Homeowners to get aggressive bailout

  • Article by: DAVID M. HERSZENHORN , New York Times
  • Updated: July 23, 2008 - 11:06 PM

Two mortgage finance giants also will be given government protection. It's on track to become law within days with the Senate likely to echo the House's action before week's end.

  • 15
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
mno0624Jul. 23, 0811:12 PM

This will help lenders that made stupid decisions and borrowers that totally overcommitted. Those of us that were responsible and lived within our means get nothing. Typical liberalism at work. It will only get worse if Obama and Franken get elected. They will make failure a virtue!!!!

11
6
richieswensonJul. 23, 0811:34 PM

what's the difference?

3
8
rje415Jul. 23, 0811:37 PM

How nice that the federal government does not require accountabilty from it's citizens any more! How nice. Let's see, the unqualified and overextended homeowners get bailed out by the rest of us taxpayers. Sweet deal for them. Bum deal for current and future generations of tax payers! Why don't they offer the same deal for cars,boats,rv's and suv's that are underwater too?? How about those who bought plasma screens that they can't make payments on now. Guess we're just not responsible for our actions in this country any more! No accountabilty... Welcome to the end of capitalism and free markets! Believe me, we'll all pay for this boondoggle!! Adding billions to the already bloated deficit too. Sad.

16
1
themightyqJul. 24, 08 1:59 AM

The Government now in the housing business? What a waste of tax payer money and is wide open for potential corruption. Just as the housing prices were getting within reach of younger people, now the government will botch that too. They should stick to the military.

11
0
the_vfoxJul. 24, 08 5:06 AM

to support irresponsible people. The liberals must be dancing in the street by pushing their no responsibility agenda.

11
2
wchamberlinJul. 24, 08 7:24 AM

"This will help lenders that made stupid decisions and borrowers that totally overcommitted. Those of us that were responsible and lived within our means get nothing." --- Not only will you get nothing, but you forgot to mention that you and I will get the privilege of helping paying for this. So we'll have a transfer payment from those who lived within their means to those overextended themselves gambling on the real estate boom.

15
1
myopinionJul. 24, 08 7:56 AM

Some people really are trying to be responsible and pay their mortgage but can't get ahead due to illness, job loss, poor economy, etc. I'm not saying this is the complete and best solution but take a second and get off of your tax paying soapbox and realize how this could really help thousands of people who just can't get ahead otherwise. The alternative is these people lose their houses, eventually lose their jobs, i.e. don't pay taxes, collect welfare... and we end up in the same boat. I vote for taking the positive approach and making a difference.

8
7
pisafeJul. 24, 08 8:08 AM

If I understand things correctly (and I admit I am just getting my feet wet still). The original controls placed on the two "Mortgage Giants" were removed to "help lower income families attain the dream of owning a home". Unfortunately, the removal of said strictures also left the market open for shady dealings, which happened. Now, according to the last line of this article, there will be some controls replaced on the companies, including the requirement for extra capital to offset speculation, and the ability to cap executive pay. Acting like this happened all by itself is silly, this "boondoggle" is being proposed to cure a "swindle" that would have happened years ago if it were possible, so what made it possible now? I want better answers to THAT question. Oh, and while I was offered more loan money, and refinancing, I didn't take it, and I'll be paying for this bailout too. However, my friend, a government employee who went five years without a raise when federal funds were cut off to pay for Iraq, is in danger of losing her home. Not just speculators, but wouldn't it be nice if only "primary residences" were eligible?

4
1
denbro7Jul. 24, 08 8:11 AM

The thing is, these families that will be "losing their homes" should not have had them in the first place. Their homes should have been the apartments and condos that they were living in before they could suddenly "afford" a house they were not qualified to own. So now that they get bailed out, can I get a discount on my mortgage too, one that I worked my tail off for the past 10 years to get?

11
2
mcluvinJul. 24, 08 8:51 AM

It used to be the "American Dream" to save for years and eventually buy a house and raise a family. It also used to be that you would sacrifice all to save the house - cancel cable TV, sell the new car, stop eating out. Now you have people purchasing homes they cannot afford, with no money down, and would rather lose the house than make sacrifices. They should not be bailed out and there should be additional recourse to recoup the losses caused by borrowers with no business buying too much house.

7
0

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT