Bush to bail out homeowners!

Jarod said:
They dont need to bail out those who made dumb decisions, they need to impose restrictions on Mortgage brokers who promote these dangerous and risky loans.
Click to expand...

No, they need to quit fostering malinvestment with loose credit policies.

Impose your restrictions if you want. It won't do any good, but rather will make it harder and more costly for people to borrow.

Meanwhile, as you distract the masses, the fed will just blow a bubble somewhere else so the fat cat can erect a pyramid scheme to crash upon the poor and create a new crisis a few years down the road.
 
RStringfield said:
No, they need to quit fostering malinvestment with loose credit policies.

Impose your restrictions if you want. It won't do any good, but rather will make it harder and more costly for people to borrow.

Meanwhile, as you distract the masses, the fed will just blow a bubble somewhere else so the fat cat can erect a pyramid scheme to crash upon the poor and create a new crisis a few years down the road.
Click to expand...

I think you two are saying the same thing.
 
RStringfield said:
Dano, the banks are largely to blame. It's not as if these borrowers get to come and set the deals. Two to tango.

Clinton's nonsense is just another way to prop up and protect the banks.
Click to expand...
Well I disagree with the wording, my grandfather was in the business and he did second mortgages and had to be very careful about who he would give them to, it would his risk and he accepted that.
If a mortgage fell through, the lender is not to blame, he took a risk and it didn't work out, the borrower is also not to blame, they are both responsible however.

I don't really see this as a problem where blame exists, you lose your house because things didn't work out and you rent an apartment, oh well.
 
The whole reason loan sharks (or a black market for loaning) exist is because legal lenders are regulated and forbidden from loaning with higher rates, if the Dems constrict that more then expect the black market to take up the slack.
 
Just a different angle of intervention string.
Yours depends more on businesses not being greedy and behaving themselves. an idelaistic pipedream.
 
TheDanold said:
Right here, I'm as mad as you, and I think you nailed it with responsible people paying for irresponsible people.
Fucking Bush.

But you do realize the Dems aren't blaming irresponsible people right? Instead they are all blaming the lenders, because hey people who freely take out loans can't be responsible for knowing what could be above their heads can they?

"The Democratic field has been especially vocal about issuing and promoting plans prompted by a skyrocketing number of loan delinquencies, which are causing lenders to tighten up their borrowing standards. Subprime loans were offered to people with weak credit histories who in normal times would have trouble buying a house.

Earlier this month, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) even compared the mortgage industry's woes to the disastrous savings and loan failures of the early 1980s, warning that the federal government needs to intervene to protect borrowers and police lenders.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards has proposed a “predatory mortgages" policy, and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has an agenda that calls for “stiff penalties to deter fraud and protect consumers against abusive lending practices.” "
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5581.html

What is the big deal, if you buy a house you can't afford then oh well at least you got to live in that house for some period of time and boohoo you have to look into a smaller house or apartment, that's a lot better than some get in life who never see a single year in a house.
Click to expand...

Can you broaden that generalization up a little?

I, not being simple in the head, believe that there is blame enough to go around. I thought SF said it best in his post. Some are the victim of predatory and deceitful lenders, but there are plenty who just wanted more house than they could afford. There is fault on both sides, but you don't want any fault to be on the side of the lenders, because you're a big business defender to the death. So what is really funny, is that your entire post is projection, because you're the one guilty of what you are accusing "the dems' of.
 
uscitizen said:
Just a different angle of intervention string.
Yours depends more on businesses not being greedy and behaving themselves. an idelaistic pipedream.
Click to expand...


It depends on them being greedy. If we do not bail them out when their bad investments go bust their greed will result in them avoiding bad risks. Yes, many will still act irresponsibly. But, it will not be widespread.
 
String, based on years of empirical evidence i do not consider businesses trustworthy to do what is best for my country. Without controls that is.
 
And, no mine is not a different angle of intervention. Mine is removing the intervention that fosters malinvestment, loose credit policies from the fed, and the assurance that when it goes bad the fed and the government will come to the rescue.
 
uscitizen said:
a strawman Dano. We will always have the black markets no matter what we do.
Click to expand...
No.
Lawn care is not regulated, find me a black market for lawn care. The black market for drugs is huge because regulations on drugs are very numerous and onerous.
Likewise there are regulations on providing loans at certain rates, thus the black market fills the gap, increase the regulations, increase those filling the wider gap illicitly.
 
uscitizen said:
String, based on years of empirical evidence i don not consider businesses trustworthy to do what is best for my country. Without controls that is.
Click to expand...

No need to and I don't either really, if they do so it is only secondary and indirect. I trust them to do what is best for themselves.
 
TheDanold said:
No.
Lawn care is not regulated, find me a black market for lawn care. The black market for drugs is huge because regulations on drugs are very numerous and onerous.
Likewise there are regulations on providing loans at certain rates, thus the black market fills the gap, increase the regulations, increase those filling the wider gap illicitly.
Click to expand...

Umm Illegal immigrants are a black market for lawn care Dano :)
 
uscitizen said:
String, based on years of empirical evidence i don not consider businesses trustworthy to do what is best for my country. Without controls that is.
Click to expand...

Businesses have no power to force you to work for them or buy their products, they require your trust or desire to do so. Nor do they have power to stop you going to a competitor, but if you have government regulate them, you (unintentionally) give them a means to influence how they will be regulated and too often they will work with government to have regulations that favor them over the competition.
It is ONLY through government that they can control. Government is the problem, not the solution.
 
TheDanold said:
Businesses have no power to force you to work for them or buy their products, they require your trust or desire to do so. Nor do they have power to stop you going to a competitor, but if you have government regulate them, you (unintentionally) give them a means to influence how they will be regulated and too often they will work with government to have regulations that favor them over the competition.
It is ONLY through government that they can control. Government is the problem, not the solution.
Click to expand...

So why do you complain about unions and such. Don't like it ? go somewhere else.
 
uscitizen said:
Umm Illegal immigrants are a black market for lawn care Dano :)
Click to expand...

They're a black market for labor, because government regulates them becoming citizens legally, they are forced to work for less because if an employer were to pay them the same rate as a legal worker then they would always take the legal worker to avoid any government action. That only strengthens what I said.
 
TheDanold said:
They're a black market for labor, because government regulates them becoming citizens legally, they are forced to work for less because if an employer were to pay them the same rate as a legal worker then they would always take the legal worker to avoid any government action. That only strengthens what I said.
Click to expand...

LOL Yeah you might just fill in for Dixie here yet.
 
uscitizen said:
So why do you complain about unions and such. Don't like it ? go somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Unions are nothing but force, they use government regulation to force an employer to lay off employees by seniority, to allow striking on their property and so on.
 
Good point, dano. The greed and natural influence of the business mixed with regulation results in captured regulators who can control and utilize the force of the state.

I'd rather regulate them via the market. That is, make a loan to someone that can't afford it and you will lose money. Nobody will be there to bail you out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top