Why the Feds Rescue Banks, Not Homeowners

Bail out for home owners?

Though most of you have posted very good arguments, there are cases where help is very much needed. A good example are those who are on fixed incomes, either because of retirement, or in cases of personal friends who are disabled of no fault of there own. Most, if not all of these people live in conservative homes, however because of the rapid increase in the cost of living: heating, health, prescription drugs, transportation, food, etc. many find themselves deciding what to pay for. Do I buy groceries this month or do I get my medication? Because of this these honest, and yes hard working in what ever job they can get, are the ones who need the help the most. I have absolutely NO problem seeing these people who try harder than any who are completely healthy to pay there bills, get the help that is needed, to help them stay in there home! Mostly because, these people WILL continue to pay there mortgage when they can.

T. Vandermeuse of WI @ Feb 14, 2009 02:35:24 AM

Insanity

Albert Einstein said that insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

By sheer logic, those that do the same things over and over and expect different results are insane.

Perhaps Ron Paul was right when he said the financial system is flawed and until that flaw is repaired, we cannot expect different results.

Now if and when the "sheeple", I mean people, ever awaken to the simplicity of cause and effect, then real solutions will manifest themselves. But will they awaken? That is the question.

Thank the Lord for Truth.

Tim Hobby of AZ @ Feb 14, 2009 02:22:24 AM

Rescuing Homeowners

I totally agree with J Albright. I know something has to be done, but to me, to reward the greedy and law-bending crooks and idiots who perpetuated this mess, especially those on Wall Street and in Washington who pushed for loose lending standards to those who could not afford to pay, and to punish with higher rates and lost jobs and lost investments, those who were trying to follow the rules our parents taught us, namely

1) If you can't afford it, don't buy it

2) Invest in blue-chip funds like banks

3) Pay your bills you must pay, and if you have to do with less, do with less

is downright demoralizing. I think people are just fed up, and trust in our government and our institutions is gone. It won't return until the guilty start paying and not just the innocent and honest folks in America.

M Horvath of TX @ Feb 14, 2009 02:17:24 AM

Keep it simple

Reduce the principle of every mortgage by 15% and make the interest rate on every existing mortgage 4%. Easy for everyone to figure the impact of that. Other than that, let the chips, er houses, fall where they may. The majority of fauly lies with the lender side of the equation, let them take the losses. They will be spread around a lot. Mortgage balances will be closer to hime values -- making homes easier to sell...

K Forbes of TX @ Feb 13, 2009 19:50:59 PM

homeowners bailout a disgrace

aye to that Alan Richards, CA. All those irresponsible bankers who approved those loans should be deprived of their licenses to do business! What kind of paper check did they do to approve gargantuan loans to people who did not have the ability to pay their monthly dues after their initial rate went up? For each of those loans they process the banks take a lot of money. Not that they do it for free. So, I do not see where the irresponsible have been taken to task.

I suppose it is remnants of the old Christian idea of the Return of the Prodigal Son. The responsible ones rarely reap economic benefits, rather social ones of being called "good"!

Blokesablogin of CA @ Feb 09, 2009 15:40:38 PM

read on 1/26/09

Interesting reading all this after the election is over and with 20/20 hindsight.

The "bailout" doesn't help homeowners cause frankly none of these clods, with the exception of that sensible woman who heads up the FDIC, really gives a damn about homeowners.

As for being hard to administer, well, let's start with not stealing the taxpayer's money in the first place before we whine about how hard it would be to give it back to them.

I like the comments about thhe people who bought something they couldn't afford and having no sympathy. I agree to an extent, but then what exactly do you call bailing out banks, AIG and the auto industry?

I'm no economist, (obviously), but it seems to me that a capitalist system is supposed to reward GOOD business practices and decisions and discourage BAD ones, but it seems to me all the emphasis, corporate or individual, is on rewarding bad business decisions.

If my read on Marx is right, this is pure communism (note the talk already of Nationalizing the banking system).

The more I watch these "brillian minds" such as the SEC chairman who, when asked what lessons could be drawn, replied , "I guess the basic lesson is that self-regulation doesn't work". DUHHHHHHHH!

Has this guy even heard of Adam Smith??!!???

Fact is, as bright as Kashkari is, he is the exception to the rule and smart enough to at least admit he doesn't know what's going to result from his actions. The rest of these so called "brilliant minds" are nothing but a bunch of political hacks with about average intellects.

Once you posit that it's mostly a bunch of self interested political hacks and retards running the country, it all kind of falls in place.

And those of you who expect different from Obama, I suggest you look at his top ten contributors. Google it. It's easily accessed. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citicorp....banks, lawyers and ivy league institutions. And who's he nominating for Treasury...a guy from Goldman Sachs (#2)who can't even do his own taxes right, or hire anyone who can....yeesh!

Change you can spare?

"It's a big club. And you're not in it." -- George Carlin

Phil of NC @ Jan 26, 2009 21:25:31 PM

Why the Feds Rescue Banks, Not Homeowner's

If the loans are so hard to trace what happens when someone pays off their loan, one way or another?

It seems simple to me.

Just refinance the loan amount for 60 years at the going interest rate. That should cut the payment about in half.

The bank/investers get the going rate of interest, and who stays in a house more than 7 to 10 years anyway. The loan gets payed off and it starts all over.

When autos got to expensive what happened? they went from 3 to 6 years, and I've been told you can get 7 years for auto financing.

30 year financing was OK in 1950 when houses were more in line with salarys and such.

Jim in CA. of CA @ Jan 25, 2009 23:12:51 PM

Nonsence

All this blather about "keeping people in there homes" is nonsense. If you cannot pay for something the Federal Government should not force / con others to pay for it.

The majority of people who are in trouble are so because of what they did. The person who falls for a privately perpetrated scam is not bailed out at the point of a Federal gun -- why then should one be bailed out from a Government fostered scam?

Question: Why have we not had such housing melt downs before?

Answer: The Federal Government had never before made such a scam so attractive.

I have not documented my assertions. If you are interested look it up.

John Elderhause of IL @ Jan 21, 2009 13:35:29 PM