You worry about getting yours. That's fine with me.
Actually you are incorrect, while I do make sure I get mine (through means of earning what I have) I simply just do not want to be held fiscally responsible for the failings and out right refusal of others to earn theirs.
I don't see a "Welfare State". Are there lazy fucks out there that ain't worth shit? Sure, and I wouldn't have a problem with cutting them off, but there's also some good people out there that need help and I don't see a problem with helping them.
Well CDT you are either ignorant, naive or being obtuse (the 2 former being forgivable). It's not helping good people that is the problem is it unjustifiably being blind to the number of people that are lifers and 52ers & 99ers in living off of the system that is the problem. We don't administer tough love and allow people to fail due to their own decisions. I'd bet you're assuming my feeling is that this just started under Obama, again incorrect, however he is doing little to change the culture.
Saying we're a Welfare State is wrong IMO, the vast majority of people in this country are hard workers just trying to make their bones.
Of course the majority are hard workers, the country wouldn't exist otherwise, the number of those dipping into the system due to lack of perseverance and a strong back is growing though, quickly. But it isn't so much that I have a problem with as it is how we make it easier for them to do so, we create incentives to do so. Through policy, rules & regulations we virtually encourage the easy way out approach.
Why can't that guy get those benefits? I would ask the NAHB, my guess would be to get more new home owners to jump start the housing industry. From what I understand (which is limited) As long as you don't make more than $80,000 a year you were eligible, you just had to sign the contract before the end of last April.
I won't pretend to be the expert either, as there are many variables in all this, but I do know that there were first time HBTC's and HBTCs for those owning for a certain minimum number of years, leaving those in the middle completely out of luck, yet those people were just as vulnerable and hit just as hard as everyone else in the past 18 months. I've actually heard a local banker tell a friend that his best option to getting out of his current mortgage was to let the property go into foreclosure, he said this off the record of course.
Sounds almost like some strange financial discrimination going on when you consider certain entities/people get bailed out and other do not. There is another term for it.
It all has the odor of intellectual dishonesty, unless of course you can point me to where we preach this in our education system. We have become a short sighted nation and are simply bad decision makers.