June 25, 2008
-
Housing Bailout
The U.S. government is close to passing a $300 billion bailout for homeowners.
The government will be creating a fund that helps those who financed homes with variable interest rates that have moved up or just have otherwise costly loans. It would help up to 400,000 “troubled” homeowners.
They could refinance costly mortgages and make them more affordable and backed by the government. Here is the link: Link
Do you think your tax dollars should go to helping those who are struggling to make house payments?
Comments (93)
FIRST
um… not really
absolutely not. Those kind of programs are part of the reason we have this “crisis” in the first place.
No I don’t. If people would buy within their means instead of thinking they HAVE to have the newest and best stuff out there, they wouldn’t be in the shape they’re in.
If they have honestly been duped and are struggling to live in a very modest home, maybe. If they are complaining because they can’t afford their 7 bedroom, 6 bathroom mansions, absoultely not. Why do you think they are in crisis in the first place? I have a hard enough time with my own mortgage, and we bought a really cheap (small) house.
I don’t know..that is difficult.
um. i think almost 86% of ppl who own houses are struggling to make house payments.
@CrazyXBeautifulXDisaster - grrrr
Nope. The government didn’t get them into this mess and the government won’t get them out. It’s just like one of the disasterous programs that would down the pipe if Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was elected president.
I’ve read about our tax dollars going to MUCH LESS worthy causes. I’d rather it HELP people than fund some absurd, pointless, needless program.
Our government sucks.
Yeah. It’s better then it going to road work that doesn’t get done. Or to a school that wastes it all on fancy yearbooks while the football field is torn to shreds and the drums for the band are falling apart.
Not if they were silly enough to get variable interest loans.
no
Yes. Something has to save all of these people.
They wanted a slice of the American dream, you can’t blame them for obtaining it foolishly. The bailout will really save a lot of people from homelessness.
No way!
Call me ignorant but I meet so many people who can’t pay their bills, yet they go to starbucks, buy the most recent movies on DVD and eat out at least 4 days a week.
And this is even after their parents help them by paying the house payments. So, all these people have to do is electricity and water. And they can’t even make that.
What? Homeowners don’t pay taxes too? Property taxes, school taxes, etc. Why shouldn’t the gov’t help them out? They bailed out JP Morgan/Bear Sterns a few months ago and that is a commercial brokerage firm.
Sure why not? And lets also give them bandages when they get boo-boos and ice cream when someone yells at them.
Que tonterias.
No!! I hope Bush vetoes it right away.
I thought people turned to God for those things?
Or is the government God? Or is it the devil? Oh hell with it.
No. Part of the American dream is taking responsibility for your own actions. The possibility of your variable interest rate ‘varieting’ should be part of your plan.
I always thought people should face the consequences of their decisions. I suppose today it’s not enough to provide the “poor” with welfare for basic necessities; you have to finance their homeownership as well. Responsible, middleclass America is f’ed.
@lotta_valdez - That’s what I was thinking.
hell no ! let them sell their boats, cottages and motorcycles first .
No.
Does anyone think that the Government should pay off people’s gambing debts?
SAME CONCEPT
Nope. I’ve known people who are foreclosing because they (gasp!) can’t afford their MILLION dollar homes anymore. The American dream is to own a home, not a million dollar one you won’t be able to always afford. Many of the foreclosures are people who bought well above their means. Sounds like a personal problem to me.
I’ll say one other thing on this. If it was someone who had lost their job and they had a reasonable house they were living in, then I would say, Yes, give them some help, but any house in the upper $100,000′s and over, it prolly means they bought WAY over what they could afford. There are many things to consider too. Even if it was a say $200,000 house,if they had lived there for 20 years and paid their housenote on time but just had an illness or as I said lost a job, A little help would be nice. The problem is that leaches that want freebees and don’t want to work for anything are the ones who would benifit. Thats why it’s a bad idea. Until they can figure a way to help people that TRULLY need help and it’s something that was beyond their control, things like this will never work. Too many cheats out there that will take advantage of ANYONE and they don’t care if WHO they hurt as long as they get what they want.
