Should The Federal Government Bail Out Homeowners Facing Foreclosure?

[ThomWV]

Poll question: Should The Federal Government Bail Out Homeowners Facing Foreclosure?

Simple question. Do you believe that the Federal Government should, by any means, bail out homeowners who, for whatever reason, are on the verge of foreclosure or in any way intervene to protect the homeowner. This does not apply to the bail out anyone or group other than resident homeowners. This only applies to primary residents.

[I_Will]

1. No bail out, but protect against predatory practices on the front-end n/t

[HCE SuiGeneris]

71. I agree.

[Squatch]

2. Caveat emptor.

People need to use their brains before entering into situations in which they could easily put themselves, or their families, at significant long-term financial risk.

[Deep13]

5. Naturally, corporations can be as reckless and irresponsible as they want.

:eyes:

[Squatch]

14. Of course they can.

However, it's not in their best interests to do so.

Banks are engaging in risky behavior by extending loans to people who could not otherwise afford them. To minimize these risks, the banks assess a cost of capital, which could include the seizure of the valued item (collateral) when the terms of the loan contract are not being honored.

[Deep13]

26. It is definitely in their best interest...

...or at least in the best interest of those running them.

Why not make risky mortages? Most won't foreclose. Some foreclosure becomes an inevitable cost of doing business. The shareholders what money. Usury is a good way to get it. And if the industry collapses in the future, so what? There was still a net profit and CEOs are never held liable for civil damages for their bad decisions. Bleeding ordinary people into poverty has always been good for business.

[havocmom]

55. And most loans get SOLD to investors / investment funds

The loan originators make their $$ on processing fees and what they can sell the loans for. Many are using offshore labor to lessen actual processing costs. K-ching!. Less jobs here = more likelihood of more foreclosures. Oh well, say the risky loan originators.... they got theirs.

Volume was the ticket and ridiculous rates combined with very low approval standards were the method.

Now, most of the mess is a huge burden on other people's shoulders.

You are right, bleeding ordinary people into poverty IS the plan and the plan has worked well. Who do you think will be buying up all the depreciated real estate? Fat cats will become BIG owners. They will be the landlords American workers and retirees will be stuck with. Bye bye American Dream.

And the depreciation is NOT just on the foreclosed properties. Abandoned homes bring down values in the neighborhoods they stand in. Those neighborhoods ARE EVERYWHERE now.

The empty homes are too often left unattended too. Creates all sorts of health and law enforcement problems, plus adding to the burden of local tax payers when local governments have to deal with the mess. The mess gets worse with time. Time is stretched by the convoluted methods of title change with the selling and re-selling of the original loans. There are lots of communities hurting as they have to spend time (payroll hours) sorting out the ownership tangle on foreclosed home so they can find the parties responsible to maintain the derelict homes. Just one more way ordinary people get sucked dry while the loan originators skate.

Oh, and when whole neighborhoods depreciate in value, so do local tax revenues. So, soon, more burden will be put on the shoulders of home owners who are trying to keep their roof over their own heads.

[havocmom]

45. It's not just banks involved. Home loan companies doing bad stuff

but they SELL the shaky loans they make, so they are are not the ones who get the big loses (at first).

There are investment groups who buy bundled loans along with making other investments. Lots of just regular people trying to invest to provide for their old age are getting hurt. Lots of middle class investors being hurt, not just fat cat 'banks'.

Just because we think of it as 'banking' does not mean only bankers are involved. Lots of working class investors getting hurt. Lots of WORKERS in the industry are getting hurt. All they did was try to make a living.

I know one mortgage company owner who seems not too worried about what HIS bad decisions have done. When asked about all the workers (10,000!) who are out of jobs since his enterprise went belly up, he said: 'Their job was to make money for me. Now that's over' He got his. Too fucking bad about the homeowners facing foreclosure, the investors and the worker bees.

Count on it, this punk businessman will be back soon, in some other industry, with lots of plans and he will cash in AGAIN on the backs of others.

[mmonk]

3. Yes.

The policies coming out of Wahington and banking interests allowed it to happen.

[ThomWV]

8. Isn't it the Governments job to allow just about everything to happen?

Why would the Government not allow banks or anyone else to make any sort of loan agreements they wish? What interest is it of the Government what private financial agreements you or I or anyone else enters into so long as we are not financing enemies of our country?

