Sorry, folks, I disagree.

Especially since the "bailout" is simply a replacement loan, not a handful of cash.

There is minimal cost to enact this program, and the government will ultimately MAKE money by extending these loans and collecting the payments with interest.

Well, that is not entirely accurate. Of course the bill has still not been passed, and the details have not been hammered out, but the plan (as I understand it) is for the FHA to purchase the loans from banks (at a discounted rate) and then refinance these loans at a lower interest rate. The proposal however does have non-recoverable costs in the form of buyback of homes already in foreclosure, credit counseling, and millions of dollars in future tax deductions for both homeowners and builders.

Then, they will take on these loans for homes whose market value is rapidly deflating, which means that homeowners will find themselves strapped with a loan much higher than the current market value of their home, and arguably could decide to walk away rather than pay more for less, which means that the homes will still foreclose, but now on the taxpayer's bill.

Truthfully, there are experts on both sides of the fence. Some say the market will correct itself on its own, and in the end home prices will be more equitable (with the deflation of the "housing bubble'). Others say it will be a catch 22, wherein subprime loans have caused a slide in home value, which in turn makes responsible homeowners reassess considering the fact that they now owe more on their mortgages than their house is worth. Even if this is the case, I don't see responsible borrowers walking away from their home, considering that it is a long term investment and I am sure most feel that the home value will go up in a few years.

So, if the market can correct itself, without the government having to foot us with the bill, that would be preferable. Hey, don't we have people on the payroll to figure these things out for us?

But they bail out the cause of this problem and the builders who have plenty of debt because the houses they built are unsold. So why not keep a person in their home it would mean a lot for the cities that have to bear the blunt of this crises and balance the city budget. Empty homes also mean people in the shadows and new crime areas, that results in the cities enforcing laws where they once had not to. And if we ever get ou of Iraq the govt. will have more money to solve a lot more problems.

Yes, but why should the taxpayer have to pay for it? What about credit cards with dubious lending practices? There are those that charge up to 24% interest rates. But if you signed up for the debt (without reading the fine print, or knowing beforehand that you couldn't afford it), you should be responsible for that.

That said, I still feel it should be a 'greater good' decision. Wait as long as possible to see if the market can correct itself, and intervene only if absolutely necessary (i.e. in order to avoid catastrophic consequences to the economy).

Before people make up their minds about the housing "bailout" plan, please take a look at the article here. It addresses a lot of concerns/worries I have heard here.

They are talking about a potential downside of just $6 billion (about a week and a half of the Iraq spending), and a great potential upside, both economically and socially.

Bush administration opposes Democrats' mortgage relief bill - CNN.com

=====

I will go on record as a supporter of any bailout I find myself in need of. Other then that exception. "Hell no"

I just gotta say it. Isn't it a crazy world when losing three to six billion dollars is the upside of a dilemma? LOL

__________________
Consumption is indeed important in a free economy: particularly the freedom of consumers to buy their goods in unhampered markets. However, key to long-term economic growth is investment (savings), which is the opposite of consumption. Public policies that promote consumption — such as low interest rates — do so at the expense of savings. Less savings means less investments; an economy that does not save or invest will consume all of its resources and eventually end up bankrupt.-David Saied

Why not? Like I wrote the taxpayers bailed out everyone else without choices. Some states already have filed suits on companies like my mortgage company Country Wide to get to the bottom of this. And at the bottom one will find that the wall street money managers concocted this from day one.
But it went out of hand because of greed. The elite and those under them just can't say no to more money. They never get enough that is why America is in the mess we are. Keep the bigger picture in mind.

Yea some were unwise. But not all and once the jobs went south so did the ability to pay and then increases came on top of that.
So now cities like Denver have developed areas with more that half the newer homes forecloses on and now they still need to police the areas but gain no tax base from it. It isn't only about the people who need help but the cities who will lose more tax base and then less services provided.

So when that hits your city maybe you will include it in my thread on Local News. But so far it seems the people against helping their fellow Americans, haven't felt the pain of the war nor the forecloses.

I say let the wall street bankers and the builders feel the pinch and support our fellow citizens.

Holy Mackerel, mlurp, You said a mouthful.
Good thoughts! Especially about the Wall street greed. But how are we ever gonna curb that?

__________________
Consumption is indeed important in a free economy: particularly the freedom of consumers to buy their goods in unhampered markets. However, key to long-term economic growth is investment (savings), which is the opposite of consumption. Public policies that promote consumption — such as low interest rates — do so at the expense of savings. Less savings means less investments; an economy that does not save or invest will consume all of its resources and eventually end up bankrupt.-David Saied

Well I am informed one one topic very well. I read the book or most of it. David Cay Johnston, Free Lunch lays it out plain and simple in a great writing form. He names the names many you know. He shows from start to finish the process used in all cases.
So the only way "we" are going to cure this and all other problems is to be informed. I posted a lot more than the 300 allowed quoted word allowed and he read this site where I placed it. We talk because some of what is in his book is happening here in Topeka as well as other cities but my Local News thread isn't going anywhere and not one person has added the events of their towns. So the blind want to remain blind! So think again about change and this fake election!!!!!!!
Just how many cities are going to have new sports teams and stadiums? Well it will cost the Taxpayers the day the stadium is finished because the business men behind the action learned that like G. Bish they can earn free 100 million from the public treasury. It covers China and the way business can close down here and ship over seas and double the bottom lin with the tax breaks they recieve. Want to know about college costs and student (credit style) loans, read the damn book!
So much is in it it will open your eyes or make you put a gun to your head and squeeze. But I am tried of repeating myself on this subject which covers everything that is bad about our business community and our Govt. who works for them not us. I don't care who you are but if you think th eGovt. ha syour best in mind your a da*n fool! And in my opinion should be taken out back and shot, for being so uninformed and so stupid noot to have seen for the last 32 years or longer the changes for the worst. Anmd I haven't met one stupid person here. But ill informed yes I have.... each of you provide the items they want us to debate to focus upon and never put the entire picture together, not once! And it upsets me you smart people won't listen. Think you know so much and are being drawn down the drain like the fools.
So you and all others just keep postoing the B.S. your feed. And late rwhen on easks what went wrong? I though tthere would be change I will say Mr. Johnston and I told you so and laugh while joining each of you and the rest of America to the poor house