORROWERS

On September 7, 2010, non-FHA borrowers who are current on their mortgages and currently in a negative equity position (underwater) will be eligible for an FHA refinance loan, provided that their lenders agree to write off at least 10 percent of the unpaid principal balance on the first lein, according to a HUD mortgagee letter released last week.

As part of the Making Home Affordable program, the Treasury will provide incentives to existing second lien holders who agree to full or partial extinguishment of the leins.”

In Rich’s case, there was no second lien holder so, voila, any potential cost exposure to the taxpayer disappears.

We can argue all day about this, but the bottom line is that single lien loans refinanced via the FHASR have no cost to the taxpayer and you cannot present one piece of evidence to the contrary.

If there was really free money at the end of the refi rainbow for all of those lenders, then why were they so hesitant to participate in the program? Psst… It’s because they were taking the losses, that’s why.

It’s becoming more and more and more obvious that you’re not really interested in the truth here. All you want to do is malign and smear based on your preconceived ideas. Unfortunately, once again, you’re continuing to persist in a position where the facts don’t support you.

I guess we have an answer to whether you wish to continue slithering.

Finally, since you avoided it like the plague the first time, here it is again:

Exit Question: When a person receives tens of thousands in taxpayer dollars for their business, is that person benefiting from “taxpayer largesse”?

@Aye:

In Rich’s case, there was no second lien holder so, voila, any potential cost exposure to the taxpayer disappears.

Where did he say that?

We can argue all day about this, but the bottom line is that single lien loans refinanced via the FHASR have no cost to the taxpayer and you cannot present one piece of evidence to the contrary.

The FHA program is part of the Making Home Affordable Initiative.

http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/programs/6-making-home-affordable

If there was really free money at the end of the refi rainbow for all of those lenders, then why were they so hesitant to participate in the program?Psst… It’s because they were taking the losses, that’s why.

See list above.

http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/program/16-fla-refinance-program

In Rich’s case, there was no second lien holder so, voila, any potential cost exposure to the taxpayer disappears.

Where did he say that?

Rich has repeatedly stated that his mortgage was with Wells Fargo. He has also clearly stated there was no second lien.

Do you have evidence there was? If so, cough it up. Otherwise, you’re barking up the wrong tree. Again.

The FHA program is part of the Making Home Affordable Initiative

And?

The creation of the FHASR under a piece of legislation does not a taxpayer cost create.

Where’s your source material that shows that there were taxpayer dollars expended on the FHASR beyond the second lien holder?

If there was really free money at the end of the refi rainbow for all of those lenders, then why were they so hesitant to participate in the program? Psst… It’s because they were taking the losses, that’s why.

See list above.

Buzzer sounds.

Your linked source materials do NOT address the point that I made. You’re doing nothing more than trying to create another smokescreen with which to hide your ignorance.

And you seem to be vigorously avoiding this:

Exit Question: When a person receives tens of thousands in taxpayer dollars for their business, is that person benefiting from “taxpayer largesse”?

@Aye:

Finally, since you avoided it like the plague the first time, here it is again:

Again, what are the means of funding for the U.S. Treasury?

And what about the mid-aged couple, with kids who still lived at home ,who purchased a home for an agreed upon price, wanting to downsize a couple of years later because their kids are all grown and gone, learning that they can’t get what they paid for the home. If that home was paid for, they just got screwed. Too bad, too sad. Suck it up. You paid for your home and since you owned nothing on it, you just have to absorb the loss.

We both know that you’re actually guilty of benefiting from Texas taxpayer largesse,

How so?

Finally, since you avoided it like the plague the first time, here it is again:

Again, what are the means of funding for the U.S. Treasury?

The means of funding for the US Treasury is not a point that we are debating.

That’s yet another of your poor straw man efforts.

We both know that you’re actually guilty of benefiting from Texas taxpayer largesse,

How so?

We both know the answer don’t we?

That’s why you’re doing everything you possibly can to avoid this:

Exit Question: When a person receives tens of thousands in taxpayer dollars for their business, is that person benefiting from “taxpayer largesse”?

The readers here can evaluate the meaning of your evasionary maneuvers.

Retire05 For the record I put 20% down and got an 80% First. There has never been a 2nd on the property.

@Aye:

Again, what are the means of funding for the U.S. Treasury?

The means of funding for the US Treasury is not a point that we are debating.

Of course not; not when you insist others play by your rules.

