Ha! Ha! Faux News Poll (this from the "Family Values" crowd)...

[dEMOK]

http://www.foxnews.com/business/index.html (on right of page,scroll down about half way)

Rising delinquencies in subprime mortgages may force foreclosures. Is it un-American to allow people to lose their home?

a. Yes (16%)
2,654


b. No (82%)
13,642


c. Not sure (2%)
390


16,686 total votes

[11 Bravo]

1. Once they are born, fuck em!

[spanone]

2. the compassion just ooozes from these folks.

[Ganja Ninja]

3. One good thing about living in a cardboard box.

You can't get cable TV.

[Fridays Child]

6. You could be a professional silver lining locator.

;)

[WorseBeforeBetter]

4. And just who is going to foot the bill...

if they retain and/or lose their homes? "Subprime" is the operative word here. Legitimate financial hardship is one thing, but taking out loans for Escalades, exotic vacations, and the latest plasma TV is quite another (and I see it around me). Predatory lenders should have been reined in long ago, but many Americans need to learn to live within their means. Ha, good one.

The Faux response is no surprise - unfettered capitalism, bab-y. So much for the ownership society; oh yeah, you'll be "owned"!

[CTD]

7. Seriously, though. Compassion is one thing.

But when people take out loans they are one bad break away from not being able to keep up with, they are being stupid (to put it bluntly). The rest of us who live within our means really should not be forced to subsidize those who cannot. No one forced anyone to take a variable rate mortgage.

My mortgage is a 30 yr fixed mortgage. Sure I was paying more than some people were when rates were really low. But my payment hasn't changed. I bought "less house" than I could have "afforded" had I taken out a variable rate mortgage instead. But as it is, there is no risk of me losing my house.

So I am torn on this type of issue (which is very similar to the whose issue of declaring bankruptcy). I mean, the large financial institutions do not "lose" when someone defaults. No, the rest of us pay more to cover it.

But where to draw the line? You never want someone to lose their home. But real life has a way of punishing dumb decisions.

I'd hate to be labeled cruel or "right-wing" simply because I do think there is a place for personal responsibility in society. I fully believe in safety nets, but they should be reserved for unexpected hardship. Anyone paying attention could have (and DID) predict years ago that this would happen.


Edited to clarify.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

8. Very well said!

That's exactly how I approach many major financial decisions -- with the possibility of "one bad break away." Sure, I drive my cars until they die, ride a 17-year old bike, and keep appliances and gadgets until they break, but that's my choice. In doing so I have peace of mind and not that debt albatross around my neck. It seems like many Americans need a Risk 101 course.

[ComerPerro]

5. Can't say I am suprised. One of the celebrated positions of conservatism

is that people should provide for themselves and their families, and not rely on the support of the government or any kind of social safety net.

Of course, the hypocricy is, they still expect us to give a fuck when they are up shit creek...

[dEMOK]

9. ...and to the GOP victim go the spoils n-t