No!! It’s like saying “You screwed up because your a dumbass…but it’s okay don’t worry about it.”
@UnworthyofHisgrace - I know atleast here you won’t find a house cheaper than mid 100,000….and those are the really crummy houses. I think the house I live in with my parents is somewhere around $280,000 with the value of houses going down and all…
Nope.
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
No. Many of these people made very unwise decisions. When we bought our home during the boom, we qualified for a loan that was $400,000 more than the house we purchased and can afford. We’ve seen half our street people go into foreclosure. I’d say 90% of them shouldn’t have bought the house in the first place. The rest may deserve government assistance.
I agree with part of what some of the other comments saying things like, “get rid of the extra cars, and boats, etc. and stop eating out 4 times a week, Starbucks.” To a point, if your going to get help from the public fund you should have done everything within your own power to economize, pay off debts, and downsize your unnecessary expenditures first. If you help them before they do that, that won’t ever learn what got them in trouble in the first place. I don’t think its the governments business to help, but if they are going to, they may as well do it right.
no.
no..i don’t think the government should help..most of those people got themselves into that situation because they bought well out of their means..they brought this on themselves..why should we have to help their dumb butts out??
@I_Am_Twilight - In the Memphis area, $100-150,000 will buy a decent house and for the most part in a decent neighborhood.My house is about 1900 sqft and worth about $125,000. I’ve lived here for almost 22 years and raised 4 kids and the house was fine, sure a bigger house would’ve been nice, but then I’m not a material person.Here a $280,000 house is usually about a 3000 sq ft house. I know in say New York or other liberal areas, the houses is way higher…I wonder why!
No. I have mixed feelings about this whole housing crisis situation. Yes, some people were persuaded heavily to get these bad mortgages by the mortgage companies because it sounded like the companies were running good deals and that people could buy bigger, better houses with these adjustable rates. However, as the name adjustable rate mortgages suggest, it’s obvious that the mortgage rate could go up. I don’t think a lot of people realized how much the mortgage rates would fluxuate. Is that the companies fault? No, the company probably knew they would go up but it is up to the individual to be an informed consumer and look out for themselves. If a deal seems too good to be true, it probably is. Bad news.
If my tax dollars are preventing tragedy and homelessness, then sure. Aren’t our tax dollars supposed to be taking care of people?
No.
since my own mother is struggling to pay her $700/ month mortage on an older home b/c the plant she worked for shut down…yes, if the people really need it
Yes. God knows the economy needs any kind of boost it can get, and helping to pay house payments for those who are less fortunate is definitely going to help.
Being on the end where it is difficult to make house payments, I’d like to say yes. But I don’t think it’s the taxpayer responsibility. We’re victims of unfortunate circumstances, it isn’t like we’re poor because we’re making payments on our BMW and can’t afford anything else. Cutbacks have to be made, in my case it’s mostly on trips that use gas and groceries, but I don’t think most Americans want to cut back. They want to be given everything. It’s a little difficult to give up “luxury” foods or trips to the clothing outlets, but what can you do? You’ve got other responsibilities.
No way!!! What about those of us who aren’t homeowners because we can’t afford a house? Do we get help? Is the government going to pay for our realator and closing costs, too??
No, the government should not participate in the housing crisis. The people made the decisions to take those loans where they should have known that the interest rates would go up by any margin the lender felt like. Also, in the case of people who had fixed rate mortgages and can’t afford them I don’t have any sympathy for them either because they are not living reasonably, they chose to take a risk that costs would go up and that their income might drop and they need to deal with the consequences. I’m sorry but there is such a thing as survival of the fittest and the government needs to quit stepping in to help the unfit, thereby weakening our society.
