If people refused to buy at those prices in the first place, that would have forced prices back down to reality. Instead, Californians kept trying to one-up their peers with homes they could not afford which inflated the prices. I lived there and saw it. I told my Cali realtor I'd rent before spending half a millon on those junk houses, 750k for a decent sized house. Others should have too.
By bailing out these wanna-be showboats, the bail-out will partially prevent the prices to be reduced to normal. Am I wrong?
2007-12-06 15:22:52 · 9 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Chi Guy, I think we disagree on basically everything. But on this, I have to say the loan contract is between the lender and the lendee. If no laws were broken, then the govt should get the hell out. Whether it is Bush or Hillary, the whole concept is above me.
The only saving grace of the Bush plan is that no tax dollars were wasted and no govt mandates were issues (I think.).
Cheers.
2007-12-06 15:33:06 · answer #1 · answered by Freedom Guy 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
LOL! How old are you, anyway? Do you remember the Carter years? Because I do. My father sold real estate, in Florida. It was terrible. A reasonable interest rate was 14% for a 5 year balloon loan. And it wasn't a media created housing bust, like this one, either. It was inflation-driven and unemployment driven. And regardless of what is going on currently with the real estate market (we are settling down after a boom, in my opinion, to the prices we should be at), interest rates are still low. Unemployment is still low, and gas lines aren't around the corner. After Carter, Reagan could do no wrong, and the economy soon came back. And Clinton probably enjoyed the results of Reagan, more than any President.
2016-04-07 23:01:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're 100% correct, and in the long run it does damage the market, BUT the alternative is to make those people homeless. We all know what kinds of allegations we'd here if Bush allowed a significant percentage of American homeowners to become homeless on account of predatory lending practices. Put quite simply: Bush cannot afford to let that happen, given the image that many project onto him.
2007-12-07 01:44:06 · answer #3 · answered by Pfo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The consequences of that many homeowners losing (more) equity on the overpriced property they purchased and financed to death outweighs an even more dramatic price drop than what we've seen so far.
Moreover, such losses would trickle into the general economy and cause it to slow further (if that process can even be prevented now).
The economy is better served by stabilization of prices as quickly as possible, and intervention to prevent foreclosures and further meltdown in mortgage securities.
2007-12-06 15:29:58 · answer #4 · answered by buzzfeedbrenny 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
George is just trotting out "the pretty face of conservatism." Are people stupid to buy overpriced housing? Yeah sure. They were stupid enough to vote for W not once but twice.
Not charging the maximum allowable interest rate can be seen as good business.
Let us not forget some idiot bankers lent these people the money in the first place. What about their fiduciary responsibility to the people whose money they pissed away? What about their lessons? what about criminal prosecution for fraud? After all, they made bad loans knowing the property values were overstated.
Always blame the victim first.
2007-12-06 15:37:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
we are not talking about million dollar homes.
this plan relates to sub-prime loans with an average payment now of about $1300.00 a month going up to about $1800.00 a month and only about 250,000 loans will be effected. California has issues with homes over priced i agree but that has nothing to do with what is being done with sub-prime loans. there are areas where people have overpaid just to keep up with the jones's this is not about that. you are absolutely correct we should not be involved in those kind of markets where values are falsely inflated.
2007-12-06 15:42:30 · answer #6 · answered by michr 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No (that is, you are wrong). The lower demand will reduce prices. Foreclosures have nothing to do with it--that's jsut basic economics. People who have no decency, honesty, or compassion are making such claims, however--and you shouldn't embarass yourself by repeating their BS.
The reality is tha tmillions of people were DELIBERATELY misled by raltors and mortgage companiesinto buying homes they could not affrd. Now, to add insut to injury, we are seeing--as you noted--these same scumbags trying to secure their unearned profits by doing what all predators do: blame the victim for being raped.
2007-12-06 15:33:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Chief, you are right, and California, or best said southern CA, is going trough a correction now.
Real State market is hard hit here.
Best Regards.
2007-12-06 15:36:31 · answer #8 · answered by iceman 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No you are absolutely right. Part of the free market that our President values so much, and ironically is interfering with is learning our mistakes. In a market that means losing your shirt. If no one loses, no one learns - and we keep making the same mistakes.
2007-12-06 15:30:15 · answer #9 · answered by Christopher B 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