I'm sure it's been mentioned before but why should we try and rescue many of these people who tried to live out of their means and it bit them in the ass. Your payments shouldn't be more than a certain percentage of your income and just because a lender "let" you live out of your means doesn't make them any more liable than yourself. They know the risk, you know the risk. I imagine the majority of foreclosures are due to these situations and not layoffs, which is a legitimate concern.

/first soapbox thread

7/11/2008 9:58:46 PM

[Edited on July 11, 2008 at 10:05 PM. Reason : meh]

7/11/2008 10:04:53 PM

attn users with < 1000 posts

7/11/2008 10:11:39 PM

well ill just assume everyone agrees with me, which is awesome

7/11/2008 10:12:52 PM

actually, i do agree with you

7/11/2008 10:13:47 PM

but think of the children! surely you wouldn't let a child suffer because of his parents' bad choices, would you?

7/11/2008 10:29:02 PM

This does not deserve it's own thread.

7/11/2008 10:33:44 PM

This does not deserve it is own thread

7/11/2008 10:51:37 PM

There are a lot of things that I blame on fiscal irresponsibility.

7/11/2008 11:09:37 PM

How about we stop bailing out banks that propagate these situations before we stop bailing out poor people?

Oh, Bear Stearns is so much more noble than the low wage guy on an interest only loan. Because you know, they wear suits.

Give me a break, it's not just the poor people in this country trying to live out of their means. You elitist fags.

7/12/2008 12:22:34 AM

This is an argument with the same depth as "they took err jerbs and aint payin taxes"

I am tired of posting all of the information to back it up, but the whole subprime thing was a systematic clusterfuck that even trickled down to people with good credit and steady jobs. The crash had as much to do with irresponsible lending as it did irresponsible buying.

As many as half of the people with subprime loans could have gotten market rate mortgages at the time they purchased. The lenders took the easy way out with the high interest no doc loans, almost always with an adjustable rate. Then they sold off the loans as solid securities, then all of those loans that no one bothered to ensure the borrower could afford fell behind and everyone loses their ass except the loan originators who have long been out of the picture.

If you haven't noticed the housing crash and credit crunch are having a trickle down effect to the entire economy. If you are in the "lets do nothing to punish those irresponsible people" camp I hope you live in a neighborhood with a lot of foreclosures then I can laugh at you when your next appraisal comes in lower than what you paid.

7/12/2008 12:28:09 AM

^^

What happens when a bunch of homeowners default on their loans? They move into apartments.

What happens when the country's 5th largest investment bank collapses? Other banks feel the effects, Wall Street suffers a crisis of confidence and we run the danger of a liquidity trap that leads to a financial meltdown.

7/12/2008 12:43:20 AM

You knew the risk getting into the stock market, and the people authorizing the loans knew the risk there as well.

But yet somehow the risk that poor people took (and was in many cases intentionally not made clear to them) is less forgivable?

Even your utilitarian approach shouldn't favor bank bailouts over mortgage bailouts. As ^^ was pointing out, there are huge effects on the housing markets (how is this less important than Wall Street?) and trickle down effects to the entire economy. True, many of these effects come from both the financial markets as well as mass foreclosures, but this is why one bailout (if decided to bail people out) should come with the other.

[Edited on July 12, 2008 at 12:51 AM. Reason : ]

7/12/2008 12:50:56 AM

I'm not concerned with culpability. Everybody was trying to make money, and the people who were late to the party got burnt. That's true with homeowners and investors alike. Hopefully some people learned their lessons, and I don't think that anyone "deserves" a bailout. That said, occasionally bailouts are a necessary evil in order to keep the economy afloat.

The financial sector is the backbone of our economy. We can't function without it, and it was (and is) at risk of a meltdown. That's why I think the Bear Stearns bailout was the right thing to do. Now let's implement some regulatory oversight that makes sure it never happens again.