We both know that you’re actually guilty of benefiting from Texas taxpayer largesse,

How so?

We both know the answer don’t we?

Do you really consider that an answer? It’s a dodge. Nothing more, nothing less.

The readers here can evaluate the meaning of your evasionary maneuvers.

Like the evasionary responses you gave to my questions thinking others are stooooopid enough consider them valid answers?

The means of funding for the US Treasury is not a point that we are debating.

Of course not; not when you insist others play by your rules.

Perhaps you’re confusing this discussion with a different one you’re having. The means by which the US Treasury gets funding is not a matter we’ve been discussing or debating. As much as you may wish to hell you could distract me onto your bunny trail it isn’t going to work.

Your focus and concentration should be on the FHASR and your claims that borrowers who avail themselves of it are benefiting from taxpayer dollars.

As of now you’re failing, and flailing, miserably. And right out here in the open too.

We both know that you’re actually guilty of benefiting from Texas taxpayer largesse,

How so?

We both know the answer don’t we?

Do you really consider that an answer? It’s a dodge. Nothing more, nothing less.

Well…don’t you already know the answer? I know I do. And it’s certainly not a dodge. Hence the question that I’ve repeatedly posed to you:

When a person receives tens of thousands in taxpayer dollars for their business, is that person benefiting from “taxpayer largesse”?

I warned you about the whole stones and glass houses thing but you insisted on carrying forth your mantle of hate and disdain didn’t you?

Here’s the conundrum you now find yourself faced with: You can’t tell the truth without everyone knowing that you’re a classic example of hypocrisy, guilty of the very things you’ve been accusing Rich of for months. And you can’t lie because I know the truth.

The ball is in your court. Everyone is watching.

Whaddya gonna do?

You know, when @those already covered with manure feel comfortable handing off a shovel to someone to pile on yet more manure, it’s a mighty inviting prospect. So enter stage left… temporarily.

Who funds the Treasury?

“Making Home Affordable

A program under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act

The administration’s plan to stem foreclosures provides incentive payments to mortgage services, investors and home owners to promote mortgage loan modifications and other foreclosure alternatives (like short sales. The Treasury has set aside a total of $29.9 billion.”

Redundant, but thank you again for demonstrating your comprehension disabilities. One would think the key words “modifications” and “other foreclosure alternatives” would be a heads up. Apparently not.

The MHA is not the same program as the HHF or the FHASR programs. All three fall under the HAMP programs and EESA, but not all draw on TARP funds equally… or even at all. And until you understand the different loan programs, who is and isn’t eligible, and what requires TARP funding – not to mention what has been spent as opposed to allocated – you are demonstrating you have no qualms wading into waters deeper than your intellectual water wings can keep you buoyant.

In that vein, and continuing to speak of out of your waters depth, you come up with this ditty..

“FINALLY: Principal Reduction Program For Struggling Home Owners To Be Announced Today

For taxpayers, the government’s plan carries some risk. Lenders will probably sell their most troubled loans to the FHA so they insured against default, said Mayer of Columbia Business School. Experts have warned that the FHA faces rising losses on foreclosures and might need a bailout.

…snip…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com on 03/26/201

The first thing I had to do was laugh at the source. HuffPo? From you, the purist who disdains, and regularly ridicules others for such sources?

Gotta love yet another good guffaw at your own blissfully unaware expense…. thanks for that. Then again, I’ve got quite a few of your FA Greatest Moments archived… including the links you requested above. But shouldn’t we stick to one of your personal humiliations at a time?

So back to the subject at hand. What you, and your source HuffPo , didn’t apparently care to learn was that the loan sold to FHA was not only within current market values (i.e. no longer a looming toxic asset.. tho that may change depending upon future trends)… but came within those market values because the bank (NOT THE TAXPAYER) absorbed the over leveraged value loss of anything over 115% in current market FHA appraisal value. Additionally it had the safeguards of d MI attached against potential defaults over a % of LTV.

But let’s not get into the stuff well above the paygrade of novices…

Another example of your superficial “research”, common to the Alex Jones Conspiracy Cabal, is this from you.

