He could have saved more people from losing their homes.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071206/ap_on_bi_ge/mortgage_crisis
2007-12-06 03:51:44 · 18 answers · asked by courage 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They were sweet talked into these loans by the loan companies and the government always bails out companies for bad financial decisions why not private citizens, and they are bailing out citizens this deal will help the finance companies recoup some of there money.
2007-12-06 03:58:39 · update #1
Sorry I meant to say they are not bailing out private citizens they are helping the finance companies.
2007-12-06 04:01:40 · update #2
Because it took him this long to find a way to make it help the crooked finance co(loan peddlers). who tricked these people into buying homes they couldn't afford,and hiding the fact that there house payments would go up by $100s per month when ever the finance co. felt like it. Then ran off with the there huge commission's
2007-12-06 20:48:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The government is not bailing out the lenders.. Pres. Bush is stating that the interest rates will be frozen for 5 years for those particular ARM loans. A lot of people were told by these mortgage companies and lenders with this particular ARM loan you can buy a bigger house. They get more money for the closing right off the top(the lenders) and tell them of course your income will rise and so it will all be good. They lied to these people. You would think a mortgage lender would be up front and honest wouldn't you?I really think this is a win win and I praise Bush for doing this although the slow road was taken.
2007-12-06 04:12:15 · answer #2 · answered by My Baby! 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lower interest rates often mean more rampant spending by government to bail out American overspending...and American spending is already out of control (IE ARM mortgages and Balloon Mortgages...not to mention bad credit on cards and personal loans)...that's what started the mortgage crisis in the first place (and why the rate-locking has so much effect to stop such mortgages).
The flip side is, only recently have foreclosures become such a problem that the risk of homeless people, increasing crime, an unstable work force...has become such an issue that it outweighs the fact we as taxpayers will have to pay top-dollar to government so they can support this new policy. In other word WHILE BAD MORTGAGE PAYERS SHOULD ULTIMATELY PAY FOR THEIR ACTIONS...THE RESULT OF THEM BECOMING HOMELESS AND POTENTIAL CRIMINALS HURTS EVERYONE ELSE IN AN EVEN MORE UNFAIR WAY.
It's all about balance...it's not such an obvious call and I believe Bush did it at just about the right time IE still before much of the worst disaster...although 1 month before surely would not have hurt.
2007-12-06 03:58:55 · answer #3 · answered by M S 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
First, your criticism of Bush is misplaced, as you don't know HOW much "earlier" he started the negotiations. Since the government is generally a "reactive" body when it comes to the economy, it always takes time (months and years) to react to economic realities, because you have to see how bad they really are.
Second, why is it the Government's job to save people from their own stupidity? Nobody held a gun to these people's heads and said "HERE, sign this or die!" These fools were looking for a way to get much more home than they could afford, and the banks offered it to them.
If you can't afford all phases of a loan, then simply don't get it. If you're hoping for a future increase in value of your house (or a government bailout) to help you afford it, you deserve whatever happens!
2007-12-06 03:58:02 · answer #4 · answered by jbtascam 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
The Federal Government has no business bailing any company or person out.
The Federal Government has three things to do, run the finances for the country, make laws, and protect its citizens.
Thats all the Founding Fathers wanted it to do.
2007-12-06 03:56:15 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
Because we're setting a bad precedent, bailing out groups of people that make bad financial decisions.
I hope you agree they did indeed make bad decisions with these loans, knowing the fact they monthly rate was not fixed and could go up 2 or 3%
2007-12-06 03:55:09 · answer #6 · answered by Nvr2soon 6 · 7⤊ 2⤋
The question really should be why he even did it. These people signed the papers, and they should pay the consequences.
Doesn't matter if someone "sweet talked" them into getting the loan. The terms were all explained in the papers they signed, and it's no body's fault but their own that they were too stupid to read the papers before signing.
2007-12-06 04:04:28 · answer #7 · answered by Mutt 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
How deep do you want to Fed Gov't in your life anyway? If you went for a subprime its your problem. Not mine or anyone else. And surely if the bank did it then its their problem. Why, when we already pay taxes on our own property should we then subsidize through more taxes the very banks that offered the risk in the first place. That's the most ridiculous thing in the world. It was a mutual risk that failed. Where did the gov't come in? And why is everyone looking for big brother savior to jump in?
2007-12-06 04:00:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Why is it always bush's fault? If those people could hold down a job, not smoke crack, and actually try to be a decent human being, maybe they wouldnt loose their home! This is AMERICA you can do what ever you want! Some people are just lazy and looking for a handout! Liberalism is a mental disorder!
2007-12-06 03:56:10 · answer #9 · answered by jimmethun@sbcglobal.net 2 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Why should the government be involved with my mortgage? If I am unable to pay it, isn't that my fault. Now we have a bunch of stupid people falling for bait and switch and they need the government to bail them out. He didn't do it earlier because it had not reached an epidemic yet.
2007-12-06 03:55:37 · answer #10 · answered by libsticker 7 · 8⤊ 4⤋