'President George W Bush is expected on Thursday to outline a plan to freeze mortgage rates for five years for homeowners hit by the credit crunch.' news.bbc.co.uk

Should this be done? On the one hand, surely something has to be done about the prospect of homelessness and economic turmoil, but on the other hand, what about those who, responsibly, took out regular mortgages and have been paying them as they should - aren't they going to be miffed?

Might have been easier, and more equitable, to have outlawed 'teaser rates' offered to anyone

No it should not be done and yes some people are ticked about it . Because some of us were smart enough to not get over our heads and purchase a modest home with a reasonable fixed rate mortgage at a rate we could afford instead of a huge McMansion with a flexible mortgage rate that if they were smart enough to plan ahead would have realized it that they could not afford it 5-8 years down the road .

By being responsible and not getting in over our heads people like me will once again have to pay for the idiocy and mistakes of others .

When things are going good, business & people in general wants the government to stay out. Yet when conditions change & things go the other way, they want the government to step in and bail them out.

Isn't that the way it has always been? Some of us are careful, responsible, better educated, smarter, more fortunate, perhaps. If the government, the parent. the responsible or compassionate steps in to rescue the foolish, don't we all benefit? Should we be grateful or resentful? Seems to me it must be hard to reconcile being glad that I've avoided disaster and wishing that less fortunate people should not? Is that typical of "compassionate" conservatives????

In religious circles, there is a little saying...

"Be careful what you pray for. You just might get it!!!"

I think it also applies very much so to asking the government to step in to these kinds of messes. Proble is we might end up with more than we bargained for.

quote:

Originally posted by Lighteningrodd:
In religious circles, there is a little saying...

"Be careful what you pray for. You just might get it!!!"

I think it also applies very much so to asking the government to step in to these kinds of messes. Proble is we might end up with more than we bargained for.

That certainly seems to apply in the case where some "prayers' asked the American gopvernment to step in and rescue the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein.

quote:

Originally posted by Koz:
No it should not be done and yes some people are ticked about it . Because some of us were smart enough to not get over our heads and purchase a modest home with a reasonable fixed rate mortgage at a rate we could afford instead of a huge McMansion with a flexible mortgage rate that if they were smart enough to plan ahead would have realized it that they could not afford it 5-8 years down the road .

By being responsible and not getting in over our heads people like me will once again have to pay for the idiocy and mistakes of others .

But isn't it in our best interests as a society to step in and help those that are stuggling?
What satisfaction is there in watching others lose their homes because of bad planning, poor judgment, or even just plain lack of experience?
At the end of the day, doesn't it cost the rest of us more financially, when people lose their homes and need to be rehoused?
What about the emotional toll this takes on not just the adults that have got themselves into this situation, but also the children that go through such an upheaval.
It's all very well to take the, "I'm alright Jack," approach to others' misfortunes, but at the end of the day the stigma of losing one's home has repercussions on both the adults and children involved.
Is it being too altruistic to think that we should look at the bigger picture, and have compassion for our fellow human beings, when they find themselves in a tough situation?

I have no problem at all helping less fortunate people.

I do have a problem with helping people that knowingly went in over their head in purchasing a home. Instead of buying a 1,500 – 2,000 square foot existing structure some were lured by low down payments and flexible mortgages that had a low front end payment and bought those new 4,000 – 6,000 square foot McMansions.

Many figured that they would make more money and be able to afford it through pay raises. Reality kicks in and maybe they lose their good paying job and find a lower paying one. Maybe they did not plan on starting a family then an “accident” happens.

I am not saying that is what happened across the country, but around here my scenario is common, and I am going to have to help those “poor unfortunate” irresponsible people so they can continue living the “American Dream” in more house than they need and could afford. It would be a travesty if they had to lower their standard of living (in debt) and downgrade their home or vehicles.

What would the neighbors say is they saw a used Honda instead of the BMW in the McMansion’s driveway?

Koz, I think your attitude is representative of that of many conservative Americans towards those that are at the bottom of the heap in society. Whether it be in the area of housing, health care, or because they can't find jobs.

(sorry dg, I hit edit instead of reply. I did not edit your post on purpose)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Koz,

@self

anyways,,

quote:

Koz, I think your attitude is representative of that of many conservative Americans towards those that are at the bottom of the heap in society. Whether it be in the area of housing, health care, or because they can't find jobs.