Not everyone bought beyond their means or has boats and cottages and all that other stuff. Some of us are just struggling with the very bad economy, loss of jobs, illness, disability, and it’s impossible to keep up. I did everything “right.” I went back to school so that I could teach, had a hard time finding a teaching job, and found out that teaching jobs pay crap, and I can’t afford to feed my children, keep the power on, pay for my house, drive to work, as a single parent raising three kids alone. Some of us are truly in trouble and do not have all the extras.
If they’re going to give off payments to home owners, they better do it to all home owners, because they’re punishing me for being responsible.
no. They shouldn’t have jumped in the pool if they don’t know how to swim.
@maje_charis - this is the most humane response i’ve read on this issue. bravo ~ jack
in a normal economy absolutely not… however this is a crisis combined with a weak dollar and skyrocketing oil prices have created a unique situation which will not right itself anytime quickly. the single most important driving force in our economy is the consumer…if that consumer stops spending (which we’re beginning to do) then we will find ourselves in a full on depression not seen since the days of president hoover. 300 billion is a small price for the american taxpayer to contribute when you take into account the absolute devastation which possibly awaits us. this proposal won’t solve the problem…however it will help ease it somewhat. i’m a banker, actually i’m a commercial banker. i loan millions to developments, investor properties, etc… if we don’t build our way out of this we’re screwed. and underwriting criteria has already become extreme. i’m seeing the effects of these problems first hand, the number of declines has multiplied exponentially. i fear it won’t get better for some time ~ jack
Heck NO! Quit buying stuff you can’t afford and expecting someone else to help you out! You don’t NEED cable, cell phones, cigarettes or beer OR a HOUSE YOU CAN’T PAY FOR!! The Government is already involved in way too much of our lives.
It’s not a simple yes or no question, my dear. Depends on who it’s helping, why they’re in trouble, and what other options there are. I do think there is value in ensuring that more people stay in their homes; but I don’t think tax dollars are well spent on keeping people in homes they couldn’t (or shouldn’t have) afford in the first place.
No way.
And has anyone done the math here? That averages $750,000 per homeowner! What the hell???
Oh, right, I forgot that it’s the government’s job to save people from their own stupid mistakes.
i just want to know what defines “troubled” homeowners. if it is the folks that bought way beyond their means, then i have little pity. ive watched monstrous sized houses go up all over the countryside where i live, and are now being slowly abandoned as people cant afford to live there anymore. it will make me sick to see this money going to help a couple living in a giant house big enough to run a bed-and-breakfast. however, im all for money going to help out families that are truly struggling to pay the bills… i sympathize with the single-mom teacher earlier!!! that is someone who deserves some help, cause dang it, thats rough.
yeah, we need to help the people in our country too
Sure, if you can tell where on earth that is in the Constitution.
Oh wait, it’s not.
If I want to help someone on my own, fine, but I absolutely DO NOT want the government telling me whom to bail out.
Ehh… I don’t really know. I agree with Evowookiee in saying that’s like helping people with gambling debts. But then again, when people need help, it’s good to help them.
@la_faerie_joyeuse - You’re right! 3/4 of a million dollars for each person!! That’s insane!! Why don’t these people just buy a $150,000 house for crying out loud?
And “up to” 400,000 people; they could be getting even more money than that.
Also, 300 billion dollars will be several thousand dollars taken from every tax-paying citizen.
@BebstersBlog2 - We have a population slightly over 300 million in the US, and of those, perhaps half pay taxes. So an average of maybe $2,000 from each taxpayer. However, the top 5% of taxpayers pay something like 50% of the taxes, so it’s really just a redistribution of wealth thing. Which, of course, is such a great use of tax money, you know?
Rephrased, the question becomes: Should we supplement wreckless choices & poor decision making?
I do think that homeowners should be helped out. But only as long as they are not living over and beyond their means.
Ugh, no. They made that stupid decision themselves and need to face the consequences without the government holding their hands.
no, if people buy expensive houses, or houses at all they should figure out what their mortgage will be and if they can afford it. We shouldn’t be bailing out people that are irresponsible..
