Reply
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 06:11 am
It will only benefit those with lousy credit and the lenders who gave them the bad loans in the first place.
What about people like me, who actually pay their mortgage, and put down 20%? Where's my break?
Oh yeah, wait, I have to pay my taxes too, to finance that giveaway.
It's BS, if this happens it will pervert the meaning of currency. Used to be 'legal tender for all debts public/private', like this is America, and our money can settle anything that needs settlin' - but if we go soft, make it that you can get bailed out while folk that didn't screw up eat it - it becomes like Chucky-Cheese cash but with the Department of Homeland Security to fascist it up. Really makes my skin crawl - if it weren't for impending alcohol-burning hot-rod-actuated famines I'd be worried.
It's really for the lenders. Maybe they should be taught that it's okay to lose their assets. Otherwise, they'll learn that it's okay to make shoddy loans.
cj - how many poor people do you know who are buying houses?
I oppose this giveaway too.... and roger is exactly right. It is another bailout for a credit industry that is greedy, harmful to society and out of control.
We should get back reasonable bankruptcy protection-- one that levels the playing field between foolish consumers and greedy, unethical lenders.
If consumers and lenders pay equally for mistakes and greed, this problem will go away.
The problem is we have given so much leeway to unethical lenders, and taken so many rights away from consumers. That we will now give Cjhsa's tax money to bail them out again is mindboggling.
ebrown, You're looking for the impossible; greed is assured no matter which culture, religion, race, or sex. That our government can rescue the banking system and the poor is also the reality of our country past and present. Extreme conservatism or liberalism will kill the golden goose. Our government has never learned to live within its means - like many consumers in our country.
The government will do what they think wins votes for their reelection into office. It's called "conflict of interest," but we've been aware of that for many generations.
I want fairness. If anyone gets reduced rates and refunds and bailouts, then we ALL should. Especially those of us that actually pay for ****.
On the whole CJ, I actually agree with you about the government bailing out this housing fiasco thing.
I disagree that it is about poor people as poor people have a hard time getting loans in whatever economic environment. The problem arose with the years of cutting interest rates creating an inflated housing bubble that was bound to burst. I am not letting all those who kept getting more and more loans because of the low interest rates off the hook without getting any meaningful raise in their incomes. People should have had more sense which is why I don't agree with bailing them out, the government should have had more sense in lowering the interest rates so many times in a row to create an impression that the economy was improving. Both sides are at fault and should not be rewarded.
I don't know enough about economics to know if sooner or much later if left alone this work out without a government bail out or if it would hurt the overall economy if there is not a government bail out.
roger wrote:It's really for the lenders. Maybe they should be taught that it's okay to lose their assets. Otherwise, they'll learn that it's okay to make shoddy loans.
And when the lenders recover 50% or more of their losses through sales, refinances etc...do the taxpayers get a rebate?
Despite the fact that the prime rate has been lowered to basically nothing, fixed rate 30 year loans went up last month to 6.5%, from 6.2%.
I got a 15-year mortgage on a rental property back in 2002 for 5.2%.....
So keep trying.
I basically agree with Revel. I think we should have allowed this mess to correct itself, even if it took years. I understand that part of the reason for the bail out is to prevent some neighborhoods from collapsing economically. Some areas are saturated with these foreclosures and it pulls everyone down. The fear was that some communities would end up as ghost towns. Imagine if every fourth house in cjhsa's neighborhood was suddenly vacant with a foreclosure/sale notice on the front lawn. Cjhsa's investment in his home would be smacked down because of the greed of the lenders and people who bought more home than they could afford, even though Cj played by all the rules. We are all going to the pay the price for this disaster, one way or another. I hope it wakes the country up to the idea of debt burdens and we will not see a repeat of this behavior anytime soon.
cjhsa wrote:I want fairness. If anyone gets reduced rates and refunds and bailouts, then we ALL should. Especially those of us that actually pay for ****.
Then make sure it's for the whole world. Because my mortgage has gone up by$200+ in the last year, due to the "US sub-prime mortgage crisis". The whole world is paying for the greed and incompetence of the US banking industry.
According to an artcile i just read, they had to (raise fixed mortages) in order to profit from any loans made in the last couple of years.
Quote:The interest rate on 30-year fixed mortgages is back above 6 percent, still historically low, after falling below 5.5 percent in December. Banks are demanding bigger down payments and cutting off home equity lines of credit to borrowers, especially those who live in states where home prices are falling fastest.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/business/09econ.html?hp
The latest I have read on this:
Quote:Caught between inflationary pressures and a weakening economy, the Federal Reserve's policymakers voted Wednesday to deal primarily with the weakening economy by keeping interest rates at their current level.
The decision to hold at 2 percent the key short-term federal funds rate -- which affects what consumers pay for mortgages, car loans and other credit -- brought to a halt a stream of rate cuts since August, reductions that brought the fed funds rate to its lowest level since November 2004.
http://www.startribune.com/business/21616444.html?location_refer=Business
I agree with cjhsa.. Don't bail out anyone that owns property next to him. That should reduce the value of his property by 30%.
That 30% loss in value sounds fair, doesn't it cjhsa? We wouldn't want you to be helped out by bailing anyone else out.
If that's the case then I'm living in the wrong neighborhood.
Well apparently the shrub gave the poor $300B. I notice the natives are pretty quiet about it. If it was a democrat president, the right wingscum would have been foaming at the mouth right now.
What the feds have essentially done are two things concurrently; penalized savers by giving the lowest interest rates on record while rewarding people to borrow and spend (most often money they borrowed from future earnings) - with some credit card rates exceeding 20 percent.
Since our economy is based on consumer spending (about 75%), the real growth wasn't there. It was a facade ready to crumble at any moment, but our government kept telling us our GDP was growing at 2 to 3 percent every year.
They've accomplished what they set out to do; the savings rate for Americans dropped to its lowest level (even fell into negative territory), and borrowing increased to its highest level - leaving our economy in shambles.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:
Chris Edwards, budget director of the libertarian Cato Institute, says elected officials don't manage money well.
"Why can't government adjust a percentage or two here and there without having a crisis?" he asks. "Businesses do it routinely."
LOL
Cycloptichorn
Yep, this concept is way beyond your ability to understand.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace