Why should they be helped? If we're talking about changing ARMs to fixed rate mortgages at market rates for people who are living within their means and who can make the payments, fine. Otherwise too f'ing bad; owning a home is not a right and some people should be renters. Rewarding bad decisions and bad behavior only encourages more of it.
Exactly, so why should the banks receive a bailout? Once again, my original argument, which everyone on this thread has taken out of context (with your mechanical reactions) is a relative one.........bailout for the banks vs. homeowners. Focus people, focus
Not exactly. The mortgagor (land owner) still had to pay to the lender the reasonable rental value of the property, in or toward the payment of taxes, insurance, interest, and mortgage indebtedness. Further, the statute in question was a moratorium on foreclosures, not an outright prohibition. Interestingly, it was a 5 to 4 decision. HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=290&invol=398
Back to the original question posed by the OP, what exactly do you think outlawing foreclosures will accomplish? Is it supposed to prop up sinking home prices? Spur lending? Create more demand in the housing market? Seems to me that suspending foreclosures doesn't get at the cause of the housing/credit crisis. All the bad paper that nobody wants isn't bad because of foreclosures. All the banks that have dramatically curtailed lending haven't done so because of foreclosures. Housing prices haven't plunged because of foreclosures. These interrelated events are happening in part because of the large numbers of people who can't/won't pay their mortgages, now and in the near future. Foreclosures are one of the effects, not the cause. Anyway, my question still stands, OP, what do you hope to accomplish with your idea?
Yes, and I think they should pass a bill wiping out all credit card debt, (or any debt for that matter), - - and capping fuel prices, and guaranteeing all jobs forever, and providing an attractive & wonderful mate for everyone who wants one, . . . and how about outlawing Death, who the hell needs that ? * * (I just recalled that the later part of this is paraphrased from something written by Robert Ringer - - can't recall where he wrote it though.)
I don't disagree with your point, but just how is it unconstitutional? I don't recall constitution having any clause regarding legal contracts.
No, YOU need to focus and gain a smidgen of understanding of basic economics. Bailouts for irresponsible banks create moral hazard. Bailouts for irresponsible borrowers creates moral hazard. It's two sides of the same coin. There is no relative argument to be made. Relatively, they are the same kind of bad. Bailouts pervert incentives and cause more need for bigger bailouts in the future. Your argument that someone else should be forced to pay for the house you could never afford is rather hollow.
You still don't get it do you? We live in a world were the absolute is either unknown or ignored. Did you watch the last election?
i dont think that's a big concern, we bailed out the S & Ls in the 1990s, and.............um.......... never mind
Fannie, Freddie Suspend Foreclosures Through Jan. 9 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601213&sid=aYq97me3bUCw&refer=home