September 14, 2007

HousingPANIC Stupid Question of the Day (and loud and clear message to Congress and The Fed)



Does the government or Fed have the moral obligation to bail out failed housing gamblers and foreclosure "victims"?



42 comments:

Mark in Zurich/San Diego said...

Bailout?. . .hell no! . . .but looks like Northern Rock is getting a nice British Bailout. . .although the FTSE is getting slammed right now. . .now for the other shoe to drop . . .can we say British Housing Panic??

Anonymous said...

Yes - Because we were distracted by American Idol and could not make a good decision.

area 51 said...

It's gonna happen you can be sure of it.

UK's "Countrywide" or Northern Rock, just got a bailout from the Bank of England. Wow they were quick to cave in!

Next stop, USA! USA! USA!

http://tinyurl.com/2lt226

Anonymous said...

Gee what kind of answers do you think you'll get on that one?

Of course the answer is no. But here is different question:

Will the government bail'em all out?

Yes. And don't believe your own spin about, oh it's only a drop in the bucket. Just you wait until the '08 election starts for real in a few months. Hitlery will be proposing hundreds of billions of bailout money. Her fellow demoRATS will pass it ASAP and the Idiot in Chief will sign off on it.

I used to be in the 50% housing price crash. I was under the stupid notion that this is still a capitalist country. WRONG!! Whatever prices have fallen so far will be it.

Anonymous said...

Let's analyze the voting patters on the biggest bubble areas. You left wingers keep saying this was a republican made mess. Really?

Las Vegas voted for Gore and Kerry and is home to Harry Reid. Rural Nevada is GOP, Las Vegas is very Democrat.

Los Angeles is about as Dem as they get.

San Francisco: No explanation needed.

Boston. Home of Kennedy and Kerry. Don't think they know what a Republican even looks like there.

Seattle. True blue.

DC: Votes 90% Democrat.

Palm Beach: summer home of Ted Kennedy and solid blue.

New York City: Home of Hillary and Chuckie Shumer. And don't say Bloomberg since his is a RINO if there ever was one.

The only 2 bubble areas that are even remotely republican are Phoenix and San Diego. Everything else solid liberal democrat.

borkafatty said...

NO!!

And where does everyone think our Bankrupt government is going to get the funds to pay for such a bailout??

From the broke and struggling Middle class...not!

Hyperinflation!!

Paul E. Math said...

Here's an idiotic alternative that is still better than bailing out the flippers and scammers: bailout the renters.

Give 10% of the median home price in their geographical area to everyone who rents, contingent on them buying a home.

This way you cusion the blow of this housing meltdown/panic and also avoid moral hazard. And while you're absolutely pissing away taxpayers money, at least it's being spent, mostly, on lower income people using their own income tax.

Stupid idea, right? It's still a million times better than bailing out flippers and scammers who are 'losing their (investment) home'.

Butch said...

The only, and I mean ONLY circumstance where a homedebtor should be allowed off the hook (which I will define below) is if they were TRULY defrauded by the mortgage originator.

By "defrauded" I mean as in the homedebtor has a signed copy of the paper work and it doesn't match the copy the mortgage company/holder has. In other words, the mortgage company chaged a material fact, term, or condition AFTER the paperwork was signed and the homedebtor was unaware and can prove it.

Now, by "let off the hook" I mean that the homedebtor would then be allowed to hand the house back to the mortgage company/holder, move out of the house and recover damages above the fair market rent they would have paid to live in the home.

NO other bailout should take place than this. Period.

keith said...

Send email to the Fed here

http://www.federalreserve.gov/feedback.cfm

let us know what you write

keith said...

Or hit up the NY Fed as they call the shots

http://www.ny.frb.org/contacts/index.html

AMIGAUSER said...

If the government (FED) has enough money to bail out the stockmarket/bond market, it has enough money to bail out the domestic housing market

It was the FEDS fault for not properly regulating the home loan business. It did NOTHING whilst the sub prime lenders were selling high cost products to the weak and the despereate (market forces are OK whilst enriching the wealthy, very bad when they loose money).

It's an election year, and home owners VOTE, that means their pain will be felt by the politians.

Anonymous said...

you honestly think

a) someone at the fed reads emails

b) gives a fuck what you think?

Maybe an email from goldman sachs or morgan, that they may read. From Joe Shmoe? I dont think so.

gary coleman said...

Is that the little ferry casey back in action?The feds will cut rates on tuesday ad they are owned by wall street.Don't you guys get it yet.

Anonymous said...

YES!

PEOPLE WILL LOSE THEIR HOMES!

NOT THEIR HOUSES!!!....THEIR HOMES!!

They will be homeless...I mean...Forced to Rent!

The horror!

cobra2411 said...

No, but they've never let a lack of morals stop them before...

Anonymous said...

