Government Bailouts ?

[jrbsr]

The governmet is bailing out a lot of super rich companys.
With our tax dollars.

My question is,
Where is the bailout help for all the familys that lost their jobs and the higher gas prices ?
When they are loosing their homes to forecloser by the 1000's ?

Where will they live ?

We are going to be the biggest Homeless Rich Country in the world.

Billions and Billions to help the Rich companys.

And not a Dime To Help The People That pay the most in Taxes.

Any one else feeling this ?

1000's of familys are loosing every thing they own.

Will there be any Help before its to late ?

[hillbillyhunter1]

Most of the ones that "are loosing everything they own" (which obviously they don't own it), made some seriously stupid decisions and many of them (people who NOW can't afford their mortgage) are simply walking away from the house in which case their current decision is adding more fuel to the economic fire.

[ipscshooter]

Clinton's administration forced those "rich companies" to loan money to people who wouldn't have previously met underrighting criteria and would not have qualified for loans. As a result of that mandate, people bought houses they couldn't afford. As a result of not being able to afford the houses they had acquired, people quit paying the "rich companies." As a result, those "rich companies" are no longer "rich companies". They are companies teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, threatening to bring down the market, not only for the morons who bought houses they couldn't afford, but for those of us who bought houses we could afford and have been dutifully paying on a monthly basis for over 20 years. I can kind of understand the government taking action to prop up companies whose collapse would create havoc in an already shaky market. They are in a bind because of government mandated loans to people who should not have gotten them. However, I see NO REASON WHATSOEVER to bail out folks whose moronic decisions have put themselves in a bind.

By the way, the word is "losing," not "loosing."

And, they are not losing anything they own. Until their mortgage has been paid in full, they don't own their houses. The banks do...

[Lanse couche couche]

Some of those "lost" homes are actually second homes that people bought as investments. Also, many of the primary homes that were lost were lost because people who should have only been buying a 150K house bought a 300K house. I dont think many of those folks will end up homeless, just living in a rent house that is actuallyeconomically realistic in relation to their salary. But for those who really do lose everything, their equivalent of a buyout is bankruptcy and foodstamps.

[Mizzouhunter]

Also, it should be noted that while this is a "bailout," it isn't like the government is just giving AIG $85 billion. It's in the form of a loan and AIG is obligated to pay the fed back the principal plus interest.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/18/news/economy/bailout_tally_taxpayer/index.htm?postversion=2008091810

[Mizzouhunter]

And not a Dime To Help The People That pay the most in Taxes.

The top 50% of income earners paid 97.1% of all income taxes in 2006. I don't think the folks you are referring to in the rest of your post pay the most in taxes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks

[oldelkhunter]

ANother point is this is worldwide as well where inflated housing prices is the norm. The US is not the only economy that is suffering from overpriced real estate and people unable to make their home payments. The Main Stream Media would like you to think the US is hosed and the rest of the Socialist world is just peachy.

[Griswold]

Well, ipsc and lanse already pointed some of this out, so pardon me for sounding like a broken record.

The so-called bailouts ARE a bailout for the American people, in a round-about way. It is certainly in our best interest to not see these companies go belly-up. I realize that it's hip for presidential candidates to talk about how they're going to stand up to Wall Street for the common man, as if Wall Street is somehow the enemy. And maybe it is. But the fact is that when Wall Street suffers, all of us suffer.

We've already had one bailout for the people. It was a dumb idea at the time. It didn't work. And it wouldn't work if we gave another tax rebate. Actually, I should probably rephrase that. It didn't work as a stimulant for the economy. In the sense that it was a bailout for the working man, it undoubtedly did work somewhat, because it helped a lot of people buy gas and groceries for a while. Regardless, it was still a bad idea. A short-term fix at the cost of even more debt.

As for mortgages, I'd still like to see a study done that examines what percentage of the foreclosures involve homeowners who lost their job or otherwise fell on hard times and homeowners who simply bit off more of a mortgage than they could chew. I sympathize with the former, but I suspect they're very much in the minority. I have absolutely no sympathy for the latter. But Congress has already taken action in that regard as well.

[jrbsr]

ORIGINAL: hillbillyhunter1

Most of the ones that "are loosing everything they own" (which obviously they don't own it), made some seriously stupid decisions and many of them (people who NOW can't afford their mortgage) are simply walking away from the house in which case their current decision is adding more fuel to the economic fire.

I could afford my house at the begaining.
I was a truck driver making real good money.
Then I got real sick and went in the hospital.
I did live, but was put on disibility and only get a little less than 1/3 of whatI made to start with.
My wife lost her job and there just isn't any jobs where I live.

Some of those "lost" homes are actually second homes that people bought as investments. Also, many of the primary homes that were lost were lost because people who should have only been buying a 150K house bought a 300K house. I dont think many of those folks will end up homeless, just living in a rent house that is actuallyeconomically realistic in relation to their salary. But for those who really do lose everything, their equivalent of a buyout is bankruptcy and foodstamps.

And this isn't my second house its the first one.
And if I loose it I will be homeless.
Me and my wife and my three children.
And I know there is a lot more people like me.
Espesaly where I live, where all the jobs have either gone to Mexico or China.
No more jobs to replace the ones that have left NC
Thats what I am talking about.

Also, it should be noted that while this is a "bailout," it isn't like the government is just giving AIG $85 billion. It's in the form of a loan and AIG is obligated to pay the fed back the principal plus interest.

I would love to get another loan that I could afford to repay.
But I know it isn't going to happen.

The top 50% of income earners paid 97.1% of all income taxes in 2006. I don't think the folks you are referring to in the rest of your post pay the most in taxes.

If I remember at least 25 percent of my pay went to taxes.
I didn't get hardly any of it back when I filed my taxes.

This is the kind of people this post is about.
Nothing more nothing less.

Thank You

[Lanse couche couche]

I understand your situation, but I think that far more people are losing homes because of previously discussed bad choices in terms of investments and mortgages. So, you might want to be a little more careful when you refer to thousands of people becoming homeless because of losing their job. At least that hasn't happened with any of my friends and family (a hell of a lot of people) who are scattered across 8 states.