I don’t think so dg. I am conservative, but I go out of my way to help those who genuinely need it. I donate my time and money to people that are at “the bottom of the heap”.

My problem is that many folks around here want all the best that life has to offer. New luxury homes, nothing older than a 3 year old luxury car or SUV will do. Let’s not forget the huge screen HD plasma television and pay for all the premium movie channels.

Many of those people (not all) around here live as large as they can and expect to be bailed out when they can’t afford to live that way anymore.

I completely understand those who made a mistake or unknowingly got “tricked” into that lifestyle and try to fix it. I am more than willing to help them.

I am not willing to help those who want to continue to live large after being bailed out.

I guess it is hard for me to understand because I have always lived well within my means. When I had nothing and was in debt I lived without instead of getting deeper into a hole.

quote:

I am not willing to help those who want to continue to live large after being bailed out.

Of course, unless and until they are "bailed out" how can one ever know that's what they will do? So let's not take the chance ??? Sorry, not being prescient, I have to run the risk. I've seen too many benefitted after being rescued from themselves, their youth, or their limitations. Is it conservative to only help the people who don't need help?

OK so we have a government bail-out. This puts the government in a position adding of additional regulations the mortgage industry AND both the home buyers will regret. This is a situation the lenders would be better off taking their write-offs and moving on.

And what's to say many of these home owners may actually be attempting to walk off from these properties any way. Especially if the markets are as such they could possibly owe more on their house than what its worth and they can't sell it for what they need out of it. And I suspect this could very well be the case in many situations.

I tend to think this is to help the lenders more than the home owners.

quote:

Is it conservative to only help the people who don't need help?

No

It is conservative to help people who need it so they can get back on their feet so they can then help themselves and then others less fortunate.

It is a liberal to help people that don’t try to help themselves and expect someone else to take care of them.

quote:

Originally posted by dance girl:
Koz, I think your attitude is representative of that of many conservative Americans towards those that are at the bottom of the heap in society.

Conservatives are more charitable than liberals. And not just with their money, but with more blood and more of their volunteer time.

Source 1.

Source 2.

A safety net encourages risky behavior.

I don't think anyone, liberal, conservative or anything else wants to help people who won't help themselves or don't overcome their difficulties as a result. That would be stupidity, not liberal or altruistic. I suspect the difference is that some of us, who appear more willing to give the unfortunate a leg up, are simply more inclined to err on th side of generosity than to be judgemental. It would seem to me, better to reward the undeserving, on occasion, than to deny the deserving. I guess conservative means "conserve myself" rather than the other guy. Smacks of the earlier use of the "welfare queen and her cadillac" horror stories in defense of the status quo at all costs.

I don't presume to know whether or not this so-called rescue of the deadbeats is a good or evil thing, but I'm sure that many of those who overextended themselves were trying to profit by buying properties to rent to poorer people and are now stuck with them.

It's interesting that this is the second time that under a bush administration the economy has been severely shaken by excesses of the banking industry. I'm no economist, but it would seem in both cases to argue for some level of regulation of the industry, since in both instances it was either deregulation or no regulation that led to the catastrophes. I understand the need to allow business to flourish, and that over-regulation can lead to trouble. But the ideal must be to the left of the bushes.

My parents did not raise me to believe that it was the responsibility of the Government or anyone else to pay my debts and obligations. They told me that working hard and going to school was the way to succeed in life, and that has worked well for me.

I really do not understand the mind set of people who think it is the responsibility of others to support their needs. If a responsible person really has needs, we should help them out, but they should make them pay the money back as soon as they are able to do so.

quote:

I really do not understand the mind set of people who think it is the responsibility of others to support their needs.

Who are these people? They sound like straw men, erected only to be shot down?

quote:

If a responsible person really has needs, we should help them out, but they should make them pay the money back as soon as they are able to do so.

How do we know that in advance? Do we rely on our clairvoyant talents? Can we guarantee that the people who need help will be successful when we don't even know that about ourselves? I would like to know how you propose to accomplish that.

Besides, are we sure this proposed scheme is not primarily to bail out the bankers, poor dears? Seems that sometimes the biggest cheats, freeloaders and irresponsible people are the CEO's, but everyone is quick to punish the undeserving poor??

frank may be on to something in his last paragraph. This reeks of welfare capitalism.

The same goes regardless of economic position. Nobody is motivated to solve their problem unless it is primarily their problem.