As for the real estate sector, we're seeing a correction in prices right now, and I don't know if we've hit bottom yet. Until we do, the market will continue to have problems. Giving homeowners a bailout at this point delays this correction in housing prices, and does nothing to dissolve the massive backlog of inventory in the market.


[Edited on July 12, 2008 at 1:06 AM. Reason : 2]

7/12/2008 12:59:47 AM

cheap oil is a luxury not a right

oh snap, oh yes, i did, i just did

7/12/2008 1:24:52 AM

Quote :

"The financial sector is the backbone of our economy. We can't function without it, and it was (and is) at risk of a meltdown. That's why I think the Bear Stearns bailout was the right thing to do. Now let's implement some regulatory oversight that makes sure it never happens again."

Holy liberal batman. Why don't we appease the terrorists and maybe they'll stop hating us???

7/12/2008 1:25:39 AM

So let me make sure I understand this analogy.

Bear Stearns:bailout :: terrorists:appeasement


...


Brilliant! I guess the best I can say for your post is that you didn't quite resort to Godwins Law.

WHY DO THE INVESTMENT BANKERS HATE OUR FREEDOM?

[Edited on July 12, 2008 at 1:43 AM. Reason : 2]

7/12/2008 1:41:02 AM

owning a gun is not a right either

there is no right to own property

7/12/2008 2:42:21 AM

^^^^ ssjamind brings the heat.

This deserves its own thread.

Our cultural sense of entitlement--not just to Welfare programs--is a pretty serious issue. Giant homes, giant vehicles, giant returns on risky pass-through certificates; we "deserve" everything. Even discounts. But never consequences. This applies as much to Wall Street as it does to Main Street.

That said...

Quote :

"ThatGoodLock: They know the risk, you know the risk."

Do you?

Please elaborate on what you mean.

Because I'm fairly certain that the lenders--you know, the guys with the spreadsheets, attorneys, and years of experience in the professional "risk management" process--know the risk. When they hand out cash without proof of income, that's tough to defend. But I'll agree that they know the risks. They developed the lending products after all.

But does the average mortgage holder understand interest rate risk? Really?

Quote :

"ThatGoodLock: I imagine the majority of foreclosures are due to these situations and not layoffs, which is a legitimate concern."

Imagination is beautiful. It is. But it's a haphazard source from which to draw when forming (or presenting) educated opinion.

Facts, on the other hand, say differently. Medical bills accounted for half of foreclosures in the most credible and recent study of the issue. (Harvard, 2007; abstract available http://works.bepress.com/christopher_robertson/2/) Couple broad-based wage stagnation with outrageous gas and food inflation and you've got the perfect recipe for these numbers to get worse.

Lesson?

Or prepare financially for the VERY REAL possibility of medical disasters.

Make sure you're saving enough or have enough short and long term disability ("boooooring" and "expensive," say most), AND medical insurance to weather such a disaster. Or you could just be exceedingly wealthy.

---

Quote :

"Str8BacardiL: If you are in the "lets do nothing to punish those irresponsible people" camp I hope you live in a neighborhood with a lot of foreclosures then I can laugh at you when your next appraisal comes in lower than what you paid."

Quote :

"Str8BacardiL: As many as half of the people with subprime loans could have gotten market rate mortgages at the time they purchased."

And how many had the requisite understanding of market dynamics to have chosen rationally here?

Also, I'd appreciate a source.

---

Quote :

"Prawn Star: That's why I think the Bear Stearns bailout was the right thing to do."

Reward bad decisions when made in aggregate with an EIN?

No, thanks.

Corporate personhood has made these banks the pigs of the farm in your view. How do you rectify your view with the Equal Protection amendment?

If the Federal government's not willing to bail out Tony & Sally Foreclosedupon, from what basis can you defend bailing out Bear Sterns? They don't "deserve" it, but somehow it was the right thing to do? The best defense you've made amounts to "won't someone think of the children," when in fact, the children need to learn that lending money to people with bad credit--like
borrowing money you're not financially prepared to pay back--carries consequences.

