My view on the ARM bailout

[michreject]

It sucks that many are faced with a growing problem with foreclosures and all. But higher taxes for all to bail out the broken system is not the answer.

The progressive mantra has always been "The sacrifice of the few for the benefit of the many"

With a bailout, would the new mantra be " The sacrifices of the many for the benefit of the few"?

I'm sorry but a Government bailout is not fair to those of us who live within our means.

[Bluebear]

1. Does it have to be fair to be compassionate? you prefer 'fair' to an economic meltdown?

And those of us who "live within our means", how happy will we be when a quarter of the houses in our towns get foreclosed and sold for 30% discounts, thereby making our own houses worth that much less? Just food for thought.

[michreject]

2. Your house is only worth less

If you sell it. As is with any material asset.

[Bake]

3. One could say the same about any social programs.

Why should MY taxes go up to pay for food stamps of people who won't work???

:sarcasm:

The problem is not people living above their means. The problem is unscrupulous mortgage brokers/lenders and predatory lending practices.

Bake

[michreject]

5. People don't volunteer to go into poverty

But people did sign on a dotted line for a house that they knew that they couldn't afford.

Lending corps. didn't practice the so called "unscrupulous mortgage brokers/lenders and predatory lending practices" that you speak of in order to steal your house. They made their decision to lend the money on information that the borrower provided.

[AlCzervik]

4. we're all going to pay one way or another.

i'd rather there be help now. I live within my means but i have to tell you seeing your neighbor's lose their home---sucks.

[bryant69]

6. It's not about helping people it's about investing in them.

Consider the drain on the economy occasioned by a lot of people losing their homes. That creates a lot of wasted economic energy. It's better to help them keep their home, help them over this hump so they can continue being productive members of society.

A bail-out is the wrong terminology, in my opinion; an investment is better (although of course some people won't like that one either, I suppose).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[michreject]

7. Some won't be able to stay regardless

If they qualified for a loan that's 1% above prime, they would still lose their house. Some borrowers financed 125% the value of the home. No money down. That money went right into the pockets of the buyer.