patrick.net

Note the phrase "tax payer". Sure, the plan does not directly dip into tax dollars, and so the fed monkeys can stand up and say this does not affect tax payers.

Rah rah, yippee.

What I care about is American consumers, and the overall economy. If government measures prop up housing prices, it affects our whole economy, at least it does in California where a larger proportion of these welfare recipients reside. What happens on the Hill disproportionately affects areas of the country where so-called subprimers have the qualifications needed for the free money. Which may raise, sustain, or stall the natural lowering of prices (could anyone disagree that this meddling will certainly NOT bring down prices??).

Maybe only 100,000 homes will be propped up in price by this move, and maybe it is only for a short period of time. Regardless, it does harm the market and more importantly, opens the door for more fiddling by Uncle Sam.

It stinks. Even if we cannot sue for damages, it still stinks. Worse, it makes no dent in the overall problem, but in my estimation, causes more problems for a larger class of Americans, namely, those who do not qualify for the free money and those who do not yet have a mortgage. Future potential buyers will experience unprecedented difficulty in the years to come in getting a mortgage. That fact was true prior to the US Treasury's involvement, however, now it is exacerbated as lenders build in higher rates and fees to cushion from any similar measures that the government may dream up.

The lenders are following this closely. This is their bread and butter afterall. If it could happen once, it could happen again, and they will be sure to build in safe-guards (read: higher rates) to ensure the return they thought was guaranteed by the free market (should the government hold that gun to their head again).

I hope all the drama is unneccessary and prices come down as they should, as they were meant to anyway. And all of this will seem like a big joke. For now though, we don't know how the industries and the market will react. Because it has never happened before.

I should clarify that by "it" in my post, I mean the freezing of rates for a select class of FB's.

@Mhrist

I just do not see that anyone has agreed to purchase the loans that match the criteria for the "plan". It seems to me that the lowest risk options are being offered a way out via a tranche upgrade, but this is a very small percentage. The 30/30/30 solution that you are talking about seems way out of whack. Ownership of the MBS's will stay as they are, the only change will mostly be the percentage of return in the short term.

Again, I invite criticism or comment, because I know far less than the collective on this forum...

"bottom-groping"

Take it any way you like! :)

@Mick,
Using the same logic, isn't it unconstitutional for a law that takes my hard earned money away from me and gives it to someone lazy in the form of an earned income credit? (Punishing those that work harder? You had to see my comments coming...)

Amen Brother.

BTW,
You forgot to end that with:
*Not Tax Advice*

Sweeeeeet. A *tricorn* tinfoil hat! :o

Mick, I would humbly submit that the People can still appoint their legislators. If the People were uniformly disgruntled about the taxes levied upon them, they would elect legislators who would abolish taxes.

I would further suggest that the People submit to taxes because they realize it is the most feasible way of funding public works for the benefit of all. We all need roads, hospitals, ports, a legal system and a military to defend us. There might be a few who claim that they don't need such infrastructure, but this is a Republic and the People have spoken. We the People (or the vast majority of us) decided that we will all chip in for the general good. Nobody likes taxes, but we like taxes a lot more than being an unindustrialized backwater at the mercy of foreign powers.

J Galt,
now I think it is more of a 20/20/20/20 split for all performing loans. Gov, Banks, Low Risk Inv, High Risk Inv. As for the part of the governemnt there are a few factors that can increase their participation such as:
1)The speed of implementation - the faster it is implemented the more loans will be purchased
2)The appraisal mechanisam - depending on how this is done it can drastically increase the participation as well.Making 600k real appraisals in a month or two, even with a 90 day foreclosure stop doesn't sound possible. So maybe it will be lax enough to let a lot of people in.
3)This might work for many prime borrowers that have purchased subprime loans because of the better rates and equity and moved off from Fannie. This is a way of the gov of getting the lost sheep back in the flock in a way. After all even in the worst hit areas right now the foreclosure rate is 1 in 100 or more. The other 99 most probably did syphoened the equity or refinanced to this new crap loans and they are needed back.
4)What are the banks willing to do to move you to an FHA loan - maybe they loaned 500k, the house is now worth 450k. They can drop the mortgage with 50k and sell it to the gov just as they are sometimes doing when you want to currently sell, and as I am sure it is and will be done to get you into Fannie.