[Deep13]

23. Did I just stumble into the Free Republic forum?

"The Congress shall have Power ...
***
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"

The idea that the govt. should stay out of economic affairs is an idea that has no historic validitiy. The most Jeffersonian of the Founders would have considered that to be a radical notion. The fact is without regulation, there would be no economy.

[Squatch]

28. Congress HAS regulated the lending industry

which, alas, has not seemed to help get it through the skulls of the idiots who entered into risky loans (that includes both lenders and borrowers)

For example: Truth in Lending Act

Now, should the government intercede on the behalf of only one side of a lending agreement, namely the borrower, with more regulation and potential buyouts? Absolutely and unequivocally NOT.

By doing so, the risk lies entirely on the side of the lender, who would increase the cost of capital across the board to compensate. That would translate into more expensive loans for everybody else, including those who have jealously guarded their credit risk.

[mmonk]

75. Without regulations on lending,

you would have never gotten rid of red lining or have gotten truth in lending disclosures (as an example). No, it's not government's purpose to let lending institutions do whatever they want. Governments are supposed to have some duty to the public at large.

[Deep13]

4. False dichotomy.

There is a third option. Pass legislation that would prevent lenders from foreclosing or imposing usurious penalties.

[Squatch]

9. Lenders should always have the right to foreclose

or to recoup their losses if or when the other party defaults.

A mortgage is a collateralized loan: the bank lends you money, you put your home up as the valued item if you break the contract. The understanding is implicit: the bank is risking it's money, you're risking your home. If the risk is too great on either side, the loan should not be entered into, by either party.

Crap, this isn't rocket science.

[Deep13]

16. I know what a fucking mortgage is.

I also know the rights of the lender are defined and may be redefined by law. I will point out that I was speaking in generalities and did not write "for all time."

[Squatch]

18. Well, I'm happy for you. Now, do you want a cookie?

[Deep13]

25. So we agree then.

Glad to know I could help.

[MNDemNY]

6. Homeowners..no But they WILL bail out the lenders.

[NashVegas]

52. Exactly ... It Will Simply *Look* Like We're Bailing Out Mortgage-Buyers

..

[Virginia Dare]

82. The spin is already on...

they're making it sound like Bush is working on a plan to save homeowners, when actually the lending industry is telling Bush how he is going to save their asses.

[stirlingsliver]

7. Most Are Victims Of Predatory Leanders

Most of the people facing foreclosure are victims of predatory, untruthful lenders eager to make a huge profit on the backs of poor people.

The Government should hae protected those folks, but Bush and his cronies were too busy leading us into an illegal war.

The Government absolutely should bail out homeowners facing foreclosure.

[ThomWV]

19. I've got a feeling that you may be mistaken

I don't think you are correct when you say "Most of the people facing foreclosure are victims of predatory, untruthful lenders". I suspect that most people facing forclosure have it comming because of unexpected costs from other sectors (healt care cost issues) or even divorce than from preditory lending. I could be wrong, but that along with unfufilled expectations for future wages seem to be to be better candidates for so many forclosures.

[Virginia Dare]

40. Many people falsely believed the carnival ride would never end..

there was easy cash to be made in the equity of their homes. It worked out well for some, but a lot of others will feel the crunch, if they aren't already. I read about a pretty well-off family recently, both partners made a very nice living, but they were "flipping" houses to afford even more luxuries, including a nice house on the beach, etc. Now they are feeling things closing in on them, because houses aren't "flipping", and they were juggling about three. These are the type of people who took risks and shouldn't be bailed out.

I'm not wild about the prospect of throwing lower income people out into the streets though.

[NashVegas]

67. Who Failed to Do Their Homework

Had many of those who were taking the messed up ARMS had a little more patience for the paperwork, they could have gotten FHA loans.

[LondonReign2]

69. No, a tiny minority are victims of predatory lenders

The vast majority were simply greedy and wanted far more house than they could afford. Gotta keep up with the Jones' ya know.

The government isn't here to bail out everyone for making greedy and/or stupid decisions.

[Zynx]

10. The reason we should is more practical necessity than moral.

This housing bubble's deflation does not just impact homeowners who paid more than they can afford. Rising foreclosures hurts everyone's home values, even in markets like Cleveland and Detroit that did not participate in the bubble in the first place and the ripple effects hurt the entire economy, reducing the availability of credit and thereby causing jobs to be lost and businesses to fail. To simply let the free market correct a bubble on its own is not a solution. The government should have stopped it in the first place.