Yes. And don't believe your own spin about, oh it's only a drop in the bucket. Just you wait until the '08 election starts for real in a few months. Hitlery will be proposing hundreds of billions of bailout money. Her fellow demoRATS will pass it ASAP and the Idiot in Chief will sign off on it.
-----------------------------

What makes you think the "Idiot in Chief will sign off on it?" He's already said he's against bailing out speculators and people "who bought more home than they could afford."

Say what you want about this president. But one thing that he's been consistent with is his bull headed obstinance against public opinion, even going against politicians in his own party.

If he were to be swayed by public clamor or even opposition from within his own party, then why hasn't he produced Anything about a PULLOUT from Iraq? This would be the greatest thing for the Republican party since the majority of the voters are against continuing this lost cause.

The same principal applies here. Bush will stick to his guns, there wont be any real bailout for the flippers in California and Florida and the whole country will go to hell in a handbasket.

sam said...

Anon 12:49 PM makes an excellent point regarding bubble areas being epicenters of leftist behavior. High correlation that I hadn't thought of. The smug belief that you/ your area is morally superior and the future of humanity that leftists ooze is conducive to a housing bubble. "everyone wants to live in San Fran" because they're so progressive.

However, most here transcend partisanship and probably qualify as more wackjobs unidentifiable to any formal political movement. Opposing bail-outs is a bipartisan issue.

Also, possibly there are a disproportionate number of young people here who have a distorted view of the Republican party due to their recent behavior. Last time I was truly proud to be a Republican was 1996 (other than watching crybaby Gore lose Florida, which was fun). Clinton impeachment, Tom Delay, Schiavo, excessive spending, neo-con wars, non-English speaking presidents. If i had seen that sh*t show growing up, I might be blue too.

Anonymous said...

NO WAY, I can't believe no one is talking about house prices would have never been close to the level in 05 and 06 if not for many crazy mortgage programs (i. e. 100% no doc investor loan). Prices need to fall to 03 for a start.

Edgar said...

I say give the maggots as much money as they want. Especially the bankers, the MIC, and the politicos. They're going to steal it anyway, maybe if we give them as much as they think they need they'll quit effing things up so much. Give the extortionists the money!!

Veronica Lodge said...

RE: Does the government or Fed have the moral obligation to bail out failed housing gamblers and foreclosure "victims"?


Immoral obligation would be more like it.

Let's see...

First, we give the poor, distressed home "owners" a little breathing space and then move them into government secured loans.

Next, the home debtor who couldn't afford the original loan still won't be able to afford the new loan and will face foreclosure.

End result: The lenders will be protected and the home debtors will still be fu*ked.

The rich -- who don't pay any taxes -- will get richer, while the taxpayers will get poorer.

V.L.

mad dash said...

Countrywide just copped $12B more from "a group of banks", and the stock price rocketed up the asses of the people like Keith who hold short positions. - ouch!

When oh when are you HPers going to get it? You don't fight the Fed, fools. They and other central banks will print whatever money is needed to fit the deals they want fixed.

Dopes!

Anonymous said...

Boston. Home of Kennedy and Kerry. Don't think they know what a Republican even looks like there.
---------------------------------

I about fell out of my chair about 5 years ago when I discovered that MA gov Mitt Romney was a repub AND Mormon!

Anonymous said...

If and when they do is the day that I renounce my citizenship and allegiance to the USA, seriously.

I am just so fu*king sick of all this shit- being single and well paid, yet unable to afford a home and then getting taxed to death to pay for other people and their dipsh*t kids. Pay your own fu*king way you pieces of shit! And, the funny thing is, these same fu*king people who get the mortgage deductions and deductions for their fu*king dipshit kids are the first to cry about high taxes and handouts that others are getting. Look in the mirror you fu*king pieces of shit.

Anonymous said...

"Does the government or Fed have the moral obligation to bail out failed housing gamblers and foreclosure "victims"?

What the government should do is hold their feet to the fire and let them burn.

Anonymous said...

What the Government should do is give hundreds of thousands of dollars to anyone who has paid off their mortgage and is debt free.

Only those people have good financial practices.

People who bit off more than they could chew should choke on their stupidity.

David said...

all I have to say is that IF they bail out any of these idiots, I had better get a nice fat juicy check in the mail from the IRS and be free from paying my taxes for years to come.
Bailing out these idiots is the same as giving them (what ever they bought with their HELOCS) all of their toys, cars, etc....FREE.
I want my share!!!

Anonymous said...

Should be no bailout whatsoever for anyone involved, but since the federal bank must keep all its chicklet banks on the free money tit, why shouldn't all mortgage holders expect the same treatment.

Kinda like whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

What should happen is what ultimately will happen, 1929 all over again baby, as the bush built scheitt sandwich comes to fruition, just like a big zit ripe for the popping, but don't blame me; I voted for the 5 time war hero with 2 silver stars, not the AWOL ZERO.


Stupid is as stupid DID.

Anonymous said...

No.

They do have the moral obligation to help out us responsible people who have sat around waiting for all this crap to level out. This is eriously messing up my life...I literally have put off having children because of this whole housing price mess.

Anonymous said...

