Explosive Expressions (Entries tagged as stupidity)

Wrong vs Wrong still equals Wrong

nospam@example.com (Jason Frisvold) — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 04:35:13 -0400

I ran across this article (original source) yesterday and it's been bothering me ever since. As the story goes, some people are choosing to stop paying mortgages they can't afford and letting their houses go into foreclosure. That, in and of itself, isn't a horrible thing. Arguments aside, if you can't afford to pay the mortgage, perhaps it's time to cut your losses and move on.

But that's not what is happening in these cases. These people have chosen to stop trying to pay their mortgages, let their house go into foreclosure, but continue to live there until they are forced out. And to make matters worse, they're using the money they "save" by not paying their mortgage to go out to dinner, or to take their boat out for the weekend. Are you kidding me? They justify their actions by stating that the lenders are crooks that won't help, so why should they bother trying. They're merely scamming the scammers.

Let's look at the facts here, though. I'm sure there are those out there that have lost jobs, had cuts in pay, or had some other catastrophic financial event resulting in an inability to afford their mortgage. But, from what I'm reading in this article, these extenuating circumstances do not necessarily apply. Instead, these people claim that the value of their homes has fallen, or that they are victims of predatory lending. Sorry, but I'm not shedding any tears.

I'm a homeowner, and I have been for a number of years. In fact, I became a homeowner when these "predatory" practices were supposedly at their height. I would argue, however, that anyone with a shred of common sense can easily spot these bad deals. Additionally, it shouldn't be that hard to figure out if you can afford a mortgage or not. Seriously, if you have to devote more than 1/4 or so of your monthly income to a mortgage, perhaps you're biting off more than you can chew. Perhaps a $300,000 house is a bit beyond your reach if you're working at McDonalds and only making $40,000 a year.

Let's look at this practically, though. If you find yourself with a mortgage you can't afford, you have a few options. Perhaps the best option is to cut and run. That is, put the house up for sale and do what you can to move to something more affordable. If that's not possible, perhaps because your house is worth less than the mortgage, a risk you take when you buy a home, then you may be able to justify not paying your entire mortgage. You should, however, pay what you can. If you can show that you're trying, then you have significantly more power if and when you enter foreclosure proceedings. Worst case, perhaps it's time to file for bankrupcy. While I have no first-hand experience with this, I'm told it's not quite as bad as it sounds. I do have friends who have gone through this process and, in the end, they continue to lead their lives and live in their home, albeit a little more leanly than they did. Though, that may not be a bad thing either.

So, to sum things up, keep in mind that if you're going to go down this idiotic route of not paying your mortgage at all, and ride the wave of "kick me out if you can," then be prepared to pay dearly for the ride. There are laws that allow lenders to go after other possessions to make up the loss. So if you're using that mortgage payment to go galavanting on your fancy boat, or keep up the payment on your car, you may not have that vehicle after the law catches you. Perhaps you'll get away with it, but do you want to take that chance? In the end, someone will pay and you can bet that it won't be the banks.

Pathetic

nospam@example.com (Jason Frisvold) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:09:22 -0500

These are the people representing you, America. Instead of fair, balanced debate of the issues, the GOP resorts to interrupting the process and acting like petulant children. The people of America have spoken and ELECTED those that are in congress. Obviously we want those people representing us. We want them making these decisions, and we want to see health care reform move forward.

The GOP had their chance to show America that it was right. They released details of their so-called healthcare plan (HR 3962) that they claim is better and will cover more than the democratic bill. In fact, however, the CBO reports that their bill will have almost no effect on healthcare at all. It will reduce the deficit, but just barely. Quoting from the CBO:

CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that the amendment would reduce federal deficits by $68 billion over the 2010-2019 period; it would also slightly reduce federal budget deficits in the following decade, relative to those projected under current law, with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between zero and one-quarter percent of gross domestic product.

But, you say, there are provisions in the bill to reduce the cost even more and help people afford it! Well, the CBO looked at this as well and concluded:

CBO and JCT estimate that those provisions would increase federal budget deficits by about $8 billion over the 2010-2019 period, reducing the number of nonelderly people without health insurance by about 3 million in 2019 and leaving about 52 million nonelderly residents uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019— 83 percent — would be roughly in line with the current share.

So after all of the crap they've been spouting about how much better their bill is, in the end, it helps no one. In fact, after ten years, there will be LESS coverage. Genius. Keep up the great work, you morons..

Protestin' and packin' ??

nospam@example.com (Jason Frisvold) — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:33:32 -0400

Seriously, are you people insane? Yes, you have every right to carry a weapon, assuming you have the necessary licenses. You absolutely have the right, and I fully support that right. But standing outside of a venue where the President of the United States is speaking, carrying firearms, including assault rifles, while protesting against the president is just antagonistic and irresponsible.