[gasperc]

11. change bankruptcy laws

so that judges can decide on a case by case basis if the primary loan should be corrected if in fact the lender used false and/or predatory practices.

[AngryAmish]

31. It was called "cram-down"

bacj before the Biden Bankruptcy Bill was passed, in a bankruptcy the judge had the option of reducing the mortgage rate/payments so a person could make they payments. It was called cram-down (or so I'm told, I'm not an expert).

Anyway, Biden (D-MBNA) eliminated that protection. They lack the power to do so now, so the homeowners just walk away.

[Deep13]

32. I don't see why bankruptcy law can't modify mortgage instruments.

When I practiced bankruptcy law in the 1990s, debts were generally affected, but not security interests like mortgages. There were exceptions to this. second real estate mortages unsecured by any real equity were often avoided as were non-purchase money liens on personal property. I don't see why the law could not allow a bankruptcy court to reduce the value of a mortgage to the actual, present value of the property.

[MADem]

12. How about "OTHER?"

The government should intervene to the point where they persuade the banks to work with the homeowners to make the terms less onerous. If the government actively intervenes, with cash on the barrel, then the tax incentives that people get for mortagage payments should be reduced or eliminated based on the amount of government intervention and benefit they receive. In other words, they don't get that kickback back at the end of the year.

[Breeze54]

13. Helping to prevent foreclosures with refinancing seems like a good idea to me.

GOVERNOR PATRICK UNVEILS FORECLOSURE PREVENTION PLAN
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=pressreleases&agId=Agov3&prModName=gov3pressrelease&prFile=071018_foreclosure_prevention_plan.xml

snip-->

In the past 12 months, more than 25,000 foreclosures were filed in the Commonwealth –
a 76% increase over the same period last year with nearly two-thirds of the state's
351 cities and towns experiencing a 50% increase in foreclosures.

---------

I think it's better to try to help to keep these people in their homes.

[blondeatlast]

15. No bailout is necessary. the loans CAN be reworked (longer terms, somewhat higher

rates for the owners as long as they themselves reside in the homes), etc.

There are a lot of options open to hte BANKS if they choose to use them but unfortunately the banks may lose some profit. Woe unto them. Not.

I didn't vote--bailout is NOT in the agenda. I like my neighbors and don't want them to hurt.

[mainegreen]

17. Define bailout.

:shrug:

[HughMoran]

20. I tried to tell my naive coworkers not to take the adjustable loans

They are not originally from the US and they trusted the people selling them the product. I was practically screaming at them for doing such a risky thing :( I think they were duped and should definitely be helped out if they can't afford their loans. My scumbag company laid them off shortly after they bought their houses. :(

[blondeatlast]

33. Indeed--there's a lot of that that isn't spoken about.

My neighbors in just that situation. They are from overseas and just trusted the banks. We bought our home at almost the same time (big down, FRM) and are still a bit nervous.

They are good people and had no real understanding of what was involved and I guarantee the lenders preyed on that. I like them and I want them to stay put.

Sadly, they got hit with a medical bill and are desperately trying to sell in a rotten market. It might be interesting to see the racial and national backgrounds of these victimized by the predatory lenders...

[HughMoran]

37. It sickens me that so many in the survey are assuming the most cynical

without realizing that many of the people who were duped were uneducated or trusted the system in their new country. The folks I know had just received their green cards and were so happy and excited to buy a house here - they had no idea that the banks could not be trusted to tell them the whole truth. I am quite disgusted at the right-wing attitude of many here at DU who are letting their prejudices cloud their vision!

:(

[Joe Fields]

81. No way should taxpayers be forced to assume the burden of

bailout for lenders or homeowners. Both sides are at fault and should bear their own consequences.

[Cerridwen]

21. The money they pumped into the banks and hedge funds would have been

far better spent by those facing the loss of their homes.

At the very least, the government could provide a cushion for those who have faced this financial nightmare; roll-back the ARMs to their pre-adjusted rates and freeze them, back off the vultures coming in for the kill in the foreclosure market by calling a moratorium on collections to give homeowners time to catch up, and there has to be a way (though I can't think of what, right now) to allow some sort of "amnesty" on credit reports for the previous homeowners who now have foreclosure and/or bankruptcy on the credit reports due to being first in line in this nightmare.

While I understand what you say about only primary residents, if you don't include those with rental units, you're going to see a lot of renters on the streets due to their properties being foreclosed so that needs to be addressed as well. Perhaps the government could require that banks allow renters to continue to rent the property by paying the rent to the banks rather than the homeowners?