Another point of this whole fiasco is that it sounds like an effective way to separate the people that have bought properties. You will know quite fast things like:
A)Real owners living in houses they like and want to stay in
B)Ones that cannot afford but want to keep their house
C)Speculators
D)Equity liars

This will be good for when we are unwinding this fiasco.

Finally, a point to consider: by setting this system up, the government will shortly have the infrastructure to handle transferation of troubled loans. Once they do have it, they can pluck back on TV and say they will bail out even more loans, and since the problem is bigger than anticipated this time it will cost money. Why hitting congress and the tax payer for money twice, when you can do it once when you have everything set up.

Marty

Brand,
altough the people can, they are so dependant that anyone even proposing abolition of taxes will be branded as a looney. If you do infact have such a person, he will need to abolish government spending with all the welfare, freeways, national parks, overloaded police and jail systems, wars, government contractors and government employment. And lest not forget that the governement is the biggest employer and spender around thest parts.
When our Founding Fathers came up with the no-tax crap, they lived in a very different world. Tarrifs ment something other than protecting industries inside the country thus hurting the average joe and we were exporting a lot to england and the world. Not the case today. We didn't have 30-40% of the population in some type of a government asistance with another 20% working for the said government.
I believe taxes are wrong, but I am also a realist. It will not be possible to get the political power with people that are dedicated, after all the ones hurt by taxes a LOT are very few compared to the majority that lives on government assistance. The only way is a major change in everyday life, like oil getting to 10$/gallon, or the dollar collapsing, or the banks and credit collapsing. Looking at it as such, you are in luck. We're just in the middle of such a predicament and I am pretty sure you will get your utopia sooner than you think without voting.
A horse ride to Washington takes 3-4 months after all from Cali. Maybe less while there are roads but still, it will take a while. And the Winter can screw it pretty bad too :)

Marty

The Founding Fathers lived in a pre-industrial society, where the basic unit of society was the "yeoman farmer" the independent farmer who educated himself in his spare time, took part in local government, sold farm products locally, bought things locally, etc.

It was before the time of the railroads and railroad trusts or people getting "railroaded", before the Civil War, before Marx.

Taken all the way, Peak Oil will return us to the days of the Yeoman Farmer, but the transition back is going to be pretty painful to most people.

Americans are actually pretty resilient in difficult times. Most people seem soft and whiney now, but if a real crunch hit I believe that we would tighten our belts. People's attitudes tend to change once they realize that other people aren't going to save them from disaster.

Of course, New Orleans might have proved me wrong. For all the money spent, the city is still a shambles with tens of thousands of residents still displaced.

Overall I believe that technology will prevent a major social decline based on "Peak Oil". Americans will learn to consume less energy, just like Europeans. Even as we cut back consumption, our wealthy society of 300M people will push along developments in solar, geothermal and plant-based fuels. I hope oil goes to $200/barrel and stays there for a decade. Americans will get smarter as a result. Despite being the world's most voracious consumers, we also seem to be a very unhappy society. People need to spend more time with their family, take long walks in the park and tend a garden.

I wouldn't shed too many tears for the uber-wealthy getting victimized by the government-dependent masses. They have legions of accountants and lawyers, so they are not particularly defenseless. If anything, the constant drain of taxes prevents them from becoming complacent, and that is an even greater benefit to society.

By the way, Calculated Risk has some excellent commentary on why this is not a bailout.