Quote :

"Prawn Star: Giving homeowners a bailout at this point delays this correction in housing prices, and does nothing to dissolve the massive backlog of inventory in the market."

1) Giving ALL of them a bailout might, but I hear nobody suggesting such ridiculousness.
2) What responsibility does the Fed have to dissolve backlogs of inventory in the real estate market???

[Edited on July 12, 2008 at 3:10 AM. Reason : .]

7/12/2008 3:10:06 AM

^ While I agree with pretty much everything you said:

Quote :

"But does the average mortgage holder understand interest rate risk? Really?"

and

Quote :

"And how many had the requisite understanding of market dynamics to have chosen rationally here?"

If people didn't understand, then they had no business taking the loan in the first place, until they did understand.

7/12/2008 7:02:02 AM

Quote :

"If the Federal government's not willing to bail out Tony & Sally Foreclosedupon, from what basis can you defend bailing out Bear Sterns? "

I don't like it either. I don't think the fed should bail anyone out. Both sides dug their own graves.

but...

a collapse of this magnitude in the financial sector has implications far beyond bear stearns by itself. The ripples are felt throughout the economy that result in massive job losses.

I think that if a bailout occurs, there should be a government mandated housecleaning of the management chain. These people's careers need to be finished.

7/12/2008 8:09:50 AM

Quote :

"I think that if a bailout occurs, there should be a government mandated housecleaning of the management chain. These people's careers need to be finished."

7/12/2008 9:43:41 AM

Sure we all feel sorry for the people losing their houses. At any one time, there is enough hardship in our country to bankrupt it if we "fixed" every problem.

The country wasn't designed to fix everyone's problems. The Founders merely set up the gov't as a background environment for business activity to occur within.

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows bail-outs. There is no Amendment declaring anything about a "..well-regulated economy."

In his veto of a bill that would have spent $15,000 to help some refugees, President Madison wrote:

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."



[Edited on July 12, 2008 at 10:45 AM. Reason : .]

7/12/2008 10:45:33 AM

^ all well and good, but the fact of the matter is that we're so far from that now. Madison cared, but current leaders couldn't give half a rats ass whether the powers they're exercising were granted in the constitution.

Quote :

"As for the real estate sector, we're seeing a correction in prices right now, and I don't know if we've hit bottom yet. Until we do, the market will continue to have problems. Giving homeowners a bailout at this point delays this correction in housing prices, and does nothing to dissolve the massive backlog of inventory in the market."

Quite possibly so. Hopefully, we'd be looking at some reform to come along with bail-outs (like the financial sector) so that it won't happen again, but that's just piling on more and more regulation.

7/12/2008 10:54:16 AM

I am not big on red tape but step #1 would be to take away the credit reporting bureaus right to penalize peoples credit scores for inquiries.

The lenders with the crappy rates always have that as a way to discourage people from shopping around for a good rate. People need to know they can shop rates for a loan as much as they want without being penalized. Then a lot of them would not have gotten stuck with sub-prime rates and loan terms.

7/12/2008 1:07:35 PM

Quote :

"If the Federal government's not willing to bail out Tony & Sally Foreclosedupon, from what basis can you defend bailing out Bear Sterns?"

Bear Sterns was not bailled out. The company was sold for far less than it was worth and the shareholders ate the loss. Uncle Sam will get back every penny it guaranteed on the deal at a profit.

Quote :

"I am not big on red tape but step #1 would be to take away the credit reporting bureaus right to penalize peoples credit scores for inquiries."

I suspect they do that for a real reason. Are you 100% certain that there is no correlation between inquiries and defaults? Afterall, I doubt it is their intention to drive customers into the waiting arms of their competitors.