And from the U.S. Treasury website:

2. A $75 Billion Homeowner Stability Initiative to Prevent Foreclosures and Help Responsible Families Stay In Their Homes: The Treasury Department, working with the GSEs, FHA, the FDIC and other federal ageincies, will undertake a comprehensive multi-part strategy to prevent millions of foreclosures and help families state in their homes.”

sigh… I’ve provided the links to the GOA accounting above. Further reading and deeper research would have revealed that out of the original $75 billion from *all* the different types of housing specialty loan packages/risks included in the legislative Initiative, only $50 billion was to come from TARP funds, and the rest would have been funded by the GSEs. Again from the TARP reporting to Congress:

Not all housing support programs are funded, or completely funded, by TARP. Of the originally anticipated $75 billion cost for MHA, $50 billion was to be funded by TARP, with the remainder funded by the GSEs. Treasury has obligated TARP funds of $45.6 billion, which includes $29.9 billion for MHA incentive
payments, $8.1 billion for FHA Short Refinance, and $7.6 billion for the Hardest Hit Fund.

I believe the already linked Sept 2012 GOA accounting said that out of the $45.6 billion allocated from TARP, only $5.5 of that was actually spent after all this time. And none of it was passed on to banks/borrowers using the FHASR or it’s 2nd lien subsidiary program.

Your point? Oh yes… you don’t have one. shhhhhh….

Much as you’d like to muddy the deep waters of reality for your own attempt at personal redemption, the MHA is not the same as the FHASR or even the 2nd lien complementary program, the FHA2LP… which Rich did not utilize or need. I instantly knew what loan Rich had used since he did not do a distressed homeowner loan mod (they don’t do principle reductions and actually extend loan terms to 40 years with silent seconds to make up for the “loss). Nor was his area qualified for the HHF funds. That left one “loan” Indian standing as the option.

Rich or any other responsible homeowner/borrowers’ potential draw on TARP or GSE funds is entirely separate from the MHA. And by the official accounting records, not Rich or any other of these borrowers have cost your precious Texan tush a nickel that wouldn’t have been spent… with or without their own personal refinance. Therefore your attempts to discredit him are about as viable as anyone who takes out a business loan or grant as allowed under federal or state laws/grants.

I realize that when you want to ID your personal version of rotten avocados, it’s convenient for you to mask them within the barrel of apples. And I also realize you’re desperate to recover a modicum of your self-perceived stature as as expert of all things, and the quintessential icon of virtue. Fact is, since I don’t hang around here much, normally when you want to blow it out your rear orifice, I’ll simply smile on my occasional catch up readings here, and let it pass.

But here I take a stand because you are now attempting to dissuade a responsible homeowner from a genuine out, and with having clear conscience of not being a leech. You – all because of your own ego and hatred for Rich – are passing on deliberately obtuse, false data that may prevent another responsible, maybe conservative, mortgage paying homeowner from checking out a viable programs that may help them out. And I’m not willing to let that happen.

Now, after a temporary enter stage left… I again exit stage right. And you if had a lick of sense, you’d do the same, and wander off to the next hyperbolic, Inforwars/Alex Jones started thread to vent your daily “I hate Obama and everyone who isn’t as perfect as me” BS.

@MataHarley:

I believe the already linked Sept 2012 GOA accounting said that out of the $45.6 billion allocated from TARP, only $5.5 of that was actually spent after all this time. And none of it was passed on to banks/borrowers using the FHASR or it’s 2nd lien subsidiary program.

Never said the FHA refinancing program was part of TARP. Why not provide a little honesty, Mata. I have shown it was part of the Making Home Affordable, which unlike TARP, was passed after George Bush left office. They are NOT one and the same.

I again exit stage right. And you if had a lick of sense, you’d do the same, and wander off to the next hyperbolic, Inforwars/Alex Jones started thread to vent your daily “I hate Obama and everyone who isn’t as perfect as me” BS.

Nah, I’ll leave that up to you and Aye, who seem a lot more familiar with what the lunatic, Alex Jones, puts on his web site than I do.

Oh, and thanks for showing that you, Aye and Richard are nothing more than internet gangbangers who feel they must gang up on one person.

Oh my word… fish – barrel moments just keep a’coming in droves.

tired’ol’5 sez: Never said the FHA refinancing program was part of TARP. Why not provide a little honesty, Mata. I have shown it was part of the Making Home Affordable, which unlike TARP, was passed after George Bush left office. They are NOT one and the same.

