Yes, I'm a Left Liberal . but WHY

[Why Syzygy]

should I bail out ANYONE's HOME? Do they split their profits with taxpayers when they sell at astronomical gains?

THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE TO PAY TAXES on those gains if they follow very simple guidelines.
Yet, when property values go down suddenly I'M responsible?

Huh? I know the bail-out is geared to benefit the bankers, NOT homeowners. I have to worry about keeping a (rental) roof over my own head. I just do not care to take on that burden for American citizens who own.

Flame retardant /on.

[zbdent]

1. Actually, I think that the average attempted homeowner has a legal case

that the entity "holding" his mortgage is not the entity he/she entered into the contract with (in a lot of these cases) ... and that the mortgage holder is going into some serious problems, so why should the buyer have to pay this entity???

[Waiting For Everyman]

23. That has been upheld in some foreclosure cases...

The mortgage-backed securities don't actually transfer the note. Most banks can not produce it.

[El Pinko]

2. Left or liberal? Which one? You can't be both.

Liberalism is a centrist, pro-capitalist, pro-establishment political philosophy.

The fact that today the US is one of the few democracies without a meaningful left doesn't change that fact.


Sorry, but as a leftist I chafe at liberalism being equated with leftism.

[Why Syzygy]

5. I can't be both?

Hide and watch. I am unconvinced by your opinion.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. I think you are conflating economic and political policies -

Liberalism has nothing to do with capitalism. It is a political philosophy which believes the government is a force for good, that the government's authority comes from the people, and that the government maintains social order by being the fulcrum upon which the balance between liberty and license rests.

There is nothing in liberalism which is antithetical toward democratic socialism.

The most rampant capitalist systems you can find would the in the oligarchies of Latin America - I think you could hardly call them liberal. That predatory capitalism is what the republicans are all about - liberal?

Was liberalism "pro-establishment" during the American and French revolutions?

Neither capitalism nor communism are really effective beyond the smallest of markets. Capitalism always needs a controlling agency to prevent abuse, and communism always needs more flexibility than a top-down command economy is capable of. The answer is a socialized capitalism, such as the European model, where there are strong governmental controls over a capitalistic market.

None of which has anything to do with liberalism, the rights of man, democracy or universal suffrage. They are games in two different ballparks.

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. Because most of those homeowners are victims of con men

who were over-appraising the properties so they could increase their commissions. There was a bit I heard on NPR the other day about a real estate appraiser who was driven out of the business because he always gave honest appraisals, so the real estate agents eventually stopped hiring him for appraisals. The over-valued appraisals indicated that the property would continue to increase in value, which meant if for any reason the buyer had a misfortune and couldn't keep up payments he could still re-sell and at least break even, even after costs, or even make a profit. No downside. Or so they were told.

And how many people really have the perspicacity to fully understand the ramifications of such a big purchase? It's not like it is something they will do more than a couple times in their lifetime. They rely on the experts for their advice, the appraisers, the real estate agents, the mortgage lender, to let them know if they are not going to be able to cover it because, logically, the experts lose when a mortgage goes belly up. By giving 700 billion to those very experts, we are rewarding the con men and leaving the victims hanging.

The homeowners are the victims.

[Why Syzygy]

4. Then punish the con men!

I didn't con anyone. That's my point. Average American Taxpayer should not be held responsible for crimes committed by others.
It has to stop. Now.

[Lance_Boyle]

6. MOST is a stretch

SOME is accurate. But then SOME let their "I want it *now*, daddy" greed rule, and took on more debt than they could repay. What percentage of those facing foreclosure now come from column A, and what percent come from column B? You have no way of knowing, and neither do I. But as long as we're in agreement that SOME of them are to be placed strictly in column B, we're going to see FIERCE resentment towards any bailout provision that rewards the recklessness.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. There are those who made it a business flipping properties for profit.

By looking at the records - how many properties do they own? did they ever take up residence in the propterty? etc. - you can distinguish between them and those who were getting into a house for the first time in their lives, or who were buying up because of an expanding family.

Most people only buy one or two houses in their lifetimes. If you are making the biggest, most important single investment of your life you DON'T do it recklessly.

We're talking about just normal, average people here. People who have been taught since infancy to trust authority, that the guy with the money MUST know something you don't. And they were told that they could afford their mortgages by people who look at hundreds of mortgages every year. Maybe they were a little uncomfortable about it, but they people whose business it is to know told them it was OK.

They were conned. And that applies, I believe, to the great majority of them.

