Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (78661)	3/25/2010 7:25:37 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Good luck convincing people Obamacare is no big deal By: Mark Hemingway Commentary Staff Writer 03/25/10 11:36 AM EDT The Democratic strategy for selling health care reform has rather improbably centered around the idea that they can convince the American people that it’s no big deal. And friendly journalists and wonks have lined up to help them make this argument. Well, the “relax it’s no big deal” column may have reached its apotheosis with this column at The Atlantic, “Health Care Reform Isn’t Very Historic.” Let’s see if this allays your fears: <<< The bill is projected to cost $940 billion over the next decade, or a little more than the stimulus package that now costs $862 billion, up from the original price tag of $787 billion. While the programs spend their money at different annual rates, for the sake of illustration, the spending difference between them is a paltry $7.8 billion per year. That hardly puts health care reform in a league of its own when it comes to spending. >>> Oh, Health care reform only costs about as much as the stimulus bill. Phew! I thought it was going to be expensive. But seriously, the stimulus is the new baseline for federal spending? With apologies to the late, great Sen. Moynihan, I think we’re defining profligacy down (or perhaps defining it up, if we’re going to get literal about it). And this again is assuming that the Obamacare only costs $940 billion, considering Democrats shameless attempt to game the Congressional Budget Office by delaying the spending and front-loading the tax increases. Remove the accounting gimmicks and we’re looking at something that costs twice the stimulus bill over ten years. And let’s hope the CBO doesn’t get back to us a year from now and inform us that, like the stimulus bill, the projected cost went up ten percent in the first year. So yeah, other than that, point well taken. Moving on: <<< The majority of the uninsured will soon do what tens of millions of other Americans do: buy private insurance plans. The only difference between these 24 million and the rest who have private insurance is that they will buy the plans with the help of tax credits. (If you buy insurance through your employer, it’s tax-free anyway. And starting in 2018, that begins to change for richer insurance plans.) The practice of Americans paying for private goods and services with government money is not new: millions send their kids to school with vouchers, pay for medical procedures with insurance from Medicare/Medicaid, buy hybrid cars with rebates, and so on. >>> Chill people, it’s only tax credits — just like school vouchers, which the Obama administration killed in the District of Columbia because they care more about teacher’s unions than poor kids; Medicare and Medicaid, a.k.a. bankrupt and bankrupt; and buying hybrid cars — How about that cash for clunkers program! That was smart use of money. Reassured yet? Well, this is sure to do it: <<< The remaining 16 million will be insured through a program that’s anything but new: Medicaid, created in 1965. >>> Well then, they’ve thought of everything. Of course there’s a slight problem, because over half of all specialists in many major metropolitan areas are refusing to take on new Medicaid patients, according to a 2009 survey by Merritt Hawkins and Associates on physician wait times. That’s because Medicaid reimbursement rates aren’t enough for doctors to make money. Now the government could pay doctors more, but that might raise the cost of the Democrats shiny new health care reform legislation. They already worked overtime to kill programs where the government directly funds private insurance with better reimbursement rates — State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) funds were long ago stripped out in favor of dumping kids in Medicaid, right on the heels of Democrats heavily demagoguing Bush administration for years over the issue. Oh and it was nice knowing you, Medicare Advantage! Never mind that one in three Medicare recipients in New York and California are enrolled in the program because subsidized private insurance makes it easier to get a doctor. But “if you like your insurance you can keep it,” right? But there I go, fearmongering again. Take a couple of deep breaths, this Obamacare thing will be all right: <<< Obama’s health care success doesn’t move the federal government into our lives nearly as much as FDR and LBJ’s successes did. >>> When someone points a gun at your face and says, “Relax, I won’t shoot you again — you’re only going to get pistol whipped,” I doubt you’ll find that statement terribly reassuring. Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com

To: Sully- who wrote (78661)	3/29/2010 2:22:10 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

Making the Housing Crisis Worse By Dan Nagasaki and Glenn Doi American Thinker The Obama administration has announced a new plan to help homeowners facing foreclosure due to under-employment and unemployment. Instead of having the government create an economic climate which would actually create private-sector permanent jobs and thus lower unemployment, the government wants to require lenders to cut or eliminate monthly mortgage payments for these homeowners. The U.S. government's housing crisis remedy has been to 1) pour taxpayer money into the financial system, evidently with minimal conditions, hoping that banks will lend this money to homeowners and businesses; 2) give taxpayer money to homeowners who are "upside-down" on their mortgages; and 3) make loans attractive to first-time buyers. This is wrong because 1) The current banking crisis is due primarily to the housing crash, which exposed weaknesses in the banking system. The government is trying to get the banks to loan money on real estate, a depreciating asset. What is needed is first, stabilization, and then an increase in housing prices. 2) If housing prices don't stabilize, even with refinancing or loan modification, more homes will be "upside-down." 3) The government insists on making loans attractive to first-time buyers? Isn't that what got us into this mess? Government-guaranteed FHA (3.5% down-payment) loan limits have been increased to $730,000 in many areas of the country, and first-time buyers have been receiving a tax credit when they purchased a home. But first-time buyers are understandably timid, and they're often the last to buy in both rising and falling housing markets. Instead of risking so much taxpayer money by focusing on first-time buyers, Fannie Mae should make home loans more attractive to investors, both domestic and foreign. Because of low real estate prices, in most areas of the country, investors can now put 20% down and easily have a positive cash flow from rental income. But FNMA has made it more difficult, and in many cases, impossible for investors to get loans. When the housing market tanked, FNMA responded by doing away with "stated income" or "easy-qualifier" loans, where loan applicants with 20% to 30% down-payment and good credit would qualify for a home loan without going through the normal lengthy loan process. But the so-called "irresponsible" investment loans were primarily 2nd and 3rd trust deed loans which were used to allow buyers to get a second or even a third loan to either purchase a house with zero down-payment or to later wring out all the equity in the property. FNMA also raised interest rates and fees for investment property and limited the number of FNMA loans each investor could have to only four. Federal officials should ask themselves this question: "Given this housing market, if this were your personal money, would you lend your money to a first-time buyer with a 3.5% down-payment (FHA), or would you rather lend your money to someone wealthier, with good, established credit, who is willing to put down 20% or 30% of his own money to purchase a property?" Also, if the housing market goes down an additional 10%, who is more likely to default and become a burden to taxpayers: the FHA buyer or the investor who just made a down-payment of 20% or 30% and is still receiving a positive cash flow? FNMA should allow stated-income loans, reduce interest rates and fees for investors with good credit and large down-payments, and remove the limits on the number of FNMA loans for investors -- at least for the near future. The minimum goal should be to at least stabilize the housing market. Once the market is obviously stabilized, the more timid buyers will begin buying, and the housing market will experience rising prices, which will lead to less foreclosures, healthier banks, consumer confidence, and increased tax revenue. Dan Nagasaki is the author of The Beginner's Guide to Conservative Politics and Glenn Doi is a real estate broker in Los Angeles. .