Revisionist history by those with the attention span of a gnat…. Here’s what you said:

Aye: We can argue all day about this, but the bottom line is that single lien loans refinanced via the FHASR have no cost to the taxpayer and you cannot present one piece of evidence to the contrary.

tired’ol’5: The FHA program is part of the Making Home Affordable Initiative.
http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/programs/6-making-home-affordable

Now that we’ve shown you have done exactly what you insist you haven’t, I’ll try for the last time. The FHASR is NOT part of “Making Home Affordable”… aka MHA. duh… This would be obvious if you even read JUST the headline of your own damned link, which says:

Making Home Affordable
The Mortgage Loan Modification Plan

Clue? The FHASR is a “refinance” program offered only to responsible borrowers, not a *modification* plan. They are about as similar of programs as you are the bastion of virtue you represent yourself to be.

You babble, and still have no cogency.

tired’ol: Oh, and thanks for showing that you, Aye and Richard are nothing more than internet gangbangers who feel they must gang up on one person.

Wow… what a de ja vu lead in. Now I just can’t resist providing the link you, yourself, requested above when Rich remembered you slithered out, crying and whining as the victim back in Aug 2011.

tired’ol’5 #128: Three people who cannot stand on their own. Fancy that, it takes three people to try to tear down one 71 year old woman.

Damn… what a knee slapper that is. Not real original in your victimization complaints when challenged on your facts, eh? Same thing happened then. In fact that whole thread is a hoot to re’read. That’s back when you were trying to, off topic, convince us all that Fairbanks, AK should be a manufacturing boom town because it was “flat” in terrain… ‘cus they did it with Vegas. LOL

retire05
after so long away, you should welcome MATA
USING BETTER QUESTIONS, LIKE ;
HOW COME YOU STAYED AWAY SO LONG?
WHY DID WE HAVE TO MISS YOU? WHY DID YOU LEAVE YOUR AUTHOR JOB? WE WHERE WAITING FOR YOUR POST ALL THIS TIME, WHY?
WELCOME BACK MATA, GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE,
YES YOU COULD NOT RESIST ANYMORE, BUT THEY DID IT ON PURPOSE TO GET YOU BACK,
THAT’S HOW WE KNOW YOUR DEDICATION TO FLOPPING ACES AND US ALL,
YOU TOOK SO MUCH HERE; WATER FROM THE GULF, FIRE FROM THE MOSQUE, 700 COMMENTS FROM TE BOW, AND SO MUCH MORE ARROGANCE FROM SOME OF US,
BEST TO YOU, I join my word with retire05 to say GLAD TO HAVE YOU BACK

@MataHarley:

Making Home Affordable
The Mortgage Loan Modification Plan

Clue? The FHASR is a “refinance” program offered only to responsible borrowers, not a *modification* plan. They are about as similar of programs as you are the bastion of virtue you represent yourself to be.

That statement has WHAT to do with how the program is financed, or where it originated? Absolutely NOTHING. It is simply spin.

FHASR – what does the SR stand for? Short Refinance. What are the guidelines? Exactly those you have listed, as has Richard. Where can you find information on that program?

http://www.makinghomeaffordable.gov/programs/lower-rates/Pages/short-refinance. aspx

for all programs:

http://www.makinghomeaffordable.gov/programs/fallen-value-help/Pages/default.aspx

Oh, wait, if the FHASR is a separate entity from the Making Home Affordable program, why it is listed under the governments Making Home Affordable website.

And no, Mata, I never said it was part of TARP. But dishonesty will not allow you to admit that, will it?

How ironic that two people, contributors to what most would consider a conservative-based website, would rush to the defense of a California liberal. And Mata comes out of hiding to attack someone that she has a personal problem with. The tag team of Aye and Mata continues for anyone who dares take on another that defends them. When a liberal/progress sings your praises because he thinks you are the ideal conservative, you might want to reevaluate your positions as a conservative.

Notice, not once has Aye or Mata discussed exactly where the FHASR program came from. Was it just created in the mind of Timothy Geither/Barack Obama and independent of any legislation? Ummmmm?

So, let’s examine the bottom line, shall we?

We have Aye and Mata, contributors to a basically conservative web site, supporting the government picking losers and winners. We have Aye and Mata supporting those who made a legal contract for a loan, using a program that allows them to renig on that agreement by having the full force of the federal government behind them to reduce the amount of the principal of that loan even though that was the originally agreed term by the buyer. It would be one thing to say that a mortgagee has the right to renegotiate the terms of the interest charged with the lending agency, those terms are renegotiated on all kinds of contracts, but to have part of a debt absolutely wiped out due to pressure from the federal government, when that debt was agreed to, well then, no wonder Richard thinks Aye and Mata are stawards of excellent thinking. Since owning a home is considered an investment, like any other type of financial investment, tell us, Aye and Mata, would you also support the full force of the federal government pressuring companies that sell stock to have to give back all the money that people lost in the stock market crash of 2007? If we are basing government action on fairness, it is fair that so many lost so much with the stock market crash that they have never recovered? Why not force those companies to absorb the loss but not the stock holder?