7/12/2008 2:09:52 PM

there should be no bailouts. The free market should be allowed to work. Poor decision making on the part of businesses and people should be make to face thier consequences..not subsidzed by taxpayer money.

The real victim in this housing "crisis" are the taxpayers. They made NO decision in the matter and are going to be forced to pay for the parties who did make bad decisions.

7/12/2008 2:17:19 PM

I have to say I hate the title absoulutely

Owning A Home is a Luxury! Not a Right!

its the thoughts of a child who has had no hardships or responsibilities

these lending companies are PREDATORS who go after the weak and the stupid

but we do not necessarily want the weak and the stupid to suffer just for the avarice of the clever and powerful

if people work hard and do their jobs well... they DO deserve a permanent home

we're talking about basic respect for human decency

[Edited on July 12, 2008 at 2:35 PM. Reason : .]

7/12/2008 2:35:32 PM

Quote :

"I suspect they do that for a real reason. Are you 100% certain that there is no correlation between inquiries and defaults? Afterall, I doubt it is their intention to drive customers into the waiting arms of their competitors."

They do it because activity on your credit report (inquiries) sometimes = desparation. Also new accounts do not always come up quickly so without this a person could open 5 credit cards at the same time and easily overextend themselves and prospective lenders would not know.

The thing is today we have computer systems that can post information immediately. They should penalize for recently opened accounts NOT inquiries which might just signify that you are shopping. If they have the ability to pull credit reports instanly there is no reason why they can not post opened accounts intantly and accomplish the same thing without penalizing the contientious shopper.

7/12/2008 2:37:52 PM

Quote :

"cheap oil is a luxury not a right oh snap, oh yes, i did, i just did "

haha, winner

7/12/2008 2:40:10 PM

^^^i'm not siding with lenders who rolled the dice and lost. they made their own bed, too, so I have no problem with them sleeping in it.

this idea that everyone needs to be a homeowners is retarded, though. Not even everyone who works hard and does his/her job well needs to be a homeowner. That isn't a disregard for human decency--it's just that renting is more sensible for some people, and buying a less expensive home is more sensible for some people, and if they bit off more than they could chew, oh well...not my problem to bail them out.

[Edited on July 12, 2008 at 2:42 PM. Reason : ^^^]

7/12/2008 2:42:01 PM

I will point you to the AMERICAN DREAM, sir

and i'm serious

everyone should have the right to become a home owner if they so choose to pursue it

...

but who do you not want to bail out?

I mean, who's talking about seriously bailing out the little guy... no one's going to do that ever.

but, seriously, perhaps the system needs to crash and burn a little... let the depression come and go so we can fix this fucking paper tiger

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/07/clinton.mortgages.reut/index.html

... oh well, I suppose hillary did purpose it... I am against that though

I'm about fixing the system, not directly helping the stupid... that needs to be clarified

[Edited on July 12, 2008 at 2:49 PM. Reason : .]

7/12/2008 2:45:39 PM

Quote :

"these lending companies are PREDATORS who go after the weak and the stupid "

While I can agree with you to some extent. The same can be said about pay day advances, auto industry, and govt in general. They are preying on people's WANTS.

I disagree with your attitude that the people who ASKED for the loan, got more house than they needed, and then couldnt "understand" thier loan details are not at fault.

Owning a house and deserving a house are two different things, try not to confuse them. Just because someone works doesnt mean they have a RIGHT to own a home. There are plenty of people who make far more money than I who bought more home than they coudl afford. There is no reason to take your and my tax money to bail out thier bad decision.

7/12/2008 2:48:32 PM

of course they're at fault

and I'm not confusing the two... other people seem to be

but yes, I DO BELIEVE, that if people WORK HARD, they deserve to own a home and should be helped (on the front end) in any way possible... sorry... that's just what I think

however, people do like to roll around in other people's misery and just point at them and call them stupid

and feel better about themselves... instead of going after the REAL CULPRITS

which are the PREDATORY INDUSTRIES

and when all the blaim is passed around.. they are owed the biggest share

....

