http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/18/biden-on-the-bailout-soci_n_361900.html
Tell me what you think.
Tell me what you think.
Man up! Put your own view out there rather than others telling you what to think.
I thought Biden came off very well. Usually, John Stewart seems way over his head when talking about the economy, but his point that we should have bailed out homeowners before banks is absolutely right. We could have avoided 90% of the crash of the economy if we had just taken two simple steps back in 2007:
1. Offered government-backed fixed rate 5% 30-year mortgage refis to all homeowners; and
2. Simultaneously implemented strong regulatory controls on loose mortgage lenders.
That would have avoided the domino effect on home prices, credit flow, and consumer ruin that was set off by resetting of ARMs. And it would have saved the banks from themselves -- but kept the cure focused on the real problem instead of just splashing banks with lots of money.
Why should the government offer 5% 30-year mortgages to refinance all homeowners? The people who took out ARMS, no downpayment loans, loans with balloon payments, etc. knew, or should have known, what they were signing. Why should responsible homeowners - and those responsible citizens who are renting until they save a substantial downpayment - bail out the irresponsible mortgage holders?
When my spouse and I purchased our home, we could have bought a house that cost at least three times more than the one we purchased. However, since we are helping to support our parents, paying for two kids to attend college, like to take a decent vacation or two every year, etc., we bought a smaller, more affordable home. I have NO sympathy for those people that were either greedy or ignorant when they bought their homes. It is the homeowner's responsibility to study their own finances and take responsibiity for mortgage papers they signed.
As far as more regulations, perhaps, I frankly don't all the regulations that are already on the books. Are the regulations already in place and were ignored? I don't know. The goal for everyone to own a home is understandable, but some folks aren't up for the challenge.
On a side note, it should be mandatory that all students be required to take at least basic finance/economic classes before graduating from high school. Many U.S. citizens don't seem to grasp even basic financial conscepts.
Economy wrote:
Why should the government offer 5% 30-year mortgages to refinance all homeowners? The people who took out ARMS, no downpayment loans, loans with balloon payments, etc. knew, or should have known, what they were signing. Why should responsible homeowners - and those responsible citizens who are renting until they save a substantial downpayment - bail out the irresponsible mortgage holders?
When my spouse and I purchased our home, we could have bought a house that cost at least three times more than the one we purchased. However, since we are helping to support our parents, paying for two kids to attend college, like to take a decent vacation or two every year, etc., we bought a smaller, more affordable home. I have NO sympathy for those people that were either greedy or ignorant when they bought their homes. It is the homeowner's responsibility to study their own finances and take responsibility for mortgage papers they signed.
As far as more regulations, perhaps, I frankly don't all the regulations that are already on the books. Are the regulations already in place and were ignored? I don't know. The goal for everyone to own a home is understandable, but some folks aren't up for the challenge.
On a side note, it should be mandatory that all students be required to take at least basic finance/economic classes before graduating from high school. Many U.S. citizens don't seem to grasp even basic financial conscepts.
True words never been spoken! This guy gets it!!!
Economy wrote:
Why should responsible homeowners - and those responsible citizens who are renting until they save a substantial downpayment - bail out the irresponsible mortgage holders?
For the same reason that the fire department doesn't let the whole neighborhood burn down because an idiot's carelessness set his own house on fire.
on the runs wrote:
For the same reason that the fire department doesn't let the whole neighborhood burn down because an idiot's carelessness set his own house on fire.
false.
what was the blue wall for?so that no one could shoot him in the legs?
NObama..................... wrote:
Economy wrote:Why should the government offer 5% 30-year mortgages to refinance all homeowners? The people who took out ARMS, no downpayment loans, loans with balloon payments, etc. knew, or should have known, what they were signing. Why should responsible homeowners - and those responsible citizens who are renting until they save a substantial downpayment - bail out the irresponsible mortgage holders?
When my spouse and I purchased our home, we could have bought a house that cost at least three times more than the one we purchased. However, since we are helping to support our parents, paying for two kids to attend college, like to take a decent vacation or two every year, etc., we bought a smaller, more affordable home. I have NO sympathy for those people that were either greedy or ignorant when they bought their homes. It is the homeowner's responsibility to study their own finances and take responsibility for mortgage papers they signed.
