I must tell you that I am almost 100% opposed to the proposals for the bailout of the housing industry.
First of all I cannot believe that the loans were made initially. It had to be obvious to anybody with an IQ over 40 that the many of those loans would be in default regardless of the economy. Secondly, there was a drive by the Mortgage Brokers to run these loans through just so that they could make a good bonus at year's end. Thirdly, the top "suits" were more than anxious to have these loans go through as it made their companies look good and their stock and bonuses improve. Great material for bundling securities and selling off for huge gains.
The whole thing reeks. Somebody needs to explain the process of "risk" to people. Poor credit on many of the borrowers part is due to foolish use of thier credit. I cannot believe what a "Highland Appliance" mentality this country has ended up with. If you remember Highland's policy was that "If you don't like it bring it back," no questions asked. Well, that policy and other things led them into closing their doors. Why would anybody think that the same policy of the government constantly bailing out everybody will be any different?
I realize
that many like to think
that somebody needs
to protect the poor.
However there has to be a responsible limit.
Oh well! I want a bailout also.
Bill
11 comments:
Meanwhile, we keep pouring money down the pee-hole in Iraq to punish the wrong guy for knocking down the Trade Towers!!
Here is the latest. In Genesee County we are going to pulverize an asphalt road and turn it back into gravel this Summer because we don't have the money to fix the paving !!!!
I think the loans were made originally because the guys in power took off the government controls on these businesses and let them manipulate everything just as they please.
It appears to me that the money for bailouts is available to the wealthiest not to the poor. Alice
Yes - one could argue that someone should protect the poor from greedy, powerful capitalist thugs. That someone should have been the government, with some sort of regulation to protect segments of society from the excesses of the capitalist system. It's too late now for that - the deed is done - and poor people will suffer while the rich scurry out of harms way. I agree - no bailouts. We move one step closer to the revolution!
Well said, Irene!!! I'm following you!!! Alice
Hold on, hold on, hold on...
Some of the people who are "losing" their homes are poor folks who have done very well gaming the system. Let's not lose sight of that.
"So you're telling me you'll lend me $300,000 at 5% for five years, and it will adjust after that? Sweet." So they live in a house they could never afford, make payments for a while, and when the shit hits the fan, and they can't make payments anymore, they just mail in the keys and walk away. It's like they were renting. Yeah, it hurts their credit. But meanwhile, they lived like kings for a few years. It was better than the apartment complex.
If these banks are losing all sorts of money, where did it go?
You can certainly make the argument that they are paying for their own excesses of a couple years ago, but part of the cause here was home buyers who were too smart to pass up cheap loans.
P.S.: Another reason these banks are suffering is their own stupidity. Some poor bastard defaults on a mortgage, and the bank turns off the heat, lights, gas, etc. to save money, the pipes explode, the roof leaks, and suddenly instead of losing $20,000, the bank's out $200,000.
A friend of mine just walked away from the purchase of a bank-repossessed home for exactly that reason: The bank couldn't have done a better job trashing the house if they had given the keys to Girls Gone Wild.
Banks: they're crappy landlords, but they're worse tenants.
I think you attribute some pretty negative motives in the wrong direction. The vast majority of people want to get ahead with their own hard work and they do work hard! They DON'T live like kings! The banks aren't as stupid as you say. If they can stick someone like you friend they will. He walked away so someone else will get stuck. The bank heads won't suffer because they have all kinds of subsidies and other assistances they leaves the tax payers holding the "bag" er..notes. Apartment complexes are another whole story.........Alice
Whose living like kings? Poor baby has to survive on $61 million instead of a billion! Just don't know how he'll manage. My heart bleeds for him...and the others. And he made it on whose labor? Alice
"The banks aren't as stupid as you say."
Oh yes, they are. They have no idea how they're supposed to maintain hundreds or thousands of homes. They're used to owning a dozen, and selling them back into a hot market. Trying to sell twelve hundred into a bad market? They turn off the heat to save $. In Michigan. DUMB.
Nobody else is going to "get stuck" with that house. The bank is going to have to hire some guys to come in, gut it, and put it back together. Their own stupidity will cost them plenty.
And yes, the majority of people work hard. I'm not saying that these owners I'm talking about don't work hard. I'm just saying, it's not all misfortunate, downtrodden Noble Working Men and Women who are being turned out destitute. Many of them knew that they were at the edge of their budgets when they went into these houses, and walking away from the mortgage is a rational decision. It doesn't mean they're necessarily jobless or homeless or even victims.
The vast majority of us live at the edge of our budgets, whether we live in apartments, houses, flars or under the bridge...including the billion dollar bum whose only gonna walk away with 61 or 64 million of his clients or shareholders' money. However, it sure is a lot easier to live at the edge on 40,000 than it is on 61 million! Alice
Post a Comment