I think the think that pisses me off the most is this idea that a home is a "luxury"

that's so asinine it hurts

[Edited on July 12, 2008 at 2:57 PM. Reason : .]

7/12/2008 2:51:39 PM

a home is not a luxury.

owning a home is a luxury of sorts.

7/12/2008 3:00:32 PM

Quote :

"they deserve to own a home and should be helped (on the front end) in any way possible... "

Please explain what you mean by this?

Having shelter is a necessity, owning a home isnt.

I think your predatory industry shares some blame, but its not like they go around with a gun forcing people to take loans. They simply provided the loans for the persons wish. I think both of them should be allowed to fail and learn from thier mistakes. If you make 30k a year and want a 500k house and have no savings, youve got some issues. Then to expect taxpayers to cover your stupid mistake is fing ridiculous. On the other side, if you gave 500k loan to someone making 30k or to someone you dont verify thier income then your company should take that hit. Those are two bad decisions made by two parties, none of which are the american taxpayer. See my point?

7/12/2008 3:02:13 PM

^ pretty cut and dry right here folks

7/12/2008 3:11:55 PM

we're the ones getting fucked in all this

the banks give loans to anyone possible...people can't pay...banks lose money...where do the banks go to get their money back? to the legitimate customers who they know can pay...us

7/12/2008 3:18:47 PM

I am gonna post something to chew on.

Real estate is in full boom late 2006, I pick up a client who was in the Marine Corps, married and had a 2 year old kid. He was about to get discharged at the end of his second deployment and find a civillian job.

The banks kept giving him flack about it because he did not have a new job lined up, fair enough that was risky because he would be out of income in about six months if he did not find a job.

Somehow got hooked up with with a mortgage broker who offers him a mortgage for up to $180k at 12%. They did not require any documentation and had him pre-approved.

Now lets think about this for a minute. The first bank was hesitant because of his uncertain employment future, but then this broker shows up willing to finance him at TWICE the interest rate no questions asked.

HOW WAS THAT NOT DESTINED FOR FAILURE FROM THE GET GO??? - Odds are with a market rate loan he could survive and keep his house. I mean he was going to find a job and actually did before his enlistment was up. Had he gone with the "easy financing" and the promise that he could refi later he would have been royally fucked and probably lost the house.

This would have not only ruined him and his family, but the neighbors would have taken a hit on their property values AND had to look at knee deep grass and an abandoned house for six months. All while the future mortgage holder (investor) lost their ass as well through the reposession and resale of the home.

In this instance this client had acess to the Marine Credit Union that was accustomed to helping people in his circumstance and gave him a market rate fixed mortgage. He has not had any problem keeping the home despite leaving the marines and having a number of jobs since then, because he has a fair mortgage at a reasonable rate.

This same guy was offered 12% from a broker, and later found 5.xx% from a credit union. The difference was the broker was just looking to write a loan and then sell it off to some other investors for as much as possible, then repeat.

The credit union in his case was the one making the loan and fully intended to keep it in house. They did not want to loan at predatory terms because in the end their members would suffer the loss. They wanted a fair rate and payment he could afford on a reasonable salary.

The broker that was doing loans at 12% and then selling them off quickly was doing a brisk business because it was "easy financing". I would imagine an inordinate number of his loans have also gone to foreclosure, and incurred huge losses for investors.

Now can anyone see where the system was flawed? There was no accountability for the quality of these loans. They were made, sold, and made again. This allowed home prices to baloon (with nothing to support them) and then when the rates started to adjust the whole thing collapsed. The people making the loans were far removed from the peoples money that was being invested. There was no accountability.

The brokers actually attempted to sign people up for higher rate (less affordable) loans because they would sell for more, these same loans are the ones with the highest risk of foreclosure.

