Aw geez ...

As a consumer and homeowner who foolishly took a 15 year fixed loan with 20% down, so that I could avoid the horrid burden of qualifying for that loan and avoid the cost of "mortgage insurance", I want to know wheres my goodies from the government? Why, I had the indignity of to buying a much smaller house in a less than flashy neighborhood. If I had known when I bough the house with that mortgage that the government would come along later and let me be an total ass and buy more than I could afford, I would have bought a bigger house with less money down, you know something that was simply "beyond my means". Wheres my payment for my economic hardship imposed on me by my poor choices?

I ask you, Wheres the fairness in this? When do I get some form of coverage from the government for being responsible and careful with my money? Where do I seek compensation for knowing what the word 'VARIABLE" actually means? I mean what does a man have to do to get treated as a victim in this country?

( I sure hope Bush gets this out of the way fast, so he can help me make my monthly minimum payment on my 22% intrest rate credit cards. Boy if Bush had another 2 years, I might not be responsible for any financial decision in my life! Can you say " ferrari"? To quote Brian Wilson " Wouldnt it be nice?" )

Where's the reward for my wife and I taking out a fixed rate mortgage with a payment that's only 22% of our take home pay? For having a cash emergency fund rather than relying on a line of credit? For paying our bills on time? When are HUD and Treasury gonna work out a nice new payment plan for us?

The borrowers and lenders deserve each other - let them work it out amongst themselves. If there was fraud on the part of either party, prosecute. Otherwise, the government should stay out.

At least I'm with a lender who stayed out of subprime, so my payments aren't directly subsidizing foolish borrowers and history-ignoring lenders (how many at Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley are Ivy League? Shudder). No, it's only my stock market investments getting taken for a ride these past few months, and that too will pass.

If the GOP backs the use of even one tax dollar to bail out either lenders or borrowers, I'll be bailing out too.

Aww... come on. I read this and wanted to vomit. Forget the notion that if Bush does this he's an idiot. He is.

But aren't there any smart people...
anywhere...
in this administration.

Hell forget smart. Doesn't anyone own a history book? Doesn't someone in a position of influence living near the white house have a college aged child who is taking a second year econ class that could fax over a fe historical passages?

This amazingly foolish man, from the party of Reagan, is putting himself on par with (and taking a page from)the economic principals of RICHARD FREAKING NIXON!!!!!!

AAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGGGHhhhh.....

i need a (oops, another) drink..

and a re-fi...

Another thought. I guess he decided his "equally" smart Ivy League buddies who created this whole mess needed his wise help.

groan..

I seriously hope the republican candidates run screaming away from this sham..

Any bets?

"...equally smart Ivy League buddies..."

Indeed. What a farce. Just 8 years ago, the perpetual motion machine created by the investment banks of putting together IPOs from one end of the house while talking them up to investors on the other came to a crashing halt.

Now, another perpetual motion machine created by those same organizations - putting together mortaged-back CDO bond offerings from the brokerage end, then buying up the bonds on the investment end to hold up the prices even as housing prices bagan to slide - has also ground to a halt.

What a bunch of brain donors.

First let me say that I agree with he sentiments expressed above by others and hold no sympathy for foolish and greedy lenders and equally greedy borrowers who were too stupid to read the fine print.

That being said, I have to deviate from the "Party of Reagan" bullshit and this "if the GOP backs the use of even one tax dollar to bail out either lenders or borrowers, I'll be bailing out too" crap.

Just who do you think all of these ivy league idiots are anyway? And holding up Reagan as any kind of example of fiscal restraint or responsibility, puhleeze.

Let's look at some recent history, shall we....

Let's step into the time machine and go back to the 1980's. Remember the Savings & Loan crisis which was a wave of savings and loan association failures in the United States in which over 1,000 savings and loan institutions failed? Where the cost of the crisis is estimated to have been around $150 billion, about $125 billion of which was consequently and directly subsidized by the U.S. government? That ring a bell?

How about Neil Bush & Silverado S&L? Little brother Neil was director of Silverado Savings and Loan when the institution collapsed in 1988, costing taxpayers $1.6 billion. Neil Bush was accused of giving himself an interest free loan from Silverado. Now who were Neil's dad & brother again?

The US Office of Thrift Supervision investigated the failure of Silverado and determined that Bush had engaged in numerous "breaches of his fiduciary duties involving multiple conflicts of interest." Although Bush was not indicted on criminal charges, a civil action was brought against him and the other Silverado directors by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; it was eventually settled out of court, with Bush paying $50,000 as part of the settlement, as reported in the Style section of the Washington Post [Wikipedia]

The S&L debacle happened as a direct result of the deregulation of S&L's by the "party of Reagan" with much cheering and encouragement from the democrat's side of the aisle too, for greed knows no party lines.

