What do you think of the mortgage deal that Bush made?

Question

Does it bother you that Hillary supported something similar?

Answer 1

I hate it myself. I'd prefer a correction versus inflated home prices. Big government neo-cons never cease to disappoint me.

Answer 2

I think it saves the face of investment bankers who don't want to be adding to ownership of excess housing.
After all, the bankers are still getting their money, just with not as much interest as they thought.
There is no reason they couldn't have done this on their own, except maybe they did a little cooking of the books on future earnings potential.
Lets remember that when you take out a mortgage, you don't tell the bank what you want the terms to be, they tell you and you either take it or leave it.
If the banks wanted to gamble that housing would continue to increase, which they did, they could just as easily say to the mortgagee, "OK, we will continue your loan with an only slightly higher rate than the teaser loan we lured you in with".
Its the large increase that's throwing people out of their homes, in conjunction with the huge increases in oil, gas, and electricity.
It doesn't bother me that Hillary supported it, it is after all reflective of the nations economy and something had to be done.
This requires no government money, all it does is allow the banks to do what they should have done a while back. Keep the interest rates within the means of the people they lent the money to so they can pay their bill.

Answer 3

I am fine with it as long as the government does not pay one dime.

I don't see why people are concerned at all about this, unless you are a partial owner of one of the banks freezing the rates. That aside, what business is it of anybody? If a business wants to GIVE away all of their assets, only the owners can legitimately object.

I think that the banks are more than justified in attempting to prevent defaults, considering that they typically only recover about 40%-50% of the value of the home when they foreclose.

To me, it seems like a rational business decision on their part.

Answer 4

I do not understand why we should bail out any business that has made poor judgements and taken an undue risk. As someone said - it is only delaying the inevitable - but at least it won't happen on Bush's watch, right? So when we elect a Democrat for a President and the truth about the economy is realized then everyone will be down on the Democrats for the economy right?

Answer 5

It was a good idea. Somthing had to be done to try and help the consumer get from under the stress of a mortgage they cant afford.

Answer 6

I think it helps the mortgage companies way more than it helps people. They will continue to get payments, instead of getting no payments at all when the mortgages are foreclosed on. What he really needs to do is give the middle class large tax breaks.

Answer 7

More evidence that the alleged laissez-faire system you support is broken and corrupt on every level. As soon as the wealthy elite bankers stand to lose something, the government steps in and hands over our taxpayer dollars to them.

Answer 8

Well, I'm from Texas and I believe it should apply to homestead ONLY.

Answer 9

Rats! I could have got a much bigger house if I had known that the government would pay for it!

Answer 10

I think it is win-win. If nothing had been done we would all have suffered as the economy went downward. I like his idea of targeting this one extraordinary crisis rather than the libs idea of doling out money every day for the sake of doling out money.