McCain doesn't want Mortgage Bailout

<p>I see his point but I'm not sure his position is well thought out. Any comments?</p>

<p>Link:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us/politics/25cnd-mccain.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us/politics/25cnd-mccain.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Makes sense to me.</p>

<p>I kind of agree with him. Although I am very liberal socially (and therefore usually vote Democratic), I am pretty conservative fiscally. </p>

<p>I am surprised at the number of people I know who made really poor decisions to get in the homes they are in. When we bought, the rule was spend 20%-25% of your gross income on your mortage, no more. Over time, it went up to 33% and then came all these crazy mortgage plans. I don't know what people were thinking.</p>

<p>OMG - it's like he was at my dinner table last night listening to the discussion! It sounds reasonable to me. I don't understand why the government should be involved at this juncture either. Perhaps I am missing something, but from what I have read it sounds like we are on the same page.</p>

<p>"The government is best which governs least." </p>

<p>This statement has been attributed to both Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. Both are right!</p>

<p>And anyway, where do Hillary & Obama think we'd get the $$ for a mortgage bailout? (From taxpayers, that's where!).</p>

<p>McCain is correct, as usual.</p>

<p>Now that the bailout of the owners of the mortgages has already occurred, why bail out the borrowers?</p>

<p>At least the surge is working:</p>

<p><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080325/us_nm/usa_housing_vacant_dc_3%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080325/us_nm/usa_housing_vacant_dc_3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I agree with his position. Those who over-leveraged themselves should have to live with the consequences of their decisions but likewise the lenders who made risky loans should also have to suffer the consequences of their business decisions even if it means going out of business.</p>

<p>But the bailout of the latter (and commitment to do more of same) has already occurred.</p>

<p>I'm not sure what should/can be done about individual homeowners. I do find it interesting that the moral condemnation directed at defaulting homeowners does not seem to find its equal when it comes to the owners and managers of defaulting businesses. They don't have to live with the consequences of their decisions. If I could collect every judgment I have against a bankrupt corporation against the owners of the business I could retire. Why no moral outrage over the express license to walk away from debt which is granted to corporate shareholders and managers? Charles Hurwitz has stiffed more people than all the defaulting homeowners in America - do you think he'll ever "have to live with the consequences of his decisions?"</p>

<p>
[quote]
But the bailout of the latter (and commitment to do more of same) has already occurred.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Really? last time I checked the CEO's of these companies in trouble are losing hundreds of millions of dollars out of their own pockets. Explain how that's a bailout?</p>

<p>Dstark has already done so on another thread.</p>

<p>"I do find it interesting that the moral condemnation directed at defaulting homeowners does not seem to find its equal when it comes to the owners and managers of defaulting businesses."</p>

<p>I could not agree more. There is just rank hypocrisy in the differing opinions of those in bed with corporations, as to segments who should be fiscally responsible vs. segments who need not be.</p>

<p>(Save Countrywide, but not its customers.)</p>

<p>McCain is <em>saying</em> he doesn't favor bailing out banks or borrowers but then why is he not speaking out clearly against the recent Fed interventions to prop up Bear Stearns (and any number of unspecified other financial companies). </p>

<p>I feel the problem could have been prevented by sensible controls on excess speculation in the mortgage markets. Now we have a huge problem that could hurt many more people than the speculators.</p>

<p>"McCain is <em>saying</em> he doesn't favor bailing out banks or borrowers but then why is he not speaking out clearly against the recent Fed interventions to prop up Bear Stearns (and any number of unspecified other financial companies)."</p>

<p>No, I think he is saying he DOES favor bailing out banks and Bear Stearns, etc., because not to do so would "threaten the financial system". </p>

<p>(In other words, threats to the rich threaten the financial system, threats to the not-so-rich....eh!)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Senator John McCain warned Tuesday against hasty government action to solve the mortgage crisis, saying “it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.”
...
“Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy,”
...

[/quote]

It doesn't seem that he thinks the big banks should be bailed out. </p>

<p>IMO some of these lenders need to lose the money they risked and lost and fail if they can't weather the storm without help from the government.</p>

<p>We know too many people living in trophy houses, driving trophy cars without trophy salaries or trophy savings. The mortgage mess reminds me a bit of the college tuition mess - FA calculations tell us "you can afford this!" but our common sense tells us "Not!"</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>That surprises me, coming from a supporter of McCain. Where do you think we're getting the money for the war in Iraq, now and for the next 100 years, exactly? Or does that not count as the gross expense that it is?</p>

<p>I've noticed that over time Republicans are always "fiscally conservative"... and then a nice war comes along and suddenly those expenses outrun any social programs that could've possibly been put in place.</p>

<p>1of42, it's not just wars. The republicans have run up the national debt every year they controlled they White House since Reagan was elected. It's amazing that the Republican rank and file are still clueless about the actual policies of their party's leaders.</p>

<p>"Senator John McCain warned Tuesday against hasty government action to solve the mortgage crisis, saying “it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.”
...
“Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy,”</p>

<p>So which is it? Does he favor the Bear Stearns bailout (and future ones), the increased liquidity, the federal collateralizing of mortgage-backed securities, or doesn't he? (I'm confused, but then he readily admits he doesn't understand economics, and since Keating 5, I guess he's had an aversion to it.)</p>

<p>^^ I don't know his position on the Bear bailout. I'd like to hear it.</p>