The S&L debacle contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s. The resultant slowdown in the finance industry and the real estate market may have been a contributing cause of the 1990-1991 economic recession. The economic downturn enabled a weak democrat candidate to take the Whitehouse from a sitting president who was running for re-election. One of the few times in the history of this republic that this has happened. The rest, as they say, is history.

So, in late 2007, going into the election year of 2008,from a purely political standpoint, Bush and the congressional republicans realize that their chances of continuing to hold the Whitehouse and possibly re-take congress hinge on two items. Continued success in Iraq and a good economy. Both issues, if they go well for our country, put the democrats at a disadvantage.

(Ever wonder why bad things for our country are always good for democrats? Which is an interesting topic for another discussion, Stephen?)

So don't you think that just possibly the proposed bailout is for the purpose of stabilizing the economy at least until after the next election? This would eliminate it as a possible campaign issue for the democrats by not awakening widespread public discontent and help the republicans chances. Sound too cynical for you? Possibly, but anymore I'm not surprised by anything these "fast talkin cats would do if they could, y'know I'm ready for the final surprse." I'm talking about both parties, who fiddle while Washington smolders.

I am about to refinance and I will have to pay a higher rate because of this.

"So don't you think that just possibly the proposed bailout is for the purpose of stabilizing the economy at least until after the next election? "

Absolutly. I completly agree with this sentiment. Sadly this is the nature of economic policy at the moment.

However the party of Reagan comment isn't a comment on the bailout. Bailouts are to a certain degree necessary. I do NOT want to put the economy into a depression just so we can teach some spoiled investors a lesson. The "cure" for preventing it from happening again is "intelligent" (there's that word again) regulation AND enforcement.

My Reagan vs Nixon comment is not based on the bailouts. It's based on the regulatory inclination of thinking (as Nixon did) that you're so much smarter than the market that you can fix prices (or in this case interest rates) and make it all better. It may help them in this short term election cycle (probably not) but the resulting fiasco will cream them in the next one.

Reagan would have never fixed prices. he would have shored up the damage (bailouts), enforced the law, and let the market sort it'sel out.

Regards,

The S&L crisis was actually the direct result of congress changing the depreciation schedules for property. This destroyed the investment value of the properties being held largely by the S&L industry.

In the current situation, Bush's actions will be disastrous for much the same reason--it will destroy the value of mortgages AND will send a signal that in the future, the government may destroy other investment vehicles on popular whim. What makes this all the more annoying is that it was the direct result of undisciplined government action; Alan Greenspan (may he rot in hell) lowered interest rates too far and was instrumental in bailing out high risk investors that failed, thus sending the message that there was really no risk for big shots doing stupid shit with money. The second villains are that idiotic duo Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which required no accountability on the part of anyone and which caused major distortions in the mortgage market. The third villain is the home interest deduction--while nice in theory, it drives up home prices and encourages home owners to speculate on their own properties to purchase useless shit.

What makes Bush's plan even more stupid than it already is, is the failure to offer meaningful reform and accountability to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the absurd interest deductions in the income tax rules (here Fred Thompson has it right--get rid of itemized deductions entirely.)

Touche Steve.

I agree Reagan wouldn't have frozen wages & prices.

My point was that he (Reagan) was hardly an example of fiscal responsibility. I wasn't directing anything at you.

Now that I think about it, besides the S&L bailout, Reagan presided over the Chrysler bailout where 1.2 billion in loan guarantees were provided to Chrysler by the federal government. Which was later touted as a triumph of capitalism.

I'm for free markets and minimal government interference. I am in favor of government oversight and enforcement of the laws. I just draw the line when anyone (not implying you) tries to hand me a pile of shit and tell me it's chocolate pudding.

The Chrysler bailout was a creature of Jimmy Carter, not Reagan. Iacocca got his loans in '79.

Thanks Stephen. I stand corrected.

Nixon froze wages and prices in 1971, not 1972.

http://www.econreview.com/events/wageprice1971b.htm

Your point, with which I agree wholeheartedly, remains valid.

The ultimate result of shielding fools from the results of their folly is to fill the world with fools.

Too much nuance in this thread.

Fuck the lenders.

Fuck the borrowers.

I defecate on our culture's lack of responsbility and all who enable it.

Heh. Good one chrisa!! We need mor of that!!

I drain my nasal passages at you! You tiny litt wipers of other peoples exchange rates!!

If Bush hadn't frozen the rates, congress would've done something worse.

That's no excuse, Bret--Bush still has a veto, you know.

In fact, that's the same kind of excuse Bush used when he signed McCain-Feingold into law. "Well, I don't like it, but maybe the Supreme Court will knock it down."

Cowardly and atrocious.