Saturday, May 10, 2008

Mortgage Bailout

Let me preface this post by saying that I really know very little about big money issues. But from what I do know, I can't see any way in which the Democrat-sponsored bill to reduce foreclosures is anything more than, as the article says, a "bailout of lenders, speculators, and irresponsible homeowners" who bought houses they couldn't afford. In the "credit where credit is due" department, President Bush has threatened to veto the legislation. Good for him.

Look, nobody wants people to go homeless or for empty houses to become attractive nuisances in neighborhoods. I could maybe imagine some kind of small government program to ease transitions like that. But besides going after predatory lenders, it seems to me the best way to prevent the negative effects of the subprime mortgage crisis is to let housing prices drop back down to reasonable market levels, not by propping them up with bailouts of bad deals. If you can't afford the house you're living in, buy or rent a cheaper place. Propping up prices prevents those cheaper places from coming into existence.


At Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 3:50:00 PM PDT, Anonymous Jasmine said...

Agreed with you on this. We should all accept responsibility and the consequences of our actions. We should all be held to the same standard. I really didn't learn about interest rates until I figured out what it will take to buy my first house. A little bit of excel and geometric series later, I knew what would be needed to balance the checkbook. Bailouts undermine the integrity of the system as well as the system's responsible participants. Similar thinking on 401k, catch-up programs, and social security. Am I heartless, or just an idealist? What's the difference?! Who cares!


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home