Oh, please, Mr. Ben. Please, Mr. Ben. I spent all my money on gold and don't have one red cent to my name. Poor me. How 'bout a bailout for me, Mr. Ben. Huh, Mr. Ben? I'm flat busted.

Slinky said...

The government has a moral and legal obligation to prosecute any laws that have been broken. Casey Serin should have been in jail for mortgage fraud months ago. Any cases of usury--and there are some that certainly fit the bill--should be prosecuted.

I don't think the government should bail out ANYBODY. Nothing in the constitution says we should save either private individuals or corporations for BAD BUSINESS DECISIONS.

Anonymous said...

sales of new mercedes have been a little slow the last couple of months,I need a bailout

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:00:

Do you ever read anything other than blogs? Bush has already signed off on a bailout. Get a clue.

Anonymous said...

actually sales of MBs are at record numbers in the US. Try again.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Boston. Home of Kennedy and Kerry. Don't think they know what a Republican even looks like there.
---------------------------------

I about fell out of my chair about 5 years ago when I discovered that MA gov Mitt Romney was a repub AND Mormon!

September 14, 2007 4:55 PM


===================================

True. However both senators are Dem. Last Rep Senator was in office before I was born. Mass hasn't voted for a Rep presidential candidate since 1984. 75%+ of the State legislature is Dem and has been for decades. 100% of the US Reps in Mass are Dems.

Romney was a fluke and now the governor is a Dem again, the same governor who by the way proposed Mass's own bailout plan which includes - and I am not making this up - paying for foreclosure "victims" moving costs.

Keep voting for Dems everyone.

Anonymous said...

Foreclosure solutions?

For sheeple who are hopelessly upside down on their houses, and for the banks that are ready to foreclose on them, then perhaps the following may be a way out...

Because the costs of foreclosure are so high to everyone involved (including the banks), then what is to stop the sheeple from negotiating with the banks to settle on an agreed price of RENT? The ownership of the house transfers to the bank, but the sheeple are allowed to stay in their houses to minimize as much as possible the dire disruption of masses of people being foreclosed upon and evicted. The amount of the rent could be agreed upon possibly by a third party utilizing arbritration. The agreed upon rent would be based upon the sheeple's ability to pay according to their actual income. The agreed upon rent could also be tied to what the sheeple had been paying at the beginning of those toxic mortgages that had teaser rate APRs.

The banks would become the proud new "owners" of the "foreclosed" houses, while the sheeple are allowed to stay in the houses for a specified period of time by paying rent. In the short term, this would be less expensive for BOTH the banks and the sheeple. Eventually, the banks can sell the houses later, either at a loss (which they deserve to lose for their lame brain schemes) or wait until the prices finally begin to rise again, if ever. At least the investors holding all of those CDOs and mortgage backed securities would not lose everything.

Is the above feasible?

abb said...

We have a moral obligation to assist our neighbors.

However. Government CANNOT be the third party that implements that obligation. It must be done LOCALLY and DIRECTLY with people in our respective communities.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:12

Again, we don't have a Real Bailout. That's what I was referring to, meaning a cash grant that covers people in foreclosure or in danger of foreclosure.

Bush's proposal does nothing of the sort and most importantly, effectively does nothing for bubble states like California and Florida, where the median price of a home is upwards of half a million dollars.

And, incidently, blogs are where you get real information, not televison or newspapers.

So, for your information, I not only have a clue but I know whats going on...YOU DUMB AS% Piece of SH&T!

Anonymous said...


MA gov Mitt Romney was a repub AND Mormon!


Current Mass Gov Deval Patrick is a DemoRat and has already set up a taxpayer funded bailout plan for flippers and banks. Unlike Hitlery Clintoon and Barrock Osama, I haven't heard Romney say anything about bailing out Wall Street billionaires

Anonymous said...

There should be no bailout but there will be one because DemoRats want to score points by helping the victimized classes like minorities and senior citizens who had dollar signs in their eyes.

Anonymous said...

1:33,

You don't get it.

A bailout doesn't have to be in the form of a check sent to someone.

Bush's plan will allow people to refinance into better loans who otherwise couldn't. That will lower their mortgage payments by several thousands of dollars a year. The effect is the same as receiving a check for that amount the Feds.

I think my 7 year old nephew could figure that out.

Anonymous said...

Do we have a moral obligation to help gamblers and criminals who threaten to send us into the deep recession or depression through their greed? I say they should be publicly flogged or caned.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:19

Again, I dont think YOU get it.

The FHA, except for tax forgiveness on foreclosures, is all that Bush is proposing, in effect raising it to $417,000 that would be federally insured. Even with that, there are strict criteria that most sub=prime people will not meet.

Given the $417000 dollar threshold, this essentially rules out virtually all the homes in California, Florida, New York, etc.(the bubble states) They are the ones who started this to begin with. IF BUSH decides to raise that threshold upwards to the 600 or 700 thousand dollar range, then YES, this would be a bailout!

But thats not what this is. So your nephew's calculations wont help here. And please, dont breed.