I think it's well past time that the financial industry ante up and pay for their roll in this.

Just some random thoughts.

[michreject]

22. emphatically, NO

The borrowers knew, or should have known the conditions of the loan before signing on the dotted line.

This will raise the taxes of all for the benefit of the few.

[HughMoran]

34. The few I know who did the adjustable were new citizens from the Philippines

They trusted the people selling them the product! These are poor people who the company underpaid since they also did not know about prevailing wages in this country. The company then proceded to lay these people off! You have no sympathy for these people who trusted the system here?

[Squatch]

36. Every lender must disclose the full terms of the loan

including the risks borne by the borrower.

[HughMoran]

38. Are you sticking up for the banks who duped my coworkers?

If you are, please tell me - I need to be shocked today!

[Squatch]

39. How about you ask that question in a non-loaded fashion?

Then I'll answer.

[HughMoran]

42. lol, nice dodge there!

You have just invalidated your main objection here as you do not want to acknowledge the harm that these sleazy banks are doing to the ignorant poor and new citizens!

[Squatch]

44. I'm fully willing and able to answer the question, if you pose it in such a fashion

where I am not forced to concede your absolutely ludicrous allegation.

[HughMoran]

47. You lose

You have invalidated your argument because you are reticent to acknowledge that the banks/mortgage companies have been sleazy and deceptive - thus manipulating many people into bankruptcy.

Caveat emptor my ass hole!

[Squatch]

49. OK, hero...

I'll tell you what: your neighbors or whatever the fuck they are are absolute idiots for trusting ANYBODY, let alone a bank, and entering into loans of (presumably) hundreds of thousands of dollars. Maybe, JUST MAYBE, instead of blaming the lending institutions, you should tell your neighbors to open their fucking brains and learn something about how banks operate in this country and only enter into business arrangements where they and their families are NOT put at risk of losing the roofs over their heads.

Now, if the banks really screwed them, maybe YOU could be the hero of the day and educate them on one of our other hallowed establishments: the LAW. Tell them how they can bring their case against the lenders, but from what you're telling me, they're probably too goddamned stupid to do that, too.

[HughMoran]

56. I wish I could help them - my company laid them off!

They were naive Filipino immigrants who the company brought into the country and they eventually earned a green card. These houses were their first and they were so excited to be able to get a house that they did not even consult with their American coworkers before getting into the mortgage. Do they have responsibility in this? Of course! Did the banks/mortgage companies manipulate them into an adjustable rate mortgage that they could not afford when the rates went up - yes! I am NOT happy with these companies! I have seen first hand how they can manipulate an appraisal to be anything they want (my own load FYI). Many of these mortgage companies here in the NE lost their licenses due to their sleazy and lying practices. If losing their license after being caught lying and sleazing customers isn't an indication of guilt, I don't know what is! Still think "caveat emptor"?

[Virginia Dare]

61. Any time you take out a mortgage you risk losing the roof over your head..

what happened was the lending industry got greedy, and a lot of innocent people got caught up in this. I don't think they were all necessarily stupid. Perhaps naive is a better word. They were suckered. If the Federal Government and Congress had been doing their jobs, we could have put a stop to this a long time ago, before it reached this point.

I'm not thrilled about bailing anybody out, but I don't like the prospect of throwing people out on the streets either.

[Squatch]

65. If you are able to meet the operative terms of the contract

then the risk of losing the roof over your head is minimal, almost non-existent.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but people need to be exceedingly careful when entering into longterm borrowing arrangements. True, there is a lot of legal mumbo-jumbo in the documents, but that should not stop a person from reading the fine print.

I just bought a new vehicle, about 50% was financed through the dealership. The dealership was closing, and I could tell that the salesperson was getting agitated, but I sat there and read every freaking word of every page of every document that he put in front of me. When there was something I was unclear on, I made sure I got an answer. I even made him write his explanation of the questions I asked and then sign them.

I look at my son and my wife and there is no way in hell I would ever jeopardize their health and comfort by entering into borrowing situations where I did not assess and account for the risks involved.

[Virginia Dare]

68. I guess that's where the downfall occurred..

lenders were pushing the envelope as to who was able to meet the operative terms of the contract, and many people falsely believed them when they told them that the real estate boom would never go bust. I heard lots of so-called "experts" on T.V. saying this on a regular basis. People were duped and in some cases acted irresponsbily, but it's inexcusable that this was allowed to go on without any government oversight for so long. We're all collectively responsible to some degree. We shouldn't have turned a blind eye to it.

