Does This Make Me a Bad Person...?

[Sad Max]

So what with the insane hyperinflation of real-estate prices, and the horde of buyers who've gotten in over their heads buying stoopidly overvalued properties using stoopidly engineered loans and mortgages, I've been biding my time, letting cash accumulate, in the expectation that before long the bargains will be a-comin'...

...so I find myself actually getting kind of pissed off, by all the Fed talk of bending over backwards to save all these people from the natural consequences of their horrendous financial decisions.

I mean, if you're signing loan documents, that almost invariably means that you are an adult. With full responsibility, in every sense, for the wisdom (or lack) of whatever it is, that you sign.

So I guess I *really* resent the possibility, that my tax money's in the pool to be used for programs whose function is to obviate the proper consequences of poor judgment, on the parts of all the people who really shouldn't be keeping property that they can't afford, and could never afford. Because what this means, is that those of us who were responsible, and sensible, and *should* now be getting a crack at picking up bargains, are instead going to be helping to bail out people who *shouldn't* have bought into that market, to keep paying for their horribly overpriced non-bargain purchases.

Using Federal resources as an instrument to protect people from the consequences of their own stupid-ass decisions? Must be that new conception of "limited government," that I keep hearing so much about...

 

[Jeff Anderson]

nope - its their signature on the loan, not yours. I dont see alot of logic behind bailing these people out. Let the bottom fall out of the market - I'll buy another house if they're selling em cheap

 

[Mark Harris]

So what with the insane hyperinflation of real-estate prices, and the horde of buyers who've gotten in over their heads buying stoopidly overvalued properties using stoopidly engineered loans and mortgages, I've been biding my time, letting cash accumulate, in the expectation that before long the bargains will be a-comin'...

...so I find myself actually getting kind of pissed off, by all the Fed talk of bending over backwards to save all these people from the natural consequences of their horrendous financial decisions.

I mean, if you're signing loan documents, that almost invariably means that you are an adult. With full responsibility, in every sense, for the wisdom (or lack) of whatever it is, that you sign.

So I guess I *really* resent the possibility, that my tax money's in the pool to be used for programs whose function is to obviate the proper consequences of poor judgment, on the parts of all the people who really shouldn't be keeping property that they can't afford, and could never afford. Because what this means, is that those of us who were responsible, and sensible, and *should* now be getting a crack at picking up bargains, are instead going to be helping to bail out people who *shouldn't* have bought into that market, to keep paying for their horribly overpriced non-bargain purchases.

Using Federal resources as an instrument to protect people from the consequences of their own stupid-ass decisions? Must be that new conception of "limited government," that I keep hearing so much about...

Yeah, well I don't like my tax dollars going to Oil company subsidies and airline bail-outs either, not to mention an endless and pointless war. Cracks me up whenever anyone rants against the government for helping actual citizens, when in a single day Exxon gets more welfare than all these people combined will get in a year. And Exxon is RICH.

In the scheme of things to rant about, the ease with which you can get a new house is pretty minor in my book.

Mods, just close this thread now.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

Oh oh.
I smell politics a-brewin'

 

[Sad Max]

Oh, fine, just lock it, then.

 

[Mark Harris]

BTW Max, next time there;s an earthquake, and the fed send disaster funds to Cal, I'm going to wonder about all f thos people irresponsible enough to live on a fault-line. I mean, we all know earthquakes will happen there. Why should my tax dollars go to bail these people out when they KNOW its dangerous to live there.

 

[Sad Max]

*shrug* show me where we can all go, and generate the massive revenue we generate for the state and national economies, where there aren't hurricanes, or tornadoes, or floods, or fires, or some other recurrent natural-disaster-type stuff, and I'll seriously consider the move.

Whole apple-vs-orange thing, going on with that.

And, FWIW, Cali puts a *lot* more money into the pot, and draws a lot less back out for *our* natural disasters, than basket-case states like Missouri or Louisiana put in, and take out.

 

[cecil995]

I bet if you were going to lose your house, you might have a different point of view. The problem is that alot of these sub-prime mortages were geared towards people who were economically depressed, and not really educated on the fine print. Its sure easy to say "Hey they were stupid...screw 'em" when you are not in their shoes, but its the responsibility of goverment to ensure that everyone has a fair shot at life. Sure, I think that there is some extreme cases of protecting people too much, but when it comes to having a roof over your head, I have no problem with them being helped. Like Mark said, I would rather see the money spent here on people that need the help.

 

[mrWr0ng]

a lot of people made a lot of really stupid decisions

but unfortunately, there are so many of them with so much money at risk that if the government DOESN'T bail them out, then we ALL have to pay. Either way, we're screwed.

i'm on both sides myself - i'd love to see the market come down to realistic prices (the cost of a house in SF is ridiculous) but my mom is trying to sell her house and if the market plummets then she gets screwed. really, the whole situation is because people got greedy and now we're all in a lose-lose.

 

[Sad Max]

I bet if you were going to lose your house, you might have a different point of view.

I was raised on, and operate on the principle of responsibility-for-my-own-decisions. Which I know is unpopular. But actually, if I'd taken the risks involved in this kind of real-estate investing, I'd be feeling foolish...but not like it's someone else's responsibility, to bail me out.

The problem is that alot of these sub-prime mortages were geared towards people who were economically depressed, and not really educated on the fine print.

And the responsibility for educating one's self on the fine print, lies with...? Predatory lender practice is only half the story. Borrowers are responsible for their own borrowing.

Its sure easy to say "Hey they were stupid...screw 'em" when you are not in their shoes, but its the responsibility of goverment to ensure that everyone has a fair shot at life.

So if I were to go out and buy, say, a $100 million house in Malibu (which is presently beyond my means), the Feds would have a responsibility for helping me continue to live there, once my bank account's exhausted...?

The principle that a government's purpose is to ensure "a fair shot" for everybody, runs into trouble the moment everyone brings in their own personal idea of what a "fair shot" is. I have my definition; it may differ from yours.

Sure, I think that there is some extreme cases of protecting people too much, but when it comes to having a roof over your head, I have no problem with them being helped.

Okay, aid should be based upon need, without regard for responsibility. That's one position.

Like Mark said, I would rather see the money spent here on people that need the help.

I don't like seeing $$$ in corporate welfare shoveled into the trough, either, but at least one can try to argue that Boeing, or Lockheed Martin, or whoever, provides employment, technological R&D, foreign investment and trade, etc. Arguing that corporate welfare is a worse use of money, though, doesn't make bailing people out of their own greedy/foolish investments, a good use of money.