Too bad it's debt.

I was just starting to read that.

"Unless you make under $5 Million a year. Then you're pretty f*cked."

And we're proceeding with this $25 billion mortgage bail-out why?

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Because the country still has to function?

I mean, you don't stop buying groceries because you have a big-ass credit card bill.

So "borrowing from future generations" to fund some silly war in Iraq = but "borrowing from future generations" because some bum bought a house he could not afford = ? I don't follow.

And hey, here's a thought: if you're having trouble paying your mortgage, maybe you shouldn't have bought the house. I'm just sayin'.

Hell, my electrical bills are too steep. And groceries are too expensive, too. And it would be nice if I still only had to pay $40/month for my satellite. And I really don't like paying $60 every time I fill up my 4-cyl Mitsubishi that I'm paying $200/month on. Hey government, a little help!

Let's be clear about this... $25 billion will get you two months in Iraq.

I also think you're missing the point of this bail-out. It's not to give people a handout, it's to help save our frakking economy.

No government support for failing banks in the 1930's gave us a sweet Depression...

Some people might vehemently disagree with that statement and argue that government interventionist policies might have actually magnified the Depression's effects.

Others might click over to TF News to see what's going on.

Worse, it's deficit:
a.k.a. the ANNUAL rate of blood loss (negative cash flow).

Yeah, but that didn't work in my "inheritance" metaphor...which, by the way, I can now see I grossly misspelled.

*edits*

Prolly a good thing since "inhertience" sounded something like an extraordinarily agonizing and painful disease. Although I suppose that actually does accurately describe the rate our government hemorrhages money..

Because government regulation is evil and you can't have any evidence that relying purely on the free market means you getting screwed over by unscrupulous pricks!

you say it like they were forced to refi or buy a house way over budget. and blaming some idiot not reading a contract on the free market is quite a stretch. its not the govts job to babysit every moron who doesn't understand that you can't pay for a mansion on a ranch house budget.

of course it could be worse, we could be ignoring the first amendment and shutting down talk shows for being controversial like a communist state would do, or trying to give unfair rights to someone because they are a certain religion, or we could be encouragimg children to inform the govt when their parents don't fall in line with govt policy like they did in Nazi Germany.


hey, waitaminute.

"Buyer Beware" is a stupid way of running an economy. "Seller is legally required to make the buyer beware" works a lot better.

tell me again how this isn't covered by the fact that they have a contract in which all details are disclosed? you do know that a lawyer sits in and explains any legal questions you have when buying a home here? its not like they couldn't know and all the warnings in the world wont make up for stupidity and bad budgeting. you can't idiot proof everything. but guess I'm wrong to expect people to read a contract before signing

All I'm saying is compare the number of hugely expensive bailouts of unscrupulous corporations by the tax pay in the US over the past two decades, with the number in the UK, Canada, France, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Germany, etc.

Government Regulation is there for a reason, and when you have less of it stuff like this tends to happen. Whether it is due to cause or merely correlation is open to debate however.

And that's all this is to you? Just people being stupid? And nothing at all to do with predatory lenders?

Well hey, everyone's got their paradigm.

For him to recognise otherwise would be the same as saying that the free market can't magically make everything perfect on it's own, so he needs to blame someone else.

who they gonna lend to if people read before signing? a predatory lender doesn't force anyone to borrow. no matter what at the end of the day, the borrower had to sign the contract after having sat in a room with a lawyer explaining everything and say "no, I don't have any questions".

but to recognize that would be admitting that mother govt shouldn't have to solve all the peoples problems.

I don't think that a unrestricted free market would eliminate problems, I do believe a completely govt controlled market is an open door to all sorts of problems. we have regulations now that require full disclosure, you blaming this on the market is just ridiculous. this is not Capitalisms fault. your just misusing something so you can make another attack on our system. which is fine. if you want to use twisted facts and pseudo "compassion" to attack it, that's cool.

I remember you putting someone down for always using the same thing, meanwhile you always use the same tired old mantra "look at country x, they have a better way than the US." really? they all have a better way of doing everything? why? because we're not socialist enough? because every citizen,even someone "controversial", has equal rights? what is it that drives your hatred for our system of everything? because let's face it, we are not talking about a simple disagreement on policy, you seeth with hatred for the US, Haggis, what is that about? I mean why is it so important for you?

Did you read your housing contract in full before you signed it?

I'm not trying to be antagonistic here; it's just that there are certain realities such as "people don't read legal documents." Not to mention the pressure that realtors and lenders place on buyers to purchase more house than they can realistically afford. And they do this because it's in their best interest to get you to buy the most expensive house possible. The realtor gets a fat check, the lender gets a fat loan, they win. And I might add, that *is* the market at work. That's the down side to the system.

Which is not to say that I'm against the free market entirely. I'm only against an unregulated free market. I do think that government has a role to play. But I also believe that free market ideals have merit.

The reality is also that they should read legal documents, or hire someone to read them on their behalf, before getting involved in something as expensive as a house.


But, methinks this whole debate would be moot if the dollar were still worth anything.

What it is to me is a case of OUR government causing the problem.
Lenders: We are only going to lend to people we think will pay their house note every month.
Government: HEY! There are not enough lower-class (as opposed to middle- and upper-) people buying houses. YOU'VE got to start lending to them so THEY can buy houses, too.
Lenders: But they may not be able to pay their house notes. This would suck for both them and us.
Government: WE ARE GOVERNMENT!
Lenders: Well, we better do what you say. What the hell, we can just push default risk on to Fannie Mae. Home loans for all!!!! (<<<---Here's where your predatory lending practices come in.)

It doesn't help that the Fed started this whole deal with its artificially low interest rate.

My main gripe is that millions of Americans bust their asses every month and send in their mortgage payments on time and they get jackshit out of this except for a higher tax bill.

My initial question to Nomolos would place this discussion in a more "rubber meets the road" context IMO.


Yes. People want creative solutions to help fix the economy? Well, here's one.

Anyway I don't know what's to bitch about here; this is a bipartisan bill that Bush is planning to sign. Unless you're like a LaRouche fan or something.

edit: ST53 I do believe that the housing bubble was the impetus behind all of this... I don't think that GOVERNMENT (to use your all-caps) made that happen.

I did, all 600 pages (Seriously. Neither the seller's agent nor our was very happy because we were there for several hours. And it wasn't actually 600 pages.)

I'm too lazy to use the italics, bold and underline functions sometimes. Please forgive me, mighty Madhammer.

In any event, many people believe that Mr. Alan Greenspan and his low, low, low interest rates are what engineered the "bubble. "

(I have no issue with all caps JUST AS AN FYI.)

And maybe I'm just ignorant (not speaking sarcastically here) but I don't see a connection between low interest rates and the insane increase in housing prices/property values from a few years back. Because to me that *was* the housing bubble -- people taking out crazy home equity loans because their property value was increasing so much, and then *pop* oh look ur screwed now, you owe more than your house is worth

Well, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this whole ordeal has a single root cause, I don't believe anything as complicated as the US economy or a War (surge, heh) can have one individual item be so significant. Here's an informative article from 2004.

There goes the Neighborhood, Why home prices are about to plummet-and take the recovery with them.

I'm sorry LMH, what was your initial question to me?

Does this outfit make my butt look fat?

fwiw, when my lender said "the govt says we can loan you till your payments are up to 51% of your gross", I said "great, I'm gonna borrow so that payments are less than 25%". simple economics really. yes I read every word of my contract, yes they were pissed at me too ST53.