As far as more regulations, perhaps, I frankly don't all the regulations that are already on the books. Are the regulations already in place and were ignored? I don't know. The goal for everyone to own a home is understandable, but some folks aren't up for the challenge.
On a side note, it should be mandatory that all students be required to take at least basic finance/economic classes before graduating from high school. Many U.S. citizens don't seem to grasp even basic financial conscepts.
True words never been spoken! This guy gets it!!!
You either bail out homeowners or the banks that funded them.
Which is worse?
Does it make a difference?
Any lessons learned here by anyone?
Huffington wrote:
Man up! Put your own view out there rather than others telling you what to think.
haha. I prefer not to give my own opinions in the OP for the same reason: I don't want to taint people's first responses. In the case of this interview though, I don't have a lot to say because economics is not my forte, so I can really only comment on the interview itself rather than the subject of the interview.
Blue wall? I was wondering the same thing actually.
Overall I thought it was good. Biden was pretty well spoken and gave the impression he knew what he was talking about. Much better than just talking in circles about how great and hard-working Americans are and how much the opposing party sucks as is so often the case with politicians. It was nice to hear a little bit of substance. Jon Stewart's obviously not a Republican, but he wasn't trying to play buddy-buddy with Biden either. Some people say JS is extrememly liberal, but he seems to call out people on their bs regardless of what party they belong to. It's just that the GOP has made calling out BS very easy in recent times. Not to turn this into a right vs left...
I wish Colbert would take his interviews slightly more seriously sometimes.
The problem with saying people need to be responsible for their own actions is that the majority of people are not responsible. I've known plenty of people who get paid every two weeks but are broke 5 days after their paycheck because they spent it on booze or other worthless crap. You ever watched the Suze Orman show? That really opens your eyes to how stupid and irresponsible some people are with their money. Should people be responsible? Yes, but they aren't. If people can't handle their finances responsibly themselves, someone needs to do it, or the rest of us end up paying for it.
I wish Biden had said something about the filibusters at the end. It's something I and most people don't understand. Why not just let them talk? 50 guys aren't going to be able to talk for 50 days. There might even be dissent among the republicans if they're actually forced to try it. Nobody wants to filibuster meaningless crap, and people understand it's a bush-league tactic. Let them do it.
Economy wrote:
Why should the government offer 5% 30-year mortgages to refinance all homeowners? The people who took out ARMS, no downpayment loans, loans with balloon payments, etc. knew, or should have known, what they were signing. Why should responsible homeowners - and those responsible citizens who are renting until they save a substantial downpayment - bail out the irresponsible mortgage holders?
When my spouse and I purchased our home, we could have bought a house that cost at least three times more than the one we purchased. However, since we are helping to support our parents, paying for two kids to attend college, like to take a decent vacation or two every year, etc., we bought a smaller, more affordable home. I have NO sympathy for those people that were either greedy or ignorant when they bought their homes. It is the homeowner's responsibility to study their own finances and take responsibiity for mortgage papers they signed.
As far as more regulations, perhaps, I frankly don't all the regulations that are already on the books. Are the regulations already in place and were ignored? I don't know. The goal for everyone to own a home is understandable, but some folks aren't up for the challenge.
On a side note, it should be mandatory that all students be required to take at least basic finance/economic classes before graduating from high school. Many U.S. citizens don't seem to grasp even basic financial conscepts.
True enough-but I could replace the word "homes" with "banks" and it would still be true. So which would you rather do?
"On a side note, it should be mandatory that all students be required to take at least basic finance/economic classes before graduating from high school"
Agreed, I always wondered why high schools did not teach kids how buy their 1st car, rent their first apt, buy their first house, etc ect.... but maybe this is deliberate......and no I am not conspiracist....just maybe it is profitable to keep Americans in debt from the get go!...Look at college credit cards, they are so easy to get and the credit companies know the kids will irresponsible with them.
Economy wrote:
The people who took out ARMS, no downpayment loans, loans with balloon payments, etc. knew, or should have known, what they were signing.