Aye and Mata seems to support eliminating the risk to home owners, but that is a slippery slope. Why can’t the government just eliminate the risk for any investor no matter the investment venue?

Now, I will repeat myself since Mata thinks I should exit right, or left, as she has: if Aye and Mata want me gone from this blog, it is an easy process. 1) explain your ownership of this blog and how you have the authority to do so, or 2) have Curt email me telling me not to post here any longer. Continuing personal attacks on their part are not required.

Retireo5 As F.A.’s paragon of virtue and one who seems to actually enjoy disseminating personal attacks against others,why should it surprise when fired upon? Suck it up.

If your virtue is pure why worry? If you command the moral high ground on all issues stand tall.
Never went over the speed limit,wouldn’t even think of using a discount coupon.Never had one of those nasty immigrants dilute your bloodlines Probably got nothing to say in confession.

Can we assume you’ve got nothing to hide?

Semper Fi

Richard Wheeler
so he has nothing to hide,
what’s your beef?
he is a true CONSERVATIVE, AND YOU ARE NOT,
WHAT’S YOUR BEEF?
HE WON’T TAKE YOUR ARROGANT ATTACKS, AND NOT SEE YOU AS A PERFECT HUMAN BEING,
THAT’S HIS PREROGATIVE,
YOU ARE REDUCE TO ONE POSITION ,
THAT IS TO GET OF HIS BACK OR TAKE HIM AS HE IS,
AND TRY TO FIGURE HOW COME NOT EVERYONE ARE LIKE YOU,
AND ANY OPINION IS GOOD IN A BLOG, IT CARRY MORE WEIGHT
WHEN IT COME FROM RETIRE05,
HE HAS MANY MORE READERS THAN YOU,
WHERE’S THE BEEF?

@Richard Wheeler:

As F.A.’s paragon of virtue and one who seems to actually enjoy disseminating personal attacks against others,why should it surprise when fired upon? Suck it up.

I never claimed to be a “paragon of virtue.” To my knowledge, there has been only one person who has walked the face of the earth that could make that claim.

wouldn’t even think of using a discount coupon

Name the discount coupon that is required by the federal government. But since I don’t go to the movies, namely because what Hollywood produces is nothing more than crap, why would I even need a movie discoount coupon?

Never went over the speed limit,

Why do you find it so unusual that someone would adhere to speed limit laws?

.Never had one of those nasty immigrants dilute your bloodlines

Where did I say immigrants were “nasty?” And no, not since around 1780. Find that odd? Perhaps you should read some of the ancestries of the DAR.

Here are some simple questions for you:

when you originated your loan of 80% of the purchase price, did you agree to that purchase price fully aware what it was?

did you not understand that real property, like any other investment, was subject to change, either increasing in value or decreasing in value?

were you not willing to take the risk that your property would increase in value?

do you think it was the fault of the lender, and not the rocket scientists who run California, along with the rocket scientists in D.C. who put the CRA on steroids, that created the housing bust in California?

if your property increases in value, giving you a greater financial asset, do you feel responsible to pay back the lender who took the hit because you had your principal amount marked down? Or do you think that should be just money you put in your pocket when you eventually sell your home?

do you think that companies should be required to pay investors the money they lost on those companies stock when the investor sells it?

How odd you would find responsibility and one’s word to be unusual.

Reto5 When I purchased my home I put down 20% and qualified for an 80% loan. When I refinanced my home, with my lender Wells Fargo, we reached a Mutual agreement on terms and conditions.
Do you really believe this hurt you in some way? Do you think it’s any of your business? You claim to be a Conservative.

Have you ever got any monetary assistance from the State or Federal govt?

@Richard Wheeler:

When I purchased my home I put down 20% and qualified for an 80% loan.

Leaving you a balance on the principal based on the price you agreed to purchase the property for, right? Did you not agree to the purchase price?

When I refinanced my home with my lender Wells Fargo we reached a Mutual agreement on terms and conditions.

