Another tipping point toward McCain for me yesterday, as he said he was opposed to the Federal government bailing out irresponsible homeowners afflicted by sub-prime mortgage woes.

It's about time that someone stood up and said people need to be more responsible with their finances. Yes, I feel sorry for those who have lost their jobs or have suffered huge medical expenses or increased child support payments and are losing their homes because of it. These people lack cash but have good credit. They need help.

But I have ZERO sympathy for anyone who borrowed WAY over their heads through a sub-prime ARM and now are paying the piper, those who have sh*t credit because they wanted to buy, buy, buy with little consideration of pay, pay, pay. They were foolish and irresponsible with their finances, and that's their tough sh*t. They should have read the fine print.

I heard some broad on CNN crying that she was going to lose her home because her ARM payment raised to $3,100 per month. The broad and her husband have a combined income of $78,000, and they bought a $325,000 house! That's f*cking lunacy. And it wasn't in California or any other mega high-priced real estate area. They could have purchased a cheaper house.

And there's no way that I'm going to bail them out through increased taxes that will result from any government program to rescue these people from their idiocy.

Any government program to bail out individuals who simply borrowed way more than their income could support will only further reinforce the lack of responsibility in America. It's bad enough that we're a nation bankrupt of moral and personal responsibility; do we want to add fiscal responsibility to that list, too?

fsquid Wrote:Another tipping point toward McCain for me yesterday, as he said he was opposed to the Federal government bailing out irresponsible homeowners afflicted by sub-prime mortgage woes.

It's about time that someone stood up and said people need to be more responsible with their finances. Yes, I feel sorry for those who have lost their jobs or have suffered huge medical expenses or increased child support payments and are losing their homes because of it. These people lack cash but have good credit. They need help.

But I have ZERO sympathy for anyone who borrowed WAY over their heads through a sub-prime ARM and now are paying the piper, those who have sh*t credit because they wanted to buy, buy, buy with little consideration of pay, pay, pay. They were foolish and irresponsible with their finances, and that's their tough sh*t. They should have read the fine print.

I heard some broad on CNN crying that she was going to lose her home because her ARM payment raised to $3,100 per month. The broad and her husband have a combined income of $78,000, and they bought a $325,000 house! That's f*cking lunacy. And it wasn't in California or any other mega high-priced real estate area. They could have purchased a cheaper house.

And there's no way that I'm going to bail them out through increased taxes that will result from any government program to rescue these people from their idiocy.

Any government program to bail out individuals who simply borrowed way more than their income could support will only further reinforce the lack of responsibility in America. It's bad enough that we're a nation bankrupt of moral and personal responsibility; do we want to add fiscal responsibility to that list, too?

But it's not their fault!! It's the mean bankers who just want to take their money!! IT'S THE CORPORATION'S FAULT!!!!!! NO WAR FOR OIL!!!

(feel free to add any liberal talking points that I left out)

fsquid Wrote:Another tipping point toward McCain for me yesterday, as he said he was opposed to the Federal government bailing out irresponsible homeowners afflicted by sub-prime mortgage woes.

It's about time that someone stood up and said people need to be more responsible with their finances. Yes, I feel sorry for those who have lost their jobs or have suffered huge medical expenses or increased child support payments and are losing their homes because of it. These people lack cash but have good credit. They need help.

But I have ZERO sympathy for anyone who borrowed WAY over their heads through a sub-prime ARM and now are paying the piper, those who have sh*t credit because they wanted to buy, buy, buy with little consideration of pay, pay, pay. They were foolish and irresponsible with their finances, and that's their tough sh*t. They should have read the fine print.

I heard some broad on CNN crying that she was going to lose her home because her ARM payment raised to $3,100 per month. The broad and her husband have a combined income of $78,000, and they bought a $325,000 house! That's f*cking lunacy. And it wasn't in California or any other mega high-priced real estate area. They could have purchased a cheaper house.

And there's no way that I'm going to bail them out through increased taxes that will result from any government program to rescue these people from their idiocy.