In short: the purpose of this PR campaign is to encourage delinquent and threatened borrowers to contact their lenders immediately to get on the fast track to a modified loan. As Tanta points out, most of these "teasers" are in the 6-8% range (these are subprime loans, after all). And most importantly, this is a voluntary industry action (meaning no new laws) costing zero taxpayer dollars, executed within the existing framework of the MBS/CDO/SIV legalese.

In other words, it's mostly a bunch of PR fluff, with the potential upside of getting a nice chunk of troubled borrowers into a slightly better situation.

@ex-renter,
I don't think that Peak Oil will be the cause of the change. More like Peak Globalization... But yea, the Founding Fathers did live in a very different enviroment. This is why, in the constitution it says that if times change, so should the constitution. Our society is very different, we are just slow to change the constitution.

There are many people that don't want the constitution to change, in a way shooting themself in the foot. Society does change, we have a bunch of laws and regulations that are not constitutional all over. Bot for a politician it is easier to curcumvent the constitution than to change it.

Imagine, Bush, wants to torture. He either tries to change the constitution which will be impossible. But he just creates a policy that allows it. Worst case scenario? In 2 years or so, the Supreme Court will rule against the policy. In turn Bush rewords the policy and he has a card blanche for another 2 years. He won't get into any trouble except with the voters who don't really care and have no real choice, especially if they are republicans. And even then, he just didn't know it unconstituional beforehand so he is not really a bad guy.

Marty

I don't see a need to make changes to the Constitution. It is such a well written document that it stands the test of time. I think the debate of the role of government is a healthy and ongoing discussion, and the Constitution will always have at least two interpretations regarding the federal role over states' rights.

mickrussom says: If you only knew the fiscal ship I run, you would probably be more apt to respect my position on my earnings being stolen from me, not for roads, but for massive waste. I know what to do with my money better than the masses.

Mick, I find myself skeptical that you're one of the top 1% earners in the U.S.A. That being the case, you're benefitting the same from U.S. infrastructure more or less the same as everybody else. You're also paying taxes on the same order of magnitude as most people.

I never said the system was efficient. I simply said it has a useful function. The bureaucracy performs its job with considerable monetary loss. But even that "loss" still goes back into the economy by some means. It gets paid out in government payrolls or spent on various goods and services. It's all just a big washing machine tumbling around our money, except that occasionally a certain chunk gets tapped out and put to the public good. So who cares how big the machine needs to be, so long as it functions?

Pity the poor rich people who are having to pay taxes as much as 50% on their marginal income. Back before JFK, the top marginal rates were as high at 70%. Those were the days when the American economy was the envy of the world. This is from a guy who is paying AMT.

Taxes aren't too high in America, if anything they are too low.

Taxes aren’t too high in America, if anything they are too low.

Taxes are of course too high in America. Just because crazy Europeans have higher taxes does not make our any lower.

In just years, Europe will be falling apart because of the path they chose. Hopefully Sarko can turn that around. Europe MUST immediately outlaw unions, lower taxes, and drop most welfare programs.

We should push for a constitutional amendment to cap the maximum tax rate at 15%.

Who is going to pay for all the roads and bridges that need maintenance? How about that massive budget deficit? What do you plan to eliminate to finance that? Or is spending more than you take in a long term sustainable policy?

Spend some time overseas, and appreciate the working transit systems. Ride the bullet trains. Why don't we have anything like that here?

Who is going to pay for all the roads and bridges that need maintenance? How about that massive budget deficit? What do you plan to eliminate to finance that? Or is spending more than you take in a long term sustainable policy?

Toll roads. The market will run the transportation system.

We can have massive budget deficit with 100% tax. The idea is to spend less. Privatize as much as possible.

Spend some time overseas, and appreciate the working transit systems. Ride the bullet trains. Why don’t we have anything like that here?

Done that. Not impressed.

Transit works if and only if it is profitable by itself. That does not need much taxpayer money beyond right-of-way, loan guarantees, and a simple nod of approval.

We don't have bullet trains because it is silly. US has the best aviation infrastructure in the world.

