Posted on January 7, 2012 by Alte
From Business Insider:
Freddie Mac announced this afternoon that it will allow unemployed Americans up to a 12-month forbearance on their mortgage payments. According to the statement, Freddie Mac will allow mortgage services to extend 6 months of forbearance without approval and up to 12 months with their approval.
Freddie Mac says that 10% of delinquencies on its mortgages are tied to unemployment.
[...] was about to post this in the comments over at Traditional Christianity, and then I decided that their site was not the appropriate place for the level of profanity [...]
 | Anymouse on More eugenics in America |
 | Tony on Only good girls need appl… |
 | Jecolia on Lent |
 | alcestiseshtemoa on Only good girls need appl… |
| alcestiseshtemoa on Lent |
 | Columnist on More eugenics in America |
 | Marxist-Leninist gir… on Lent |
 | MizDarwin on Lent |
 | Hearthie on Lent |
 | David Collard on Lent |
Anyone who would like to help us fund the administration of this site can now send money to our PayPal account at tradchristianblog@gmail.com.
Laceagate
January 7, 2012
Have they mentioned anything about the interest accrued?
Black_Rose
January 7, 2012
How exactly is this a voter buyoff?
I thought that the economically disenfranchised do not wield much political power relative to the wealthy, or even have large voter participation. They are mostly dejected to care about the political process.
Laceagate
January 7, 2012
Well, here’s what they’re doing to rein in the economically disadvantaged. There are many people who are extremely dissatisfied with our political leaders BUT if leaders approve something that is of any benefit to them their minds will miraculously change. It’s basically buying out, and it’s possible to gain voters that way. IMO, that’s part of the reason why Mark Dayton is the governor of MN, because people were angry with the way T-Paw ran things financially. Dayton is able to approve things to “buy” the people’s vote; it doesn’t matter if the decisions are based on principle or are of longer-term benefit.
Black_Rose
January 7, 2012
Ok, many people like the modern welfare state, except when it encroaches on their economic liberty (when they possess enough property and income for economic security) or ethnic interests (when it transfers money to genetic distinct minorities). That’s why most people in the former Eastern Bloc socialist states (even Romania!!) actually lament the collapse of world socialism!
Does it really matter when the economic elite maintain so much control over the legislative and executive branch (and foreign policy)? Moreover, the economic elite have the leverage of globalization where they can simply withdraw capital to other complaint, “competitive” countries, independent of the actual will of the electorate.
As a M-L, I have no faith in any form of capitalism (even the welfare state) and bourgeois democracy. Thus, to me, the notion that this is a means of “buying votes”, rather that placating the restive masses or showing a scintilla of concern for the poor to signal a semblance of compassion from the system, is rather daft.
Laceagate
January 7, 2012
Well, I think we all know that this voter buyout is just one of the many steps to SHTF.
David Alexander
January 8, 2012
Admittedly, as a joke, I told my mother that the Obama bundlers and backers would magically ramp up employment before the election to paper over the high unemployment rate and once the election was over, the employees would subsequently be let go. It’s a bit interesting that Alte noted this so my joke may end up have a real life analogue.
Alte
January 8, 2012
Black Rose, this is aimed at the struggling middle and working classes, as they’re the ones who still own homes and haven’t been unemployed yet. And they vote.
Black_Rose
January 8, 2012
“Black Rose, this is aimed at the struggling middle and working classes, as they’re the ones who still own homes and haven’t been unemployed yet. And they vote.”
What proportion of the “struggling middle and working classes” are part of the electorate, and most importantly, whether they wield significant political power? Any people voted for Obama, and the country hasn’t become more “socialist” as a result although liberal policies were enacted such as the repeal of “don’t ask don’t tell”.
One of my M-L “catechists” (Stephen Gowans) instructed me with an important lessons: the only way for “change” is to disrupt the tranquil digestion of profits, not enjoining legislators and government institutions to support compassionate policies and consider the “will of the people”. Non-violent protests and writing letters to the editor would not work in most cases, unless it managed to agitate the masses to act in ways that disrupts the tranquil digestion of profits. The Civil Rights movement accomplished this through boycotts in the early stages and sit-ins in the latter stages.
And even if it a “scheme” to “buy votes”, what’s wrong with it? Most people actually like state institutions that provide economic security. Again, look at the link describing what the people who actually lived under communism think about consequences of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Alte
January 8, 2012
Vote buying destroys solidarity by playing the various interest groups and classes against each other.
John
January 8, 2012
It is well past time for a Biblical Jubilee to be declared on any and all debt with a restart of the monetary system with government issued, non-usurious currency. “End the Fed.”
So sayeth the Lord our God.
“You are a den of vipers and I shall root you out.” – President Andrew Jackson to the Banksters
We either do it God’s way or we shall be brought to total ruin.
Anymouse
January 8, 2012
“Vote buying destroys solidarity by playing the various interest groups and classes against each other.”
Although it is a bit more complicated than that. This dispute is really just between sections of middle aged middle class electorate. It is a well known fact that poor people almost never vote in elections.