Will THROWING $ at mortgages that are in FORECLOSURE simply provide yet another OPPORTUNITY for..........?

...irresponsible consumers to continue to mismanage their $ and dig themselves into more financial trouble? How about those industries that need a rescue plan? Shouldn't they be allowed to FAIL and pay the consequences for their shoddy products and lousy management?Will THROWING $ at mortgages that are in FORECLOSURE simply provide yet another OPPORTUNITY for..........?
i highly agree with your statements ,why should financially irresponsible people get away with not paying their bills and why should i pay someone else's we work hard enough to pay our own .Along with bailing out the big 3 auto companies the banks and everyone else no one is their for me if my business should fail.its time to let them collapse i believe new better stronger companies will emerge given the opportunity (without the monopoly ford,gm %26amp;chrysler has held for far too long)Will THROWING $ at mortgages that are in FORECLOSURE simply provide yet another OPPORTUNITY for..........?
And perhaps you should ask why that same theory wasn't applied to the BAILOUT BILL OF THE BANKING and INSURANCE INDUSTRY...I often think that AIG should have been allowed to fail, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, and perhaps ALL THOSE holding 401Ks and IRAs and Stocks because the general idea is the RISK IS ENTIRELY ON THE INVESTOR! CORRECT! No need to shore up the stock market and people's retirement accounts especially when folks have been making poor decisions to expose their investments with too much risk...So, if Personal Responsibility is important to you...then let it apply to the RICH as well.
It's a very complicated matter. First of all many home buyers were approved for loans they can never pay. Fannie Mae %26amp; Freddie Mac, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and lowered loan standards, a debt to loan ratio that wan't followed by lenders and banks because of threats by the feds..... It will work itself out in time. The bail-out is to try and stop the downward spiral in home prices and to slow down the foreclosure rate. Also I think it's designed to keep lenders fluid, active and solvent.
The government + Acorn, Forced these Sub-Prime mortgages on Lenders:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EyKiOE78鈥?/a>


Acorn using Blackmail on Lenders:


http://www.consumersrightsleague.org/Upl鈥?/a>


They are STILL ISSUING Sub-Prime Mortgages TODAY!!!!





Irresponsible Consumers will always be with us - But the Governments Encouragement of this is Totally Wrong! The numbers have gotten totally out of hand - You would not believe the Trillions Lost in equity values.


The US loans were spread Worldwide by Fanny %26amp; Freddie which is part of the Worldwide Collapse!


';Bail Outs'; will only be temporary - All those companies will STILL GO BROKE ANYWAY - but we will get stuck with the bill.





In the End = A depression will Force people to ';live fiscally responsible';.


So in a way - Depression will be good to get back to conservative values.
Wouldn't you think that it would be better for the banks, municipalities and the people who own the house right now for the house to stay occupied? Therefore, the people will still be paying their mortgages to the banks, still paying taxes to their municipalities and the house will not sit empty keeping the neighborhood attractive and kept up for other home owners and property values and new buyers. As far as the big three goes, you really don't want to hear me go on and on as to why I am for helping them. lol
The government should stay out of it. No one can guarantee someone that their choice to purchase a home will be profitable or not. It's a gamble. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. Mostly it varies up and down. I don't think that it is the role of the federal government to bail out someone from a contract that didn't turn out profitable. There are no guarantees. We need to be responsible for ourselves. No one forced anyone to sign on the dotted line.





And yes, my home's value has dropped 30% in two years. That doesn't mean that I am going to abandon my beliefs in self-responsibility and go running to mommy government to make it all better. I took out the loan, I signed on the dotted line and I'm responsible to pay for the loan regardless of what value my home has now. If the value of my home had gone up 30% should the bank have had the right to come in and change our contract to get more money from me? No, and neither should the government require them to change it now.
Don't you realize that the consumers aren't going to see a single penny of bailout money? That cash goes to the banks who, in theory, would re-negotiate the mortgages. People are still required to pay.





The bailout isn't about saving people. It's about saving banks.
I agree, I just think it could be dangerous, it could resemble the crash in the late twenties.
no, because their payments would be lowered. it's not as if they're getting new low interest loans to go out an buy more houses.






Probably
Quite possibly.