Peter P Says:
Taxes aren’t too high in America, if anything they are too low.

We should push for a constitutional amendment to cap the maximum tax rate at 15%.

Don't be silly.

15% across the board would be A-OK with me, as a working stiff at $5 an hour I was paying close to 30%.

Ask your sandwitch preparer, barista, the guy who cuts proscuitto for you at the market, what their paycheck shows as "gross" and what they get, working stiffs are still paying 25-30%.

15% would be regressive, but not nearly as regressive as people* are paying now.

*As always, here, "People" means Americans.

Questions about the Hope Now program.

Once some modified paper is taken in by FHA, the investors are paid off by the under the terms of the new FHA paper as far as I can tell, and thus the risk of holding the paper is now transferred to the FHA. While the FHA "operates entirely from self-generated income and costs the taxpayers nothing", anyone like Brand who believes Hope Now places no taxpayer funds at risk please explain the following to me.

The Hope Now program acts as a platform to pressure Congress into passing pending bills to relax mortgage lending standards. If one or more of these pass, the taxpayer will certainly be on the hook for the bill of the privatized profits, and losses pawned off onto the FHA. If the terms of the program were such a great deal for the investors, would you agree that they wouldn't be so eager to unload the assets and leave money on the table?

Question: what reasonable explanation would posit that if the FHA is in danger of insolvency that it would be allowed to fail without access to taxpayer funds, when its historical origins and founding documents clearly indicate that the American taxpayer is the de facto if not the de jure insurance guarantor and even the reinsurer. The taxpayer provided the funds for the initial establishment, and the Act gave the administration wide latitude via the initial funding conduit of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. While it is true that the ongoing operations of the FHA, including managing existing levels of default out of operational funds, do not depend upon the taxpayer, I have yet to find anywhere documentation that denies that ultimately the taxpayer is indeed the ultimate guarantor of the insurance.

Question: what sound finance rules do you follow that state for a given borrower who has already demonstrated excessively poor financial decision-making ability by choosing a loan product that requires a workout to prevent default should be provided access to prime loan products with even lower risk insurance premiums? I assert that such borrowers have a recent history of poorly thought out financial decisions, and extending them such loans with even lower risk premiums flies in the face of sound lending practices.

Question: if you accept that the taxpayer is the reinsurer of the FHA, then by what sound lending practices would you expect that relaxing lending criteria will increase the stability of the FHA portfolio?

The history of the FHA provides a fascinating illustration into the perils of government interference. The housing market was clearly overpriced in 1934 when the agency was established. The market was on its way to a complete flush out and reset to more sustainable price levels when the FHA stepped in and artificially stimulated the market. And here we find ourselves today, about to commit the same acts and enter an even graver state of financial sin.

Not all of the Hope Now program is bad. The private-sector call center to reach out to the borrowers, and the promise of stronger lending regulations to aid in bringing greater transparency to the market are both measures I applaud. However, we are playing with a very dangerous fire with the other parts of the program, and I have yet to find answers to some troubling questions about these dangerously reckless parts of the program. This is not to speak of other aspects I find troubling, like a claim (I have yet to substantiate) made by a poster on Calculated Risk that pooled paper run through the Hope Now program will let the securitization pool start marking to model instead of a periodic (monthly or quarterly) mark to market.

I used to be a working stiff myself and I never remember paying taxes like that. If you actually made $10k/yr (the minimum wage in CA is $7.50, in SF $9.36), you might see 25% taken out of your paycheck, but you would get most of it back if you filed your taxes, since the personal exemption is $8750 and you would get an Earned Income Credit more than equal to the rest.

You would still be on the hook for Social Security tax and CA disability, but combined those are only about 8%.

Why do you have to be 25 to qualify for the Earned Income Credit? That seems bizarre to me, is the government penalizing you for not being in school or something?

Jimbo says: Spend some time overseas, and appreciate the working transit systems. Ride the bullet trains. Why don’t we have anything like that here?

I think this point has been thoroughly discussed on prior threads. First, the U.S. is much more spread out than Europe. Light rail cannot effectively service all the outlying areas, or even a feasible percentage of them. We have commuter trains in big cities like New York, Boston and Philadelphia because the population density is sufficient to support them (and parking bad enough to encourage usage).

Second, and perhaps more importantly, Europeans are compelled to use the light rail because riding the train is inexpensive compared to their total cost of car operation---insurance, licensing, car taxes, and especially gasoline prices. I rode the train every day in Germany, but it was way more expensive than driving my car in the U.S. We could raise the cost of gas to $5-6/gallon, but that would hammer rural areas and lower income commuters the worst.

the average American spends about $8k a year on their car, which means about $13k has to be earned, because normal worker bees don't get to deduct mileage etc.

Riding the train is way cheaper than that, if you work for a co. that gives you a train or bus or VTA whatever pass, then it's infinately cheaper.

Can you walk me through the math for $8K/year? The number seems very high to me. My costs were about as follows:

30 miles/day / 15 mpg * 250 days/yr * $3/gal = $1500
Insurance: $800
Registration: $150

I paid $17,000 for my car, have driven it 5 years and it will easily go another 10 years. So amortized my raw vehicle cost is roughly $1000/year.

Grand total: $3450/year or $13.80/day (on a 250 day working year)

In contrast, riding the S-bahn (suburban commuter train) in Germany cost me about 5.50 euro/day. If I had to go anywhere apart from hotel to work, I typically spent at least another 5.50 euro and usually more than that (work was only a few train stops from my hotel). However, traveling to somewhere like Munich by train cost me 150-200 euros, where in a car it would have been perhaps 2 * 150 miles / 30 mpg * 5 euro/gal = 50 euro. In a car you can also take multiple passengers, where a train requires individual tickets.

Brand, no repairs ever?

The average Joe has a car payment of 300 or 400 per month. Add that to your math and you start getting close. I do have to say it is a relief to not have car payments but then you normally don't have a warranty at that point so it is a bit of a push in my opinion.

FWIW, the IRS allows you to write off $0.485 per mile for driving.

This supposedly incorporates all the costs of driving - gas, depreciation, repairs, maintenance, etc.

From what I've read - it's pretty accurate: if you live in Texas.

If you in some place with a slightly higher cost of living, say, the Bay Area, it's a lot more.

It's hard for most people to understand the total cost of ownership of anything- housing, car owning, computers.

BTW, fwiw, there's an interesting thread on tech salaries here:

http://www.burbed.com/2007/12/09/poll-software-engineers-how-much-do-you-make/

I'm sorry I forgot to put in my source, the American Automobile Association, because it is American, it is infallible of course!

It's not to say people can't get by much more cheaply, it's just that that's the figure, that's what people are paying on average.

Personally I think their sheer desire to be Good Americans, to ensure a future of poverty for the sake of the well-being of the American auto industry, their desire to Do Their Part by driving the biggest most expensive thing they think they can afford the payments for, is overriding.

Malcolm:

No, I have not had any major repairs to my car. I bought this one with 30,000 miles on it and I've got about 55,000 on now (although this year my commute got a lot longer). I get a typical oil/lube/filter every 3000-5000 miles or every six months. I've put a fresh set of tires on it, and had it aligned occasionally. But I drive carefully, and typically do not accelerate or brake hard. In cold weather I almost always let the engine warm up fully before driving, and I park it in an unheated garage.

If the average Joe is paying $300-400/month for their car, they obviously struggle with basic math. That's $36000-48000 over a 10 year lifetime, and most current (useful) models get a lot more mileage than that. My parents were doing the leasing thing for a while, until I pointed out that they were paying the full up-front depreciation and then returning cherry vehicles with 30-40K miles and very little wear. This, btw, is why I now prefer to buy vehicles coming back after a 3-year lease, or buy trade-ins with little wear. If the useful life of the vehicle is 10-15 years, why pay the premium depreciation during the first three? The powertrain warranty is transferrable; you just have to purchase carefully with a full inspection.

