Thread: Should We Bail Out The Lenders

We have a subprime lending problem in this country and folks are loosing their homes. I remember the savings and loan debacle, so does Bush as he was almost indicted for it, pesky Gulf War!

Should be as taxpayers bail the lending institutions out. I say no, remember the savings and loan thing, Bush should, anyway the actual people who had there lives savings stolen from them received penny's on a dollar. I am afraid the same will happen here, the lenders will get their money late and people have already lost homes and more will by the time any type of a bail out can happen.

It is a multiple choice that way you can vote and buy me a drink!!:laughing:

I voted no, but could I buy you a drink anyway, sweetie?

Originally Posted by Blueneck

I voted no, but could I buy you a drink anyway, sweetie?

I made the poll multi choice so you can vote and buy me a drink!

Originally Posted by michaelr

We have a subprime lending problem in this country and folks are loosing their homes. I remember the savings and loan debacle, so does Bush as he was almost indicted for it, pesky Gulf War!

Should be as taxpayers bail the lending institutions out. I say no, remember the savings and loan thing, Bush should, anyway the actual people who had there lives savings stolen from them received penny's on a dollar. I am afraid the same will happen here, the lenders will get their money late and people have already lost homes and more will by the time any type of a bail out can happen.

Maybe I don't grasp this problem clearly: My understanding of the problem is that people were granted loans with initially attractive terms, which were adjustable. The adjustments allowed have been made and now the loans are now longer affordable. If that's a correct reading of the situation, why can't those same loans simply be reworked to be affordable as they initially were?
It was working, seems like it could again if people compromised to cut their losses. I know there are probably lenders who have traded in mortgages who might need to cover some of the loss; I'm guessing some of them are now. But wouldn't that still be better than the massive amounts defaulted on now, and the disastrous repercussions to the economy?

A bail-out, especially after the S&L fiasco, would be wrong, when "burn and learn" is one of the character-building lessons of capitalism.

we should execute them instead.

Originally Posted by Guyker

Maybe I don't grasp this problem clearly: My understanding of the problem is that people were granted loans with initially attractive terms, which were adjustable. The adjustments allowed have been made and now the loans are now longer affordable. If that's a correct reading of the situation, why can't those same loans simply be reworked to be affordable as they initially were?
It was working, seems like it could again if people compromised to cut their losses. I know there are probably lenders who have traded in mortgages who might need to cover some of the loss; I'm guessing some of them are now. But wouldn't that still be better than the massive amounts defaulted on now, and the disastrous repercussions to the economy?

A bail-out, especially after the S&L fiasco, would be wrong, when "burn and learn" is one of the character-building lessons of capitalism.

Right now they want to try to freeze the interest amount, the lenders will not go for this but it is an educated hunch that if the feds pick up the difference they may.

There are hearings scheduled about the possibility of predatory lending practices, if this is the case then the lenders are a huge part of the problem.

Personally I believe that it goes to a government that refuses to regulate how corporations do business in this country, who can blame them? it seems that the corporations own this government lock, stock, and barrel!

Originally Posted by michaelr

We have a subprime lending problem in this country and folks are loosing their homes. I remember the savings and loan debacle, so does Bush as he was almost indicted for it, pesky Gulf War!

Should be as taxpayers bail the lending institutions out. I say no, remember the savings and loan thing, Bush should, anyway the actual people who had there lives savings stolen from them received penny's on a dollar. I am afraid the same will happen here, the lenders will get their money late and people have already lost homes and more will by the time any type of a bail out can happen.

It is a multiple choice that way you can vote and buy me a drink!!:laughing:

Not no, but hell no!!
BTW-Bush was almost indicted for the S&L crap? I don't think so, he does have a brother, or son, depending on which Bush you're talking about, that sat on the board of a S&L.

Originally Posted by Migi e!

Not no, but hell no!!
BTW-Bush was almost indicted for the S&L crap? I don't think so, he does have a brother, or son, depending on which Bush you're talking about, that sat on the board of a S&L.

George Jr and a cousin and some close family friends(bends the nose to graphically show the type of family).

Originally Posted by Migi e!

Not no, but hell no!!
BTW-Bush was almost indicted for the S&L crap? I don't think so, he does have a brother, or son, depending on which Bush you're talking about, that sat on the board of a S&L.

Hey Hey you must think that I can buy my own drinks.

Originally Posted by michaelr

George Jr and a cousin and some close family friends(bends the nose to graphically show the type of family).

I have never ever heard or read that michaelr. Where did you get that from?