Charging higher rates for risky loans may work with credit cards and auto loans, but with real estate the stakes are just too high. When a house gets foreclosed upon it recovers between 1/2 and 1/3 of the value, figure in many mortgages are made at 90-100% and you can see why there is so much money being lost.

7/12/2008 3:45:52 PM

that's why i didn't buy a house until i could afford 6 mos without work. that took a while, but i am ahead of the game.

7/12/2008 5:37:33 PM

Quote :

"I have to say I hate the title absoulutely Owning A Home is a Luxury! Not a Right! its the thoughts of a child who has had no hardships or responsibilities these lending companies are PREDATORS who go after the weak and the stupid but we do not necessarily want the weak and the stupid to suffer just for the avarice of the clever and powerful if people work hard and do their jobs well... they DO deserve a permanent home we're talking about basic respect for human decency"

ok wow, so i voiced a very BASIC opinion i had and yes it has its faults based on me not being entirely knowledgable about the situation our country is facing

BUT i can say as a 24 YEAR OLD who has:

1) worked since he was 16 fulltime and paid all of my own bills
2) put himself through college and continued to work fulltime doing so
3) rented several apartments
4) bought 2 cars from dealerships
5) went from 10k in stupid debt during college to no debt today and a good credit score

EVERYONE who takes out a loan is at the mercy of the institution they go to, you accept their terms, and you should do your research before you finalize anything. noone forced you to take this type of loan over another or to go with one company. if noone else will give you a loan and along comes a "too good to be true" opportunity, it usually is.

I also don't understand why you think HARD WORK earns you a house. The basic human need you are referring to is a roof over your head, which is more than met by going out and renting a place, not buying a home. I'm sorry these people's dreams came true prematurely, but there is a large majority out there (yourself included it sounds like) who like to convince themselves they deserve a house when they really don't. Whether it comes from the lender acting predatory or the loan applicant telling little white lies to get approved if both parties did their proper research the housing market would be much better off i feel.

7/12/2008 7:06:34 PM

Ok, I want to reply to a lot of what's said here.


The absolute first principle this discussion should start from is this: people must have a 'place' to live. If not, you are homeless.

Homeless people don't (often? ever?) have legitimate jobs. Pretty well everything you do rides on you having an address with a bed, both because of the system, and just nature.

Given that, saying that people don't have the right to OWN said place is asinine. Humanitarian-wise, it's complete crap. But we need to establish the economic element as well.

Rent roughly equates to interest. Not completely or directly, but that's where it 'comes from' - the landlord needs his ROI. Now, there is a stark difference between two cases: someone renting a home, and someone having an all-interest mortgage on that same home. The difference, is that in the latter you can't be kicked out and have full legal rights/responsibilities regarding the place as long as you are honoring the loan, as the house is (logically) the collateral for the loan.

To move beyond this, you need to get into the concept of personal net worth and the right to accumulation of wealth. Rent or the interest on the all-interest loan (mentioned above) translates into living expenses. Why? Because we established a home is an absolute necessity, grouping this cost with the cost of food, clothing, and whatever else. So you have to pay this as a part of your personal NEEDS, with the two other groups being WANTS and SAVINGS.

Now, the needs are variable, as you can get "more home" or "less home", as someone pointed out earlier. But the tricky part is that this would be measured in [amount of home] per person, and there would be an absolute minimum price, aside from the homeless shelter, outreach ministries, or the like. What determines such a minimum?

land prices.
building codes and regulations.

IMO, the thing that really really sucks is when the lowest wage earners can not mathematically EVER accumulate enough wealth to own their own home. This is a human tragedy, but perfectly allowable by the markets depending on the market rates, land values, and minimum quality of home that can/is built. And there does exist a minimum. Even the market itself would dictate that in high land value areas you suck up a certain cost buying the land or building the complex, giving an optimal ratio of land and building inputs, and a certain minimum space is needed for the bed. Furthermore, building codes (as well as general culture, human body temperature, heat transfer, etc) dictate that a home must occupy so much floor space and must have certain minimum things that have a cost to them.

