12 Responses to “Should we bailout unemployed homeowners to help pay their mortgages?” »»

1. confused
   Comment by confused | 11/04/09 at 7:10 am

   Absolutely ridiculous. This walking advertisement for birth control wants to take my money to give to people who can’t pay their mortgage with the qualification that they’re jobless. How much freaking money are we going to spend trying to prop-up housing prices?

   And Barn’, this question is directed at you, how does a responsible person not have at least a years worth of expenses saved before agreeing to a mortgage?

2. anon2
   Comment by anon2 | 11/04/09 at 8:26 am

   Based solely on how well Barney’s past assurances about government involvement in housing have worked out, this is surely a horrible idea.

3. Funny
   Comment by Funny | 11/04/09 at 10:09 am

   I think the key terms here are LOAN and Unemployed.

   Am I right in thinking you’re insinuating that he wants to give out free cash to deadbeats that don’t work?

   I’d be fine pairing this with unemployment benefits; that is a program to help someone out that lost their job until they can find employment.

4. Funny
   Comment by Funny | 11/04/09 at 10:12 am

   Confused,

   You should have a short talk with several million Americans; some of which might be friends or relatives.

   JF posted a nice ad video of a real estate deal being made that was most likely a bad decision, but marketed as something to be proud of (not missing the train, we can do it hun!).

5. obamawantabes@gmai.com
   Comment by obamawantabes@gmai.com | 11/04/09 at 1:27 pm

   Give me a break! Be resposible! Gov will NOT take over for your stupid mistakes!!!!!!!!!

6. Mary
   Comment by Mary | 11/04/09 at 2:26 pm

   “I’d be fine pairing this with unemployment benefits”

   They do:

   “With enactment, the jobless in the hardest-hit states could receive up to 99 weeks of benefits, which average about $300 a week. That would well exceed the previous record of 65 weeks during the 1970s.”

7. Funny
   Comment by Funny | 11/05/09 at 6:39 am

   Mary,

   Then as I thought It’s fine by me. A low interest loan isn’t a free lunch, and it’s targeted at a group of people who are out of work because of no fault of their own.

   Extending unemployment benefits and keeping people in their homes in a sever downturn is sound economic policy, even if we have to hold our nose doing it.

8. Unemployed
   Comment by Unemployed | 11/05/09 at 7:56 am

   I believe something should be done to help those who are responsible and lost their jobs to no fault of their own! You can’t go far on an unemployment check, having to pay a mortgage, food, gas, utilities etc. Being foreclosed on because you lost your job is a slap in the face to Many Unemployed Americans who lost their jobs! They need to give TARP to responsible Unemployed people and not to the BANKS!

9. confused
   Comment by confused | 11/05/09 at 8:16 am

   I have a few questions for those of you who think this a good idea. Can you define responsible? What will the criteria be? For example, if we said a financially responsible person would have put down a 20% on their mortgage and had a monthly payment of less than 28% of their monthly income. I might agree to a loan to that group if they had no credit card debt (a massive sign of responsibility) and could show that when they are gainfully employed they will be able to pay the loan back.

   I think that last part is important. These so called responsible people didn’t bother to save any money for a rainy day but now we are supposed to believe that when they are ‘jobfull’ (which must be the opposite of jobless) they will have enough money to pay it back.

   And Unemployed, technically this is giving money to the banks the “responsibly jobless” are just acting as a middle man.

10. JohnG
    Comment by JohnG | 11/05/09 at 8:21 am

    NO!

11. Funny
    Comment by Funny | 11/05/09 at 10:06 am

    confused.

    If we’re going to define responsible as rainy day savings, that’s going to classify a super majority of Americans as “Irresponsible”.

    Saving also runs out very fast when paying for a mortgage and trying to get by on unemployment.

    As easy as it is to vilify those in a bad situation, we need do whats best long term for all of us, and what is beneficial to the economy. Limiting foreclosures on an already stressed market due to unemployment is a sure bet.

    I do believe that there should be checks and verification to calculate exactly how much assistance can be provided, much like unemployment.

    No/bad credit, $12/hr job, 400K house; no deal. take the hit,s tart renting, and start over with the small assistance we will provide.

12. confused
    Comment by confused | 11/05/09 at 11:19 am

    Funny,

    “If we’re going to define responsible as rainy day savings, that’s going to classify a super majority of Americans as “Irresponsible”.”

    I agree and I do think it’s irresponsible. I’ve planned and made sacrifices so when I do buy I will not be in a situation where a job loss costs me and my family our living space. But, if it does happen then so be it, I lose the house. I think if everybody took the prospect of taking on a mortgage as serious as I do there wouldn’t be this predicament and as such I don’t feel they should be bailed out.

    I’m not trying vilifying anybody. I don’t think they are evil or bad people. I just wouldn’t classify them as responsible. These borrowers took a risk that they could handle a mortgage and for whatever reason they lost the bet, that simple in my mind. To look at it from the other side, if these people had won the bet and managed to keep the house I wouldn’t feel animosity or want to penalize them with a gaudy tax.

Leave a Reply »»