No, I'm against that too.

When's the last time gov't. bailed out any company? Some airlines after 9/11, the S&L bailout in late 80's and Chrysler bailout in late 70's, right? It was wrong then and wrong now. I still don't recall Bush lifting a finger to help Enron when they asked or any oil company getting bailed out in my lifetime. For that matter I think it's totally wrong that 9/11 victims' familes got huge gov't. checks and VA is talking about the same for families of VA Tech victims. No one should be entitled to anything other than the rights listed in the first 10 amendments of the U.S. Const. Everything else may appear to be gravy, but there are always strings attached.

You are sooooooo naive, Rick. When a company goes bankrupt and there are still bazillions of dollars in environmental cleanup to be done, you the taxpayer are going to pay for that. When a company performs so badly (Ford) that it is impossible for them to avoid bankruptcy unless they are released from their pension obligations......then a bunch of near-retirement workers are raped of their retirement income. The list goes on and on. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Industrial welfare FAR outstrips personal public assistance.

Silly you...assuming that GWB cares about the Constitution :)

only when he's out of tp for his bunghole

Ok, name me some more bailouts then. Having the taxpayers foot bills after a company is gone is not a bailout.

WOW! From home ownership to corporate welfare in 26 posts.

We ARE an amazing bunch:D

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=amSotZYUfCT4&refer=home
Makes me wish I had been irresponsible and bought something well beyond my means. Silly me.

My first reaction to the snippet you posted was...DAYUM, Glad the democrats didn't propose that. They'd be crucified. Then I read the whole article and found out the article asctually said he was sounding like a democrat.

I worked in Washington as an analyst/liason between congress and a federal agency. The whole experince turned me sour against both parties and virtually all politicians. There's not a dime's bit of difference between them. Special interests rule the roost. Its all window dressing and pandering. Just different spin.

C'mon...you guys think Shrub is really concerned about the low and middle income borrowers? NOT. Neither are the Dems...it is ultimately a ploy to benefit fat cats.

Yeah, me too. We moved in late '05. Went from 2800 sq ft. to 1200 sq ft. I did not take any additional money and locked in a 30 year loan. I am now at less than 50% loan to value and can handle a significant decline in the market.

However, I guess I should have done an ARM at 100% + financing and used all that extra money to buy high priced electronics, go on trips, buy more cars.....

Silly both of us.

Do some reading, Rick. But something tells me you will agree with all you read about this "administration."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23981-2004Dec24.html

IF any pol. were really concerned about these classes, they'd leave them to their own devices and let them thin their own herds. Pretending to help them does nothing except buy some more sympathy from the stupid people who got themselves into the trouble they need help getting out of.

Silly me, when I sold my beach house (mistake) I took most of the proceeds and bought down the first on my regular house and went from 25 years left on the loan to ten years.

+1
if all those loans go bad, there are the people who used to live there, and all the banks holding that bad paper. Will hurt the economy quite a bit, not just those immediately impacted.

No Hugh, you were being smart. Paying down debt is GUARANTEED to give you a return. Retire a debt for say, $250K, 15 years early, that is at 6%, how much will that save you? To me, not paying interest you were going to have to pay is a lot like someone paying you interest, only you don't have to earn the money first to pay the interest if you retire a debt