Next up...Homeowner Bailout being kicked around (1 Viewer)

[TDH]

This is starting to sound like the flood insurance bailouts. Same basic arguments.

 

[varanook]

This is starting to sound like the flood insurance bailouts. Same basic arguments.

Not even close. The scale of this bailout is enormous and is not really warranted as much as the NO flood is. Where is this money coming from? We have infrastructure, problems, Iraq, healthcare and now a bail out of sub prime mortgages. The American tax payer can't afford this, so they will just print the money which further deflate the dollar.

I wish we would get someone in office that would balance the budget, reduce taxes to almost nothing, remove us from 200 or so countries militarily, invest in infrastructure and alternative energy, give states more power to govern themselves, limit lobbyist influence, pay a very high salary to governement offices like senate and congress, put congress on social security like the rest of America and try to enact term limits for every public federal office.

Not to much to ask imo.

 

[pennstater]

Big houses= overated

 

[Taceo]

How about a student loan bailout?

Here here!

 

[lazybones]

neither the mortgage company nor the buyer should be bailed out. the company sold a product, if it is not a good product it will fail.

if the buyer cant hold up their end of the bargain, the loose the house.

Bail outs cause dependency. bad idea

 

[lazybones]

"If you subsidize something, you get more of it."

Who said that?

I don't know who said it, but there is a big difference in subsidies and bail outs. one is in the front of the deal, the other is once the deal has been handled irresponsibly.

 

[Rob Beaux]

CNN had a thing on people being effect by the housing crisis.

Locals from Lafayette. Paraphrased.. We cant make our house payments because we have to send our kids to private schools.

Sorry but thats a luxury not a NEED. Food, shelter and water are necessities. So if you cant buy food then yeah you need help but if you cant afford your house while having a luxury then you should get ZERO. You screwed up, your priorities are messed up. Come back when you can make a logical choice..till then lose your house and go live under I-10 so you can keep that luxury.

 

[jimwnola]

I saw one of those CNN tales, too. They, of course, tried to paint the borrowers as victims, due to their only interest baloon loan. They talked about no one telling them their note would go up so much, but never explored the effect of the additional home equity loan they took out, for which they made one passing reference. They bought a house beyond their means, with a only interest loan, and were fortunate its equity increased. Their reaction, to that, was to take out an additional home equity loan. Then, when they couldn't pay their loans, we were suppose to blame the bank. People think thay can get rich quick without investing any equity, and then should be bailed out. The reality is, if they don't put any equity into the home, they don't deserve anything. These are glorified "rent to own" options, where the "owner" essentially pays close to what the rent would be. So, what did they really lose? Next, they might just have to outlaw "renting."

I do the blame the bank, but not because the bank wanted to enforce the terms of the loan they both agreed to. I blame them for lending to these type of idiots, and then passing these costs to everyone else when they fail. Seems like the banks should have learned somethig from the S&L scandal ,which wasn't that long ago.

 

[efil4stnias]

CNN had a thing on people being effect by the housing crisis.

Locals from Lafayette. Paraphrased.. We cant make our house payments because we have to send our kids to private schools.

Sorry but thats a luxury not a NEED. Food, shelter and water are necessities. So if you cant buy food then yeah you need help but if you cant afford your house while having a luxury then you should get ZERO. You screwed up, your priorities are messed up. Come back when you can make a logical choice..till then lose your house and go live under I-10 so you can keep that luxury.

my point exactly....


cruize, I will not deny that there were some "predatory" lending practices out there and that some folks were "duped". But let the courts settle that. Get an attorney and prove it. But the problem is that the nieghbor who has 3 cars, a boat, a 3000 sq ft home and a job that pays $75,000 a year but can afford all this because he pays on an "interest only loan" should not be bailed out. But becasue they cannot differentiate, he will. Thats what I see wrong with it. You know the old adage...the good always suffer for the bad. But the government is about to make that moot.

 

[saintfan-n-alex]

How about a student loan bailout?

im for that!!


i was laid off after 911 - no one helped me with my house - which is why i dont have it anymore lol

 

[Sabine]

Judging from the replies in this thread, no one is going to like Clinton's second stimulus plan - which means you won't like Obama's either.