@CrazyXBeautifulXDisaster - “FIRST”
Wow! You were first? I so fucking did not realize that. CONGRATULATIONS! A real accomplishment.
Thank you so much for pathetically glorifying yourself in the fact. It takes a special sort of luck to be first, and an even more astounding superficiality to take special effort to highlight the fact.
I hope that the next time a pigeon uses the restroom, it would be in your hair.
No.
@My_Impovrished_Life - the problem then becomes figuring out what exactly constitutes living beyond their mean. I do not think it is the government’s place to determine that.
@huginn - You are an idiot.
If you new or have EVER been on Dan’s site before, you would know that the “FIRST” thing is something his every day readers do, it is a joke.
Calm down there buddy.
@CrazyXBeautifulXDisaster - If you new or have EVER been on Dan’s site before, you would know that the “FIRST” thing is something his every day readers do, it is a joke.
Just because the practice is common doesn’t mean it’s stupid. Other posters have criticized the practice. What made your instance worse was that you contributed no meaningful post after your wimpering “FIRST!”
I have been on Dan’s site. I’ve been first myself close to a dozen times, but I’ve never felt the urge to point it out with an inane quip.
yeah. could they help us who are strugling to pay rent as well?
@huginn - you’re bored arent you?
@CrazyXBeautifulXDisaster - No, I don’t think so.
I try not to think about what my tax dollars are going towards–otherwise, I might just completely lose my mind.
When are people going to understand that people don’t have options, even though they don’t buy unnecessary items. Not all of these supposed people who’re about to lose their homes are gambling addicts, alcoholics, or shopaholics, these are the people that are struggling to get by. People don’t get as many hours to work because of this slump. We don’t want more people on the streets. Hopefully, this will keep people going in their lives, and keep money circulating in the economy.
@huginn - ROFL, bud, you’ll pick a fight with anybody won’t you! Yer a hoot! Shame yer Bruins can’t play basketball!
And I sure hope the Grizzles don’t pick Love, that’ll be embarrassing to see him dunked on when he’s playing for MY home team, but then I don’t care much for Pro B’ball, only College
@UnworthyofHisgrace - Love shaved down 15 lb. for the draft. This athleticism entering his rookie season should be much better than his UCLA season. I’m just hoping he at least turns out to be a solid role player. -_- Oh, and thank you guys for Pau Gasol. =)
I think the whole “First!” dealio is worse than a bad argument, and maybe even worse than the ad hom.’s that Draokonskyr use to dish out. Not only does it contribute nothing, but it’s redudndant. We can actually see when someone is first without them having to point it out.
HELL NO.
I am not saying the people should help but the government needs to have it in the budget to help those who did not have a choice with their home situations.
Well, we either help them, or we get 400,000 more people on the streets, and then we can spend the same money through homeless shelters and the police force to keep them out of our tourist areas. What’s the difference?
It’s not like the reformed bankruptcy laws are going to help these people. And it’s not like we haven’t created a society where nobody’s gonna teach ya if you aren’t smart enough to figure out how to manage money on your own, and all of the advertisers and banks and credit cards sure would love to take advantage of ya. Try some of the anorexia blogs. While I think it’s crazy to let pop culture influence your decisions, it obviously really does send a lot of people over the edge.
Ahem. These expensive areas are expensive because there are a lot of people competing for limited housing. It’s simple supply and demand, not some liberal commune side effect. I rather think that such areas are liberal for the same reason. You have a lot of people who have to deal with each other. You see a lot of filth and tragedy just going to work. It affects how you see the world, and you’d rather see people on welfare than begging you for change in the subway (another feature of these well-populated liberal areas…)
And lastly, I own my own home, have for over 5 years, and I haven’t gone and bought more house than I need, it’s a two bedroom, one bath on a tiny lot in a not so hot part of town, and if I wanted to buy the same thing now, it would cost me $200,000. It’s the smallest damn thing available without resorting to a condo, where I’d have the same expenses, but no legal recourse if the condo association sits on the fees and lets the place rot, or a single wide, which has no lasting value whatsoever. Renting is smarter than buying a mobile home. However, with the construction business in the toilet these days, I am really in danger of losing my job. I have been saving, I currently earn 2.5-3x my mortgage amount a month. I’m not a delinquent here and I haven’t set myself up for failure, and it seems to me that certain powers that be have been digging a lovely hole for the economy to fall into so that I am at risk of being laid off, and what will I do then? Be pretty damn grateful for unemployment, I tell you, while I try to sell my skills in a market that has no business for me to apply them to, and hope that I don’t end up having to put my house up for sale when nobody wants to buy. I’m actually thinking now would be a good time to go to grad school and get some nice guaranteed student loan money and wait for the land shortage here in Santa Fe to take effect so I can sell my house then.
