Should people who mortgaged more than they should have (and they knew it) be “bailed out” vs. bankrupcy?

I’ve always wondered how people who are just starting are miraculously able to afford a $ 300,000 house.

Well, of course, they went for the extremely risky loans that were being offered to them left and right, no income verification, interest only, variable rate, etc., when interest rates were really low.

So is it now OUR FAULT and we’re supposed to “bail them out” or else it will affect the economy?

NONSENSE. They took and knew the risk. And recent 1980’s history warned them what could happen, and they ignored it. I mean, am I the only one who opens a history book any more?

But then there will be a glut of overpriced houses on the market! So? It will be a temporary thing. Believe me, people who really CAN afford it will buy up those houses at discount prices and reap the rewards, AS THEY SHOULD.

Should people who live beyond their means expect sympathy from those of us who play by the rules, sacrifice, wait, and save up for things?

What do you think?
Before I weep for any banks, let them sell the pricey properties that they own, huge mega-skyscrapers in the most expensive acreage in major cities.

There’s no reason, in today’s electronic age, for ANY bank to occupy a mega skyscraper in Manhattan, Chicago, L.A., Miami, or any other major city. They could have a building out in Dogpatch Kansas and consumers could care less.

In fact, they OWE it to their customers to do just that! SAVE money by moving to depressed areas, thereby helping that local economy AND cutting their bottom line costs, passing higher interest rates along to their depositors.

Register New Account
Reset Password