This further complicated by having the need to accommodate a family (reproduction is a right too, right). But in many areas of the world, it comes down to the fact that a single lifetime is not enough to save enough wealth to own one's own home. Such cases would be a rare instance where I think government action would be appropriate in some way.

What we're dealing with here and now is more of the plight of the knowledge-poor having their saving capacity being preyed on by insufficiently transparent businesses. Yes, this does lead them to try to buy 'more' home than what they can afford, but at a time, it certainly seemed to them that their future wealth was sufficient.

If I could pick my 'ideal' solution to the problem, it would be through education. The poor learn better what to expect, while brokers trading shady loans have the nasty details exposed, leading to the natural death of such practices. But really, aren't most of our problems caused by the bottom income half of America being too stupid and the top 1% being too greedy at the expense of others?

[Edited on July 12, 2008 at 8:28 PM. Reason : ]

7/12/2008 8:25:45 PM

Quote :

"if people work hard and do their jobs well... they DO deserve a permanent home"

nastoute

I'm not surprised that this trinket is offered up from one of the A-for-effort crowd. Apparently, the Millennials "coddling virus" is now infecting broader America.

"[D]eserve" =/= Entitled to from Uncle Sugar

7/13/2008 4:12:50 AM

Quote :

"Apparently, the Millennials "coddling virus" is now infecting broader America. "

yep.

7/13/2008 5:07:18 AM

owning anything is a privledge.

nobody has a right to own anything.

7/13/2008 11:00:30 AM

what are you people?

mr. fat cat's mcmoneybags?

why do you show so much loyalty to the rich and the powerful?

i am NOT a socialist, but I do think the system should be structured towards the everyday man and providing for his needs

including homeownership

this is basic, apple pie loving, solid AMERICAN values we're talking here

7/13/2008 11:01:01 AM

a house isnt something you buy when you feel like you earned it (like an new tv or a new car maybe)

it's something that requires tons of homework, tons of upkeep, tons of planning for emergencies

you don't have to be rich and powerful to get to that point, but im sorry, you're not always gonna get there being a really hard worker in the lower or middle class, and i'm sorry about that but i'm not entirely against it either

buy a house you know you can take care of or don't buy one at all, because it's not just you that suffers when shit goes down

7/13/2008 11:25:07 AM

Quote :

"The financial sector is the backbone of our economy. We can't function without it, and it was (and is) at risk of a meltdown. That's why I think the Bear Stearns bailout was the right thing to do. Now let's implement some regulatory oversight that makes sure it never happens again. "

So what you're saying is that gov. entitlements are okay?

Isn't the whole point of the freemarket to allow unscrupulous companies like this to fail, so better, more reliable companies can take their place?

7/13/2008 12:29:25 PM

Quote :

"owning anything is a privledge. nobody has a right to own anything."

uuuuh...

So it shouldn't be a right. Shouldn't be a right in the sense that you can't own something unless you save money for it?

you know, no matter how I turn this, the ability to own things is a right.

7/13/2008 12:48:34 PM

It seems there is an issue between positive and negative rights in this thread. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights:

Quote :

"Within the philosophy of human rights, some philosophers and political scientists make a distinction between negative and positive rights. According to this view, a positive right imposes a moral obligation on a person to do something for someone, while a negative right merely obliges others to refrain from interfering with someone's attempt to do something."

As mrfrog said:

Quote :

"the ability to own things is a right"

I think most agree with this in the sense of negative rights, seen through the Lockean life, liberty, and property idea.

mrfrog's comment was a response to DaBird's comment:

Quote :

"owning anything is a privledge. nobody has a right to own anything."

I think this is framed in the context of positive rights, essentially saying that no one is entitled to own anything at the expense of others/taxpayers.

7/13/2008 2:45:06 PM