Obama Copies Hillary’s ‘Second Stimulus’

Last Thursday, Senator Clinton called for a "second stimulus package" with $30 billion to help states and localities fight foreclosures. One week later, Senator Obama announced a "second $30 billion stimulus package".
Clinton policy director Neera Tanden: "If Senator Obama has to copy policy ideas when he's a candidate on the campaign trail, how is he going to solve people's problems if he's president? When it comes to fixing the economy, we need leadership, not followership."
1) Hillary called for a $30 billion fund to help states and localities to fight foreclosure in their communities. [Clinton Campaign Press Release,3/20/08]
One week later, Barack Obama called for an economic stimulus package of $30 billion to provide ‘immediate relief to areas hardest hit by the housing crisis.’[Reuters, 3/27/08]
2) Hillary’s plan introduces idea of ‘second stimulus.’ “That is why Senator Clinton is calling on Congress and the President to pass a second stimulus package. This time around, the primary focus should be on addressing the growing housing crisis. And by investing new, temporary resources in a housing-focused stimulus package, we can avoid the worst fall-out from the current downturn, keep families in their homes and stabilize communities.” [Clinton Campaign Press Release, 3/20/08]
Obama’s plan uses the exact same language: ‘Enact a Second $30 Billion Stimulus Package to Address the Mortgage Crisis, Protect Vulnerable Families and Strengthen the Economy.’ [Obama Plan to restore Confidence in the Markets ,3/27/08]
3) Hillary's plan reiterated her support for increasing unemployment insurance: "While this second stimulus package should focus predominantly on the housing crisis, Congress should also consider temporary measures to help struggling workers like extending unemployment insurance." [Clinton Campaign Press Release ,3/20/08]
Obama's plan includes the same call for increasing unemployment insurance: "Barack Obama believes we must extend and strengthen the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program to address the needs of the long-term unemployed, who currently make up nearly one-fifth of the unemployed and are often older workers who have lost their jobs in manufacturing or other industries and have a difficult time finding new employment." [Obama Plan to restore Confidence in the Markets,3/27/08]

 

[dapperdan]

"If you subsidize something, you get more of it."

Who said that?

I don't know the answer you're looking for; but I know Milton Friedman said it. Many times.

 

[dtc]

This sucks but I have to admit I like it better than wall street getting bailed out.

It's just that many people who make high incomes will be bailed out as well.

This IS Wall Street being bailed out. The Bush government doesn't give a rats petootie about middle class Americans and the idea that they'd bail out individual home owners facing foreclosure due to their own stupidity and ignorance is plain old horse pucky.

This is a BANK BAIL OUT. Corporate welfare is being packaged as help for the littlebitty homeowner.

 

[V Chip]

Judging from the replies in this thread, no one is going to like Clinton's second stimulus plan - which means you won't like Obama's either.

Au contraire! We'll hate Hillary's plan but LOVE Obama's.

 

[JimEverett]

I saw one of those CNN tales, too. They, of course, tried to paint the borrowers as victims, due to their only interest baloon loan. They talked about no one telling them their note would go up so much, but never explored the effect of the additional home equity loan they took out, for which they made one passing reference. They bought a house beyond their means, with a only interest loan, and were fortunate its equity increased. Their reaction, to that, was to take out an additional home equity loan. Then, when they couldn't pay their loans, we were suppose to blame the bank. People think thay can get rich quick without investing any equity, and then should be bailed out. The reality is, if they don't put any equity into the home, they don't deserve anything. These are glorified "rent to own" options, where the "owner" essentially pays close to what the rent would be. So, what did they really lose? Next, they might just have to outlaw "renting."

I do the blame the bank, but not because the bank wanted to enforce the terms of the loan they both agreed to. I blame them for lending to these type of idiots, and then passing these costs to everyone else when they fail. Seems like the banks should have learned somethig from the S&L scandal ,which wasn't that long ago.

Pretty much agree with you on this.
I am no expert on this thing, but from what I have seen this foreclosure crisis is overblown, its still a very small amount of foreclosures but, at the same time, its a lot more foreclosures than we have seen before.
But more to the point, people got greedy and were buying way more house than they could afford. The foreclosure "crisis" we are seeing isn't a result of forces beyond the mortgagor's control - they are not being laid off, they are not suffering medical crisis, they are not going through a divorce. All those things were happening prior to this housing bubble and no one cared crap for them - in fact Congress passed the bankruptcy reform to screw those people even more.
Subsidizing banks and investors who made horrible decisions is bad policy.
Subsidizing individuals so they can remain a little longer in a house they cannot afford is also bad policy.
And the last point - if the banks/investors are suffering so bad why is it so hard for individuals to rewrite their loans? Usually if a bank owns the mortgage you can work with them and redo a mortgage that the homeowner can afford and the bank is happy with (in those cases where a homeowner is clearly not in a house they cannot afford and where they are party to some nontraditional terms: ARM, 80/20 loans, etc.). But when the loans are owned by investors its impossible to make deals. IMO that means screw those investment backed mortgages.