One great place to look is import dealers who take American trade-ins. That's where I got my last car. Somebody was trading up to a European ride, and the dealer wasn't going to waste lot space on an American model.

Apostos,
great work buddy. I was trying to explain it to the ppl before but was lacking that link :)
But to answer the questions, the taxpayer is behind the FHA loans. If FHA goes down, the taxpayers bail it out. And as financial rules followed, it is about separating the losses and marking the borrowers. Like I states somewhere above, this way you can split all the losses/risk/rewards in the fastest way, thru the biggest possible spectrum.

Marty

apostasy says: This is not to speak of other aspects I find troubling, like a claim (I have yet to substantiate) made by a poster on Calculated Risk that pooled paper run through the Hope Now program will let the securitization pool start marking to model instead of a periodic (monthly or quarterly) mark to market.

Although I haven't yet read that claim on other blogs, it wouldn't surprise me at all if that were true. Right now the CDO market is in a nuclear winter. Most SIVs and CDOs are illiquid except if they discount deeply enough for the vulture funds. The reason Paulson and others want the SIVs marked to model is that marking to the present "market" would trigger more liquidation events, popping the MBS/CDO/SIV bubble in a rather brutal fashion. Too many big players are leveraged too much for that to be to the greater benefit. So instead they should be looking to let the air out of this balloon as elegantly as possible. If temporarily allowing SIVs to mark to model will allow the funds sell things in waves as the market stabilizes, that is significantly better than one big bang when the market is horrible.

To your other point about the FHA insuring bad loans, I thought Tanta on CR gave some insightful comments today. Even the FHA isn't likely to help anyone who is completely toast. Ultimately it's just a transfer of risk from the private lenders to the public insurance company (FHA) for troubled loans that still have a chance of avoiding default.

Personally, I would much rather see a little privatized reward and socialized risk than force a bunch of banks, hedgies and pension funds to liquidate assets at fire sale prices. I also find it better to spread the potential pain on the federal level instead of push it back onto local entities like municipal pension plans that probably can't support the strain. And before anyone moralizes that they shouldn't have been investing in assets they didn't understand, just remember that the government is going to "guarantee" those pensions, and that could cost a lot more money than just giving the CDO market a breather.

Just my two cents, of course.

“I understand that the investors in mortgage-backed bonds will sue, but what about a class action suit representing folks like myself who will now have to wait longer to buy a place?”

NO N - 0 NO !

I wish the masses had NEVER EVER heard of the very limited type of litigation called 'class action' lawsuits.

They think it is a possible to remedy to what ever they do not like.

A whole lot less TV and mass media would be a very good thing.

Goverments manipulate markets all the time. What in the world do you think trade agreements are? Or allowing businesses to operate as corporations with limited liability for shreholders? Or patents?

And do read the information released publicly before blathering on. This 'freeze' is being done by the lenders. It is not being done by the goveernment at any level (state or federal.) There is no 'law' being passed. The US gov't maybe suggsting the idea, it may have gotten the parties together to workit out but the government is NOT doing it.

(And even if it did, you have no claim at all under any possible legal theory.)

"RaiderJeff04 Says:

December 7th, 2007 at 5:32 am
“Potential buyers face higher prices for a house than they would if the market were just allowed to work. This is a direct harm to millions of people, especially young families with limited income.

Is it illegal for the government to manipulate markets to benefit one class over another?”

Case and Controvery (standing)

At least in federal courts, and possibly state courts, there must be a case and controversy, (for fed courts, see Art. III). Meaning that the plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact, caused by the government, that is capable of judicial resolution. Further, the case must be RIPE, (the plaintiff has been harmed or there is an immediate impact of harm). This is part of the limitations for going forward with a case in federal court, and most likely limitation for state courts as well.