Any government program to bail out individuals who simply borrowed way more than their income could support will only further reinforce the lack of responsibility in America. It's bad enough that we're a nation bankrupt of moral and personal responsibility; do we want to add fiscal responsibility to that list, too?

Amen brother....

...and give me death.


Good. Help the sufferng corporations and tell the citizens to go to hell. I am sure that will sell well with the general public(those on the left and independents).

RobertN Wrote:...and give me death.


Good. Help the sufferng corporations and tell the citizens to go to hell. I am sure that will sell well with the general public(those on the left and independents).

He said he was not in favor of helping both the corporations and the dumbasses that bought more house than they could afford.

Please enlighten us as to why helping either of these groups makes sense?

blah Wrote:

RobertN Wrote:...and give me death.


Good. Help the sufferng corporations and tell the citizens to go to hell. I am sure that will sell well with the general public(those on the left and independents).

He said he was not in favor of helping both the corporations and the dumbasses that bought more house than they could afford.

Please enlighten us as to why helping either of these groups makes sense?

Well, conventional logic is that it might prevent the stock market from plummeting due to all the forclosures, the collapse of the real estate market, the massive losses by the lending industries, etc. and the cumulative effect of all of these things on the average Joe's 401(k).

the other Greg Childers Wrote:and the cumulative effect of all of these things on the average Joe's 401(k).

What do you think funds 401Ks? Please don't pretend to be the champion of Joe Sixpack's 401K. Not while you're trashing corporations and wanting to elect someone who wants to tax the ever-living hell out of said corporations. Who's your candidate again? Is it Hillary "I want to take those profits" Clinton? Or the Barack Star, who already has 800 billion dollars he wants to dole out?

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:and the cumulative effect of all of these things on the average Joe's 401(k).

What do you think funds 401Ks? Please don't pretend to be the champion of Joe Sixpack's 401K. Not while you're trashing corporations and wanting to elect someone who wants to tax the ever-living hell out of said corporations. Who's your candidate again? Is it Hillary "I want to take those profits" Clinton? Or the Barack Star, who already has 800 billion dollars he wants to dole out?

Nope, I'm a Richardson guy.

The question was why should we bail out the lenders. I was offering the justification that was being used. I didn't say I agreed with it.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:Nope, I'm a Richardson guy.

The question was why should we bail out the lenders. I was offering the justification that was being used. I didn't say I agreed with it.

Well hell, at any given time around the office water cooler, people would hear me say that Richardson was the most qualified candidate on the Democratic ticket. Not that I agree with his politics, but his qualifications exceed that of Obama and Hillary.

blah Wrote:He said he was not in favor of helping both the corporations and the dumbasses that bought more house than they could afford.

Please enlighten us as to why helping either of these groups makes sense?

I don't think helping out either group makes sense but McCain did come out in favor of the Bear Stearns bailout.

jh Wrote:I don't think helping out either group makes sense but McCain did come out in favor of the Bear Stearns bailout.

Big mistake to me. I don't believe the government is in the business of bailing out anyone, from the individual to the largest corporation. United and AA did this BS after 9/11 and used it as an excuse. Many people seemed to have forgotten that piss-poor management put them in that position, a position they were in well before 9/11/01. I did a paper on Southwest's business practices when I was getting my business degree. There's a company that should be imitated.

I think the moral hazard problem created by a bailout is much worse on the lending side (or at least easier to avoid). The borrowers each made a single bad decision (borrowing more than they could afford) while the lenders made the same bad decision (lending to people who could not afford it) over & over again. Instead of trying to encourage a multitude of individuals to borrow within their means, it would seem to be much easier to convince the lenders to lend responsibly by letting the worst offenders fail instead of bailing them out.

While I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for those who borrowed more than they could afford, I have much less sympathy for the professionals who lent them the money. And yes, it is also the lender's responsibility to make sure that the borrower could afford the loan. Not out of concern for the well being of the borrower, but to protect their own company's bottom line.