Explain something to me

[DickMcMahon 0]

I don't know much about economic issues, so please explain this
to me. Why couldn't the bail-out money for this latest crisis
be given to home owners who have lost (or about to lose) their
homes for the sole purpose of paying off their mortages?

That way the companies who made those bad loans get their
money, and people get to keep their homes.

I'd sure feel better knowing my tax dollars are helping my fellow
citizens instead of some company who made reckless business
decisions.

Cooments?
______________________________________
Website: Dick’s Stuff
Is it still considered a naked skydive if you’re wearing a helmet?

[billvon 3,058]

>Why couldn't the bail-out money for this latest crisis
>be given to home owners who have lost (or about to lose) their
>homes for the sole purpose of paying off their mortages?

Primarily because what the administration is worried about is the loss of valuation for those instruments in the economy at large rather than people losing their homes. A "free market" explanation of that would be that you have to support a strong market, so that people can make lots of money in it (and in the companies that comprise it) and therefore afford houses. A more cynical explanation is that the entities who want the bailout have a lot more political clout than homeowners.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Let's sell the CEOs as slaves.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[stitch 0]

Quote

>Why couldn't the bail-out money for this latest crisis
>be given to home owners who have lost (or about to lose) their
>homes for the sole purpose of paying off their mortages?

Primarily because what the administration is worried about is the loss of valuation for those instruments in the economy at large rather than people losing their homes. A "free market" explanation of that would be that you have to support a strong market, so that people can make lots of money in it (and in the companies that comprise it) and therefore afford houses. A more cynical explanation is that the entities who want the bailout have a lot more political clout than homeowners.

Not to mention, the rest of us will expect a free house then too. If you can't afford you shouldn't buy it.

"No cookies for you"- GFD
"I don't think I like the sound of that" ~ MB65
Don't be a "Racer Hater"

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Let's sell the CEOs as slaves, under-feed them; and when they die of malnutrition, process their corpses into Soylent Green.

Fixed. Well, enhanced.

[lawrocket 3]

I would reckon that pragmatism has much to do with it. I.e., "who gets money and how much?"

Let's say, "we'll give every homeowner 2 months of mortgage payments to take mortgages out of default.". Problem - someone with. $40k per month mortgage gets $80k and someone with a $1k per month mortgage gets $2k. NO FUCKING WAY THAT WOULD HAPPEN.

Second point - from my info, the primary mortgage market is still doing all right. It is the secondary mortgage market that's having the hardest time. Will all homeowners get relief? If so, it won't really help those banks who are in big trouble.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[alw 0]

An even more cynical point is that this is exactly what the Democrats want.

1. They raise taxes and blame it on the Republicans
2. They make some money from the transaction and keep it (you don't really think we'll ever know what the accounting of this is do you?)
3. They win seats in congress (see number 1)
4. They win the white house (see number 1 again)
5. They get to call they shots with lots of other peoples money.

The Republicans don't like it because:

1. See 1-5 above.

Schumer was about as transparent as air today when he asked if they could get by with less and then maybe in January come back for more. After the elections wink wink.

Get it straight, the Republicans threw poor Slick Willy in the briar patch in 1999 and forced him to do exactly what he wanted to do. The Democrats failed to heed the warning in 2005 in committee and killed a regulation bill that may have closed the gap and the Republicans let them get away with it. An neither Clinton or Bush blew the whistle loud enough to get anyone's attention.

Time to pay the piper. Where do I send my check?

---------------------------------------------
Every day is a bonus - every night is an adventure.

[Amazon 7]

You seem to forget that there was a rePUBICan majority in congress for most of your timeline.. 1994 to 2006 12 years of rape and pillage of the American people.. and yes it is time for the people to pay for the fucknuggets who placed their trust in the rePUBICan Revolution.

Trouble is. ALL of us are going to pay... not just the idiots who put their "faith" in them.

Those who benefited the most.have already taken the money and run...and will pay nothing.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

An even more cynical point is that this is exactly what the Democrats want.

1. They raise taxes and blame it on the Republicans
2. They make some money from the transaction and keep it (you don't really think we'll ever know what the accounting of this is do you?)
3. They win seats in congress (see number 1)
4. They win the white house (see number 1 again)
5. They get to call they shots with lots of other peoples money.

The Republicans don't like it because:

1. See 1-5 above.

Schumer was about as transparent as air today when he asked if they could get by with less and then maybe in January come back for more. After the elections wink wink.

Get it straight, the Republicans threw poor Slick Willy in the briar patch in 1999 and forced him to do exactly what he wanted to do. The Democrats failed to heed the warning in 2005 in committee and killed a regulation bill that may have closed the gap and the Republicans let them get away with it. An neither Clinton or Bush blew the whistle loud enough to get anyone's attention.

Time to pay the piper. Where do I send my check?

Good post!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln