On Sep 25, 11:54*pm, Jeannie wrote:
On Sep 25, 9:05*am, mike wrote:





On Sep 23, 3:10*pm, Jeannie wrote:

On Sep 23, 2:55*pm, mike wrote:

On Sep 23, 1:20*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:
It's not a "bailout" in the traditional sense: it's an investment..

I hope you're being sarcastic. *If it is such a great investment,
people would be tripping over themselves to buy up the bad mortgages.
Instead, we have government supremacists forcing the taxpayer to take
on debt at gunpoint, and letting the irresponsible off the hook so
they be irresponsible again, and again, and again.

I didn't see the irresponsible being let off the hook...after all,
most of them lost their homes.

Hopefully that will be a lesson well learned.

Jeannie

People who loan money to people who can't pay it back are
irresponsible.

No, that's shortsighted. *People who loan *other people's* money to
people who can't pay it back...now, they're irresponsible. *Or maybe
criminal!

But I'm still not letting the buyers off the hook. *"If it looks too
good to be true, it probably is" seems never to have occurred to some
of these people.

Jeannie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

One obvious thing that makes no sense to me is the following. Any of
us who have gotten a normal mortgage know what the process is like.
The lender needs proof of everything from employment, to all assets,
where the down payment is coming from, to even proof of what your rent
has been for the last year. It's like being interrogated. On the
other hand, they make ARM loans based on the borrowers ability to pay
the artificially low introductory teaser rate? And to people with
poor credit scores? Many of these problem mortgages were just that,
set at low intro rates, that were bound to move up several points the
first time they adjusted.