[HughMoran]

76. "but it's inexcusable that this was allowed to go on without any government oversight for so long"

Hallelujah!! This is the point that needs to be made. And if oversight was poor, why not help out a few people who were caught up in the "real estate boom"?

[Virginia Dare]

46. We know there were lots of shady practices going on though...

people who couldn't afford the eventual terms of the loan were still being lent the money. They weren't being asked to provide proof of income, or some were told to out and out lie. Also, there were unscrupulous appraisers who were jacking up the values of homes.

[HughMoran]

50. I can name a mortgage company that HIRES crooked appraisers

How do I know? I refinanced several times with them at no cost but with a higher interest rate. They appraised my home for twice what the current market value was. In fact, every time I refinanced, they got an appraisal just high enough to get the loan through, but in none of those cases was the homes value even close to the appraised value. I was happy they were bending the rules because I am less of a risk with a lower payment! BUT! These same people would do or say anything to get someone a loan who wanted one - they could give a crap whether the person could afford it.

[Squatch]

53. So, instead of railing against that company on anonymous internet fora

why don't you actually do something about it?

[HughMoran]

58. Why don't you?

lol - you have a problem admitting how wrong you were here! Push the blame back to me for introducing an alternative argument here.

Nice, real nice!

[Squatch]

59. LOL

:rofl:

[havocmom]

63. In real life, the closer does more to build a comfy feeling than disclosing details

With a comfy feeling between closer and client, client TRUSTS and the closer can gloss over details, just recommending signature here, initials there... blah blah blah, 'just some legal stuff...' Sadly, Most people do not read every line, and even if they did, damned few would understand any of it.

We don't teach econ in most schools anymore. Haven't for years. That is part of the problem. People don't understand. When faced with a mountain of paperwork with a loan, they shrug and sign.

Productive (by industry corporate standards, not mine) closers are more concerned about being perceived as friendly than they are about full disclosure. They can get lots of people to sign on the line if they base their method on being pals rather than being really helpful about understanding contracts fully. Since most home buyers can't really afford lawyers to comb over every paper they sign, they want to trust the closer.

[dansolo]

77. They don't do that for ARMs

I got a truth-in-lending statement for an ARM in 2003 (I've since refinanced) and after the 5-year fixed rate period, the remaining monthly amount was calculated based on the minimum possible rate of the loan. I'm not surprised that people would be duped by this.

[michreject]

86. Separate issue

These are poor people who the company underpaid since they also did not know about prevailing wages in this country

This would appear to be their problem. Not a ARM mortgage.

[LSK]

73. EMPHATICALLY YES

Thousands of people loosing their homes will affect the economy and come back and bite all of us in the ass. There should be heavy fines on the predatory lenders to offset some of the costs of this.

The bigger picture is these are peoples homes and as a LIBERAL I am not a selfish asshole who is only worried about my tax bill raising $50 per year.

[michreject]

85. This is not a sacrifice of the few

for the benefit of all. What you're asking is a sacrifice of the many for the benefit of the few.

No thanks.

[pegleg]

24. These situations always wind up with the very rich getting very much richer.

It was a calculated designed collapse.

[Virginia Dare]

57. Direct hit on middle and lower income class....

money is never "lost", it's just redistributed. The system is rigged.

[noamnety]

27. other

not enough info.

depends on the circumstances. There's a difference between someone who's in over their head because they could afford an $80,000 house and bought a $300,000 house, and a person who was laid off or had a health care crisis.

In the first case, they probably should just downsize. In the second, I wouldn't want someone put out on the street for a temporary crisis that wasn't their fault.

I can't give a b&w answer on that.

[napi21]

29. NOBODY is recommending a BAILOUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why does everyone keeo calling the recommendations a bailout?

I've hears 2 suggestions so far:

Lenders should freeze interest rates before the reset in 2008

Lenders should re-negotiate existing loans to eliminate the teaser rates.


Adjustments would only be available for mortgages on a primary residence.


WHAT PART OF ANY OF THAT INDICATES BAILOUT?

[The2ndWheel]

30. Everyone can't have everything

It's a very complex and interrelated problem that is now on a global level. A bail out might keep physical reality a few feet away from us for a while, but it will catch up again.