Did that not include a reduction in the principal that you had previously agreed to or was it only for the reduction in the interest rate?

Do you really believe this hurt you in some way?

I believe anytime the federal government picks winners and losers, it hurts certain taxpayers.

Do you think it’s any of your business?

Not really. But you were the one who made it part of the discussion.

You claim to be a Conservative.

I am a small “c” Constitutional conservative.

Now that I have answered all your questions, are you willing to answer mine which were:

when you originated your loan of 80% of the purchase price, did you agree to that purchase price fully aware what it was?

did you not understand that real property, like any other investment, was subject to change, either increasing in value or decreasing in value?

were you not willing to take the risk that your property would increase in value?

do you think it was the fault of the lender, and not the rocket scientists who run California, along with the rocket scientists in D.C. who put the CRA on steroids, that created the housing bust in California?

if your property increases in value, giving you a greater financial asset, do you feel responsible to pay back the lender who took the hit because you had your principal amount marked down? Or do you think that should be just money you put in your pocket when you eventually sell your home?

do you think that companies should be required to pay investors the money they lost on those companies stock when the investor sells it?

Reto5 But you haven’t answered all of my questions,have you? tic toc tic toc.

@Richard Wheeler:

And what questions would those be? Do you mean this one?

Have you ever got any monetary assistance from the State or Federal govt?

Well, there is direct, and indirect, assistance. Indirect assistance would be from the police/fire departments that protect my home and family, eliminating me having to provide those services myself. Direct assistance is a whole different matter. What kind of direct assistance do you have in mind?

@retire05:

My, oh my….the stubborn ignorance and perpetual stoopidity is absolutely blinding at times.

Every time I think I have seen all of the possibilities demonstrated here at FA, a tiresome, crabby, and unwise curmudgeon in Texas steps forward to demonstrate a new level.

Let’s dissect the most recent diatribes and see what we can glean anything at all of value.

That statement has WHAT to do with how the program is financed

Your question regarding funding has been asked and answered repeatedly already. Why are you having such difficulty understanding the plain language of the sources put before you?

If any dollars are eventually paid out for the FHASR they will come from the TARP pool. But, as we know from the links Mata has already provided, to date there have been ZERO dollars paid out to cover anything regarding FHASR.

Really and truly though, all of that is irrelevant to this discussion. It doesn’t matter where the dollars for the second lien holder portion of the program come from because, as we know, in Rich’s case there was no second lien holder. That’s just another dust cloud you’re trying to kick up in order to distract from the real issue here which is your oft repeated, and now repeatedly discredited, accusations.

FHASR – what does the SR stand for? Short Refinance. What are the guidelines? Exactly those you have listed, as has Richard.

So, you openly and readily admit that the guidelines of the program are exactly those Mata has listed. That includes an incentive for second lien holders and ZERO tax dollar payouts for the first lien holder who agrees to a minimum 10% principle write down.

Wow… You admit that those are the guidelines…yet you’re still arguing your previously shredded argument? Damn, you’re really not very bright, eh?

Notice, not once has Aye or Mata discussed exactly where the FHASR program came from. Was it just created in the mind of Timothy Geither/Barack Obama and independent of any legislation? Ummmmm?

Read this next line s-l-o-w-l-y. Repeat out loud as necessary until it finally sinks in:

It’s irrelevant where the program came from.

It has already been established that any and all funding dollars would be dispersed from the TARP pool at the discretion of Congress and, so far, ZERO dollars have been spent for it.

I could continue to refute your posts point by point but it’s becoming more and more redundant and repetitive to do that since you’re nothing more than a one trick old nag.

Let’s examine the bottom line of this whole discussion, shall we?

You’ve made repeated and completely unfounded accusations against Rich. Your accusations have been proven false. Yet, you persist in making an absolute fool of yourself over and over, refusing to correct the record and issue the long overdue apology.

As a Conservative, or as you’re now calling yourself “a small “c” Constitutional conservative” is dishonesty one of your accepted guiding principles?

One would think that someone with your advanced age and experience levels would know better than to behave that way.

Have you ever got any monetary assistance from the State or Federal govt?

Well, there is direct, and indirect, assistance. Indirect assistance would be from the police/fire departments that protect my home and family, eliminating me having to provide those services myself. Direct assistance is a whole different matter. What kind of direct assistance do you have in mind?

Your coyness reminds me of the Exit Question I’ve repeatedly posed to you:

When a person receives tens of thousands in taxpayer dollars for their business, is that person benefiting from “taxpayer largesse”?