[Why Syzygy]

12. They also bought

at falsely inflated prices. If the market adjusts back down, that seems NORMAL to me.
ANY kind of investment, which a home is, has RISKS. That's what makes it an investment. Why should HOMEOWNERS and only homeowners be guaranteed gains on their investments?

The cons ran us all up the flag pole. Our biggest reward will be when Bush tucks his tail and heads for the hills so we can get on with making a sustainable future. Taking on additional debt for a fraction of the population is not the answer. Homeowners comprise about 52% of the population. (someone is welcome to correct that fraction, I'm going on memeory).

[Lance_Boyle]

15. Again, this is true for SOME

I don't know why you insist on saying that MOST of the people upside down, or facing foreclosure, are completely innocent in this. See the post immediately below yours about the sisters who refinanced to fund swimming pools. There was LOTS of that, quite possibly more of that than there were people who were defrauded, or who thought they were signing a fixed-rate mortgage when they were in fact signing onto an ARM (which trickery, I hasten to point out, could have been avoided by READING AND UNDERSTANDING THE CONTRACT BEFORE SIGNING IT).

I believe SOME were conned. I believe MANY were greedy and must now take their lumps. Show me a bailout proposal that separates the bailout-worthy wheat from the hyperconsumption-damaged chaff and we can talk. But expect opposition to plans that promise to reward both the duped and the duplicitous.

[Why Syzygy]

11. Both of my sisters

refinanced their homes and built expensive swimming pools. I felt leary about the whole industry when they were handing out refinance loans like Halloween candy. I would never have made the choice to do that. PAY OFF THE HOUSE! I have no idea if either of them are in any trouble now, as I don't communicate with them. Our lifestyles are too different to relate. I'm not willing to sacrifice even more so they get to keep their houses and pools. No one . NO ONE offers that to the likes of me.

[LWolf]

8. I'd like

subsidized housing for all, myself. To go with a living wage: universal health care, re-regulated public utilities, public transportation, and some sort of housing system that guarantees safe, clean, comfortable housing in safe, clean neighborhoods at a price all working people can afford.

And further subsidized for those who can't work: retired, disabled, etc..

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. With as many properties as the government is going to wind up

owning, that just might be a possibility.

Unfortunately, the declaration only specifies life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, saying nothing of shelter, food or healthcare.

[LWolf]

24. Perhaps we need an amendment

that defines life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; I don't want to get too specific, but I'd think that the foundations of health care, education, employment, and housing would be essential to the pursuit.

Just a random thought.

[Why Syzygy]

13. Bingo.

[rucky]

14. You'll have to pay one way or another...

think about the shortfall in property tax revenues, which would lead to an increase in state/local taxes. Those are passed on to renters by landlords raising rents.

It can work if we stabilize the housing market, keep people in their homes for, say, a minimum of 3 years (to prevent more flipping). If they sell anytime after that, they repay the bailout balance through the equity gains and get to keep anything after that.

Does that sound fair?

[Lance_Boyle]

16. keep people in the homes, sure, but without an equity stake

unless or until the bailout is repaid in full. This could be accomplished by taking away the mortgage interest deduction for anyone accepting govt. bailout money. Once the bailout amount has been repaid through that taxation (and/or supplementary payments, if borrowers are able), they can have the mortgage interest deduction and their home equity back. But the key is that taxpayers funding the bailout are repaid in full. Nobody gets something for nothing, and the shafting is less painful for the taxpayer knowing they'll be made whole.

[rucky]

18. That would be much less risky.

but will it provide adequate relief?

[Lance_Boyle]

19. the amount of time without equity or the deduction would vary

based on the amount of relief needed. People who are in debt WAY over theirs heads might never recover an equity interest in the property during their lifetimes. People who will be able to resume their contracted payment schedule in shorter time frames would go less time without "their" equity or mortgage interest deduction.

[rucky]

20. okay, I'm sold. n/t

[Lance_Boyle]

21. me too - good brainstorming. Let's propose this to Congress!

;-)

[Why Syzygy]

22. I wonder exactly what

Obama has planned.

This issue continues to evolve. I just heard a financial commentator say the very same things about the prices being falsely inflated, and that there will be some normal balancing. I had not heard that from anyone in the public before now.

[Why Syzygy]

17. Property taxes ..

If house prices go down, so will the costs/value of all other products and services. So, it should work out. Many homeowners I know have been over taxed for years.

Your solution and the one below sound like steps in the right direction. That's all I'm asking for. The responsible parties take the responsibility.