Oh, right, I must be an idiot because I’m at risk of failing in an economic situation I have little to no control over. Sorry, what was I thinking? Let ‘em suffer!
@impossibleangles - I completely, wholeheartedly second your comment.
“If they have honestly been duped and are struggling to live in a very modest home, maybe. If they are complaining because they can’t afford their 7 bedroom, 6 bathroom mansions, absolutely not.” Or, like theoutercritic said: “No. Part of the American dream is taking responsibility for your own actions. The possibility of your interest rate varying should be part of your plan.”
Live within your means, people.
Generally, no.
@CrazyXBeautifulXDisaster - I actually thought it was kinda cool you got first this time.
BLOODY NO.
Its not their freaking job to fix the economy, sticking big government hands into something that fragile will always make things worse, FOOLS.
here is the idea. if you have been given the training and the know-hows then you should be allowed to fail. if in a skating rink you hold on the the rail all the time you will never learn to skate. if the government is there to cover the mistakes of the people the people will never learn. sometimes you have to let go of the rail. sometimes you have to fall. by facing your fears and falling you learn to stand on your feet and experience the freedom. so no. we should not be collectively punished to help out those who clung on to the rails.
Get the damned gas prices lowered FIRST, pleeeease!!
No.
@UnworthyofHisgrace - I have no clue how big this house is. It’s a 4 bedroom colonial. *shrug*
HORSESHIT! I spend my entire life trying to build good credit and become fiscally responsible so I can fund some dumbass who buys a house on a balloon payment or more house than he can afford?
NO! I do NOT want my tax dollars holding his stupid hand.
only on a case by case basis- some people have honestly been scammed and had the rug pulled out from under them, others were just greedy and foolish.
Maybe.
The bill needs to be re-written so it will help those who need it-NOT JUST THE BANKS.However, This bill isnt only for the rich. Italso helps out the GSE’s (Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac) which finance a HUGE portion of mortgages in the US, which belong to average homeowners. Not EVERYONE out there bought one of the fanciest houses they could find. (I own an older, very average house). There are a ton of people out there who are struggling for reasons other than “excessive” lifestyles like the rising cost of GAS, Food, medical expences… I struggle every month to make my house payment so my kids can live they same way that they do at “Disney dad’s”.
Most homeowners pay taxes. Personally, I would rather that my tax dollars helped out the people who are also in situations similar to mine, then paying for medicaid and welfare to imigrants holding greencards, babyfactories and their “baby-daddies” using their foodstamps to buy beer & drugs, or these homeowners when they are homeless, and then lose their jobs.
Economically I think it would do more harm than good.
@DebsWorld - “Get the damned gas prices lowered FIRST, pleeeease!!”
That could have even worse effects, having an articially lowered gas price that would have no hope of pushing demand down. Right now gas prices need to reach a price where it exceeds current demand, and then we’ll be headed in the right direction. If i’m not mistaken, I think that might already have started in the last few months. I think this is the first year in who knows how long we haven’t had a study increase in gas use, like every other previous year. Though that might have just applied to memorial day weekend, not the whole year so far. Once demand declines a certain amount, alternative fuels can have a better chance of playing bigger role.
No, fuck no.
@ehowton - TOUCHE!