Surprisingly good article on money.cnn.com on the bialout debacle

[lonestar2000]

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/13/real_estate/subprimebailout_cost.moneymag/index.htm?postversion=2007041314

“Quick, get a home loan while you still can and stop making payments so it gets paid off by the government!”

Anyone still questioning where this is all headed?

Anyone still thinking that now is a good time to buy?

Hold on to your hats folks, the giant sucking sound coming from the drop in your equity is about to become a whirlwind.

[PerryChase]

$120 billion to bailout homeowners? That’s nothing compared to what we’re spending in Iraq. That’s no big deal. We can afford it.

[kewp]

At this rate I fully expect China to own all of the United States within ten years.

[kicksavedave]

Should there be a bailout?
91% No
9% Yes

Pretty much sums it up… any politician who supports diverting taxpayer money to save moron lenders, or deadbeat buyers, does so at their own risk.

[SD Transplant]

good point……..I just voted & noted the majority of NOs (we won’t support the bail out as tax payers).

The potential problem I see is some BIAS (CNN Money readers are mostly afluent and AWARE folk……and the majority might not read FINANCIAL NEWS or BLOGS)…..

However, I’d like to believe/think the vote confidence > 90% is hard to throw away as a trend.

[Diego Mamani]

Transplant is right. CNN Money readers are far more affluent and financially sophisticated than the average person. Not only that, but only a fraction of the CNN readers, those who feel strongly about this issue (like us) bother to vote on this online poll.

For all we know, most of the 9% “yes” votes may be fellow Piggingtonians who clicked on the wrong button by mistake!

[one_muggle]

PerryChase
Leaving the foreign policy debate over your comments to others in another venue, your comment
$120 billion to bailout homeowners? That’s nothing compared to what we’re spending in Iraq. That’s no big deal. We can afford it.
implicitly assumes that any tax dollar that is spent is the same, regardless of where it goes. It most certainly is not.
Most of the cash spent ON Iraq is spent IN America. It is forced out of my pocket and goes to soldiers, defense contractors, civil servants, contractors, etc, all of whom (love them or hate them) are doing a job that the USG has decided is important. Such is the price of being an honest tax-paying citizen. However, paying for bad behavior simply encourages more of the same.
Personal and corporate tax laws are rife with handouts intentionally engineered to elicit certain behaviors (e.g., buying energy efficient appliances), which is why I am continually befuddled by fiscal liberals who think we should pay people for behaving poorly. It is not simply the dollars out of otherwise innocent taxpayer pockets that is wrong—rewarding bad behavior is doubly wrong.

(Just my 38%)

-one muggle

[little lady]

I say use the money to help bail out SOCIAL SECURITY!!!!

[masayako]

I will only vote YES to bail out the subprime lenders only if the government follow by departing them out of United States of America for life.

That’s just my humble opinion.

Masayako

[lonestar2000]

Let’s hope the government does not cave in on this. Sure, there are some families that are going to be left without homes, but that is what we have bankruptcy laws for. It would be too easy to take advantage of the situation if Uncle Sam wrote a blank check to clear these debts. Not to mention the fact that, people such as myself who cannot afford a house would end up paying (via taxes) for these mortage defaults. Sounds very ironic to me.

Latest tally on the vote:

1. Should subprime borrowers be bailed out?
Yes 7%
No 93%

total responses to this question: 6371

[TheBreeze]

What’s so ridiculous about these bailout proposals is that most of these subprime borrowers can afford to live somewhere, they just can’t afford to live in the huge house or within the ritzy neighborhood they bought into. Subsidizing subprime borrowers who bought $600K homes would be outrageous. These people can afford a smaller house or to rent a place on their own. They don’t need subsidies.

Plus, I fear that most of any bailout would go to those who committed fraud on the way up and used subprime to buy multiple homes. People like Casey Serrin who committed fraud on the way up to buy multiple houses will also commit fraud on the government to get bailed out of their multiple mortgages.

Plus, I believe that most of these subprime borrowers were just speculators. I read somewhere that the home ownership rate only increased from 68% to 70% from 2003 to 2007. That means that most of this bubble was caused by speculators who used subprime to buy multiple houses. Don’t believe for a second that most of these subprime borrowers are poor families who will get thrown onto the street. Nope, most of them are speculators like Casey Serrin who choose not to work because they fashion themselves as the next Donald Trump.

I wish the media would tell that side of the story and stop focussing on that relatively small percentage of borrowers who have somewhat sob stories. (And even those folks can usually afford to live in an apartment).

[Author]

Posts