Knowing that the billions of dollars we pay in taxes would actually help your fellow country men & women who are loosing their homes wether it was the lending agencies faullt for making such shady risky deals, or unwise decissions and buying practices of the consumers? (or) do you believe that both parties should suffer, who bails you out when you make a bad choice? and NO! I have no unpaid bills or debts so the question is not about me. I just can't stand to watch good people loose everything, and myself would not mind watching the fed help my fellow man, this country would spend $1,000,000,00 to ship a bobby pin two blocks away. and yet their are arguments to help the common tax payers. So how much would you mind this happening???
2007-08-24 00:10:12 · 7 answers · asked by Whoooa Mule 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I think the question should be, why do large lending companies who took the same risks as the borrower be the only ones to benefit from a Government bail out. I get that the stock market was on a downward spiral, I understand that.
But exactly how does it benefit this country to have millions of people lose their homes? Why can't the Government offer low interest fixed mortgages to those who are about to lose their homes?
And please, don't tell me people would start defaulting to get this benefit. The damage to their credit would be horrific and not worth a lower interest rate. They would have to prove their loan hand changed and this changed made it impossibel to keep up with the payments and that they were indeed incapable of paying for it.
2007-08-24 00:21:30 · answer #1 · answered by Ellinorianne 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am totally against it. Lenders and borrowers agree on terms, sign contracts, and both sides have to live up to their agreements.
If you examine those deals that have gone bad, you may be able to better understand the foreclosure problems. Example: a single woman in Atlanta buys a condo/apartment. The interest rate is 10.5%. She can barely make payments. The ARM goes up to 12.5% and she cannot pay. No one with any common sense would agree to such a high rate when conventional loans are as low as 6%.
I am not willing to allow my tax dollars to be paid to subsidize that sort of foolishness. Both parties should suffer for their folly. The woman loses her apartment and the lender...Countrywide...ends up with a condo worth less than it sold for. Losing one's home does not mean he or she will die.
2007-08-24 07:26:38 · answer #2 · answered by regerugged 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
My neighbor just lost their house. I say house, not home, because these greedy people bought five houses between 200- and 2005. Now they are broke and moved to an apartment because they defaulted and cost the bank several millions of dollars. Who bails out the rich bank?
They write off the loss on their taxes and keep charging more to all the dopes that want to buy houses now or have stupid adjustable morgages!
So, the answer is yes, I would mind bailing out the banks and stupid people like my former nieghbors.
2007-08-24 08:06:43 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think that it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that no child goes without the basic & inherent rights we all should have:
Food, clothing, shelter, education & safety.
Just because someone's parents made some bad decision does not mean a child should live in poverty or be unsafe or unfed or uneducated.
We all have a responsibility to ensure that the children of the world are taken care of so that they will grow up to be adults with the oportunity & means to do great things.
2007-08-24 07:14:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I feel sorry for the people affected.I don't think a government bailout is so wise,the economy will benefit more in the long term if allowed to correct itself
2007-08-24 08:00:08 · answer #5 · answered by nobodinoze 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no not at all
2007-08-24 07:13:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
i would mind!
2007-08-24 07:12:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