Log in

No account? Create an account
Is it wrong... - stalkingmsd@gmail.com [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Is it wrong... [Oct. 24th, 2007|10:03 pm]
Is it wrong for me to be annoyed about the big push to "bail out" homeowners who purchased a home with a loan they couldn't afford (or who gambled about their ability to refinance and lost?), and have nothing done to reduce the cost of loans to homeowners who actually were careful about getting a loan that was within their means in the first place? Doesn't this just encourage people to do stupid risky things, since when the market crashes they'll be saved?

Or, should I direct my selfishness in a different way and just be happy that this probably keeps housing prices up higher then the would be if all the loans defaulted?

From: yaello
2007-10-25 05:18 am (UTC)
not wrong for you to be annoyed... but is anyone actually bailing out the individual homeowners? I thought they were just going to help some of the companies. not that it's much better. I believe along with that help comes some re-writing of the rules.

but I'm with ya, I'm ready to boot in the head all those fools who don't understand expenditures << income.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: stalkingmsd
2007-10-25 05:21 am (UTC)
Well, at least _some_ homeowners are getting bailed out (for example, by getting their ARM locked at the low intro rate instead of at the adjusted rate -- that can be a difference several percent in most cases!):


(this is just one example).

If I got a break like this, my monthly payment would drop by thousands of dollars, all because I was "responsible" and got a loan I understood and could afford.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: yaello
2007-10-25 05:30 am (UTC)

it's small consolation, but I'm willing to bet their credit is still going to take a hit, not unlike going to a credit counseling agency that effectively reduces your debt and interest rates.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: hartmans
2007-10-25 03:23 pm (UTC)
Yes. It's probably wrong for you to be annoyed. In particular, you need to consider the consequences of not helping these people out; what happens to the economy, what happens to the crime rate etc. You need to actually convince yourself that you would be happier if we did not help them out before it's reasonable to be annoyed. And doing that is hard so I'm betting you haven't. I certainly haven't either.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: stalkingmsd
2007-10-25 03:32 pm (UTC)
True enough -- there are definitely consequences to not helping them out -- but isn't the right thing then to _also_ improve the situation for more responsible borrowers?

That probably has far-reaching economic consequences as well, like faster inflation than just dropping the fed rate.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: roach2600
2007-10-25 04:03 pm (UTC)
Yeah, and we will have to pay higher interest due to others' mistakes. I'm with you on this. People got in over their heads and ignored the dangers.

I spent a while with my grandfather a month ago, and he talked at length about being poor and not having a safety net. (He emigrated from Germany during WWII with no money) He made me think more about some of the feel good things the government does, and how maybe a safety net isn't right.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)