Since the Buyer is only a POTENTIAL buyer, there really hasn’t been any direct harm, and the case is not ripe for review. In other words, the plaintiff only has a potential interest, not an existing interest in which the court can render a judicial resolution (remedy).

I haven’t looked at Constitutional law in a while, but I think this would be the first hurdle to overcome when looking at the facts above.

RaiderJeff04 -

DO NOT EVEN GO THERE.

You haven't the slightest idea of what you are talking about.

Law and legal theories are NOT a DIY project that you can figure out by stuff on the internet.

You are so far out in the ozone on this one, you need a parachute.

"but the government is NOT doing it" (bail-out/freeze)

Let's see here....

OFHEO

FRE

FNM

FOMC

FRB

Treasury Dept.

Congress

Candidates

Nope. No government involvement HERE!

I liked AnnS's post. It seemed correct to me.

Ouch.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/business/worldbusiness/10cnd-bank.html?ref=business

10 billion here, 10 billion there and soon we are talking real money.

McRussom - The US has always been obsessed with the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and this has led to a spate of books over the years. There have probably been hundreds written. I've read maybe 10, since most are obscure. However, part of "conspiracy research" is the minute picking-apart of every detail of the perpetrator's life. In this case, Lee Harvey Oswald. I began to find "Who killed JFK?" books more interesting for their rare glimpse of life in the 1950s and 1960s for a low-wage slob with aspirations (even if evil ones) than for any titillation that may come from contemplating the killing of the particular rich guy who happened to be President. Lee Oswald did not make much money at anything he did, and yet what he did make allowed him to live in a decent place, generally a 2-bedroom apartment and not one of those Bay Area closets either, plus save money (for various plots and plans lol) on the side. He was able to support Marina and her baby. Going back further, his mother was always able to own the house she lived in, and gradually moved up in house value over the years. These people were not working 60-hour weeks, they were lucky to get a full 40 hours in fact. Lee had the time, energy, and money to take a night typing class. A friend of his had the time and energy and could afford to give him free driving lessons. It was a much more relaxed, self-sufficient, I've-got-some-savings-on-the-side life compared to modern American wage-slavery. Lee's menial jobs were due to his preference to not work too hard rather than a lack of good jobs. He seemed to enjoy the jobs he had, since they provided him what he needed, plus time to think (and plot lol). Investigators in the Warren Commission and other books comment on Lee's frugality, but many people were frugal at that time, that's how you lived. Waste not want not and all that. It's an amazing glimpse at a life very different from our stressed-out 60-hour a week plus 10 a week commuting gilded work-camp life we have now.

One factor was, guys like Lee did not pay any income tax. Then, anyone making less than $4k didn't pay it, now, anyone making less than $4k doesn't pay it. But the brackets have crept due to the fact that a dollar is worth about 1/10th what it was in the 50s, so now you have dishwashers and table bussers and so on paying 1/4 or more of their gross income in taxes.

Lee was not the smartest guy, but if the poor bastard were alive today, perhaps released after a LONG time in isolation, he'd be appalled at how people live. He'd find his theories about Capitalism hanging itself vindicated, and he'd also have a huge problem with the system of fascism (or corporatism, the uniting of corporations and gov't) we live under now.

Funny, how the hippies, blacks, nationalists, and other cool movements got bought out thru the years.
If Lee were alive today, he will probably be a welfare smooching, trailer living hobo blessing the government for every day of slumber.
If King was here today, he will probably be chilling in the hood, selling crack, and smooching on the welfare of a couple of mamas and occasionally visit jail.
Hitler would have been a guy on the net, probably a few pounds heavier, the closest ever to a war or depression watching Saving Private Rayan, blabing on and on at patrick.net and such about how screwed up the little people are and when oh when will someone do something other than a petition online that noone will care for. Ohh and since Jews are not as scary, he would be like, 'The corporations control everything... ooowwww, be afraid, be very afraid!'
Funny stuff I tell you.

Marty