Originally Posted by
no1mad
That tax-break would be nice, but then again, I could see where it would be abused like any other tax break. That being said...
I see no point in this bail out. I mean, would you spend the $$ to put a new roof on a building that had a crumbling foundation? Give the money to the taxpayers and not the 'experts' who drove their banks to failure by trading debt and claiming it as income. That money in my hands (and a vast majority in my situation):
1. Shore up the housing sector by paying off our mortgages.
2. Paying off of the credit card debt that was handed out like candy at a Halloween party.
I could go on, but I've got to go to work to pay some fat cat's country club membership...
As a taxpayer, I would be PISSED if the house bailed out the consumers in the way you describe.
I underbought a house with a 5.5% 30 year fixed mortgage and excellent credit that I worked hard to get. I have little to no credit card debt at most times.
To be honest, I'd rather give another million to a fat cat on wall street than some irresponsible "citizen" that can't control their own finances well enough to live within their means. Why should I pay their mortgage?!?!?
Sure, allow bankruptcy judges to restructure mortgages, that's fine. That's very different than paying off people's credit cards. Actually, just paying those off for people is tantamount to just giving CASH to the banks rather than buying high-risk low-value investments from them.
This mess was not just caused by wall street, lets not act like it is.
The controversy with this is IMO caused entirely by the sound-bite friendly labeling of it as a "Wall street bailout." This is a government buy of low-value, high risk assets. Ironically, the government has a lot of control (more than the banks) over whether these assets get value.