[porphyrian]

35. I'm amazed how much outrage is generated over bailing out homeowners...

...when the government spends billions bailing out corporations on a regular basis without so much as a flinch from the now-outraged.

[Virginia Dare]

43. Excellent point.....n/t

[porphyrian]

78. Thanks. I don't understand how people are missing it. -n/t

[LSK]

74. no shit, I feel like I am on a conservative website right now, not a liberal one

[porphyrian]

79. Everyone's grabbing torches and pitchforks to storm the wrong castle.

Unfortunately, the mob can be satisfied with anyone's blood, not just that of those responsible.

[Catchawave]

41. No, because the wrong people will be helped, like "flippers" ....

but I think the banks/lenders should be required to work with those homeowners they approved in the first place if they have been making payments on time.

Such as refinancing ? Especially those moronic balloon loans, based on "future" income potential for the borrower. Bush World has destroyed most futures.

[slackmaster]

48. Only people who were demonstrably defrauded deserve to be bailed out

And the perpertrators of fraud must be prosecuted.

[Squatch]

54. Bailed out by the LENDER, only after having proven deceit in a court of law.

And by "bailed out by the lender" I mean that the lender pay fair market value for the home, and the borrowers move on to new digs with a new lending company of their choosing.

I do not mean that the lender buyout the borrower, who is then given the full deed, without lien, to the property.

[tammywammy]

84. Agreed slackmaster

[Tektonik]

51. I can't vote in this poll

There are choices other than these two ends of the spectrum.

[CountAllVotes]

60. you are absolutely right

there is far more to this question that a YES or a NO. I have zero sympathy for the flippers. I have sympathy for those that were lied to and got themselves into a deal that they did not understand. It is awfully hard to read that fine print and most people that do try to read it don't exactly get it because the fine print is a lot of legal jargon.

As for those that did this knowingly, well tough is what I say. Anyone with a small income should have never grabbed a $300,000.00 loan! That is very stupid IMO.

As for bailing people out. Fine, bail them out with a fixed rate 8% loan which is all I qualified for when I tried to buy a house. It was not enough money to buy a house with (what I qualified for) in the year 2000. A few years later they would have lended me the whole load had I dared to take it which I did not do.

[Beerboy]

62. Yeah, I can't get a loan, so it feels nice

that I can contribute a part of everyone else's note!:woohoo: :beer:

[jwirr]

64. This bail out idea seems to me to be a way to bail out the lenders

and blame the expenditure on the homeowners who are foreclosing because of faulty policies. I do not want to bail out the lenders who have put our economy in such a mess.

[jwirr]

66. I am curious about which housing loans we are talking about being

foreclosed? Do these loans include loans from organizations that serve the poor such as HUD and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency which is a quasi government agency that handles all of the government housing programs in my state.

[flashl]

70. Lending countryslide $51.1 billion from a government sponsored program is a bailout. n/t

At the end of September, Countryslide borrowed from the Federal Home Loan Bank system -- a government-sponsored program.

[CountAllVotes]

72. damn WELFARE KINGS

N/T! :mad: :grr:

[Ganja Ninja]

80. Why should non-home owning tax payers bail out homeowners?

Homeowners already get tax breaks now those of us who rent should subsidize them!??? Let the price of housing fall and then maybe all of us can afford to own a home.

[Stinky The Clown]

89. Why should healthy people pay rates to subsidise the elderly?

Its what a true ***society*** does. I kinda see it as part of what being a DEMOCRAT ***used*** to mean. One can think "we" or "me". It seems "me" is much more a Republican value, is it not?

[JVS]

90. Your analogy is off. Having people who can't afford homes pay for a bailout...

is more akin to having old and sick people pay more money because the well off got botched cosmetic surgery and now need help. It was their very speculation on housing that has made it out of reach for so many Americans.

[WolverineDG]

83. If the government can bail out industries & cities (NYC)

then it's about damn time us private citizens got the same thing.

dg

[Stinky The Clown]

87. Yes! Gov't help. JUST LIKE CORPORATIONS GET!!!!!!!!!!!!

What happened to the fucking PEOPLE!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

We bail out CEOs every day of the fucking week.

[Danger Mouse]

88. Yes, because it is predatory lending practices that has caused this mess...

and that is due to government de-regulation and inviting businesses to carve up more and more of the 'American dream' and distribute it amongst themselves.
In short, the government created the mess, let them clean it up.