Not Enjoying It Doesn’t Mean We Don’t Need it

25.February.2009 at 18:59 (+0000) by Robin S.

Eric, over at Classical Values, wonders whether or not readers enjoy his “libertarianish” rants:

I hate to be a bore, and I have no idea whether readers enjoy reading my libertarianish, anti-government kvetchings, which tend to be endlessly expansive simply because the government bureaucracy grows endlessly more intrusive.

Before I can let Eric know what one of his readers think, I’d like to share a couple of paragraphs from the post (though I recommend you read the whole thing):

That an aquarium in a bedroom can be considered the legitimate business of the government pushes all my libertarian buttons.

Whatever happened to the idea of keeping government out of the bedroom, anyway? Is the rule, like, it’s OK to screw to your heart’s content and expose yourself to whatever dangerous diseases you want, but God forbid that you have too big a fish tank!

As a regular reader of Classical Values via RSS, I have to say that I very much don’t enjoy reading these sorts of rants. Nothing would make me happier than to live in a world where a post like this never appears anywhere… except in fiction. Unfortunately, that’s not the world in which we live, and as long as this sort of nonsense is going on (it pushes my libertarian buttons, too), I’m glad that there are those like Eric who bring the nonsense to light.

Should Declining Asset Values Negate The Terms Of A Loan?

24.February.2009 at 19:42 (+0000) by Robin S.

I can’t believe this is even a question

Megan McArdle takes on the idea that borrowers bear no responsibility if they can’t repay a loan on a house that’s declined in value:

It seems to me that this sort of acts like borrowers shouldn’t have any obligation to repay money on an asset that has fallen in value–as if there were some sort of moral right to take highly leveraged bets on housing and pass off any losses to someone else. The borrowers ought to have known that they couldn’t be repaid, because of course the natural and right thing to do, in the event that an item you have purchased on credit falls in value, is to default on your loan.

Just in case my excerpt makes it less obvious, I’m pretty sure that last sentence is irony.

The whole post is worth a read, but honestly, I think the fact that she has to take on this “idea” is really kind of ludicrous. Someone who buys a home that declines in value is still responsible for the full value of the loan they took out, just as I would be responsible for the full value of my credit card debt if I took a cash advance and used it to buy stock that then declined in value.

Though, I have to say, maybe I should push this idea, since it would get me out of my car loans a LOT faster.

Angry Renters

20.February.2009 at 18:06 (+0000) by Robin S.

I don’t normally like to embed video in my posts, but this video from AngryRenter.com needs to be seen:

I know the situation they’re describing here doesn’t cover every situation where someone’s being foreclosed on, but it’s a huge portion of the people that President Obama is proposing to bail out.

Dollhouse

16.February.2009 at 20:26 (+0000) by Robin S.

I wrote a Dollhouse review, but lost it somehow during the posting process. So, go read Peter David’s review instead. I pretty much agree with him completely.

Iowahawk’s Got People

12.February.2009 at 20:15 (+0000) by Robin S.

Having trouble with your taxes? Thankfully, Iowahawk has Tax Guys to help you out:

Dear Tax Guys:

I’ve had a lot on my mind lately, and when I was going through some old receipt boxes in my filing cabinet I suddenly realized I haven’t paid my income taxes for the past 8 years. Am I in trouble? Please help!

Forgetful in Fort Worth

Dear Forgetful:

Here at the IRS, we realize that many well-meaning taxpayers like you can be distracted by various family illnesses, baseball pennant races, political campaigns, and so on. The rules for late filing can be surprisingly flexible if you have the right qualifying circumstances. According to IRS guidelines, you are eligible for the 306(b)(19) “I Forgot” amnesty if the following applies:

(1) Your total adjusted gross income in the “I Forgot” years was equal to or greater than $8,528,000; and
(2) You are a nominee to head a cabinet-level federal agency.

If you answered “yes” to (2), or both (1) and (2), then you are in the clear. If you answered “yes” to (1) but “no” to (2), mail 10% of the total to the Democratic National Committee and request a cabinet appointment. If you answered “no” to both, then I’m afraid you are shit out of luck. Turn yourself into your local IRS authorities, who will assist you in computing appropriate penalties, interest, and parole terms.

Tim

PS – If you have any money left, buy a few jars of that ‘Ginkgo Biloba’ supplement from Walgreens. I hear it really helps with memory problems!

More letters with great advice at Iowahawk’s site!