Think about this for a minute. The leader of our nation, who was elected by the people, is speaking in your area. You decide to go protest against him. And as part of that protest, you decide to bring along a weapon? What message are you trying to send? If he doesn't cow to your protests, you'll kill him? Are we that uncivilized?

Bringing a firearm, or a weapon at all, to a venue like this, where there are plenty of security officers, is just asking for trouble. First, you'll be targeted immediately. If anything happens, regardless of whether you're involved, you'll be first on the list of people they look at. Second, you're going to end up reducing the effectiveness of the security forces present. Why? Because you have a visible weapon and have automatically been ratcheted up the list of people that are considered possible dangers. In the end, this means security forces will constantly be watching you, reducing the amount of time spent on watching the crowd as a whole. Again, regardless of whether this is what you intend or not, you are an immediate threat, already identified.

And, even if you do have your head on straight, which I'm not quite sure of right now, you have brought a weapon into a venue with lots of other people. What's preventing someone else from taking your weapon and using it? And before you point out the hordes of police and other security personnel, realize that they are trained for these situations, whereas you are likely not.

You have every right to carry a weapon, and I fully support you. But please use your head. Let's not cause more problems than we have already. Antagonizing behavior like this will likely end up with the government thinking more about gun control, which I'm sure you're completely against.

It's all about race, stupid...

nospam@example.com (Jason Frisvold) — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:41:03 -0400

As most everyone knows, the former Secretary of the State, Colin Powell, has endorsed Barack Obama for president. This is a pretty significant event for a number of reasons. Powell is a well-known retired Army General who played a key role in both the first and current Iraq war. He is known for preferring diplomacy to outright war, earning him the title of "The Reluctant Warrior." He is well respected by members of both political parties, and was even rumored to be a possible opponent to Bill Clinton in the 1996 presidential election. To say that Powell is an influential figure is an understatement, at best.

On October 19, Powell officially endorsed Obama. He explained his reasoning which seems to boil down to a few items:

Obama is reaching out to everyone, not a targeted group

He thinks Obama is a "Transformational Figure"

He is troubled by the way McCain's campaign is trying to insinuate that Obama is Muslim or a terrorist, instead of talking about the issues

He said a few things that really resonated with me, marking him, at least in my book, as a true patriot. Specifically he said the following about the insinuation that Obama is a Muslim :

"But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America."

That's an incredible statement. Seriously, who cares if he's Muslim, Christian, or Atheist. At the end of the day, do you feel he can lead the country, and do you agree with the agenda he has set forth. If you do, then his race, religion, or whatever is secondary. I'm not sure who said it, but I heard a quote on the news today. It went something like this. Noone is asking you to like Obama. Noone is asking you to be his friend. We're asking you to look at what he wants to do for the country and vote based on that. If you believe in what he believes in, then you should vote for him.

Others want to continue muddying the water. Let's take a well-known political mouthpiece, Rush Limbaugh. Rush had this to say:

"Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race," Limbaugh wrote in an e-mail. "OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with."

What an asinine thing to say. Of course, he defends his statements:

"So what if it's race?" Limbaugh said on his radio show. "Why is it so hard to admit that it's race…What's so problematic about admitting it?"

The problem is, I'm not so sure it is about race. Sure, Powell is black and so is Obama. But, umm... I'm white and so is Limbaugh. I wouldn't vote for Limbaugh just because he's white, would you? Oh, right.. we're the majority... Yeah, so I guess that doesn't hold water. Regardless, I think it's stupid to immediately assume that the endorsement is because of skin color. We're talking about a well-respected Republican breaking ranks and endorsing a Democrat. This doesn't happen every day, you know.

Oh, and as for Powell? Well, he had already mentioned the race thing anyway:

"I can't deny that it will be a historic event for an African-American to become president."

That's a far cry from claiming his endorsement is race-based, though. But who cares if it is race? I don't believe anyone is hiding the fact that Obama isn't exactly white. But, jumping up and down and screaming about his race isn't going to help anything. In fact, I think the way he's been handling everything is incredible. Instead of making this about race, and playing on the race card constantly, he has ignored that completely and made his campaign about the issues. In the end, it's the issues that count. And, as can be seen by the steady self-destruction of the McCain campaign, people want to hear about the issues.

Seriously, I don't care about Mr Ayers and his ties to domestic violence in the 60's and 70's. Although, for the record, I completely agree with his 2001 statements. The situation was different back then, and to regret his acts would be to disavow what he was trying to accomplish.

I don't care if Obama was Muslim, or even if he still is. And I'd probably understand if he was hiding that fact, given the current anti-Muslim climate in America. Though, of course, that wouldn't help his campaign much. But so what. This is government we're talking about, not a church.

So let's try and pull this country together and make decisions like grownups, not like petty little children who have nothing better to do than pick on people.