Why? Why not?
2007-12-06 08:55:55 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
yes. I would try anything to keep a roof over my kids head. That being said everyone has a responsibility to live within their financial mean. That includes persons making $75,000 per year who buy homes costing $500,000. I have no sympathy for the "Keeping up with the Joneses" crowed.
2007-12-06 09:02:46 · answer #1 · answered by Mother 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Amen to Mother...
I would do anything to take care of my kids. That's why in the first place I would never take a sliding variable in my mortgage. It was a last ditch effort by the mortgage industry to make more money and on the part of the Lenders who knew full well what would happen when the people they were lending to couldn't squeeze that turnip. They just didn't count on how huge it was gonna be and they did count on a gov't bailout. Know how long it takes to be a mortgage person? 1 day of class. Broker? One year in the business. Ridiculous. Look at what this is helping to do to the economy. They should have never been able to offer this kind of mortgage to a buyer in the first place and the buyers should never have gone for it. Stupid on all parts. Who's gonna pay for it in the end?
All he did was freeze rates for a certain small group of people. Yes that will stabilize the industry for now but its a short term fix that will probably cause disaster later on.
2007-12-06 17:12:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
No, but Bush did make a good point the other day.
Years ago, mortgages were held by the local bank and it was easy to sit down with "Joe" at the bank and discuss the situation with him and negotiate new terms.
Now, mortgages are bundled up into large holding accounts overseen by investment firms, etc. Going to the local bank and discussing new terms is no longer an option.
So at this point, because of the change in the system it may be necessary to have the govt. act as an intermediary.
Either way, I still don't think that it is the govts. responsibility to oversee this.
2007-12-06 17:03:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Yes but, that also absolves me from any responsibility in the matter as well. It's like taking my house for a ride on someone else's money. If you can't pay for your house you shouldn't live in a house yet. It's just a matter of personal responsibility.
I wouldn't want to look at my kids and tell them that I needed the government to bail me out of my mortgage.
2007-12-06 17:29:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
ONLY as a last resort. My dad taught me to never rely upon government handouts - even those I may qualify for.
It would be a tough situation and make me feel just horrible.
Your new girlfriend is just lovely, btw.
2007-12-06 21:19:41 · answer #5 · answered by wider scope 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'd rather buy the forclosed homes at auction and save a bit...maybe I'd sell them back to the homeowner at the lowered rate! Everyone wins, except the already too rich corporate realty mongers...too bad for them, great for us.
2007-12-06 17:03:43 · answer #6 · answered by Mizz SJG 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. I've no right to a home I can't pay for; it is wrong to expect to take others' money to pay for my own mistake. They did not give it freely, it was forcefully taken from them under penalty of punishment.
It goes against all I believe in.
2007-12-06 17:12:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I guess so but I would sure feel like a loser...
2007-12-06 16:59:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
yes...i pay enough taxes and i figure the govt. owes me
2007-12-06 17:00:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
90 percent are democrats, what do you think
2007-12-06 17:02:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