And the lenders - who, by the way, are the ones who are supposed to be professionals - knew at least as well that these were not viable loans. But the originators didn't care because they knew they'd be selling the loans before the ink was dry on the contract. And the banks they sold them to didn't care because they knew they'd be securitizing the loans and dumping them, too. Everyone was playing a game of hot potato, and unsurprisingly, it landed in the taxpayers' hands.
The lenders were every bit as greedy and irresponsible as the borrowers.
RuKiddingMe! wrote:
"On a side note, it should be mandatory that all students be required to take at least basic finance/economic classes before graduating from high school"
Agreed, I always wondered why high schools did not teach kids how buy their 1st car, rent their first apt, buy their first house, etc ect.... but maybe this is deliberate......and no I am not conspiracist....just maybe it is profitable to keep Americans in debt from the get go!...Look at college credit cards, they are so easy to get and the credit companies know the kids will irresponsible with them.
I doubt it would make much of a difference. Education can be really poor in this country if the kid doesn't have a desire to learn and the kid's parents don't work to promote that value to their kids.
Every American high school mandates a course on government and civics, and yet only a fraction of Americans can name all the branches of government, know their powers and limitations and actually understand all that basic material. The attitude is that the knowledge learned is only useful in passing the course instead of having some greater value.
RuKiddingMe! wrote:
"On a side note, it should be mandatory that all students be required to take at least basic finance/economic classes before graduating from high school"
Agreed, I always wondered why high schools did not teach kids how buy their 1st car, rent their first apt, buy their first house, etc ect.... but maybe this is deliberate......and no I am not conspiracist....just maybe it is profitable to keep Americans in debt from the get go!...Look at college credit cards, they are so easy to get and the credit companies know the kids will irresponsible with them.
There are a lot of things we should teach HS kids that we don't. It's kind of hard to believe how little we DO require HS students to learn. How about a class on parenting or child psychology or something? There are a lot of pretty bad parents out there. I think kids would be more interested in real world material anyway. Not that world history and Shakespeare are unimportant. I just think a lot of time is wasted in school.
what I know wrote:And the lenders - who, by the way, are the ones who are supposed to be professionals - knew at least as well that these were not viable loans. But the originators didn't care because they knew they'd be selling the loans before the ink was dry on the contract. And the banks they sold them to didn't care because they knew they'd be securitizing the loans and dumping them, too.
Exactly. We rewarded the institutions who undeniably knew that what they were doing was extremely dangerous and let homeowners bear the brunt of it. Sure, home-buyers "should" have known better. But obviously most didn't, or millions wouldn't have put their life savings on the line to take out negative amortization loans. So the poorest and most ignorant among us are left destitute because they wanted to believe that they could afford houses that they couldn't, while fully-informed mortgage brokers walk away rich, and bankers continue to get even richer, keeping high-paying jobs and taking bonuses from taxpayers -- because after bankrupting their companies, they were deemed "to valuable to lose."
So that's the morality angle. But more importantly, there's a practical reason. The bank bailout just keeps the banks afloat and the bankers employed. It has been terribly ineffective in getting banks to make loans. Why? Because housing prices are still going down, because not enough was done to stabilize the housing market. Or at least it was done too late. For less than the cost of all of the mortgage-backed securities that the government has bought, and continues to buy, the treasury could have refi'd the arms, and rescued the economy before this ever happened. And they'd be *making* money on those loans today, rather than watching hundreds of billions go up in smoke.
So, you may like the idea that we punished people who took out risky loans while you and your family settled for a relatively small home, but the fact is that we are all paying a very, very, very steep price for you to be able to gloat about your frugality.
* by "you" I'm referring to "Economy," not "what I know." Hope that was clear.
A lender based bailout would have cost the tax payer a fraction of the bank based bailout and been a much bigger benefit to the economy. If we had avoided all of the foreclosures, the giants like Bear Stearns may have been able to survive because their credit default swaps and other mortgage based derivatives would not have sent them into a death spiral. Also, avoiding the rash of foreclosures would have meant that home values would not have crashed, leaving millions upsidedown.
What I know - well said. Unfortunately Nobama does not understand that. He quotes the right wingnuts like Limbaugh and Hannity and O'Rielly and Beck almost verbatim. Ignorance is bliss with that group.