As of this moment, it remains unanswered. I wonder why you’re so hesitant. Actually, I don’t wonder at all. We both know why.

When you signed the paperwork to apply, and then endorsed the government check(s) for deposit, did you hesitate at all? I bet you didn’t. I’d be willing to bet that you just couldn’t wait to get your grubby paws on all that free money.

You’ve accused Rich of being on the receiving end of “taxpayer largesse”. You’ve accused him of taking advantage of a program that cost taxpayer dollars. All the while you knew you were guilty of precisely what you were accusing him of.

Is hypocrisy a badge you wear proudly?

If you didn’t hesitate to take those gov’t handouts for your business…all those thousands of dollars in grant money…why so hesitant to talk about them now?

Are you finally ashamed of yourself, but only after being caught in your piousness?

Tsk…tsk. Not good for a paragon of virtue.

I never claimed to be a “paragon of virtue.”

But of course not… And you never claimed to be an interminably stoopid lying bigoted racist hypocrite either.

Both of those are conclusions derived from what you’ve written.

@Aye:

f you didn’t hesitate to take those gov’t handouts for your business…all those thousands of dollars in grant money…why so hesitant to talk about them now?

And just exactly what “grant” money would you be talking about? Now, don’t dodge, Aye, be specific.

And you never claimed to be an interminably stoopid lying bigoted racist hypocrite either.

Both of those are conclusions derived from what you’ve written.

What did you gain from lobbing such perjoratives at someone you know so little about?

@retire05:

And just exactly what “grant” money would you be talking about? Now, don’t dodge, Aye, be specific.

Unless they came in multiples, why do I need to be more specific?

So far, you’ve not yet denied that your business benefited from “taxpayer largesse”.

Seems you’ve doddered into a classic Catch 22 situation: You can’t tell the truth without everyone knowing that you’re a classic example of hypocrisy, guilty of the very things you’ve been accusing Rich of for months. And you can’t lie because I know the truth.

See Alinsky, Saul (Rules 4 & 8)

What did you gain from lobbing such perjoratives at someone you know so little about?

Oh, I know plenty about you. All one has to do is read and learn from what’s been written.

See Alinsky, Saul (Rules 5 & 6)

By the way, it’s spelled pejoratives.

@Aye:

Unless they came in multiples, why do I need to be more specific?

Because if you, as you seemingly claim, know what “government” largess I have ever benefited from, then you should be able to produce that information. You’re just claiming something that you would have no way of knowing about; my former business (as I am no longer in business and have not been since before I came to FA)

So far, you’ve not yet denied that your business benefited from “taxpayer largesse”.

Hold on, Bubba; according to your own rules, you are the one indicating that I have been and the onus is on you to back that up, not for me to confirm, or deny, your claim.

Oh, I know plenty about you. All one has to do is read and learn from what’s been written.

So basically, all you know about me is what I have written here and your opinion of that? So, in reality, you know nothing about me; not my profession, not the size of my family, none the things I have done with my life, nothing. Just you being a blowhard fishing for information.

By the way, it’s spelled “pejoratives“.

I apologize for the typo. Alas, I can’t walk on water like you.

don’t depend on CHRIS CHRITIE TO BECOME PRESIDENT,
HE HANDED THE ELECTION TO OBAMA, HE IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE,
TAKE THE CONSISTENT RAND PAUL, AND VICE PRESIDENT MARCO RUBIO,

@Aye:

Every time I think I have seen all of the possibilities demonstrated here at FA, a tiresome, crabby, and unwise curmudgeon in Texas steps forward to demonstrate a new level.

Dang. In terms of pithy descriptions, I recently went with nasty horrible sub-human, but I think you’ve trumped me. 🙂

Tom
how was the subhuman doing,?

@ilovebeeswarzone:

How was she doing? Pretty well I imagine. I hear she excommunicated a nun for doing 30 in a 25 MPH zone today. Perfection is its own reward, you know.

Tom I kinda thought Aye’s description of Ret05 as a stoopid lying bigoted racist hypocrite was exceptionally insightful.
What do you think Bees?

TOM
are you talking about MICHELLE?

Richard Wheeler
you’re playing the HYENA GANG GAME AGAIN.
you ask what I think,
I THINK YOU SHOULD GET OF MY FRIEND’S BACK,
AND STIFU, BRING THE OTHER HYENAS